Hi there! You are currently browsing as a guest. Why not create an account? Then you get less ads, can thank creators, post feedback, keep a list of your favourites, and more!
Scholar
#401 Old 9th Sep 2009 at 2:28 AM
Quote: Originally posted by iCad
You rather have to understand the concept of metaphors before you can create them. If you don't understand metaphors as metaphors, you simply don't write them. You write literally. And even the most literal of Biblical literalists will admit that not everything in the Bible is literal. (Like the whole "four corners of the Earth" thing...although there ARE still flat-earthers out there...)



Here's the thing: For the people of the time when the books of the Bible were written down, the people at whom those books were directly aimed, they made sense, imaginative language and all. It's just we in modern times who don't get it. Mostly because we don't live in and most of us have no clue about the culture of the time. The way that stories are told and transmitted is DEFINITELY part of culture. Most people know at least a little something about the Greeks, the Romans, sometimes even the Egyptians because that's taught in schools as part of Western history. But the Hebrews? Ancient Mesopotamia? The Babylonians? The fractured-by-Egypt city-states of Assyria? The Holy Land around the lifetime of Jesus? Those fall outside of the history of Western civilization and so are not generally taught to us in our high school history classes.

Maybe it's because people would freak out about "religion" being taught, or maybe it's because it's just thought of as not relevant to our interests. In any case, it makes it difficult for us in the 21st century West to understand any of the Bible or the texts that clearly had an influence upon it, like some Mesopotamian/Babylonian writings. And, unfortunately, this sort of context isn't generally taught in Sunday schools, either. So, confusion and misunderstanding abounds, but this is a problem of our modern mindset, not really a problem inherent in the Bible.

In any case, the oldest books in the Bible (It's thought that Job is the oldest book) originated in oral tradition and are likely far older than the written Hebrew language in which most of the Old Testament was eventually recorded. If anything, stories passed down orally are far richer in metaphorical language than anything that was transmitted strictly in writing (Like, say, the New Testament, much of which was originally letters written by various people to various churches.) This is because it had to hold the listener's interest so that it could be remembered (and therefore passed down) by at least one listener. More "fanciful" language is a better way of making a person remember a story than plain old words with only literal meaning. For instance, Job in all likelihood did not exist, literally. (Although literalists will, of course, say that he did.) Really, he is the "star" of a story that was handed down only orally for perhaps a thousand years or more, and he is symbolic of every person who's been handed a big old lemon in their life. Similarly, Adam and Eve are symbols. People of the time understood this kind of symbolism easily and automatically; it is we in modern times who have more difficulty with metaphorical/allegorical language, with stories that have deeper-than-face-value meaning.

So yes, the people of the time were well aware of and often used metaphorical/allegorical language in their writings, probably much more so than we in modern times; it's quite the lost art. Therein lies much of the problem that a lot of people have when understanding the books of the Old Testament, especially the ones not having to do with history (that wasn't really history but rather current events at the time) or the ones, like Psalms, Proverbs, and the Song of Solomon, that are quite clearly poetic in nature. Books like...oh, Genesis...can be confounding for people who don't understand a story in the same way that people understood stories then. It's a cultural disconnect. This doesn't make the Bible "wrong" or generally incomprehensible; it's just that we think differently than people did in, for instance, the 1400s BC, 3,500 years ago, when it's thought that Genesis was first written down; it, too, probably has a longer oral history, however. We tell stories and convey information a LOT differently than the people of the time did. That makes the people of the time "incomprehensible" to us, and it follows that the books of the Bible, particularly as you read back to the oldest ones, make less immediate sense to modern readers. But, at the time that it was written, for the people for whom it was directly written, the books of the Bible (It wasn't a collected anthology at the time; that didn't happen until quite a bit later.) DID make easy sense. For us, it just takes a bit more effort, which is simply the effect of the passage of, for the oldest books of the Bible, perhaps 5,000 years.

There are quite a number of translations of the Bible that put it into plainer language (Like the NIV) as opposed to, say, the Elizabethan English of the King James version, but the cultural/historical context is still there and still missing from the knowledge banks of most modern readers, believer or otherwise. That means that we, in the 21st century, have to put some effort into understanding it, if you want to understand all of it in detail, particularly the stuff in the Bible that seems repugnant to us in modern times. Fortunately, that kind of study isn't entirely necessary; the overall message of the Bible, both testaments together, is pretty clear and pretty simple. People just get bogged down in the details, is all. Some folks, like me, like to pick it apart and understand as much as we can because we are geeky. Some folks, of course, like to pick it apart to prove that it isn't "true," to find all the "contradictions" and reveal the heinous character of God. Either motivation requires research and learning that not a lot of people are really interested in doing, though. They, on both "sides," want someone else to do it, to give them easily-digestible sound bites that they can throw at each other in "debates." This, in my opinion, just further clouds the issues.

Now, it might be NICE if we could get a New New Testament or some-such, a Bible written for us in our modern culture that would speak directly to us (I recommend the LOLCat Translation!), but apparently the one that we have is good enough. And really, it is. Like I said, the overall message is simple and clear, even to us uneducated morons here in the "enlightened" 21st century.

@ Vanito: I'm still waiting for specifics. But I'll answer about Lot and maybe that will be sufficient.

Understand the context of Lot's story. You've got crowds demanding that you yield up some folks who you know are angels so that they can be ravaged. You panic. You do what you think will appease the crowd and protect the angels, whom you apparently think are more important than your daughters. Is this "right?" No, particularly not in the culture of the time, where a raped woman was usually disowned by her family, forced to survive usually by begging.

(This is why, BTW the requirement in the Old Testament about rapists marrying their victims was actually beneficial to the woman. As a married woman, she would be provided for, whereas without this law she would have become a non-entity, reviled even by her family because she would be of no worth, virginity being of value to the culture, not necessarily to God. Recall that, at the time, marriage wasn't about loving or even liking or even KNOWING your spouse. It was a financial arrangement for the most part. So the rapist had to support his victim PLUS forfeit having a different wife, who might have brought him a nice hefty dowry. There were no prisons at the time, which is why breaking any of the laws didn't demand that you were thrown in jail. You were killed or you were "separated from the people," meaning cut off with no means of supporting yourself. So, really, this was a devastating punishment for the rapist, worse than death, according to the culture of the time, and one that also allowed a raped woman to be provided for, which she wouldn't be otherwise and still wouldn't be if her rapist was executed. In many of the surrounding cultures of the time, a raped woman was put to death as valueless and a drain on society, not her attacker. So, you still think God is cruel when it comes to this particular issue?)

ANYWAY, Lot was a panicking man. Panicking people don't always do the right thing. Lot wasn't thinking right, clearly. Yet, he was still saved. Why is that, you ask? Why did God allow all those "good" people to die but not Lot who messed up royally not just on this one occasion but on a few others as well?

Here's the thing. This is a story from Genesis. Genesis is, for the most part, allegorical. Sodom might or might not have been a city that really existed; there are some archaeological candidates, last I read about the issue, but nothing definitive. If it existed, it might or might not have really been destroyed by God. The most likely thing? Is that Sodom was an already-destroyed town and the story of its destruction was created and used to illustrate a point, that told in Lot's story. Why is this most likely? Because the word "sodom," in Hebrew, means "burned." Why would you name a city "burned" if it wasn't burned? It makes more sense that there was an ancient city destroyed by a fire and the people who subsequently found it named it, quite literally, "burned." Then it became the setting of a story designed with a moral in mind. The moral is the important thing, not the literal city or the way in which it was destroyed.

