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.
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 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.
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.
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...
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.
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.
'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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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....
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.
The word God is not in THE American Constitution and they have 30% per capital more Christians than us. I'm not against anyone and except anyone, it just these Hypocrite do not.How would do you reconcile the ‘rule of...
Does anyone else feel that organized religion is built on a foundation of making you feel guilty?I feel that in order for an organized religion to run successfully it must be predicated on the fact that you must feel...
Out of all the religions in the world, why is Christianity the right one?Firstly Yes, I am a christian and a very passionate one at that. I don't want to cause any stir with this question but I only seek new responses...
Is it right for our churches to start "selling out" to the fear of government persecution?Our pastor, the founder of our small country church has ordered all signage taken down that identifies us as a church...