The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

Son Goku

ISAW wrote:

Iron doesn't come from anywhere else! Unless you know something new?

No, that's pretty much it. It comes only from stars. Barring super-rare events.

philologos

Wicknight wrote:

The Bible often has passages where a person is hurt by God in order to punish another. This most often is either the wife or the child or a man who has disobeyed God. For example a wife will be violently raped as punishment for the sins of the man, or his children will be killed.

The responses I can remember from the OT apologetics on this forum basically said that we are all God's to do as as he so fits. If he wants to torture my wife or kill my son because he is angry with me then that is what he can do and there is nothing wrong with that. There is nothing immoral about it because God would not and cannot do something immoral.

Of course the issue with that justification is that you have to first accept that God cannot do something immoral to be able to explain these passages from the Bible as moral actions. A few posters have honestly said that they cannot see why it would be moral but it must be moral because God did it and God would not do something immoral.

I genuinely don't understand how someone can come to that conclusion which is why I started the thread about Bible passages that inspire the soul in an effort to try and appreciate what people are thinking when they say things like this, which in all honestly revolt me.

I'd really like to know which sections exactly. If you could quote some it would be great. I've heard of a king being spared his punishment until the next generation...

And did you miss the post I made on the other evolution thread.... (I don't know how it developed into how is god so benevolent, but it did and I posted a lot of quotes about it.

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote:

I'd really like to know which sections exactly. If you could quote some it would be great.

Well probably the most famous example is passover.

Exodus 11
4 So Moses said, "This is what the LORD says: 'About midnight I will go throughout Egypt. 5 Every firstborn son in Egypt will die, from the firstborn son of Pharaoh, who sits on the throne, to the firstborn son of the slave girl, who is at her hand mill, and all the firstborn of the cattle as well. 6 There will be loud wailing throughout Egypt—worse than there has ever been or ever will be again.

Exodus 12
29 At midnight the LORD struck down all the firstborn in Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh, who sat on the throne, to the firstborn of the prisoner, who was in the dungeon, and the firstborn of all the livestock as well. 30 Pharaoh and all his officials and all the Egyptians got up during the night, and there was loud wailing in Egypt, for there was not a house without someone dead.

Another example is God and King David. David took Uriah's wife for himself knocked her up and then send him on the battlefield to be killed. Admittedly not a nice thing to do. But God decides to punish him by causing his wives (including Uriah's old wife) to be raped in public and then kills the child he produced with Uriah's old wife.

2 Samuel 12
10 Now therefore the sword shall never depart from thine house; because thou hast despised me, and hast taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be thy wife. 11 Thus saith the LORD, Behold, I will raise up evil against thee out of thine own house, and I will take thy wives before thine eyes, and give them unto thy neighbour, and he shall lie with thy wives in the sight of this sun.

2 Samuel 12
14 Howbeit, because by this deed thou hast given great occasion to the enemies of the LORD to blaspheme, the child also that is born unto thee shall surely die.

There are plenty of others. Hurting or killing people around you is a legitimate way for God to punish you according to the Bible. It just sucks to be them.

philologos

Was the Law written at the time of the Passover, that is a very important question to ask in relation to that? Also considering the intransigence of the Pharaoh I consider it just. He had seen what the Lord could have done, he could have stopped his abuse of the Israelites and let them go, but he chose to disobey the command of God Himself.

Killing David's son was a punishment on David, if you note how much he wept after his sons death. Secondly this was a child born out of a sinful relationship and one that resulted in the death of Urriah the Hittite.

2 Samuel 12 - How does 2 Samuel 12:11 say it was rape exactly? Haven't you heard of something called adultery?

Sangre

Jakkass wrote:

Was the Law written at the time of the Passover, that is a very important question to ask in relation to that? Also considering the intransigence of the Pharaoh I consider it just. He had seen what the Lord could have done, he could have stopped his abuse of the Israelites and let them go, but he chose to disobey the command of God Himself.

Killing David's son was a punishment on David, if you note how much he wept after his sons death. Secondly this was a child born out of a sinful relationship and one that resulted in the death of Urriah the Hittite.

And they say atheists are immoral.....

philologos

Sangre wrote:

And they say atheists are immoral.....

Taking into account that it was an entirely different system of judgement, people were judged on earth for their actions as opposed to in the afterlife. Christ bore, and continues to bear the grunt of our sin because of his crucifixion.