Anyway, the moral of the story of Sodom and of Lot is the importance of obedience. The people of Sodom, if they existed at all, were destroyed because of disobedience of several laws (None of which, really, had much to do with homosexuality). Lot, although he did bad/stupid things often, was saved from the destruction of Sodom because he did not look back as he ran away from the destruction, as God commanded. His wife looked back and she died. But again, bear in mind that these might not be people who literally existed or at least who literally did the things in the stories. The focus of the story isn't that people were killed because they were "bad" (although that's what people on a crusade against homosexuality like to harp on) because very likely there were no real people here. Lot might have been a real person, or he might have been a symbol; it's hard to tell, but for a non-literalist like me it doesn't matter. The spiritual message of the story, which is the important thing, is about the importance of obedience during a time in which obedience to the Law and God's commandments was of paramount necessity in terms of salvation because Jesus had not yet come as a substitute sacrifice for all of our sins. The people who obeyed -- Lot and his daughters -- were the people who were saved.

So...think of it as a test, in a way. None of us is good in a sinless sense, we all do bad things that hurt other people sometimes, even accidentally, but the message of the story of Sodom, in particular, is that even "bad" people can be saved if they make a choice to be saved. For Lot, the requirement, the choice he had to make, was to not look back as his home and everything he knew was destroyed (and, again, this has a fairly deep symbolic meaning; it's not to be taken literally). For us, it means accepting our salvation that's already been accomplished. The "test" is that, those who will be saved are those who will obey. In Old Testament times, obeying meant following the Law. In modern times, "obeying" means acknowledging Jesus who died, in the physical sense but more importantly in the spiritual sense, so that we don't have to, at least in the spiritual sense.

Many of the common "objections" to God, particularly in the Old Testament and particularly when it comes to His "morals," have meanings like this. The stories are not always to be taken at face value. They are meant to be understood in their metaphorical/symbolic context, for their spiritual meaning, not for their literal meaning. It's funny to me that people who raise objections like this are being more literal than the literalists they are accusing of being overly literal! The comments about Lamentations, in particular, in the Skeptics Annotated Bible provide much amusement for me in this way. Unfortunately, like I said above, we've rather lost the ability to think in such deeply allegorical/symbolic ways. It is foreign to us, and therefore the Bible and God seem foreign to us, too. Really, if you do the studying -- and many of my sources are NOT Christian, mind you -- then you begin to understand. It's not necessary to do so, but I find it enlightening. Because I'm a geek.

And really, I'm not trying to convince you of anything here. You're asking questions and raising objections; I'm answering them. Is that not the purpose of a debate? What you believe is entirely up to you, and it is not my purpose here to change your mind. I'm just trying to offer you a bit of perspective that you might not have considered before. That's all.

Your way of telling but not wanting to convert makes this an interesting discussion. If you want examples I'll dop ou some more. Lot he aint the only one who throws out women to be raped. It happens again in another situation. That time they are not saved.

If he is almighty why do you think god made people sinners at all to begin with. And wait for years to come with jesus? And not help the people right away teach them how to do good the less violent way? (education)

I can drop you a list of evil quotes, there is a lot of violence in the book.
God is very violent and revengefull to many people. As an almighty god, why would he need to do that? Especially to kids and babies. Of the rest you can say they do not obey but a baby does not really have chance to sin. Yet they are all killed. Taken litterally or not, it gives morals that violence, killing people, killing innocent babies, raping women, killing sons who not listen all are ok for god. The main message is: obey or I will be very cruel.

He cares more about people obeying than doing good or giving good examples. One person more or less dead do not matter much. It looks like he hates humanty more than love.

Later on he decided to make/become jesus, but why let all this creulty happen at first. Of write such stories, if not taken litteral to scare people?

Anyone who is captured will be run through with a sword. Their little children will be dashed to death right before their eyes. Their homes will be sacked and their wives raped by the attacking hordes. For I will stir up the Medes against Babylon, and no amount of silver or gold will buy them off. The attacking armies will shoot down the young people with arrows. They will have no mercy on helpless babies and will show no compassion for the children. (Isaiah 13:15-18 NLT)

As you approach a town to attack it, first offer its people terms for peace. If they accept your terms and open the gates to you, then all the people inside will serve you in forced labor. But if they refuse to make peace and prepare to fight, you must attack the town. When the LORD your God hands it over to you, kill every man in the town. But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder. You may enjoy the spoils of your enemies that the LORD your God has given you.

Judges 19:24-29 “Behold, here is my daughter a maiden, and his concubine; them I will bring out now, and humble ye them, and do with them what seemeth good unto you: but unto this man do not so vile a thing. But the men would not hearken to him: so the man took his concubine, and brought her forth unto them; and they knew her, and abused her all the night until the morning: and when the day began to spring, they let her go. Then came the woman in the dawning of the day, and fell down at the door of the man’s house where her lord was, till it was light. And her lord rose up in the morning, and opened the doors of the house, and went out to go his way: and behold, the woman his concubine was fallen down at the door of the house, and her hands were upon the threshold. And he said unto her, Up, and let us be going. But none answered. Then the man took her up upon an ass, and the man rose up, and gat him unto his place. And when he was come into his house, he took a knife, and laid hold on his concubine, and divided her, together with her bones, into twelve pieces, and sent her into all the coasts of Israel.”

Deuteronomy 21:18-21 “If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them: Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place; And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.”


"When the moon is in the seventh house
And Jupiter aligns with Mars
Then peace will guide the planets
And love will steer the stars"
Advertisement
Undead Molten Llama
#402 Old 9th Sep 2009 at 4:45 AM
Firstly, thank you, Vanito, for the specifics. Now I have something to work from.

Quote:
If he is almighty why do you think god made people sinners at all to begin with. And wait for years to come with jesus? And not help the people right away teach them how to do good the less violent way? (education)


Well, God didn't make sinners, did he? Adam and Eve were without sin, at first. They could have direct communion with God because they were sinless. (God cannot coexist with sin, which is why we are separated from Him now.) That's well-established in the text. Sin came into the picture when God gave Adam and Eve a choice back in the Garden (which is, of course, an allegory, not literal history), giving them every comfort of paradise but asking them simply not to touch one particular tree in return. (All of this being greatly symbolic, too.) What did they do? They touched the tree, of course. So, sin was man's choice. God didn't make them that way.

Again, the story of the Garden isn't literal history. Adam and Eve weren't actual historical people and the Garden is not a real, physical place. Adam and Eve are symbols for humanity in general, both genders. The story of the Garden, rather than simple history, is really a complex allegorical illustration of man's free will and how it sometimes compels us to do stuff that we know we shouldn't do, with disastrous consequences. (Of course, it also gives us the capacity to do great good as well. It's up to us to make the right choice, and that is apparently a choice in which God will not interfere for whatever reason.) This shows that we had free will right from the start, which is an indication of its primary importance to God.

Now, there is a classic question: If God is omnipotent and knew we'd sin, then why go to all the trouble in the first place? Why create us at all? It's a very good question. But, in the interest of (relative ) brevity, mostly because I have to go to bed early tonight because I've got an early-morning student coming for piano lessons, I'll just direct you to the first part of this article, which is really long (Seven parts!) and very detailed but quite excellent if you have the time to read it. It's an argument built entirely on logic and not at all on "religious" blather, which addresses this classic question. I agree with the author in most of the particulars. I'm sorry I'm not offering my own words, but I'd really just be summarizing this guy anyway. I'd rather refer you directly to him.

