Man's Rule Will End (Soon)! But will it be good for all? Not gonna happen, just a pipe dream say yo

I just had to say...

This trying to use the Bible to prove God or the other way around is just fractal wrongness. (google it if you need, don't be shy).

It's like, I have Carl Sagan's Invisible Dragon in my garage...


Sure the bible and other religious texts are interesting and should be study and all, but knock it off with the "God's Word" because MEN wrote it.


Peace

Edit: maybe "the Word of God" would be better, but I like how it came out...

reply to post by Sator


should we believe you? will you stop writing "MAN"? "God"s' right?

2Timothy-
God's word is not chained.

reply to post by Titen-Sxull


Titen:
I’ll just take this one for now as it’s full of misstatements.

My Q:

How would you feel if they challenged your rightful authority?

You’re reply:

“That depends on if I'm being a good parent or not. The God of the Bible is a notoriously bad parent who spends more time killing his children and sending them out to kill others of his children than loving them (at least in the Old Testament).

I’ve seen this statement in several places already and I’m not sure if it originally came from you but anyway, I’d like to set matters straight.

I’m sure you and others have scriptures that you love to cite to prove your point – portray God as evil, the source of badness or as you put it “the God of the Bible is a notoriously bad parent”...(at least in the Old Testament).” .

Interestingly these often quoted scriptures are oftentimes misunderstood, taken out of context or are twisted in order to destroy God’s good reputation. Very similar to what satan did to the first couple.

As a matter of fact once you analyzed the cited text and understand the circumstances of the event/s, they show a different meaning and gives a different light from what was intended it to be: portray God as wicked.

But before I tackle the misguided accusation that the “God of the Bible is a notoriously bad parent” let me please reveal to you how loving and merciful the living God is.

Now I’m not sure which name you use to address God: YHWH, Jehovah or Yahweh.

In my case I always use the one that’s widely known which is Jehovah (Ps 83:18 KJV/ASV/YNG/DBY/WEB/NWT).

Also, since I’ve already laid out the reasons why Jehovah God/Yahweh allowed the suffering and badness on earth, I’ll concentrate on ONE God’s four outstanding qualities: LOVE!

And who is the best person to show us God's personality? No other than Jesus Christ – the only begotten son of the living God! Don't you agree? Since he was with God before the beginning of creation I'm sure you will agree with the millions of people that he's indeed very qualified to give a testimony about his Father Jehovah God.

Notice:

“Jesus spoke these things, and, raising his eyes to heaven, he said: “Father, the hour has come; glorify your son, that your son may glorify you, according as you have given him authority over all flesh, that, as regards the whole [number] whom you have given him, he may give them everlasting life. This means everlasting life, their taking in knowledge of you, the only true God, and of the one whom you sent forth, Jesus Christ. I have glorified you on the earth, having finished the work you have given me to do. So now you, Father, glorify me alongside yourself with the glory that I had alongside you before the world was.” – John 17: 1-5

Now, here's a very important question that I need you or for that matter people who despise God by portraying him wicked. Or as indicated in the OP 'those who continually, vehemently, blindly, ignorantly and mistakenly blame God for the badness committed or are being committed on earth and the catastrophic events that happened or are happening on earth.'

IF the Living God as you claim “the God of the Bible is a notoriously bad parent”...(at least in the Old Testament).”

Why did Jesus Christ said the following:

“And as he was going out on his way, a certain man ran up and fell upon his knees before him and put the question to him: “Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit everlasting life?” Jesus said to him: “Why do you call me good? Nobody is good, except one, God.” (Mark 10:17-18)

→ Why did Jesus say that “Nobody is good, except one, God.”

Was he somehow not aware that as you say “the God of the Bible is a notoriously bad parent”...(at least in the Old Testament).”?

Should we believe Jesus the son of the living God or believe your statement that “the God of the Bible is a notoriously bad parent”...(at least in the Old Testament).”?

Please let us know who to believe?

Next:

“YOU must pray, then, this way: “‘Our Father in the heavens, let your name be sanctified.” (Matthew 6:9)

→ If as you say “the God of the Bible is a notoriously bad parent”...(at least in the Old Testament)” why did Jesus the son of the living God said to sanctify God's NAME?

→ Would anybody in their right mind sanctify God's NAME if that name is a name of “a notoriously bad parent who spends more time killing his children and sending them out to kill others”?