Scofflaw

Jakkass wrote:

Taking into account that it was an entirely different system of judgement, people were judged on earth for their actions as opposed to in the afterlife. Christ bore, and continues to bear the grunt of our sin because of his crucifixion.

Ah yes, the "grunt of of our sin". I love that.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Jakkass

Jakkass wrote:

Killing David's son was a punishment on David, if you note how much he wept after his sons death.

But it says

Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor children put to death for their fathers; each is to die for his own sin.

!!

You can't just go around setting down laws and then changing your mind afterwards
the quotes from wicknight weren't the ones I'm looking for. Ah well, I have an hour to kill,
/puts insanely fast reading speed to some use...

socfflaw wrote:

Ah yes, the "grunt of of our sin". I love that.

A scape-grunt, instead of a scapegoat

Here we are, from page 223:


Deut 21-
When you go to war against your enemies and the LORD your God delivers them into your hands and you take captives, 11 if you notice among the captives a beautiful woman and are attracted to her, you may take her as your wife. 12 Bring her into your home and have her shave her head, trim her nails 13 and put aside the clothes she was wearing when captured. After she has lived in your house and mourned her father and mother for a full month, then you may go to her and be her husband and she shall be your wife. 14 If you are not pleased with her, let her go wherever she wishes. You must not sell her or treat her as a slave, since you have dishonored her.

Numbers 31-
Moses was angry with the officers of the army—the commanders of thousands and commanders of hundreds—who returned from the battle.
15 "Have you allowed all the women to live?" he asked them. 16 "They were the ones who followed Balaam's advice and were the means of turning the Israelites away from the LORD in what happened at Peor, so that a plague struck the LORD's people. 17 Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, 18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.
It was the Moses one I was thinking of.

wolfsbane said a couple pages later:

Yes, the children were destroyed with their sinful parents. That does not mean the children were being punished, rather their parents.

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=52628934&postcount=4517

Anyway around that page is what I was talking about earlier.
So wolfsbane what's your answer now?

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote:

Was the Law written at the time of the Passover, that is a very important question to ask in relation to that?

Why?

Jakkass wrote:

Also considering the intransigence of the Pharaoh I consider it just.

Well as I said I imagine you would. I personally don't, killing the child of everyone from the live stock to a slave girl to convince the Pharaoh of anything is immoral.

But you do raise an interesting point. Why was the Pharaoh so intransigent? Surely the other plagues would have shown him that God was not to be messed with.....

Jakkass wrote:

He had seen what the Lord could have done, he could have stopped his abuse of the Israelites and let them go, but he chose to disobey the command of God Himself.

No actually he didn't. God hardened his heart and made him stubborn.

Exodus 10
1 Then the LORD said to Moses, "Go to Pharaoh, for I have hardened his heart and the hearts of his officials so that I may perform these miraculous signs of mine among them 2 that you may tell your children and grandchildren how I dealt harshly with the Egyptians and how I performed my signs among them, and that you may know that I am the LORD."

Exodus 11
10 Moses and Aaron performed all these wonders before Pharaoh, but the LORD hardened Pharaoh's heart, and he would not let the Israelites go out of his country.

The Pharaoh might have let the Israelites go, but then they wouldn't have this "wonderful" story to tell their children about how God likes to bitch-slap nations who displease him. So God hardened the heart of the Pharaoh so he would not let the Israelites go and so he could continue to rain plague after plague down upon them.

The Bible is being surprisingly honest about this. But then the Old Testament was never that wrapped up in the whole idea of the New Testament that God is all about the love and the justice.

Jakkass wrote:

Killing David's son was a punishment on David, if you note how much he wept after his sons death.

I know, that isn't in debate. The point is that killing a child to upset his father is not moral, no matter what the father has done.

Jakkass wrote:

Secondly this was a child born out of a sinful relationship and one that resulted in the death of Urriah the Hittite.

And?

Killing a child because he is born from a sinful relationship is not moral either.

I'm perfectly aware of why this child was killed. He was killed as punishment for what his father (King David) did. That doesn't make it any less immoral or repulsive, or any less unfair on the child.

Jakkass wrote:

2 Samuel 12 - How does 2 Samuel 12:11 say it was rape exactly? Haven't you heard of something called adultery?

Before your very eyes I will take your wives and give them to one who is close to you, and he will lie with your wives in broad daylight.

I will take your wives, give them to other men, and these other men will have sex with them in broad daylight.