But, I will address this (and by extension, touching on the others as well; I just don't have time to address all three; I can do so perhaps tomorrow, if you wish):

Quote:
Judges 19:24-29 “Behold, here is my daughter a maiden, and his concubine; them I will bring out now, and humble ye them, and do with them what seemeth good unto you: but unto this man do not so vile a thing. But the men would not hearken to him: so the man took his concubine, and brought her forth unto them; and they knew her, and abused her all the night until the morning: and when the day began to spring, they let her go. Then came the woman in the dawning of the day, and fell down at the door of the man’s house where her lord was, till it was light. And her lord rose up in the morning, and opened the doors of the house, and went out to go his way: and behold, the woman his concubine was fallen down at the door of the house, and her hands were upon the threshold. And he said unto her, Up, and let us be going. But none answered. Then the man took her up upon an ass, and the man rose up, and gat him unto his place. And when he was come into his house, he took a knife, and laid hold on his concubine, and divided her, together with her bones, into twelve pieces, and sent her into all the coasts of Israel.”


See, it's really easy to make the Bible look bad when you take bits of it out of context. So, where to start?

First, read all of Judges 19, not just the bit you quoted. It's short, and you can read it here. I'd also advise you to read chapter 20, which is also short and documents the events directly after the rape and killing of the concubine. There's a button you can click on the page that I linked to to go to the next chapter.

If you read, you'll quickly notice similarities between this story and the story of Lot: You have a visitor. The visitor is threatened by people wanting to do them harm. The words are almost verbatim to Lot's story, even, except in this case the visitor was not an angel or two, but a Levite, a member of the priestly caste. Therefore, also to be revered and protected.

And here's another bit of the culture of the time: The safety of a visitor to your home was paramount. The times were dangerous and unstable, and you were to do anything to protect visitors and people taking shelter in your home, including sacrificing the safety of your own family if necessary. (Bear in mind that this is the people's culture, their customs. This is not necessarily how God might have wanted it, and if you read all of Judges 19, you'll see that God is not yet involved in this.) Notice that this, again, is a person making a decision, likely a bad one. Also note that the concubine -- the woman who ended up killed -- had been unfaithful to the Levite and had run back to her father's house, where the rape takes place. (Again, bear in mind that women were treated this way as a matter of course. Again, this is not necessarily what God wants, but He is bound by His refusal to interfere with free will to work with the culture of His chosen people, not to force them to change their culture. The war practices of the time -- complete annihilation of one's enemies, including women, children, and babies -- is another cultural thing, expected at the time. And there are other issues involved with that, too.) Anyway, the establishment of the concubine's unfaithfulness -- which is the reason the Levite is out traveling in the first place, to collect her -- is back in verse 2; you're quoting the end of the chapter and not including any of the context. That's a good thing to do if you're trying to make God look bad...except that anyone can go and actually read the context and see the larger picture rather than an isolated event. Not everyone is impressed by out-of-context sound bites.

As I said, in some places, even amongst the Israelites, it was customary to kill raped women for the reason that I spoke of before plus other reasons. Particularly, this was so amongst the Levites, who were fanatical about their legal observances, being the original priests; this is what the Levite did to his concubine, in a clearly ritualistic way. God does not necessarily approve of this, but again, He works within the established culture of the Israelite people. Bear in mind that He didn't create that culture. In any case, as a result of the rape that caused the concubine's death a rather nasty conflict happens, described in detail in chapter 20. And guess what? God encourages the rest of the Israelites to go after the Benjamites, some of whom were the people who raped the concubine, ultimately causing her death. The Benjamites refused to surrender the people who did the deed, and as a result they were attacked by the other Israelite tribes and, in the end, they lost the conflict and were massacred.

In other words, God actually used the established culture of the time to punish people who raped a woman AND punished people who refused to yield up the rapists to their accusers. The rapists actually didn't go free. Now, you might object to the Levite going unpunished for killing his concubine or her father for offering her up in the first place in order to protect the Levite; in our society that's heinous. But it wasn't heinous to the culture of the time, both because she'd made a choice to be unfaithful and because she was raped. It might not seem right or fair to us now, but as I said, our culture is emphatically not the ancient Israelite one.

There is a similar explanation for the passages in Deuteronomy and the other stories of the conquering of Canaan. Do you want to hear them? I just can't go into it all now. Must go to bed.

I'm mostly found on (and mostly upload to) Tumblr these days because, alas, there are only 24 hours in a day.
Muh Simblr! | An index of my downloads on Tumblr.
Scholar
#403 Old 9th Sep 2009 at 4:52 AM
Quote: Originally posted by iCad
Firstly, thank you, Vanito, for the specifics. Now I have something to work from.



Well, God didn't make sinners, did he? Adam and Eve were without sin, at first. They could have direct communion with God because they were sinless. (God cannot coexist with sin, which is why we are separated from Him now.) That's well-established in the text. Sin came into the picture when God gave Adam and Eve a choice back in the Garden (which is, of course, an allegory, not literal history), giving them every comfort of paradise but asking them simply not to touch one particular tree in return. (All of this being greatly symbolic, too.) What did they do? They touched the tree, of course. So, sin was man's choice. God didn't make them that way.

Again, the story of the Garden isn't literal history. Adam and Eve weren't actual historical people and the Garden is not a real, physical place. Adam and Eve are symbols for humanity in general, both genders. The story of the Garden, rather than simple history, is really a complex allegorical illustration of man's free will and how it sometimes compels us to do stuff that we know we shouldn't do, with disastrous consequences. (Of course, it also gives us the capacity to do great good as well. It's up to us to make the right choice, and that is apparently a choice in which God will not interfere for whatever reason.) This shows that we had free will right from the start, which is an indication of its primary importance to God.

Now, there is a classic question: If God is omnipotent and knew we'd sin, then why go to all the trouble in the first place? Why create us at all? It's a very good question. But, in the interest of (relative ) brevity, mostly because I have to go to bed early tonight because I've got an early-morning student coming for piano lessons, I'll just direct you to the first part of this article, which is really long (Seven parts!) and very detailed but quite excellent if you have the time to read it. It's an argument built entirely on logic and not at all on "religious" blather, which addresses this classic question. I agree with the author in most of the particulars. I'm sorry I'm not offering my own words, but I'd really just be summarizing this guy anyway. I'd rather refer you directly to him.

But, I will address this (and by extension, touching on the others as well; I just don't have time to address all three; I can do so perhaps tomorrow, if you wish):



See, it's really easy to make the Bible look bad when you take bits of it out of context. So, where to start?

First, read all of Judges 19, not just the bit you quoted. It's short, and you can read it here. I'd also advise you to read chapter 20, which is also short and documents the events directly after the rape and killing of the concubine. There's a button you can click on the page that I linked to to go to the next chapter.

If you read, you'll quickly notice similarities between this story and the story of Lot: You have a visitor. The visitor is threatened by people wanting to do them harm. The words are almost verbatim to Lot's story, even, except in this case the visitor was not an angel or two, but a Levite, a member of the priestly caste. Therefore, also to be revered and protected.