If so, why did Jesus say “After this manner therefore pray ye. Our Father who art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. (KJV)

Who should we trust? You and others like you or Jesus Christ the son of the living God?

Next:

“For God loved the world so much that he gave his only-begotten Son, in order that everyone exercising faith in him might not be destroyed but have everlasting life. For God sent forth his Son into the world, not for him to judge the world, but for the world to be saved through him.” – John 3:16, 17

If you say that God is 'a notoriously bad parent who spends more time killing his children and sending them out to kill others”...(at least in the Old Testament)' why did Jesus said the above?

Was Jesus lying about his Father's LOVE for mankind? And why would Jesus obey his Father command if he such a 'bad parent'?

Again, should we believe you and others like you who say that God is 'a notoriously bad parent who spends more time killing his children and sending them out to kill others”...(at least in the Old Testament)'?
Or should we trust Jesus Christ the son of the living God?

“Therefore, in answer, Jesus went on to say to them: “Most truly I say to YOU, The Son cannot do a single thing of his own initiative, but only what he beholds the Father doing. For whatever things that One does, these things the Son also does in like manner.” (John 5:19)

In heaven Jesus testified that:

“He that overcometh, I will make him a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go out thence no more: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God, and mine own new name.” – Rev 3:12 (ASV).

Why would Jesus said that “I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God,” if as you say God is 'a notoriously bad parent who spends more time killing his children and sending them out to kill others”...(at least in the Old Testament)'?

Why would Jesus Christ who is now in heaven say such a thing if you say God is 'a notoriously bad parent who spends more time killing his children and sending them out to kill others”...(at least in the Old Testament)'?

These are just but a few, there's more.

The testimony of Jesus' apostles / disciples.

“But with reference to the Son: “God is your throne forever and ever, and [the] scepter of your kingdom is the scepter of uprightness. You loved righteousness, and you hated lawlessness. That is why God, your God, anointed you with [the] oil of exultation more than your partners.”” (Hebrews 1:8-9)

“He that does not love has not come to know God, because God is love.” (1 John 4:8)

“But God recommends his own love to us in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.” (Romans 5:8)

Should we believe your statement that God is 'a notoriously bad parent who spends more time killing his children and sending them out to kill others...(at least in the Old Testament)' or should we believe the testimony of Jesus' apostles and disciples?

Were they somehow misled by God and Jesus and don't know that as you say God is 'a notoriously bad parent who spends more time killing his children and sending them out to kill others”...(at least in the Old Testament)'?
There's more but I think these should be more than enough.

'Old Testament':

“Good and upright is Jehovah. That is why he instructs sinners in the way.” (Psalm 25:8)

O give thanks unto Jehovah; for he is good; For his lovingkindness [endureth] for ever. – 1 Chron 16:34 (ASV)

Oh give thanks unto Jehovah; for he is good; For his lovingkindness [endureth] for ever. – Ps 118:1

Oh give thanks unto Jehovah; for he is good; For his lovingkindness [endureth] for ever. – Ps 118: 29

“And Jehovah passed by before him, and proclaimed, Jehovah, Jehovah, a God merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and abundant in lovingkindness and truth, keeping lovingkindness for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin; and that will by no means clear [the guilty], visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children's children, upon the third and upon the fourth generation.” – Exo 34: 6, 7

“Good and upright is Jehovah. That is why he instructs sinners in the way.” (Psalm 25:8)

“I will sing to Jehovah throughout my life; I will make melody to my God as long as I am. Let my musing about him be pleasurable. I, for my part, shall rejoice in Jehovah. The sinners will be finished off from the earth; And as for the wicked, they will be no longer. Bless Jehovah, O my soul. Praise Jah, YOU people!” (Psalm 104:33-35)

Were these faithful men/women of old somehow misled by God and didn't know that as you say God is 'a notoriously bad parent who spends more time killing his children and sending them out to kill others”...(at least in the Old Testament)'?

There's more but I think these should be more than enough.

Really Titen, should we believe Jesus Christ the son of the living God, the apostles, the disciples of Christ and the faithful men/women of old when they stated and testified of God's love?

Or should we believe you and other people like you who are being mislead by someone that's opposed to God?

Or were all of them misled and didn't know that as you say God is 'a notoriously bad parent who spends more time killing his children and sending them out to kill others”...(at least in the Old Testament)”?

I'll await your answer.