Now I suppose if the idea of these women being raped in broad daylight by strange men doesn't sit right with you (but the murdering of a child does?) you can imagine if you like that God must have made these women want and enjoy this act so it was rape.

But I'm not quite sure why you would considering God does much worse things (Davids child died due to sickness, which must have been a painful and scary way to die) and because women in the Old Testament were always having this type treatment (see bluewolf's post about taking captured women as wives by Israelite soldiers)

Jakkass wrote:

Taking into account that it was an entirely different system of judgement, people were judged on earth for their actions as opposed to in the afterlife. Christ bore, and continues to bear the grunt of our sin because of his crucifixion.

That is kinda the point Jakkass. These people aren't being judged for their actions. The child of the slave girl in Egypt didn't do anything to the Israelites. The child of David didn't do anything to Urriah.

They suffer and die because God wants to teach someone else a lesson.

That might sit ok with you. It doesn't sit ok with me, and it makes me want to roll my eyes every time someone says "Just read the Bible and you will see God is love"

philologos

bluewolf wrote:

But it says

That quote is how humans are to punish humans. God does not have any limits or restrictions. Hence why it is called the Law, humans are to follow it, however God is a divine being and he has no bound or restrictions, however he is a just Lord imo, even in the OT.

Hence why it says put to death, implying that it is when another human carries it out.
I believe this is the quote you are looking for.

Deuteronomy 25 wrote:

Parents are to not to be put to death for the crimes committed by their children, and children are not to be put to death or the crimes of their children; people are to be put to death only for crimes they themselves have committed.

also on the top of the relevant section it says Various Laws again saying that these are laws onto other human beings. God has no bound or restrictions

philologos

Wicknight wrote:

That might sit ok with you. It doesn't sit ok with me, and it makes me want to roll my eyes every time someone says "Just read the Bible and you will see God is love"

You judge it as you pick and choose, and find the worst pieces possible, whereas you totally move over anything that shows the side of the Lord when He isn't punishing anyone for their actions. You'll never be convinced, because you are closed minded the whole time. It seems that you ignored my huge post with several examples of how God in the OT is benevolent, and there are plenty more.

Wicknight wrote:

Now I suppose if the idea of these women being raped in broad daylight by strange men doesn't sit right with you (but the murdering of a child does?) you can imagine if you like that God must have made these women want and enjoy this act so it was rape.

But you totally ignore the fact that it doesn't say it was rape. Actually you didn't even address what I had quoted about it :rolleyes: . Haven't you heard of consensual sex and adultery before Wicknight? If they wanted and enjoyed it it isn't rape, I'd love to learn what your definition of rape really is.

You also fail to take into account at the start of the Ten Commandments, God said he wouldn't fear to judge those who hated him to the 3rd or 4th generation.

Exodus 20:5 wrote:

Do not bow down to any idol or worship it, because I am the Lord your God and I tolerate no rivals. I bring punishment on those who hate me and their descendants down to the third and fourth generations. But I show love to thousands of generations of those why love me and obey my laws

The Pharaoh would be considered one of those who hated God. In my opinion, that seems reasonable ^^ if thousands of my generations are going to be treated in kindness by God, if they respect and worship Him.

Scofflaw

Jakkass wrote:

You judge it as you pick and choose, and find the worst pieces possible, whereas you totally move over anything that shows the side of the Lord when He isn't punishing anyone for their actions. You'll never be convinced, because you are closed minded the whole time.

That the "worst possible" is in there is the whole point. If you say that someone is morally perfect and all-loving, we don't usually expect to find him spending even 1% of his time slaughtering children because their parents have offended him. We don't expect him to do it at all.

It's like claiming that a murderer is morally perfect when he's not murdering anyone - it may be true, but it makes 'morally perfect' meaningless. It's like saying "oh, he's a lovely guy, really loving, really moral. Er, yeah, though, don't annoy him, though, 'cos he'll burn your house down and kill all your children". Seriously, WTF?

Those parts of the Bible showing God slaughtering the innocent are talking about the same God as the bits you like. You cannot pick and choose only those bits that don't show him doing so, because the God doing the bad things is the same God you worship for doing the good things.

We, on the other hand, can pick those bits that show God in the worst possible light - because our contention is that if your "interpretation" of God as all-loving and morally perfect were true, those bits should not be there at all.

emphatically,
Scofflaw

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote:

You judge it as you pick and choose, and find the worst pieces possible

You are right, I do, because I consider the worst thing someone does as the measure of them.