And here's another bit of the culture of the time: The safety of a visitor to your home was paramount. The times were dangerous and unstable, and you were to do anything to protect visitors and people taking shelter in your home, including sacrificing the safety of your own family if necessary. (Bear in mind that this is the people's culture, their customs. This is not necessarily how God might have wanted it, and if you read all of Judges 19, you'll see that God is not yet involved in this.) Notice that this, again, is a person making a decision, likely a bad one. Also note that the concubine -- the woman who ended up killed -- had been unfaithful to the Levite and had run back to her father's house, where the rape takes place. (Again, bear in mind that women were treated this way as a matter of course. Again, this is not necessarily what God wants, but He is bound by His refusal to interfere with free will to work with the culture of His chosen people, not to force them to change their culture. The war practices of the time -- complete annihilation of one's enemies, including women, children, and babies -- is another cultural thing, expected at the time. And there are other issues involved with that, too.) Anyway, the establishment of the concubine's unfaithfulness -- which is the reason the Levite is out traveling in the first place, to collect her -- is back in verse 2; you're quoting the end of the chapter and not including any of the context. That's a good thing to do if you're trying to make God look bad...except that anyone can go and actually read the context and see the larger picture rather than an isolated event. Not everyone is impressed by out-of-context sound bites.

As I said, in some places, even amongst the Israelites, it was customary to kill raped women for the reason that I spoke of before plus other reasons. Particularly, this was so amongst the Levites, who were fanatical about their legal observances, being the original priests; this is what the Levite did to his concubine, in a clearly ritualistic way. God does not necessarily approve of this, but again, He works within the established culture of the Israelite people. Bear in mind that He didn't create that culture. In any case, as a result of the rape that caused the concubine's death a rather nasty conflict happens, described in detail in chapter 20. And guess what? God encourages the rest of the Israelites to go after the Benjamites, some of whom were the people who raped the concubine, ultimately causing her death. The Benjamites refused to surrender the people who did the deed, and as a result they were attacked by the other Israelite tribes and, in the end, they lost the conflict and were massacred.

In other words, God actually used the established culture of the time to punish people who raped a woman AND punished people who refused to yield up the rapists to their accusers. The rapists actually didn't go free. Now, you might object to the Levite going unpunished for killing his concubine or her father for offering her up in the first place in order to protect the Levite; in our society that's heinous. But it wasn't heinous to the culture of the time, both because she'd made a choice to be unfaithful and because she was raped. It might not seem right or fair to us now, but as I said, our culture is emphatically not the ancient Israelite one.

There is a similar explanation for the passages in Deuteronomy and the other stories of the conquering of Canaan. Do you want to hear them? I just can't go into it all now. Must go to bed.


This indeed only makes sense if god later came to humanity and did not create the culture. It still does not make sense to me to go angry and threat to make people to listen, an revenge violence with violence instead of a more sensible approach to educate them into better norms. That is what you would expect of an allmighty god.


"When the moon is in the seventh house
And Jupiter aligns with Mars
Then peace will guide the planets
And love will steer the stars"
Undead Molten Llama
#404 Old 9th Sep 2009 at 4:58 AM
Quote: Originally posted by Vanito
This indeed only makes sense if god later came to humanity and did not create the culture. It still does not make sense to me to go angry and threat to make people to listen, an revenge violence with violence instead of a more sensible approach to educate them into better norms. That is what you would expect of an allmighty god.


Wow, you're quick.

That's what you'd expect of an almighty God who's OK with forcing people to be what He wants them to be. Is that the kind of God you'd want, were you inclined to believe in one? Really? Because it always amazes me when people say that God should do this or that, usually recommending that God should make them believe in Him, forcing them so that they have no alternative but to believe. Would you really want to be coerced like that?

Frankly, I rather like the idea of free will. I don't want to be a robot programmed to worship God. Yet, those who object to Him often seem to want exactly that, so that they can have their proof of his existence, so that they feel safe enough to believe without having any faith at all. That, quite frankly, is a scary God, in my opinion... And it certainly isn't the God I know, for better or worse.

Good night.

I'm mostly found on (and mostly upload to) Tumblr these days because, alas, there are only 24 hours in a day.
Muh Simblr! | An index of my downloads on Tumblr.
Scholar
#405 Old 9th Sep 2009 at 11:01 AM
Quote: Originally posted by iCad
Wow, you're quick.

That's what you'd expect of an almighty God who's OK with forcing people to be what He wants them to be. Is that the kind of God you'd want, were you inclined to believe in one? Really? Because it always amazes me when people say that God should do this or that, usually recommending that God should make them believe in Him, forcing them so that they have no alternative but to believe. Would you really want to be coerced like that?

Frankly, I rather like the idea of free will. I don't want to be a robot programmed to worship God. Yet, those who object to Him often seem to want exactly that, so that they can have their proof of his existence, so that they feel safe enough to believe without having any faith at all. That, quite frankly, is a scary God, in my opinion... And it certainly isn't the God I know, for better or worse.

Good night.

I couldn't care less if he forces us to believe.. or the better option to sustain "free will".. make it more likely that he exists. If he finally started doing something to the world.
Hes supposed to be an almighty god who is good. Yet he lets the world run shit. Dude is supposed to be able to peform miracles.. but he never does them. People are dying in afrika, he does not help them, some of my friends are dying with horrible diseases they do not deserve, they get no help, because they live is shitty USA or there is no cure, many kids are born chanceless.. tornados, floods, earthquakes, god is all okay with it. And thats all equal for believers and non believers, our disability group has many believers who are left in exactly the same shit to rot, people are killed just was well in floods wether they are religious or not.
Forced or not forced I don't care. I would believe and worship a god who gave a fuck. This completely invisible god, who you only can "feel" if you have religious genes, and does not do good and makes no sense to me. All promises of good afterlife, but if he wanted it good he could start here and now. Yet he does not. He is a dude who simply wants to be believed in, a self spreading meme.
You feel like he helps you, but fact is believers are no better off in life than non believers in life. He gives them the equal shitty diseases, wars, floods, earthqeakes, tornados as anyone else. You can ask him for help, but he does not answer anything usefull. You can pray for a better world without floods and tornados but it makes no difference.

I find your god the scary one, the god who doesnt cares, doesn't help yet you adore him, because he makes you feel good and you can ask him questions. Only he never gives answers on how to help people who truly have no chance and who we cannot help either. Another tornado and he still sits back and aint do shit. Its not any about good, its just about believing in him, nothing more nothing less. The whole concept doesn't makes sense but to spread itself. No offence, you can believe, and I am happy you are happy with it, but it makes no sense to me.


"When the moon is in the seventh house
And Jupiter aligns with Mars
Then peace will guide the planets
And love will steer the stars"
Undead Molten Llama
#406 Old 9th Sep 2009 at 4:12 PM
Quote: Originally posted by Vanito
Hes supposed to be an almighty god who is good. Yet he lets the world run shit. Dude is supposed to be able to peform miracles.. but he never does them. People are dying in afrika, he does not help them, some of my friends are dying with horrible diseases they do not deserve, they get no help, because they live is shitty USA or there is no cure, many kids are born chanceless.. tornados, floods, earthquakes, god is all okay with it. And thats all equal for believers and non believers, our disability group has many believers who are left in exactly the same shit to rot, people are killed just was well in floods wether they are religious or not.


He is a difficult God to believe in, certainly. Not for nothing is he known as "The Hidden One." And I can understand what you want, too: "Hey God, if you do this for me/for the world, then I'll believe in you!" That's the human way. Tit for tat. You scratch my back, and I'll scratch yours. But that's not God's way. Our ways are not His ways and vice versa.

But here's the thing: God can see all possible outcomes of anything that He or that an individual person does. We cannot possibly see that. So, what we think of as a really good thing, like helping Africa in the way you mentioned, might not really be a good thing in the long term. For instance, what if God were to end the AIDS epidemic in Africa right now? What might happen as a result of that?