Next you said:

I mean let's just look at the story of Adam and Eve. A comparable analogy to this story would be a Father trying to keep the children from touching the hot stove top. God doesn't want them to touch the fruit because it will hurt them so he tells them a bit of a fib and says the fruit will kill them. But God forgets to instill the idea of right and wrong in Adam and Eve and so they have no ability to know that disobeying God is inherently wrong. So they disobey, they touch the "stove" and what does God do? Well a loving parent would help the child get over the burn and be a bit disappointed in them but be far more concerned about the child's well being. God, on the other, hand, kicks Adam and Eve out on the spot and curses them to toil the fields and Eve must experience horrific pain in child birth. So God creates imperfect beings and blames them for doing something wrong BEFORE he'd given them the ability to tell right from wrong.

Interesting analogy Titen but the conclusion to your analogy is incorrect and misleading.

Here, let me show you:

you said “ But God forgets to instill the idea of right and wrong in Adam and Eve and so they have no ability to know that disobeying God is inherently wrong.”

I'm sorry but you don't know what you are talking about. God did not 'forget[] to instill the idea of right and wrong in Adam and Eve.

Let me quote what I said in the OP in case you did not read it:

[Side Note:
As you can see man's original existence was simple and no confusion such as we see in many religions (today). They have direct access to their Creator and they were at peace with God, with themselves and the other living beings / things. In other words their 'religion' was their way of life – a perfect way of life in pure worship of their God and Creator.

Also, contrary to what some believed – as indicated in the scriptures, it is evident that Jehovah God didn’t know what action the couple will take: will they obey or disobey God? Otherwise the command (others call it test of obedience) will have no real value if God knew already what they were going to do. Besides, if God knew the outcome already then he will be held responsible for their sin, death and all the misery that plagued mankind – rightly so. Also, it would be cruel and unjust to tell them something that they will fail to do. But some may say, 'but, but God is all knowing, how could it be that he doesn't know what action will Adam and Eve take?'

Simple! God CHOOSE not to know (as indicated by the command / test). It's like you or me not wanting to know the weather tomorrow or the next day or next week by simply CHOOSING not to watch the TV or listen to the radio. Thus a simple test was provided to find out. In other words, it was up to Adam and Eve to make the decision about their future using their God given conscience. It was up to them to establish their relationship to God their Creator and Father. Their lives were not predestined or predetermined]

Notice the bold/underlined words - God given conscience. Of course, they knew what was right and wrong – or else why give them a test of obedience. They are, like the angels, free moral agents with the capacity to decide according to their conscience!

But the command was given for a specific purpose – that is, if they will obey God's command willingly before giving them everlasting life. Will they submit to God's rule? So it's up to them to make the decision – sadly they listened to someone else.

Remember Adam and Eve were not kids but were adults. A married couple and the command is a simple one so their decision was according to their conscience:

Notice again in OP:

“Gen 3:1-5 says: (NIV)

“Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals...He said to the woman, "Did God really say, 'You must not eat from any tree in the garden'?"

→ Noticed how Satan twisted God's command. First lie; Satan slyly asked the question that God said 'not to eat from ANY tree'.

Gen 3:2, 3:
“The woman said to the serpent, "We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, but God did say, 'You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.'"

→ So Eve corrected Satan. But the response:

Gen 3:4 "You will not surely die," the serpent said to the woman.”

They fully knew that partaking the “tree of good and evil' is bad.

“Consequently the woman saw that the tree was good for food and that it was something to be longed for to the eyes, yes, the tree was desirable to look upon. So she began taking of its fruit and eating it. Afterward she gave some also to her husband when with her and he began eating it. Then the eyes of both of them became opened and they began to realize that they were naked. Hence they sewed fig leaves together and made loin coverings for themselves” – Gen 3: 5, 7

After the disobedience their conscience bothered them for they knew that what they did was wrong. If they obeyed the command their concience will remain clean and pure.

OK.

Ty,
edmc2

hopefully you will answer my questions.

Btw – I haven't explained what God's love is all about yet. You will be amaze when you find out.

reply to post by xiphias

It does care about it's creation, god wants it's creation to be on it's own, the individual. It's why everything is created
to be ? to gain it's own inteligence. I can see it, it builds. It's hard to picture something that you can't see, it does provide things that fit for us in nature. Strange things do happen, planed like a plot until you begin to see that there is more than meets the eye. You can't explain the unexplainable. Things just happen and you start asking your self, who am I because you begin to see that things don't just happen by accident.

reply to post by edmc^2

Don't you agree?