Pick any of the monsters of history, from Hitler to Pol Pot and you will find time when they are nice and polite and kind and generous. You will also find people who consider them (often long after their deeds are discovered) to be nice and polite and kind and generous.

It doesn't matter how nice God is to some people if he is murdering and raping others. In fact that just makes it worse.

But to me, who doesn't actually believe in God, the far more worrying thing is that humans who follow this are so quick to forgive or ignore these things and want to focus only on the positive.

Looking back through history the question one keeps asking oneself is how does evil take foot in a society that is itself not evil. Why do the people not turn away from people or causes that are so clearly monstrous in nature.

The sad answer is that evil is a relative turn and no person is evil in everything they do. People are quite capable of latching on to good elements of something and using that to excuse to ignore, or worse justify, the bad.

You have no idea how much this trait of humanity frightens people like myself.

Jakkass wrote:

But you totally ignore the fact that it doesn't say it was rape.

The Bible never says "rape", the Bible never says "sex"

"Lie with" is a how the Bible says sex. There is nothing here that would suggest that God in any way made these women want to have sex with these people.

I find it interesting thought that the idea that God would allow these women to be raped disturbs you, so you are searching for a way for it not to be rape. Does the idea that God would make an infant so sick that he died not equally disturb you?

Jakkass wrote:

Haven't you heard of consensual sex and adultery before Wicknight?

Please tell me what part of the passage suggests that the wives were willing participants with being made to have sex in broad day light in front of their husband?

Next you will be claiming that the child was probably happy to be sick and die.

It is this kind of ridiculous posturing that I'm talking about above.

philologos

Wicknight wrote:

The Bible never says "rape", the Bible never says "sex"

"Lie with" is a how the Bible says sex. There is nothing here that would suggest that God in any way made these women want to have sex with these people.

I'm sorry but that's plain ignorant, most modern translations including Good News use "sexual relations" or "sex". And infact it does say "rape", infact 400,000 Israelites attacked the tribe of Benjamin in Judges because men had molested a woman and the tribe of Benjamin had refused to hand them over.

Scofflaw

Jakkass wrote:

I'm sorry but that's plain ignorant, most modern translations including Good News use "sexual relations" or "sex". And infact it does say "rape", infact 400,000 Israelites attacked the tribe of Benjamin in Judges because men had molested a woman and the tribe of Benjamin had refused to hand them over.

Leaving aside the quibbles over translation, how do you explain the violent and apparently vicious acts of your God?


Scofflaw

Jakkass

Jakkass wrote:

That quote is how humans are to punish humans. God does not have any limits or restrictions. Hence why it is called the Law, humans are to follow it, however God is a divine being and he has no bound or restrictions, however he is a just Lord imo, even in the OT.

Hence why it says put to death, implying that it is when another human carries it out.
I believe this is the quote you are looking for.

also on the top of the relevant section it says Various Laws again saying that these are laws onto other human beings. God has no bound or restrictions

Dude, if I was a parent and I told my child "you must not do this or I will kill you and I mean that literally, in fact your whole family will help me kill you. But I'm allowed do it because I have the power to and I said so and I'm always right", would you think that's acceptable? No, I don't think so. And I mean child of any age, not just a 6 year old. Even when they're old enough to reason with me, I won't allow it.
If your god sets down a bunch of rules that are supposed to be good, then your god should at least try to show why upholding them is good, not going around doing the opposite just because it CAN. It's not consistent. It's like the death penalty killing people to show why killing people is wrong. :rolleyes:
God does not have any limits or restrictions => god has the power to do what god wants =/> god is RIGHT to do whatever god wants.
When you have a god that is fine with ordering people to kill children and rape women, then insisting that your morality is based on "god doing something means that something is morally right" is very dangerous.
And god is supposed to have made us in god's image, too.

I expected this reply from somone, but I'm not going to accept it.
And "you're a narrowminded atheist who just doesn't understand" does not cut it. I want a real answer to this blatant hypocrisy of your god.

You judge it as you pick and choose, and find the worst pieces possible, whereas you totally move over anything that shows the side of the Lord when He isn't punishing anyone for their actions. You'll never be convinced, because you are closed minded the whole time. It seems that you ignored my huge post with several examples of how God in the OT is benevolent, and there are plenty more.