It's something that, to us, would seem could only be good, that no bad could possibly come of it. But we can't see all the future consequences of that action. What if, as a result of this action, a person or group of people who start World War III survives instead of dies as they are currently destined to do, and as a result many more people die than who would have died due to the AIDS epidemic in Africa? In reality, the smallest things that we think are good can actually bring about great bad. (I'm reminded of the original Star Trek episode called "City of the Edge of Forever." In that episode, which takes place in the past, because a single woman is saved from death, Hitler wins World War II.) Or, there's a theory out there that the AIDS epidemic might just be the cure for what some people see as an "overpopulation" problem because the epidemic raises the worldwide death rate, counterbalancing the fact that modern medicine has greatly and artificially reduced the death rate, allowing the population to explode. We might see it as cold, but God often works in a "good of the many outweighs the good of the few" kind of way.

So sure, God could work a bunch of miracles to help Africa and also prevent World War III and also cure overpopulation, if we truly are overpopulated and on and on...but then you reach a certain level of interference with free will, even of canceling it out entirely. And, like I've said, our free will is apparently sacrosanct to God for whatever reason.

So, I guess it's a matter of perspective, really. Which, when it comes to huge global things like the above, we really don't have. God does, though. But even on a smaller scale, I can see good things coming out of bad ones. I'll give you but one example, from my own life.

Twenty-six years ago (almost to the day, actually), I was gang-raped at 18 and ended up pregnant as a result. I chose to carry the baby to term and have him privately adopted at birth. And out of the horrible thing that is rape, a bad decision on the part of those who raped me, and out of the resulting pregnancy, three good things happened: 1) As a result of carrying the child, I did not descend into a deep depression because I eventually saw that a good thing, a new life, came of it. I eventually saw purpose in the rape and the fact that I became pregnant because of it. It is easier to deal with a horrible personal tragedy if you can see purpose in it. 2) My son was adopted by a couple who'd been trying to have a child for 15 years but had failed. My son, born of a horrible, humiliating rape, made them the happiest people on Earth, and it made me happy to help make them happy. 3) My son grew up to be a doctor. He joined the Peace Corps, and he is now running a clinic. In Africa, actually. Helping some of the very people whom you want God to help. Hmmm, I would say that God IS helping them, by using a child born of rape to help them.

God often works in this way, indirectly, often using "bad" things to create good, weaving things together in a way that, when you see it at work, is deeply satisfying. My personal image of God is as a weaver, actually. We create the fibers that He works with with our decisions great and small; He sorts them and weaves them together to make a tapestry that is growing more beautiful as time progresses, but it's always a work in progress.

And sometimes, what we think is a good thing isn't actually a good thing at all. I'll give you an example of not-world-shattering importance, but of importance in my own life. My roommate has a son and an ex-husband. They divorced 9 years ago. After the divorce, my roommate kept praying that her ex would move closer to us. If he did, their son could have more access to him and they could spend more time together. If he did, it would be easier to exchange him for weekends, since his dad has custody of him on the weekends. For all sorts of reasons, she thought it would be the best thing ever if he would just move closer rather than living an hour's drive away. She even found him a place to live close-by that he could afford and that was nicer than the place he currently lives in, yet he adamantly refused to move. She prayed for him to move and couldn't understand why her ex was so damn stubborn about staying where he was, couldn't understand why God wasn't listening to her perfect plan that benefited everyone involved, not just herself.

Then, just a few months ago, her ex married a woman he'd never met face-to-face. They met online and got married the same day they met each other in person. Turns out, the woman is crazy. She has him convinced that, among other things, his son is a devil-worshipper who wants to kill them both when that is certainly not the truth. So now, we're quite glad that they live an hour's drive away. The separation is a very good thing. So, my roommate's prayers (and she thought that she was praying for something that could only be good) went unanswered. For, as it turns out, a very good reason. God could see her ex marrying this crazy woman. We couldn't.

So, this sort of thing is what I keep in mind when it seems that the bad in the world is completely outweighing the good. I always know that God is ultimately in control, that the things that I think are all bad might not be so, and that sometimes what I think is good isn't really what will be good in the long run. I am small. God is not. It's part of trust. It's part of faith. I have no problem with that, but I can see how others might have big problems with it. It's perspective, like I said, and some people can't or don't want to consider that theirs might not be the best perspective.

I'm mostly found on (and mostly upload to) Tumblr these days because, alas, there are only 24 hours in a day.
Muh Simblr! | An index of my downloads on Tumblr.
Alchemist
#407 Old 9th Sep 2009 at 5:03 PM
Quote: Originally posted by iCad
*snip*
And really, I'm not trying to convince you of anything here. You're asking questions and raising objections; I'm answering them. Is that not the purpose of a debate? What you believe is entirely up to you, and it is not my purpose here to change your mind. I'm just trying to offer you a bit of perspective that you might not have considered before. That's all.


hm, that would make sense. but then since times have changed, why hasnt a new bible been written by said spirit of god? obviously if theyre all knowing, they know that the bible confuses many people nowadays and that they do not interpret it the way it was meant to be interpreted.
....so why havnt any new bibles been created? NOT translations, NOT revisions. completely new bibles meant for modern day folk, as i imagine god would not want his fan club decreased by a simple lack of basic communication.

and on that note, why doesnt god use the telephone? supposedly he has the time to run around watching everyone and what they do, so why not give us atheists a call? why not write it in the sky that he exists, why not pander to our tests just for the sake of proving us wrong? if he cant be bothered to make an effort past a dated book, i have to say, i am not impressed. obviously it is not " good enough " if it doesnt do its job of calling to those in need of ' saving '.

verbal exchanges cant really be proven to have taken place, so pardon me as i ignore that bit. im not denying that they couldve taken place, but seeings how there is no proof and will not be proof that i can hold up to my face and recognize as proof thereof, im going to excuse it.
hell, i could say they passed around stories of flying elephant lemurs. doesnt make it true.

there is also the many videos out there, yes mainly on youtube, who have gone through the trouble to point out the many "coincidental" similarities between western religions and much older, eastern religions.

i also agree with the past arguments of gods character. if god is truly all knowing, he creates atheists consciously realizing that they will burn and suffer for eternity. that also makes him less than benevolent. also, if he were truly benevolent, why do things like evil exist? if he has the means and the will to destroy evil, why is it so? and as i understand it, god's word is infallible, so pretty much all he has to do is say something along the lines of " there is no evil in the world ", and poof, it will vanish. cannot be that difficult, really, if he is truly a supreme being.
and if he has neither the means nor the will to help, then he is not a god. he would be much more akin to a child with an ant farm, in that case, and not in need of worship.

but thats another thing. why does god demand worship? is that his form of food, or something? if we're so lowly and humble then surely worshiping him makes no difference to his existence. if we supposedly know he is all powerful and wonderful and all that, why do we need to bow and scrape to him? he already knows hes better than us, apparently. i just dont really understand the need for a fan club. does god really enjoy having his ego stroked that much? jeez.

the simple truth about god is that he punishes those who do not do what he wants them to, even having given them the option of going against him. not even trying to sway them to his side with something as practical as a phone call or a new testament. i have no respect for any such creature, much less a so-called god.

thanks for taking the time to answer my question[s], though. sorry i snipped so much of your post, but i didnt want my own to take up the next page or so. :P

"The more you know, the sadder you get."~ Stephen Colbert
"I'm not going to censor myself to comfort your ignorance." ~ Jon Stewart
Versigtig, ek's nog steeds fokken giftig
Undead Molten Llama
#408 Old 9th Sep 2009 at 6:59 PM
Quote: Originally posted by SuicidiaParasidia
....so why havnt any new bibles been created? NOT translations, NOT revisions. completely new bibles meant for modern day folk, as i imagine god would not want his fan club decreased by a simple lack of basic communication.