No, I don't. I think that if God wants to show his love he should do it himself instead of by proxy with his son. Also, Jesus's only act of love towards all of humanity is to get himself killed in such a way as to set up a protection scheme with God. In other words we now have to be "covered" in Jesus's blood to get into Heaven otherwise we are to be placed into an eternal place of torment. In order to be covered by this blood we must believe in the story of Jesus without any proof, we must believe on faith. This is essentially forcing someone to accept an absurd story as true or else you will punish them eternally merely for making an informed decision instead of an irrational one.

Also, Jesus cannot be both the son and the father, the trinity doesn't make sense, even the early Christian church spent centuries arguing over whether there was a trinity or was one God and what they ended up on deciding makes no sense, that there can be three separate personalities all jammed into one schizo-God...

people who despise God by portraying him wicked

There's no need to portray the God of the Bible as wicked when the Bible does so on its own. All one need do is read the book, even in context God is a jealous tyrant who commits genocide and condones slavery.

Why did Jesus say that “Nobody is good, except one, God.”

Perhaps it isn't clear to you but to me it seems Jesus believes in a God and it wouldn't make much sense for him to believe in a God he thought was mean. So clearly he believes his God is good and righteous. You would suggest, of course, that this means God IS good and righteous. But of course that's only IF Jesus was the son of God and therefore couldn't tell lies about his Father. You know I don't believe in this God, so the idea that I'm going to take Jesus's word as infallible truth is a bit silly... Jesus is saying his God is good because that's what he believes... Whether or not the God of the Bible is good can be seen from his actions:

Kills first born of Egypt after hardening Pharaoh's heart repeatedly

Floods Earth slaughtering innocent animals and children/infants

Confuses the language at the Tower of Babel throwing the world into chaos

Allows Elisha to curse people and summon bears to kill children who insult him

Allows the devil to steal everything from Job "inciting" him against Job for "no good reason."

Orders the slaughter of the Amalekites down to the last child

Orders Abraham to kill his son (intervenes)

Allows Jephthah to sacrifice his daughter as a burnt offering (doesn't intervene)

Turns Lot's wife into a pillar of salt just because she has pity on Sodom and Gomorrah but fails to punish Lot for offering his daughters as rape bait

That's just a handful I can remember off the top of my head.

Should we believe Jesus the son of the living God or believe your statement that “the God of the Bible is a notoriously bad parent”

Well let's look at this logically:

Jesus: No formal education, didn't have access to a compiled version of all Biblical Texts and likely only had limited access to a few Jewish scrolls and scriptures, probably couldn't read or write.

Titen: Graduated High School, can read and write, has access to the entire Bible including apocryphal texts and "lost" Gospels thanks to the internet. Reads Bible on a regular basis.

I don't know, seems like an open and shut case to me. Of course you are assuming that Jesus is in fact the son of God, despite the fact that there's no evidence in support of any supernatural element of the Jesus story.

Please let us know who to believe?

You've already made your choice. As for the others who might read this thread, I suggest they think critically and make up their own minds as to who to believe. However I would like to say that Jesus doesn't support his argument that God is good in the versus you posted, at least not very well. At least I provided numerous Biblical stories which attest to the Biblical God's bumbling buffoonery (when he isn't being downright evil).

Would anybody in their right mind sanctify God's NAME if that name is a name of “a notoriously bad parent who spends more time killing his children and sending them out to kill others”?

Even people in their right mind can be deceived or indoctrinated. Most people learn their religion very young before they have a "right mind". Remember that it was people in their "right mind" that carried out the Holocaust. Speaking of genocide, let's check out what God says in 1 Samuel 15:2-3

2 This is what the LORD Almighty says: 'I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. 3 Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy [a] everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.' "

Source

As I said, he spends more time sending people out to kill other people than doing anything good.

Response to John 3:16

So God's idea to save his earthly children is to get his heavenly child, Jesus, his one and only son, murdered brutally only for him to return as a zombie and act as a sacrifice for all mankind BUT mankind has to accept the sacrifice without any proof it ever took place or ELSE they go to Hell? Well, maybe that doesn't mean God isn't loving, but it sure points to him being mind-numbingly stupid. This is the best plan an ALL KNOWING ALL POWERFUL God can come up with? A cosmic zombie sacrifice plot that will end up with the majority of humans going to Hell anyway!?!