Look seriously, I hate having to keep bringing this up, but this is another classic symptom of battered spouse syndrome.
It doesn't matter how many times your partner beats you, insults you, or puts you in hospital, because they love you really and sometimes they do nice things and if you bring down their wrath, well obviously you deserved it! And you should have worked harder to make sure they didn't get upset or angry! Following their every whim and doing exactly what they say! And if someone else points out to you that being beating by a "loving" partner just isn't on, then you claim they just don't know your partner really, and they don't really understand your partner. You might even get angry that someone is daring to level these accusations.

If your god is so benevolent, there should be no examples of violence rape and killing off entire nations because your god shouldn't want to do this. Particularly given wicknight's pharaoh example!
Take the good examples from the bible if you wish, but pretending the bad ones aren't there or are excusable is the height of sticking your head in the sand. And once again, there's no consistency.

I don't see why you people don't just throw out the OT anyway, you seem to want to ignore it. Except wolfsbane who's all for punishing people...

philologos

Scofflaw wrote:

Leaving aside the quibbles over translation, how do you explain the violent and apparently vicious acts of your God?

Scofflaw

I've already explained this. There was nobody to bear our sins at that time. Therefore God judged people while they were alive on Earth, as opposed to in the after life.

bluewolf wrote:

Take the good examples from the bible if you wish, but pretending the bad ones aren't there or are excusable is the height of sticking your head in the sand. And once again, there's no consistency.

The Bible explains this perfectly. As was written in Leviticus, bad things only occur if people continue to reject and to sin against God. Call it a Jewish form of Karma, if you will. When the people praised and worshipped God and followed His Law, good things happened. Therefore, aren't the people in control of their own fate? I'm not pretending anything by the by.

Wicknight wrote:

Please tell me what part of the passage suggests that the wives were willing participants with being made to have sex in broad day light in front of their husband?

Which part says they were raped? You continue to dodge my question. The Bible uses the word rape when people are raped. Especially in my translation, the word raped has been used several times for when other people committed sin against others. If they were raped in this circumstance it would have said "raped". Are you happy now?

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote:

I'm sorry but that's plain ignorant, most modern translations including Good News use "sexual relations" or "sex".

That is the point, they are translations. The word "sex" comes from the middle English word "sexus", that didn't exist when the Bible was written. It is clear what the meaning is, as it is clear what the meaning is with "lie with", which is closer to the literal translation. You can replace "lie with" with "have sex" if you like, it means the exact same thing.

http://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?quicksearch=%22lie+with%22&x=0&y=0

Scofflaw

Jakkass wrote:

I've already explained this. There was nobody to bear our sins at that time. Therefore God judged people while they were alive on Earth, as opposed to in the after life.

I see. So instead of punishing them for eternity in Hell, he punished them on earth by killing their families?

Remind me, how is this fair on the families? And how did Christ improve the situation if we are now given eternal torment instead of having our families killed?

regards,
Scofflaw

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote:

Therefore God judged people while they were alive on Earth, as opposed to in the after life.

Judging people is all well and good Jakkass, but he is hurting others for the punishment of the one he is actually mad at. Do you agree with that?

Jakkass wrote:

The Bible explains this perfectly. As was written in Leviticus, bad things only occur if people continue to reject and to sin against God.

It seems to me that really bad things happen when God gets pissed off, and once he is mad it doesn't really matter who they happen too. You do realise that God kills more people in the Bible than anyone else.

Jakkass wrote:

Which part says they were raped?

The part that says that she was taken from her husband and made to have sex in front of him in public.

Jakkass wrote:

You continue to dodge my question. The Bible uses the word rape when people are raped.

The Bible doesn't use the word "rape" because there is no direct translation of that word in Hewbrew or Aramic used in the Bible.

English versions of the Bible can be translated to mean that word based on how it is translated.

The translation in a modern context of that passage is

Before your very eyes I will take your wives and give them to one who is close to you, and he will have sex with your wives in broad daylight.

Why would you think that wasn't rape? He didn't "rape" her he just had sex with her against her will. :rolleyes:

Obviously such an act would bring great displeasure to David as well as great shame. That is the punishment. The point is the actual feelings of the wives, the hurt or the shame they might feel, is completely ignored. It isn't important.

Why do you insist that it couldn't be rape, that God must have done something to make sure it wasn't rape, or that they all must have actually wanted to be made to have sex in public and in front of their husband? God just murdered his infant child, do you think he would give two hoots about making the experience of his wives any nicer for them?