Apparently, God feels that the testaments we have are sufficient at this time. And, like I said, the overall message is clear and simple to understand. People get bogged down in the details for various reasons. Because they want to understand everything. Because they're afraid that believing makes it appear that they think that the "bad" things that God does (all of which have rational explanations relevant to the culture of the time) are OK. Because Christians have screwed up so badly, have twisted Scripture so much that people contemplating God don't want to be like Christians. (That was the big hurdle for me, actually. I didn't want to be a Christian not because I didn't like God, but because I didn't like Christians. Still don't, in most cases. It took work to separate in my mind Christians and their screwy ideas about God and God Himself.) Because of many reasons.

Often, it's the Old Testament that trips people up. It IS hard to understand, I know. Believe me, having studied it and ancient near eastern history in general for nigh on 20 years now, I know how difficult it is. Mostly, it's because we are so far removed from the culture to which the OT was directed, and when bits of it are taken out of context -- as both Christians and non-believers do, often in order to prove a point or to scare people -- it can make God look very bad/scary, indeed. (Which is why I always advocate reading in context; "sound bites" will not reveal any truth, whoever is using them for whatever purpose.) But overall the main purpose of the OT, the reason that it hasn't been replaced with something "better," more understandable and more relevant to our modern culture, is simply to show the context that led up to Jesus: The prophesies that describe how to recognize Him. The things that happened that caused people to require salvation in the first place. That sort of thing. The OT shows God at work from the beginning, often in ways that are hard for modern people to understand, yes, particularly if they decide to try to understand all of the details, like me. But that, all the gory details (literally so, sometimes) aside, is why it exists, why it can still be used to teach interested parties, believer or otherwise, even though, for instance, the laws it contains have been largely replaced, for Christians, by faith in Jesus as the promised Messiah. And that simple thing -- faith and love -- is the overall message of the New Testament. Those things do not change, not matter how much culture changes.

As for why God doesn't come down and proclaim himself or call non-believers on the phone or what-have-you...Well, the simple answer is that I don't know, really. I'm not God, and I don't pretend to understand all of His motives or all of the ways in which He operates. All I know is that it just isn't how He works. I believe (which isn't the same as knowing for sure) that He does not wish to force belief on any of us, that He wishes us to choose to believe in Him on faith, not because He came down and forced people to believe. Again, I don't know why; I just accept that this is. There's this prevailing notion -- which you mention, too -- that God wants worship above all things. Were that really the case, then you'd think that he wouldn't care about us having free will. He'd have made us worshipping robots, with no ability to make our own choices. Obviously, mindless worship isn't what God wants. I don't know why, really. That's one of the questions I have for Him and that I will ask Him when I meet him face-to-face. If I still care about such things at that point, of course. All I can say now is that, apparently, God wants informed believers who can believe even though they don't have all the answers. It goes against human desires to want to understand everything, indeed. But it's apparently what's required and what has been predicted. Scripture says that most people will not believe. It speaks of wide gates and narrow gates, and that the narrow gate is the true one that most people will choose against. I wouldn't say that this is "fair," but it is what is. The "penalty" for non-belief might be so severe, though, as you might think.

Quote:
there is also the many videos out there, yes mainly on youtube, who have gone through the trouble to point out the many "coincidental" similarities between western religions and much older, eastern religions.


My belief, which I believe I said way back when in this thread but it's been lost in the shuffle, is that all of the major religions and probably even the minor ones, too, have truth in them. Because, ultimately, we all came from the same place. All religions, including Christianity in its religious sense, also have not-truth. This is because all religions are human constructs, none of them perfect. I believe the core belief of Christianity -- that of Jesus as Savior -- to be true for many reasons, most of them personal that I don't feel a need to go into here, without necessarily swallowing everything that has become part of the religion. The church is not God and God is not the church. We must use our minds, our logic, our critical thinking skills to separate the truth from the BS, no matter what religion, or lack thereof, we choose to be in. All religions have their truths. All religions also have their BS. None is perfect.

Quote:
if god is truly all knowing, he creates atheists consciously realizing that they will burn and suffer for eternity.


1) He did not create you or anyone else as an atheist. That is a choice that you have made. It might be the choice that's right for you just for now or it might be your "final answer," so to speak. In any case, you were not "created" that way. You were "created" with free will and with a brain. You were "created" with the ability to collect information from (ideally) all sources, to digest it, think about it, critically examine it, and then make a choice based on what information you collect. You were "created" with the ability to then say yes or no to God, whether or not you did any information collecting or thinking at all. Either way, God will not come down and say, "Here I am! Now you have no choice but to believe!" It won't happen because that negates your free will, which is, as I've said over and over, perhaps the most important thing to God.

2) The burning and suffering? Is for the most part -- aside from some Scripture, like the Book of Revelations that, in context, were not necessarily meant to be taken literally -- a medieval construct that is not really Biblical, that was designed to scare people into believing and that has subsequently become part of our collective western consciousness, fuelled in great part by art, most of which was commissioned by the church to illustrate their scare tactics. Really, hell, if you pay attention to Scripture and not to church stuff, is not a place but a condition of eternal separation from God. Guess what? That's what we have here on Earth right now, due to sin, only on Earth it isn't eternal for those who believe in Jesus in Savior. Sin separates us from having the direct communion with God here on Earth that we were intended to have, as the pre-fall Adam and Eve symbolically illustrate. So, "hell" might not be much different than life on Earth. You'll just have an eternity of the crap that goes on here, that people who don't like God constantly complain about, rather than a promise of eventual removal from that condition. That's it.

So, your "simple truth" is not really the truth. God doesn't punish people simply because they don't do what He wants them to do. The Bible is FULL of stories of people who were saved or who found favor with God DESPITE the fact that in some cases they did some really awful things and in most cases that they simply made dumb human mistakes, caving to vices and more carnal desires as opposed to following a better path. David is notable in this way. He was an ancestor of Christ and was termed "righteous," yet he totally screwed up often.

So you see, God doesn't demand perfection, and he doesn't punish us just for screwing up. He only "demands" that we acknowledge our screw-ups and contritely ask forgiveness of them. He can (but doesn't always) "punish" us when pride prevents us from acknowledging our human screw-ups, yes, but it's really the sin of pride that's being "punished," not the initial transgression. It's humbling, indeed, to acknowledge that we are not perfect, are not "good." But it's nice to know that God loves us anyway, even when we totally screw up and fall flat on our faces. Or at least, that's how I feel.

As for why evil exists...That's the classic Problem of Evil. So classic that it gets capital letters. Which has been addressed ad nauseum. I don't really have the time to go into it all here. I could point you at some good, non-religious-blathery sources that address the question, if you like. And I can direct you to the post of mine directly above yours, where I show that sometimes evil can lead to good in ways that might not have happened, if not for the evil happening first. In short, there's a reason that evil exists, mostly but not entirely having to do with the consequences of our free will when we make bad choices, but it can and often is used to create something good. Even things like natural disasters, which some will tell you are the result of the Fall, but I'm not convinced of that, myself.

