How can an unmerciful genocidal deity be the foundation, and guide, for a religi

1. 71

   getitriteposted 9 years ago

   How can an unmerciful genocidal deity be the foundation, and guide, for a religion of peace?
   
   Isaiah 45:7:  I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create EVIL: I the LORD do all these things. (KJV)
   
   Quran (8:12) - "I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them"

   replyreport
2. 62

   Link10103posted 9 years ago

   It's pretty easy actually. Cherry pick the good parts, ignore the bad.
   
   Organized religion in a nutshell.

   replyreport
   1. 71

      getitriteposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Link,
      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.

      replyreport
   2. 0

      Lybrahposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      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.

      replyreport
   3. 62

      Link10103posted 9 years agoin reply to this

      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?

      replyreport
   4. 0

      Lybrahposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      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.

      replyreport
   5. 62

      Link10103posted 9 years agoin reply to this

      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.

      replyreport
   6. 74

      lone77starposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      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.

      replyreport
   7. 57

      Pedro Moralesposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      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.

      replyreport
   8. 62

      Link10103posted 9 years agoin reply to this

      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..

      replyreport
   9. 57

      Pedro Moralesposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      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.

      replyreport
   10. 62

       Link10103posted 9 years agoin reply to this

       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?

       replyreport
   11. 57

       Pedro Moralesposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       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.

       replyreport
   12. 62

       Link10103posted 9 years agoin reply to this

       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

       replyreport
   13. 57

       Pedro Moralesposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       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.

       replyreport
   14. 62

       Link10103posted 9 years agoin reply to this

       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

       replyreport
   15. 57

       Pedro Moralesposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       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.

       replyreport
   16. 62

       Link10103posted 9 years agoin reply to this

       Nice talking to you Pedro.

       replyreport
3. 0

   Lybrahposted 9 years ago

   The true God (Yahweh) does not commit genocide; he sends judgement.  However, you're quoting the Muslim god, Allah.  He does not exist.  Can't help you there.

   replyreport
   1. 62

      Link10103posted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Convenient

      replyreport
   2. 0

      christiananrkistposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Link:
      whats convenient?

      replyreport
   3. 62

      Link10103posted 9 years agoin reply to this

      A god that isnt her own automatically does not exist, while hers does no questions asked.
      
      Very convenient indeed.

      replyreport
   4. 0

      christiananrkistposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      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.

      replyreport
   5. 62

      Link10103posted 9 years agoin reply to this

      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.

      replyreport
   6. 0

      christiananrkistposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      thats unfortunate.

      replyreport
   7. 62

      Link10103posted 9 years agoin reply to this

      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.

      replyreport
   8. 71

      getitriteposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      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.

      replyreport
   9. 62

      Link10103posted 9 years agoin reply to this

      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...

      replyreport
   10. 0

       christiananrkistposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       Link:
       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.
       
       getitrite
       how are they all the same?

       replyreport
   11. 62

       Link10103posted 9 years agoin reply to this

       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

       replyreport
   12. 0

       christiananrkistposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       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.

       replyreport
   13. 0

       Lybrahposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       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.

       replyreport
   14. 62

       Link10103posted 9 years agoin reply to this

       Again, convenient.
       
       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.

       replyreport
   15. 85

       M. T. Dremerposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       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.

       replyreport
   16. 0

       Lybrahposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       Yahweh is not the same god as Allah.  He also goes by the name Jehovah, or more simply, "I am."

       replyreport
   17. 67

       A Thousand Wordsposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       So he commits genocide but gets to call it judgement because of his position as "God?" Interesting.

       replyreport
   18. 85

       M. T. Dremerposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       '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.

       replyreport
   19. 0

       JThomp42posted 9 years agoin reply to this

       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.

       replyreport
   20. 60

       cjhunsingerposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       MT
       Judaism, Christianity and Islam can  trace their origins to the pagan  monotheism of Akhenaten  and Aten the first singular god.

       replyreport
   21. 57

       Pedro Moralesposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       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.

       replyreport
4. 0

   christiananrkistposted 9 years ago

   what from Isaiah 45:7 says he is genocidal and unmerciful?