The point of the story isn't the wives at all. They are simply a way to make David sorry for what he had done. They are objects, as the child was an object, a way to punish David.

philologos

Wicknight wrote:

The translation in a modern context of that passage is

Before your very eyes I will take your wives and give them to one who is close to you, and he will have sex with your wives in broad daylight.

Why would you think that wasn't rape? He didn't "rape" her he just had sex with her against her will. :rolleyes:

Why do you insist that it couldn't be rape, that God must have done something to make sure it wasn't rape, or that they all must have actually wanted to be made to have sex in public and in front of their husband? God just murdered his infant child, do you think he would give two hoots about making the experience of his wives any nicer for them?

You are dancing around the actual quote, and you are making assumptions. Infact I would consider it more painful knowing that your wives have willingly decieved you and have committed adultery behind your back. Of course God cares, why would he bother ensuring that adultery didn't occur in the first place? Why would he bother ensuring that man was honest to another?
By the by, I don't need underlines I can read without them. Yes, God killed his infant child, he forgave David as he repented for his sin, but as adultery was not a good example for a king to give onto his people. The Lord decided best that the infant born out of this relationship should die. The Lord could have punished the entire nation of Israel and had enemies invade his land, but He didn't. Personally I would consider that merciful.

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote:

You are dancing around the actual quote, and you are making assumptions.

I'm not "dancing" around anything. It says quite clearly that these women were taken by God and made to have sex in public in front of their husband.

As I said before what part of that isn't rape?

You seem to be claiming that it is some great assumption on my part that they didn't actually want to have sex with this other guy in public in front of their husband? Strange that I would not naturally think that :rolleyes:

Jakkass wrote:

By the by, I don't need underlines I can read without them.

Well you keep ignoring this vital point and talking about God judging people for their sins.

So I thought it was best to highlight that the whole point of this is God hurting and killing people because of the sins of others.

Jakkass wrote:

The Lord decided best that the infant born out of this relationship should die.

I know. That is what I'm saying. David did something wrong so God murdered his infant child. There is no crime David could have committed that would justified the harming of a single hair on his child's body, let alone causing the child to become so sick that he died.

That is immoral.

There is no nice way of getting around that. It is murder, it is unjust, it is wrong, it is immoral.

Jakkass wrote:

The Lord could have punished the entire nation of Israel and had enemies invade his land, but He didn't. Personally I would consider that merciful.

Well one has to wonder is there any point discussing such horrific logic as that to justify such immorality. Be thankful he only killed the child :rolleyes:

And you seem genuinely puzzled why people reject the Bible as a moral guidebook? Do you honestly expect people to read this and go "Fair enough, that seems ok. Could have been a lot worse"

It is horrific Jakkass. Horrific is the only word to describe it. I comfort myself by hoping that none of this actually happened because if it did it just makes me weep. And the Bible is littered with examples like this is just so depressing. Reading the Bible makes me depressed, one is over whelmed by the pain and hurt caused either by God or in the name of God.

You claim that I and others only focus on the "bad" and ignore the "good". But the very fact that there is so much "bad" in the books is the whole point.

philologos

Wicknight wrote:

Well one has to wonder is there any point discussing such horrific logic as that to justify such immorality. Be thankful he only killed the child :rolleyes:

And you seem genuinely puzzled why people reject the Bible as a moral guidebook? Do you honestly expect people to read this and go "Fair enough, that seems ok. Could have been a lot worse"

Yes I am genuinely puzzled, regarding this. (read the contents of the link below and that will explain to you exactly why)
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=52980261&postcount=20

You also fail to understand that Christians are followers of the last and great revelation of Jesus Christ. This revelation was the better than all previous revelations of YHWH. We are bound by the Law of Christianity and by elements of the Law of Moses (infact Acts 15:19-20 defines the role of the Law of Moses to Christians. Yes I am genuinely puzzled to how people cannot use the Bible as a moral guidebook, completely and utterly.

Also, Wicknight, should you be really horrified, if you don't even believe that it took place?

Scofflaw

Jakkass wrote:

Yes I am genuinely puzzled, regarding this. (read the contents of the link below and that will explain to you exactly why)
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=52980261&postcount=20

You also fail to understand that Christians are followers of the last and great revelation of Jesus Christ. This revelation was the better than all previous revelations of YHWH. We are bound by the Law of Christianity and by elements of the Law of Moses (infact Acts 15:19-20 defines the role of the Law of Moses to Christians. Yes I am genuinely puzzled to how people cannot use the Bible as a moral guidebook, completely and utterly.

