sort by best latest
Best Answer M. T. Dremer says
The give and take here is awesome. The argument in here is strong: the Old Testament God seems one of hate and cruelty. But, in my opinion, and as Lone77star wrote twice already one needs to know what is the original intent of those cruel actions?
Rod Martin Jr says
In other words...we should just pretend that we are incapable of reading and understanding plain English. Video seems kinda like a self-help program. Mind tricks to motivate people into believing the improbable. I prefer Chicken Soup for the Soul
The idea given by Lone77star is very good: determine the original intent of the command to annihilate the Amalekites. Can we? if we do find it, will we agree with it? can we mature by seeing violence and call it love? What is the original intent?
- See all 2 commentsHide extra comments
A Thousand Words says
Right! No peaceful deities=No peaceful religions. Its all an elaborate smokescreen, fed to induced minds...which, through indoctrination, refuse to think and see the obvious.
True. Also true, thousands of people inspired by the Old and New Testament did many heroic acts because of the humanity they learned from it Even non-Christian like Gandhi said he was moved by Sermon on Mount. "mostly" is a subjective term.
Pedro, I included love in my statement because I do not deny that it can be found in the book, though in short supply. But it only inspires heroic acts in certain people. That says nothing about the religion or the book itself.
- See all 3 commentsHide extra comments
Asa Schneidermann says
I'm just trying to get some honest answers. Do you have one? Thanks
If it was an honest question, I would give an honest answer. Are you interested in the truth?
Yes I'm interested in the truth. That's why I asked the question. Do you have a truthful answer, or are you here to propose that the Abrahamic God has been erroneously interpreted as genocidal...although it is in plain language, in the bible?
- See all 3 commentsHide extra comments
How do you know this?
Well said. And we know this from experience.
Religion, all too often, is spirituality corrupted by Ego.
Yes they are not the same. But the original inspiration behind religion is God looking for his children. He never abandoned them. However, once greedy people take over religion manipulation, abuse, cruelty, "orthodoxy" comes about.
- See all 3 commentsHide extra comments
Pedro Morales says
Pedro, Thanks for your answer. It does seem blatantly clear that the New Testament God and the Old Testament God are not the same entity. However, someone saw fit to connect them. Why did Jesus say what he said in Matthew 5:17?
Getitrite, I think Jesus said those words because he came as the fulfillment of the messianic expectation of the Jews. He wanted to be accepted by them. He was teaching them and doing everything he could to convince them about his identity.
Pedro--Although I would disagree with the crux of your posting here, I enjoyed the articulation and the manner in, which you delivered it.
The Bible contain many parts which are difficult to understand. This is one of the major ones. However, the positive things which the Bible contain and have inspired great people as Gandhi, Martin L. King should be enough not to discard it entirely.
Pedro--The New Testament has been written and rewritten over a period of some 1700 years and to understand it one would have to live in the time it was written. Christianity, even at its beginning was not peaceful,
cjhunsinger, you are comments are correct and so are my observations.
I am just saying that the founders of religion in general have tried their best to be peaceful, and Jesus for one blessed and forgave his enemies while being tortured to death.
Pedro, so are you saying that Jesus had to deceived his audience in order for his message to be accepted? Was Jesus just pretending to be the son of a god, just to make his audience more gullible?
No. I am saying that the only who really understood who was God who understood his Heart and Will was Jesus. All others who had had their hand in the composition of the scriptures had allowed their own prejudices get involved. Jesus showed true love.
I understand why you have accepted the version that you have, however, even after opening my mind to the most untenable possibilities, I still cant believe that somehow Jesus was related to the creator of the universe. The whole story seems baseless
Getitrite that it may seem baseless does not make it so. If we take the Gospels as containing some historical validity Jesus demonstrated that he lived in unity with the heart of Love of the Heavenly Creator and Parent of Humanity.
Pedro, that whole view is based on a presupposition that Jesus was a real character, and that he actually said these things attributed to him. These claims have not been proven, nor are they even logical. I think Occam's Razor should apply here..
Getitrite there are enough "evidence" from the point of view of recognized scholars and historians that Jesus existed. What is not accepted is that all the 'supernatural' things associated with him in the Gospels. the references to him in Tacitus....
Please provide that evidence
The veracity of Jesus' existence seems more like wishful thinking. Most importantly, no gods have ever been proven to exist. Therefore anyone claiming to be the offspring of such an entity would be considered patently preposterous, or even insane.