I'm mostly found on (and mostly upload to) Tumblr these days because, alas, there are only 24 hours in a day.
Muh Simblr! | An index of my downloads on Tumblr.
Theorist
#409 Old 9th Sep 2009 at 7:16 PM
I never accepted natural disasters as a consequence of evil. The notion that Earth's tectonic plates wouldn't still be rubbing against each other causing earthquakes if mankind hadn't fallen into sin is silly to me...what do weather patterns and such have to do with sin? Natural disasters are simply a natural result of living on such a diverse world. Volcanos, earthquakes, tornados, hurricanes etc are normal geological occurrances. Attributing them to sin is just stupid.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Obama on ABC's This Week, discussing Obamacare
What it's saying is, is that we're not going to have other people carrying your burdens for you anymore
umm...Isn't having other people carry your medical burden exactly what national health care is?
Undead Molten Llama
#410 Old 9th Sep 2009 at 7:27 PM
Quote: Originally posted by davious
I never accepted natural disasters as a consequence of evil. The notion that Earth's tectonic plates wouldn't still be rubbing against each other causing earthquakes if mankind hadn't fallen into sin is silly to me...what do weather patterns and such have to do with sin? Natural disasters are simply a natural result of living on such a diverse world. Volcanos, earthquakes, tornados, hurricanes etc are normal geological occurrances. Attributing them to sin is just stupid.


Some people -- most notably creationists -- will attribute everything they perceive as "bad" to the Fall. For instance, the fact that the Earth has tectonic plates that cause volcanoes and earthquakes and such at all is because of the Fall. When Adam and Eve sinned, suddenly the Earth's crust decided to break into plates, too. Where they get this, I don't know, because that certainly isn't mentioned in the Curse, is it? Or some say it's because of the Flood, that the break-up of the crust allowed the water in or some-such and that this is what the "fountains of the deep" thing means.

This is not what I believe, but it is what a good number of our fellow believers believe. Scary, ain't it?

I'm mostly found on (and mostly upload to) Tumblr these days because, alas, there are only 24 hours in a day.
Muh Simblr! | An index of my downloads on Tumblr.
Theorist
#411 Old 9th Sep 2009 at 7:53 PM
they are also probably the same folk who believe that people that get sick, cancer, etc got it as a punishment from God...completely ignoring that Christians and non-Christians alike get cancer, get leukemia, etc.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Obama on ABC's This Week, discussing Obamacare
What it's saying is, is that we're not going to have other people carrying your burdens for you anymore
umm...Isn't having other people carry your medical burden exactly what national health care is?
Undead Molten Llama
#412 Old 9th Sep 2009 at 8:03 PM
Quote: Originally posted by davious
they are also probably the same folk who believe that people that get sick, cancer, etc got it as a punishment from God...completely ignoring that Christians and non-Christians alike get cancer, get leukemia, etc.


As I understand it, that's the Pentecostal belief, sure, and most of the current crop of fundamentalist churches have Pentecostal roots. Sickness in a Christian (or anything bad that happens to a Christian) is because that Christian is being naughty. Only they won't term it as punishment so much as saying that you're "out of alignment with God's Will" or something along that line. I can't stomach the Pentecostal beliefs, generally; I wouldn't want to believe in that God, either.

I'm mostly found on (and mostly upload to) Tumblr these days because, alas, there are only 24 hours in a day.
Muh Simblr! | An index of my downloads on Tumblr.
Theorist
#413 Old 9th Sep 2009 at 8:12 PM
I wonder what they base it on, scripturally? Nothing is immediately coming to mind as to where that belief would spring forward from.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Obama on ABC's This Week, discussing Obamacare
What it's saying is, is that we're not going to have other people carrying your burdens for you anymore
umm...Isn't having other people carry your medical burden exactly what national health care is?
Undead Molten Llama
#414 Old 9th Sep 2009 at 8:24 PM
Dunno. Nothing springs to my mind, either. I have found, just from talking to Pentecostals, that a lot of their beliefs are actually very New Age-y. They mash it together with Christ and call it Christian. This is how they end up with things like, for instance, faith healing: "Jesus could heal, and these New Agers over here say plain ol' people can heal. Hey, I know! Let's mash it together and say that Real Christians(TM) can heal! (But not the New Agers because they're evil devil worshippers.) They can't heal like Real Christians(TM) can heal!"

I...just can't follow the bouncing logic ball here, personally. The Pentecostals generally fritz my neural pathways that are responsible for logic.

I'm mostly found on (and mostly upload to) Tumblr these days because, alas, there are only 24 hours in a day.
Muh Simblr! | An index of my downloads on Tumblr.
Alchemist
#415 Old 9th Sep 2009 at 8:26 PM
[ post directed to iCad--i delete things as i go, it makes it easier to reply to everything. ^_^; ]

how does anyone know what " god " feels? if he even feels at all?
many attribute that god is a feeling, himself. so how does a feeling feel?
and if its not a feeling, i can name several instances where the voice talking to someone in their head was not pious or of benevolent intent. in fact, i strongly urge anyone who hears voices in their head, for better or worse, to seek help.
ah but if the message was clear and easy to understand, we wouldnt be having this discussion, would we? (;

another thing about the bible: if its proven that humans have free will, and that the bible was indeed written with a human hand to a piece of paper [ NOT a spirit--far as i can tell spirits are immaterial and thusly unable to put quill to paper ], it couldve been manipulated and altered wherever, whenever. i do not trust anything that stinks of possible tampering, and to me, the bible can be scented of it a mile away.

god is, lets face it, open to interpretation. ive heard it everywhere, from as many believers as non believers. so who's to say that the god you " know " is the same as the god Trooper " know "s? pardon me if i goof this up--its like mistaking asians, they hate it--but isnt she christian too? so how do you both know you " know " the same immaterial, all knowing, sentient ...thing?

but then, i dont believe in good or bad, right or wrong. so that whole section about it, kind of whizzed over my head.
i also dont believe that if there is a god, and im leaving the possibility open, that they spend their entire existence watching what i do. im not all that interesting. in fact, im probably the most boring person here to watch, with no job, no friends, and no real future goals. i sit here and type all day whenever im not sleeping or playing with my adorable kitty cat.
and god would have to be some sort of pervert to be watching people in the shower. -_- [ and dont try to work around that, since obviously he can take offense at things like adultery without having a body of his own. ]

i think you missed my intent when i questioned the existence of a newer version. i meant, a version that was guaranteed to be written by an incarnation of god for the present day and age. not a translation, not a revision, not one thought up by those who believe that they grasp the concept of god. by god himself. or his son. jesus would do.
im not saying that the old version needs to be burned [ well, in some senses i think all bibles should be burned, but thats another story ], im saying a new one needs to be created for someone like me to take god seriously. or " open up ", as you may put it. though, i have tried. tried, and found myself attempting to contact ...empty air. and that was enough for me.

love, i can understand. but faith? theres no proof of heaven. theres no proof that a reward for unwavering belief exists. thus, i really have no personal reason to keep my hopes up for the rest of my life. im pretty sure that the best case scenario is where im wrong, and where everyone makes their own heaven, simply by their own thought. worst case: we just move on to the next life, or the next universe, or the next existence, no wonderful entertaining afterlife. just another life.

the way you said it, kind of reminds me of a child sitting in front of one of those wind up toys. my mental image went as another child walking up to the first, and asking why the toy does not operate on voice commands. the first child then shrugs and replies much the same way you did.
methinks that if god " works " in a certain way, he should come with a manual. might make operating him more understandable.

well see, if that were true, wouldnt his followers know his will and thusly leave the rest of us alone? if he speaks to his followers, as many of them claim [ in some fashion or other, not necessarily a voice in their head ] that he does, wouldnt they leave the rest of us to our devices?
and i never said anything about FORCING us. obviously, if we have free will, we can still choose to deny it. but a little solid proof could never hurt his case. its all pretty far fetched. to me, god is nothing more than a neglectful father figure in the sky, used to intimidate others into living a certain way. conforming by WILL--it doesnt get much uglier than that.