Was Jesus lying about his Father's LOVE for mankind?

Well, assuming Jesus did actually say all those words... yes, because

1) The God of the Bible is not Jesus's Father

because

2) The God of the Bible doesn't exist

You need to focus less on what Jesus SAYS and more on what Yahweh/Jehovah/Adonai/I Am DOES. Name for me some of the behaviors the God of the Bible engages in that show enough mercy and love to erase the genocide and horror he commits throughout the Bible and the ultimate ending in which he casts the majority of humans into a Lake of Fire for eternity (because he loves us so much). Let me put it this way:

It doesn't matter how many babies Hitler kissed, Genocide is Genocide. It doesn't matter how many people Darth Vader helped because a handful of good deeds do not overshadow the horror of murdering innocent children. The same goes for the Biblical God. And the thing is, if anything, the sacrifice of Jesus just proves that God hasn't learned his lesson about killing children, he's just moved up a step to getting his OWN kids killed, instead of just ours.

I'm sorry but you don't know what you are talking about. God did not 'forget[] to instill the idea of right and wrong in Adam and Eve.

Let me quote what I said in the OP in case you did not read it:

Your aside reads into it far deeper than a literal reading of the text allows and in my opinion is pure interpretation. The Bible makes it clear that Adam and Eve didn't have the knowledge of Good and Evil, because if they DID have it, they wouldn't have had anything to GAIN or FEAR from eating the fruit. So it is clear that they did not have the ability to tell good from evil and therefore couldn't have known that disobeying would be wrong. This also helps explain why Eve is seduced so easily, she puts up very little resistance because Adam and Eve are naive. God leaves them apparently without a way to tell right from wrong, therefore the only way to tell if they can trust God or not is via PAST EXPERIENCE. Genesis doesn't tell us much about whether God has given them a reason to obey or not. In fact the only real past experience Adam has had with God is when God paraded the animals before him and "no suitable helper could be found", after this Adam's rib is stolen in his sleep. So God's previous experiences with Adam, after his creation, is to have Adam 'check out' animals for a suitable 'helper' and then to, WITHOUT CONSENT, steal Adam's rib in his sleep.

Of course, they knew what was right and wrong – or else why give them a test of obedience.

You're implying that the whole Eden thing is a test eh? Funny how Genesis doesn't mention that ANYWHERE. So in that version of things God is actually in on it with the serpent? He's actually put the serpent up to it? Or is the planting of the tree merely a test of their loyalty? Of course Genesis never says or even implies that Adam and Eve have the ability to tell right from wrong before the Fall but I'll let that slide since the idea that the whole thing was a test actually makes it worse... Let's go back to my stove analogy. In your version of things the hot stove (tree of Good and Evil) is actually left there as a test to see if the children won't touch it and therefore will prove their loyalty to God. But you're missing the point of not telling your kids to touch the stove - you don't want your kid getting hurt. To suggest that God is leaving this dangerous thing in the Garden to test their loyalty is to give God very SELFISH reasons for putting them in danger. I'd have to be a pretty bad parent to leave my stove on all day and tell my kids not to touch it AS A TEST OF THEIR LOYALTY.

They fully knew that partaking the “tree of good and evil' is bad.

Only "bad" in the sense that they believed it would kill them. Their inability to tell right from wrong is apparent in the temptation of Eve. One minute she is fully invested in the fact God was right and the fruit will kill and in the next she's taking a bite of the apple. Either that serpent is more persuasive than God or Eve has no ability to tell that what she is doing is wrong.

Your God = PWNED

reply to post by Titen-Sxull


Well Titen,
You diffinitely outdid yourself or for that matter as you say you OWNED = PWNED the God of the Bible.

What can I say...

...how can one reason with a person who says the following:

Jesus: No formal education, didn't have access to a compiled version of all Biblical Texts and likely only had limited access to a few Jewish scrolls and scriptures, probably couldn't read or write.

Titen: Graduated High School, can read and write, has access to the entire Bible including apocryphal texts and "lost" Gospels thanks to the internet. Reads Bible on a regular basis.

I don't know, seems like an open and shut case to me. Of course you are assuming that Jesus is in fact the son of God, despite the fact that there's no evidence in support of any supernatural element of the Jesus story.

May I ask you this one last time? Since you dispise the God of the Bible and rendered Jesus as an ordinary man much lesser than you - is the Creator of Heaven and Earth a different God to you?