Jesus' existence is no problem for serious scholars. The only problem arise from the claims of the disciples. Jesus' own claim is not crazy because according to gospels themselves Jesus believed we are all, man and woman, children of God.
Jesus claims that we are all children of God, yet there is no evidence, whatsoever, of any GODS ever existing. Not crazy? Perhaps Jesus merely exploited the ignorance of the barely civilized ancient masses. Seems either a Con Man or delusional.
cjhunsinger the one who challenges an already established idea should be the one providing the evidence would not you say? . Scholars, Rudolf Bultmann to atheists like Dominic Crossan believe it.
An already established idea that is vaguely based in reality and has very little factual information surrounding it...needs evidence to be challenged.
I think there is a fallacy in there somewhere.
Pedro--An established idea is, certainly, not an established truth, which is what you are claiming The idea of Zeus was an established idea. Are you equating the two?
- See all 19 commentsHide extra comments
Fair enough. What about this one: 1 Samuel 15:3 (NIV) Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.’”
thats a much better one. why do you think God was unmerciful and unjustified in having the Amalekites killed?
Women, children, infants, and animals were worthy of total eradication?
yes. if you continue reading, king saul lies and says he destroys all of them. but he does not. this leads to 1st king davids family being held captive. and 2nd, a few 100 years later, isreal almost getting destroyed.
In order to make any accusation that the God of Christianity is evil, you have to believe the Bible is true, Getitrite. Do you believe the Bible is true?
Seriously, who are we to pass judgment on the almighty God? PLEASE! It's His creation: He can do what He wants.
i dont think that’s necessarily true. i think we can discuss the actions of fictional characters as long as we use the same text. the validity of the bile i think should be verified through other sources like archaeology and history.
If a Christian wants to honestly(and humbly) question why God would do something that is 1 thing. But atheists will proclaim the Bible is false one moment, then quote it as an authority the next. How do you know God killed women? The Bible is false!
LOL. im sure some do that. but i think its fair to ask question of the text rather you believe it or not. we dont now the intent of the question, so i think its best to use it as an opportunity to learn and try to honestly answer the question.
It seems you do not know how debates work, Asa. An atheist cant use the flaws found in the bible to negate a claim made by a christian because they dont believe in it? That doesnt seem convenient to you at all?
People who come to the Bible honestly trying to figure it out is one thing.But we all know a mocker when we see one. The very fact you use the phrase "fictional characters" shows your bias. Slinging mud at a God you say does not exist is nonsensical.
i didnt say God is a fictional character. i said we can discuss fictional characters. thats not mud slinging. its possible im bias in some area's. what have i said so far this is bias? im just not against atheists asking questions.
Asa2141, Sorry but I don't agree with your standard of not using the Bible to judge your God character...which is no God at all...but a mere concoction of ancient minds, who apparently lived under brutal conditions. My being an atheist is irrelevant
- See all 13 commentsHide extra comments
Yes it is obvious that followers of these religions cherry pick until they find enough verses to support a peaceful loving God, then rigidly support that position, while ignoring the 5 ton elephant in the room.
I'm okay with God passing judgement on whoever He wants. If they were wicked, and the bible says they were, they deserved it. I forgive God for His "genocide" as He has forgiven me.
So if god decided to pass judgement on you by stripping you of all your possessions and wealth, gave you a crippling fatal disease, alienated all your friends/family and made you homeless with no chance of redemption you would accept that happily?
I don't think God would do that--not give me any chance of redemption--that's when you go to hell. But otherwise, I'd suck it up and still remain faithful to God. He did that to Job, and Job is now in heaven.
You would suck it up? You get personally offended when people ask you legitimate questions about your faith, but you would suck it up if you were to lose everything you valued and were on a road to certain death?
I cant help but feel you are a liar.
Cherry picking is only one dimension of approach. Another dimension is looking at the original intent. Even Noah's Flood was an act of love, if you understand the real intent.
God's children are not these human bodies. Simple.
I do not ignore the TRex in the room. I insist that some verses in any holy scripture cannot just be interpreted literally. In this case the whole idea of the God of Jesus being responsible for genocide. Many other verses in OT reject this meaning.
I dont see how it is being honest Pedro to say some verses, most likely the ones that are benevolent, can be taken literally, to then say the ones that are absolutely terrible shouldnt be taken literally (like genocide).