   replyreport
   1. 71

      getitriteposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      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.’”
      Thanks

      replyreport
   2. 0

      christiananrkistposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      thats a much better one. why do you think God was unmerciful and  unjustified in having the Amalekites killed?

      replyreport
   3. 62

      Link10103posted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Women, children, infants, and animals were worthy of total eradication?

      replyreport
   4. 0

      christiananrkistposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      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.

      replyreport
   5. 67

      Asa2141posted 9 years agoin reply to this

      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?

      replyreport
   6. 0

      Lybrahposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Seriously, who are we to pass judgment on the almighty God? PLEASE!  It's His creation: He can do what He wants.

      replyreport
   7. 0

      christiananrkistposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Asa
      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.

      replyreport
   8. 67

      Asa2141posted 9 years agoin reply to this

      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!

      replyreport
   9. 0

      christiananrkistposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      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.

      replyreport
   10. 62

       Link10103posted 9 years agoin reply to this

       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?

       replyreport
   11. 67

       Asa2141posted 9 years agoin reply to this

       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.

       replyreport
   12. 0

       christiananrkistposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       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.

       replyreport
   13. 71

       getitriteposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       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

       replyreport
5. 60

   cjhunsingerposted 9 years ago

   getitrite
   
   It is easy to kill when we vilify or demean a person. It is very easy to kill more  people when we vilify and demean through the justification of a god. Every god fearing culture has done this. This does not exclude those governments that profess an atheism and simultaneously set themselves up as secular deities, as they are one in the same. Essentially, there is no other kind of deity, if it is to be successful in spreading the truth of itself.
   Religions are built upon fear, guilt and intimidation, whether fear of ones life or possessions or fear of the threats of a hell in the after life. Guilt by virtue of 'original sin' and simply the process of living without the spirit of the lord.
   The Catholic and  Protestant churches were quite good when it came to the use of fear and intimidation and were very successful in the acquisition of Europe and the New World by using the sword and burning people alive.
   Islam is to cleanse the world of the unbeliever. This, too, was the quest of Christianity.
   Two elements stopped Christianity, The Renaissance of Europe and the American Bill of Rights. Christianity was Americanized and was forced to take a back seat, hobbled and defanged of its physical savagery in the name of a god and certainly, not of it's own  accord.
   Islam is being allowed to rampage the world, used as a pawn to destabilize and to create unrest.

   replyreport
   1. 71

      getitriteposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Yes...it is about control, NOT peace.

      replyreport
   2. 67

      A Thousand Wordsposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      So very well put!

      replyreport
6. 67

   Asa2141posted 9 years ago

   I don't think a question can be any more leading than that!!

   replyreport
   1. 71

      getitriteposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      @Asa,
      I'm just trying to get some honest answers.  Do you have one?  Thanks

      replyreport
   2. 67

      Asa2141posted 9 years agoin reply to this

      If it was an honest question, I would give an honest answer. Are you interested in the truth?

      replyreport
   3. 71

      getitriteposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      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?

      replyreport
7. 85

   M. T. Dremerposted 9 years ago

   It's a sign of the changing times. When a religion forms it needs to be militant in its acquisition of new followers in order to ensure its own survival. In order to do that it often has to resort to fear and the assimilation/destruction of lesser religions. Christianity and Islam are some of the few that have survived into the modern world, but that same modern world doesn't really like the idea of militant acquisition. So a more peaceful ideology was grafted to the outer shell in the hopes of increasing its longevity. In some cases, it works, because not all of the holy books are wrath and hellfire. But it also creates numerous contradictions that mindful followers cant ignore.

   replyreport
   1. 57

      Pedro Moralesposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      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?

      replyreport
8. 60

   BobMongerposted 9 years ago

   I think it best to remember that God has about as much to do with religion as Justice has to do with the law.  You'd think they'd be the same thing, but they're not, are they?

   replyreport
   1. 60

      cjhunsingerposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      How do you know this?

      replyreport
   2. 74

      lone77starposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Well said. And we know this from experience.
      
      Religion, all too often, is spirituality corrupted by Ego.

      replyreport
   3. 57

      Pedro Moralesposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      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.

      replyreport
9. 74

   lone77starposted 9 years ago

   It can look that way to someone who cannot see the original intent.
   