There's nothing in that list that a human being coudn't have thought of. Many of the points have been thought of repeatedly. To use the Bible as a moral guidebook requires that absolutely everything in it be good moral guidance - and it's very clear it isn't.

If you wish to pick and choose between what the Bible offers by way of guidance, feel free- but you're not doing anything more than anyone can do.

cordially,
Scofflaw

For this is what the Lord the God of Israel, says "The bowl will not run out of flour or the jar run out of oil before I, the Lord send rain"

Well, in fairness, I could say that too. Was there any kind of follow up?

The people of Israel called the food manna. It was like a small white seed, and tasted like biscuits made with honey.

If I was starving in the desert, I'm sure a "small white seed" would taste like that to me too, it doesn't mean god made it taste that way.

I will stand before you on a rock at Mount Sinai. Strike the rock, and water will come out of it for the people to drink. Moses did so in the presence of the leaders of Israel

Yeah, I'm sure we can find hidden springs anyway.

The Lord said to the prophet Elijah, "Have you noticed how Ahab has humbled himself before me?" Since he has done this, I will not bring disaster on him during his lifetime; it will be during his son's lifetime that I will bring disaster on his family".

Oh wow! He was so lucky to escape disaster! How on earth is that benevolent!! Maybe there shouldn't have been disaster in the first place?

Seriously, even in your kindness and benevolence list (which seems to be common sense or coincidence or not verified at all) you give us another reason as to why your god isn't kind at all.

That list is frankly pathetic.
And given the amount of rape and killing your god also does, the best we're going to be convinced of is that the god sounds schizophrenic, or paranoid and insecure and a megalomaniac.

If I created a work of art and deliberately put a flaw in it, then soon afterwards smashed it for having that flaw I'd be sent to a psychaiatrist. Or at least have some very worried family.

FrCrilly

bluewolf wrote:

Only assuming that the only life that could ever exist in any type of universe is our type of life, which we have no basis to assume.

Thank you. That is a fair point. To rephrase, we’re lucky that our universe has the laws of physics that allows a form of life to exist.

robindch

> I am genuinely puzzled to how people cannot use the Bible as a moral
> guidebook, completely and utterly.

...and me and the other atheists/agnostics are equally amazed that anybody could use it. Our ethical codes simply don't permit us to excuse rape, murder, pillage, child and animal sacrifice, reduction of women, slave-keeping, dictatorship, subjugation of infidels and all the other ethical imperatives that the bible enthusiastically supports.

They're simply really rotten ways to behave. Hand-waving it away as "god willed it, so it must be good" is a bizarre and unsettling justification for believing it, especially if you are prepared to trust somebody else to provide you with your interpretation of the book (which it's quite likely you have).

FrCrilly

FrCrilly wrote:

Thank you. That is a fair point. To rephrase, we’re lucky that our universe has the laws of physics that allows a form of life to exist.

That's the opposite of what I said.
We aren't lucky, luck has nothing to do with it. I said we don't know that we wouldn't exist given any other type of universe. Goodness knows an anti-matter based universe could have people happily wandering around in it. I said you can't call it luck because you don't have anything else to compare it to, i.e. life not occurring. Chance doesn't come into it. It happened, therefore "what might have been" does not come into it.

JimiTime

Few points.

1. All were guilty. There was no 'innocents'. All inheritted the sin of Adam, and all were sentanced to death already, thanks to Adams betrayal.
2. If you do not find it sinful or immoral to reject God, then you will never see the point. The most important Commandment was to Love God with your whole heart and whole mind. Anyone that rejected God was cut off from him. All deserved death, but Gods undeserved kindness meant that he did not cut us off but gave us the way of salvation. His people Israel, were blessed and their enemies were delivered up. Being consistent however, if Israel exhibited this same rejection they too were punished and delivered up unto their enemies.
3. The issue is that you believe you are entitled to life. You are not. Nobody is. It is through the undeserved kindness of God that we have been given salvation. You can be part of his people, or be one of the nations who reject him. He owes you nothing, you owe him everything. If you embrace him, he will bless you with everlasting life where he promises, 'exquisite delight'. Reject him and your judgement will be decisive, dead forever. That is both Just and Loving, so has he been since the beginning of time.