Thats called cherry picking..
good point Link 10103. However, I would appreciate if you calm down a bit and not use bully tactics like suggesting publicly that I am somehow not an honest person because of the opinion I shared with you. We are on the search for the truth both.
There were no bully tactics used. It would not be honest of me to say that someone should only take me literally when I am being nice, to then say that they shouldnt take me literally when I am being the biggest jerk on the planet, would it?
lol, I like your comments. the person who is feeling the bullying is the one that should be listened to. Anyway. The point is that two aspects of The God of the Jewish people is being presented in the Book. inconsistent aspects! both cannot correct.
What constitutes as bully tactics and what you interpret as bully tactics are completely different things.
The latter is most likely why some Christians believe they are being persecuted for simply being told they dont have special rights over people
yeah that is probably all those who are being persecuted, exterminated, raped, burned alive, and whose children are being beheaded are telling themselves. But I stop here is you are going to argue about what constitutes or not bullying in here.
You are the one who brought it up. I explain the logic and suddenly I am the one arguing? Okey doke.
And I recall specifically talking about people complaining they are being persecuted by being told they dont have special rights...not the ones dying
indeed you were specific "And I recall specifically talking about people complaining they are being persecuted by being told they dont have special rights...not the ones dying"
Good enough. Those are being persecuted for their religion.
Nice talking to you Pedro.
- See all 16 commentsHide extra comments
A god that isnt her own automatically does not exist, while hers does no questions asked.
Very convenient indeed.
first does convenience make her wrong? its possible she accidentally has it right. also, maybe you already know this, but how do you know her statement isnt based on reason and not mere convenience? possibly she just need to be asked why she says so.
Its every bit possible she has it right, same thing can be applied to every other religion out there as well.
And I have asked her, numerous times, for her reasoning. Never got anything outside of "Cause the Bible" or that the Holy Spirit told her.
So yes, I find it convenient that a "completely accurate" book and a spirit agrees with her completely in denouncing all other faiths, with no other evidence outside of that book and spirit.
She even affirmed she does not need proof to be right.
Lybrah, These Gods are one, and the same. They are different conceptions of the Abrahamic God. Allah = Yahweh = Jehovah.
And how is drowning almost the entire human race considered NOT genocide? The word JUDGEMENT is just a convenient euphemism.
I was asking the same thing of someone else earlier today in fact. They also called it judgement. Then the conversation turned into accusing me of being an angry atheist.
Wonder if that's a coincidence...
we agreed she could accidentally be right. if she is, she is justified in denouncing all other faiths. they are contradictory to one another and cant all be right. but can all be wrong of course.
how are they all the same?
Thats like saying I am completely justified in accidentally correctly assuming everyone in the world is a babbling idiot because I know so. I could be correct so I have every right to continue assuming and telling people I am 100% right without proof
im just pointing out that since she believes 1 particular religion, she is justified in denouncing the others, since they cant all be right. obviously she should be able to give reasons for believing that one though.
Link, your analogy makes no sense whatsoever. The number one commandment is "No other Gods but me," and I obey it. No other gods than Yahweh.
Bit of a sidenote, since when did you start referring to god as Yahweh? I have known you for about a year now and dont remember you ever using that name until recently.
It is my understanding that Yahweh and Allah are not two different gods, but two different names for the same god. Islam and Christianity branched off of the same parent religion.
Yahweh is not the same god as Allah. He also goes by the name Jehovah, or more simply, "I am."
So he commits genocide but gets to call it judgement because of his position as "God?" Interesting.
'Allah' is the Arabic word for 'god'. Judaism, Islam, and Christianity are "Abrahamic religions" that trace their history to Abraham in the Hebrew Bible. (Taken from religiousfacts.com and wikipedia.) Therefore Yahweh = Allah.
Abraham has nothing to do with Islam. Islam is a result of an affair with Hagar a housemaid. When Sarah had Isaac, Hagar and Ishmael were banished from Abraham. Ishmael's birth was not condoned by God. Therefore Islam is the Religion of Ishmael.
Judaism, Christianity and Islam can trace their origins to the pagan monotheism of Akhenaten and Aten the first singular god.
The Bible says "there is none righteous, not one" and Jesus called us to be sympathetic towards our neighbors and most of all to "love our enemies". He called us to be perfect as our Heavenly Father who loves all.
- See all 21 commentsHide extra comments