   There are many ways to look at these and see only darkness. Know then that you have not yet found the right way to look.
   
   In the "war" against cunning Ego, there are many tools to leverage the petulant, stubborn soul.
   
   I now look at all of these passages and see only love. Everything that has happened to us has helped us to mature as children of God.
   
   http://perceivingreality.com

   replyreport
   1. 71

      getitriteposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      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

      replyreport
   2. 57

      Pedro Moralesposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      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?

      replyreport
10. 67

    A Thousand Wordsposted 9 years ago

    The answer is that it isn't a peaceful religion. But that's what people tell themselves to make it easier to believe and justify their deity's actions within their holy books. Any individual looking at the Bible objectively would clearly be able to see while there is "love" expressed, but where there is mostly abuse, murder, and tyranny.

    replyreport
    1. 71

       getitriteposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       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.

       replyreport
    2. 57

       Pedro Moralesposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       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.

       replyreport
    3. 67

       A Thousand Wordsposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       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.

       replyreport
11. 57

    Pedro Moralesposted 9 years ago

    This is a very good question my friend. Christianity teaches that God is Love, and that he loves all of humanity and that in order to save them he even sacrificed his own son so that all who believe in Jesus might find salvation.
    Certainly you are correct in calling out that the kind of love Christianity teaches and the cruelty displayed by the God of the so-called Old Testament do not cohere.
    What is worse today many crazy religious fanatics focus in such type of statements to carry out terrorist activities in the name of religion.
    Sadly, providing an answer for this question is not easy at all.
    For me I believe there is a lot more involved in those type of statements that meet the eyes. Something for which a difficult explanation exists but that you will not find in traditional, dogmatic teaching that refuses to accept all of the inconsistencies in many dogmas called mysteries, and refuses to listen to modern more logical ways of interpreting the scriptures.
    Personally, those statements do not talk about the same person Jesus spoke about. And Jesus lived and died in a sacrificial way to demonstrate to people that God is a Father of love who is more interested in forgiving and embracing than in judging and condemning.
    We have to remember that in any enterprise in which humans are involved the ego will be manifested. In that sense, even in the so-called writing of the Holy Scriptures by God, humans were involved and the word of God could not have come out completely unadulterated. I believe any scripture is not the truth itself but a textbook teaching the truth. Jesus told his followers that he is the Truth, but that people refused to listen to him and preferred to read their own scriptures according to their own traditions, scriptures that according to Jesus witness to him.

    replyreport
    1. 71

       getitriteposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       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?

       replyreport
    2. 57

       Pedro Moralesposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       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.

       replyreport
    3. 60

       cjhunsingerposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       Pedro--Although I would disagree with the crux of your posting here, I enjoyed the articulation and the manner in, which you delivered it.

       replyreport
    4. 57

       Pedro Moralesposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       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.

       replyreport
    5. 60

       cjhunsingerposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       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,

       replyreport
    6. 57

       Pedro Moralesposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       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.

       replyreport
    7. 71

       getitriteposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       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?

       replyreport
    8. 57

       Pedro Moralesposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       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.

       replyreport
    9. 71

       getitriteposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       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

       replyreport
    10. 57

        Pedro Moralesposted 9 years agoin reply to this

        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.

        replyreport
    11. 71

        getitriteposted 9 years agoin reply to this

        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..

        replyreport
    12. 57

        Pedro Moralesposted 9 years agoin reply to this

        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....

        replyreport
    13. 60

        cjhunsingerposted 9 years agoin reply to this

        Pedro
        Please provide that evidence

        replyreport
    14. 71

        getitriteposted 9 years agoin reply to this

        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.

        replyreport
    15. 57

        Pedro Moralesposted 9 years agoin reply to this

        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.

        replyreport
    16. 71

        getitriteposted 9 years agoin reply to this

        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.

        replyreport
    17. 57

        Pedro Moralesposted 9 years agoin reply to this

        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.

        replyreport
    18. 62

        Link10103posted 9 years agoin reply to this

        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.

        replyreport
    19. 60

        cjhunsingerposted 9 years agoin reply to this

        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?

        replyreport