i think this has also helped to strengthen my idea that a lot of christians [ yeah naming names, but i tend to encompass most religion under the same name-its almost all the same to me ] do not enjoy thinking for themselves. theyre sort of just OK with not knowing why. and that doesnt sit well with me. i cannot be content with not knowing why, or rather, being refused an answer to my question. obviously, if hes all knowing, its not like there ISNT an answer. he just chooses to withhold it from me. and that, good sir, is a tease. ;P

and apparently, he made angels without free will. yet lucifer and the others had the choice to follow gods orders or "disobey". see, thats another thing that did not sit well with me. lucifer went against god on one thing and the guy threw him out. a truly loving and forgiving god does not contradict his own character like that. not to mention, lucifer was supposedly his favorite. i dont know about you, but if my cat decided he didnt want to do what i told him, i wouldnt kick him out onto the streets. [ but then, i couldnt bring myself to even glare at him when he puked on my bed before -_- haha, wimp. ] god just lacks empathy, on so many levels, when you look at how he treats others.
which i guess, in a sense, makes him a psychopath in the fashion that a psychopath [ /ripfromanotherthread xD ] is described as anti-social [ lacking in remorse or sympathy/empathy for others ].

and, if god has the balls to make us as WELL as expect things from us, he really has no room to punish us for doing things against his expectations. its like raising a mouse from infancy to adulthood, then if the mouse eats a piece of cheese or poops in your pocket, you toss them into a furnace.
if you KNOWINGLY create a human being with FREEDOM OF CHOICE--freedom to DEFY, then you KNOWINGLY open the possibilities of a negative outcome. you cannot possibly uphold the image of a loving and benevolent being, yet punish your creations--who are not ever fully conscious of you at any one point in their pitiful lives--for doing things that you had no 100% accurate way of communicating. you just cant, and i am continually amazed at how any religious sects seem to accept that little contradiction--excuse me, BIG BLARING contradiction.

here, take two pills. the blue or the red pill. be careful--you might want the red one because it reminds you of that yummy cherry flavor. but the blue one that tastes like the underside of a crocodile: THATS where the money is. the pill that looks like someones hemorrhoid shavings.
... that was only to point out that if god truly wanted us to find such a salvation, he wouldnt make it a narrow fucking path. xD if he wanted us ALL to get there, he probably wouldve made it a 4 lane-r. something with flashing neon lights that reads, PLEASE DONT MAKE ME CAST YOU TO THE PITS OF DESPAIR--ENTER PARADISE HERE.

come to think of it, there isnt even proof of hell existing in the first place. so what if it turns out that there isnt a hell? what if theres only heaven? or if there is ONLY a hell. wow, that would suck. all that faith for nothing. the possibilities are endless, and as much as anyone may not enjoy the thought of it, it could still be possible that there is no heaven. that there is only hell, and that everyone goes there when they die. *shrug* nothing is confirmed, therefore, everything is possible.

1) actually, he did. by your own logic, he knows everything. he knows that i would choose to become an atheist, and thusly, in creating me anyway, he did create an atheist. C: but thats giving him too much credit. i like to believe that my mother is the closest thing to a god--SHE created me, not some magical man in the sky, supposedly hovering over me at every step in my life.

2) i dont really separate burning and suffering from the rest of the bible, since it all seems to be one giant fear mongering festival, to me anyway. believe in god or YOU WILL SUFFERRRRR.
get real. like i said before: a truly benevolent god does not punish. at all. end of story.

3) it is A Truth. your truth is not The truth, you realize. truth is a matter of perspective--what may be true for me may not be true for you, and visa versa. i do not believe in a single truth, in fact, i believe there are many truths, and that those whom choose to limit themselves to only one are missing out on quite a lot.

i refuse to ask forgiveness for something that was nor foreclosed to me as a crime. like, as birth knowledge. as instinct. id even settle for a gut feeling, but the simple, bare standing of it is that there is no set of rules magically known at birth, and thusly, its completely uncalled for for anyone to be expected to adhere to them.
like countries that do not have the bible. what about those children who die never having read the bible? say they never knew the rules. say they violated many of them. will they burn for their innocence? their ignorance? that doesnt sound like the work of a loving and knowing god, to me. sounds like an entirely too human fear pandering.

and why should god, an all knowing, supposedly omniscient being care about what goes on in the flesh? only the living give a crap what happens to the living. you dont see dead people rising from the grave and telling " sinners " that they are terrible for doing what they do. y'know why? because there is no miracle that covers reanimated, truth spouting corpses warning those of the living of afterlife's' consequences. the dead dont give a fhack what happens to the living--and im pretty sure neither does god, if there is even a god in the first place.

and dont get me started on " good " and " evil ". they dont exist. changing the connotation of an act does not change the act. an act is always, and will always be, neutral. its the persons point of view--subject to change per individual--that adds the negative or positive perspective on w/e act theyre regarding. the act itself, remains the same, regardless of labels or emotional inputs.
" good " and " evil " are just terms we use to describe in a moment what we favor and what we do not. and again, that is subject to variation per individual, as there is no solid list of right and wrong, good or bad. they dont exist. :P

"The more you know, the sadder you get."~ Stephen Colbert
"I'm not going to censor myself to comfort your ignorance." ~ Jon Stewart
Versigtig, ek's nog steeds fokken giftig
Theorist
#416 Old 9th Sep 2009 at 8:30 PM
I have yet to encounter a single christian that has been given the gift of healing, NOT bestowed upon them by a medical school, LOL. I suppose that could be loosely based on the REAL Pentacost, where the Holy Spirit came down and allowed the apostles to heal in Christ's name, but yeah...they fritz my neural pathways too. "Faith" healing, as seen on televangelist TV shows, is a fraud. A complete sham. (Of course, so are most televangelists, so it makes sense, I guess)

to quote Bono from U2, "The God I believe in isn't short of cash, mister."

Quote:
Originally Posted by Obama on ABC's This Week, discussing Obamacare
What it's saying is, is that we're not going to have other people carrying your burdens for you anymore
umm...Isn't having other people carry your medical burden exactly what national health care is?
Scholar
#417 Old 9th Sep 2009 at 11:44 PM
It is no choice to be not-religious in the first place. Everyone is born neutral with no belief in a religion. People have to be taught a religion to believe in a god. If you are born somewhere where christianity is unknown, you cannot become a christian. If you are born somewhere where muslim religion is unknown you cannot become muslim. If you are born somewhere where there is no religion at all, you can only become religious unless you make your own god(s) or believes. Desire or people to have some kind of belief is strong, since even small tribes often have believes, though some believe in what we would call "mother nature" not a god which is somewhat like a person, but more like a pantheist. Some believe in one god, more gods. Some just believe in karma, or have superstitions like rain is good. Some believe in nothing just rituals.

The majority of people sticks to the religion they were taught at home, only 1 out of 12 makes a change to another religion or no religion. Kids do not choose which religion they are taught by their parents. Parents choose for the main part which religion people get not the person themselves. They have to teach it to their kids, if they would put the kid up for adoption, and it would be raised in another culture, the kids religion would be different.

Anyone who never considered religion is a not believer in at the start. Religion is taught. Its up for discusion if some people are born agnost or atheist, but its simply a matter of how labels are defined.

SuicidiaParasidia, you wrote most of the rest of my thoughts.

- source for numbers of religion swap - Dawkins


"When the moon is in the seventh house
And Jupiter aligns with Mars
Then peace will guide the planets
And love will steer the stars"
 
Page 17 of 17
Back to top