Just curious.

Ty,
edmc2

reply to post by edmc^2


edmc2: thank you for trying to do what you believe is good.. unfortunately either you are paving the road of good intentions.. but come on dude( or dudette)---- genesis contradicts itself very easily... god saw that the creatures of earth were "bad"--- so, something came before "god"?---or he made inaccurate creatures which he must later destroy???

looks like "god" forgot the 5 P's---- PROPER PLANNING PREVENTS PISSPOOR PERFORMANCE (pisspoor is one word))... but i guess what flawed creatures "he" created was on purpose---

HOW CAN SOMEONE perfect in every way.. make anything that is not perfect??? and to make an imperfect being?? if this was on purpose---WOW---EVEN MORE SADISITIC than i once understood "him"

reply to post by edmc^2

is the Creator of Heaven and Earth a different God to you?

No, I don't believe in a deity of any kind.

"Heaven" was 'created' by a Big Bang (which wasn't actually an explosion mind you) about 13.7 Billion years ago. Earth was likely formed from a protoplanetary disc of matter that was orbiting the sun shortly after its formation (about 4.5 billion years ago).

Now while I personally don't believe in a god that doesn't mean I'm entirely closed off to the idea of one. I can't pretend to possess all knowledge of everything and therefore cannot rule out the possibility of a god existing somewhere out there in the vast Cosmos. The Biblical God, however, I find to be very obviously imaginary.

I'm interested in metaphysics, and do acknowledge anomalous phenomena. This does not automatically categorize me in the same group as theologians or religionists.

There's no reason to put the entity 'Jahveh' into any context with a possible creator of the universe. It takes a theology 4-500 years old to place our planet at the center of things, where a universal creator took personal interest in this little corner of the universe.


Mankind has for ages told about experiences of all kinds of non-corporeal entities. Also so these days.

It's not my intention to start an off-topic debate about metaphysics, but only say, that IF Jahveh isn't just a fairytale, but in some way 'real', he's much more likely to be one of those non-corporeal bad guys hanging around, pretending to be more, than they are.

In contemporary language: Jahveh is someone from the dungeon-dimensions with wanna-be ambitions. His paranoia/megalomania schizoid syndrom fits well with other malevolent pseudo-gods described elsewhere on the planet. There could very well have been a whole gang of them.

Originally posted by Rustami
reply to post by Sator

 

should we believe you? will you stop writing "MAN"? "God"s' right?

2Timothy-
God's word is not chained.

edit on 27-9-2010 by Rustami because: (no reason given)

You don't have to believe me, I'm not asking for any kind of faith... but to think for oneself would be a pretty good start.

Care to explain the second and third (I'm guessing) rhetoric question?
I don't get it...

Originally posted by Rustami
reply to post by pepsi78

 

"Satan is the white man"
could you break that down for me there? are you the same one in another post that implied your darker skin means something special

It is the oldest, africans are the oldest remains, hey I'm white but I can still feel my roots.
When you look at it genetic experiments on monkeys, lab rats, we plunge this earth in blood.
Just like they experimented with us and made us, we are doing the same today.
For example you lock a monkey in cage you give it cancer, then you give it a vacine"salvation"
You toy with it, you experiment on it, then you give it food.
It is what it is, don't you see it ? do you want an excuse ?


Yes we can "no you can't" and those that think they do are going to find out soon enough.

reply to post by pepsi78


everyone comes from God, God is Spirit

I know that my Redeemer lives,
and that in the end he will stand upon the earth.
And after my skin has been destroyed,
yet in my flesh I will see God

For it will come upon all those who live on the face of the whole earth.

Behold, I will create new heavens and a new earth. The former things will not be remembered, nor will they come to mind.

For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.

In other words, it is not the natural children who are God's children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham's offspring.

Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come!

so in Christ we who are many form one body

He was chosen before the creation of the world

The body is a unit, though it is made up of many parts; and though all its parts are many, they form one body. So it is with Christ. —whether Jews or Greeks, slave or free—and we were all given the one Spirit to drink.

reply to post by Sator


dude, don't say men wrote the bible----

you are a devil worshipper--

didn't you know god wrote the stuff written in red.. that is god's word from his magical typewriter....

tongue in cheek bible thumper logic

reply to post by Sator


the point is you were ridiculing mens writings, while writing yourself and yet admitted theirs to be the Word of God

I've been where you are until I heard an invisible audible voice that said He was "Jesus" I thought it was all just something for the weakminded

John-
I tell you the truth, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned; he has crossed over from death to life. I tell you the truth, a time is coming and has now come when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God

Acts-
As he neared Damascus on his journey, suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him. He fell to the ground and heard a voice say to him, "Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?"
"Who are you, Lord?" Saul asked.
"I am Jesus

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
Well let's look at this logically:

Jesus: No formal education, didn't have access to a compiled version of all Biblical Texts and likely only had limited access to a few Jewish scrolls and scriptures, probably couldn't read or write.

Titen: Graduated High School, can read and write, has access to the entire Bible including apocryphal texts and "lost" Gospels thanks to the internet. Reads Bible on a regular basis.

Ah, but my friend, you spend far too much of that time reading the Bible focusing on the naughty bits that you like to use as a basis of argument. If you immersed yourself in the Gospels (the only part that really matters to a Christian) you would know that Jesus is described a number of times as reading something, and, as a Rabbi who taught in the Synagogue, illiteracy wasn't an option and he would, of course, have complete access to the Torah, Talmud and other Jewish religious texts.

But, you're right, he didn't have access to the New Testament at the time of his ministry :-)

No, wait a second, I guess he did...

reply to post by adjensen


Jesus wasn't a Rabbi, he was a Carpenter.

Jesus of the Gospels does make references to the Old Testament but I feel that those are far more likely to be additions made later. Let's face it, the Gospels were written decades after Jesus's death. To assume that they got the dialogue right is a bit silly in my opinion. If Jesus really was simply the son of a Carpenter I have my doubts that he could even read.

If Jesus was the son of God yes he would have had access to the whole Bible because he would have been All Knowing... but then if he was all knowing surely he would have known that his sacrifice would be in vain because the vast majority of humanity would either believe in a different religion or want some evidence that he even existed.

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
reply to post by adjensen

 

Jesus wasn't a Rabbi, he was a Carpenter.

Au contrair -- he is referred to as Rabbi in numerous places in the New Testament, including by the Pharisees. Don't confuse Rabbi with Priest -- he was not a Levite, so not a Priest, but most definitely a teacher, educated in the law.

If you decline to accept the text of the Gospels as an indication that he was a Rabbi, where on Earth do you get the impression that he was a carpenter?

If Jesus was the son of God yes he would have had access to the whole Bible because he would have been All Knowing... but then if he was all knowing surely he would have known that his sacrifice would be in vain because the vast majority of humanity would either believe in a different religion or want some evidence that he even existed.

Here's the thing about the Christian perspective that counters that. I didn't really learn it until later in my faith journey, and, to be honest with you, it bugs me a bit, but that's more a personal issue than a theological one. Bear in mind that I'm going to use the first person, but it applies to everyone else, as much as me.

Christ died for me. For me, and me alone. The suffering, the betrayal, the torture, the humiliation of death on a Roman cross, it was all for me. It wasn't the Romans scourging him 2000 years ago, or the Jews spitting on him, it was me, 2000 years later, making bad choices that is the true pain for God.

That seems really negative, and that's what bothers me, but I have to accept it as the truth if I wish to accept Christ's salvation and God's grace. I didn't ask for it, many people don't want it, but it happened all the same.

The truth of the Christian belief is that God loves me so much that, if everyone else in the whole of human history was perfect, and it was just me who needed the grace of salvation, Jesus would have still gone to the cross, willingly.

So, yes, he knew full well that the majority of people would reject him, but his mission is, in no way, a failure, because there are those who set their doubts, arrogance and selfishness aside, and accept the gift of the new covenant. By his yardstick of unconditional love, if even one person accepts it, he is an overwhelming success, because without grace, none would be saved.

reply to post by adjensen


I'm aware he was referred to as a Rabbi, however being referred to as such and actually being such are two different things. In this case I think it far more likely his rag-tag group called him Rabbi in the same way people following someone today might call them a guru even if they have no formal religious training.

I didn't ask for it, many people don't want it, but it happened all the same.

The idea that we're all filthy sinners who didn't deserve what he did is nothing more than a dehumanizing guilt trip. It tears down the self-esteem of the individual and rebuilds it using Church doctrine. Suddenly people who were just fine without Jesus think they need him in order to be whole simply because they are imperfect "sinners". I think its a pretty disgusting ploy to be honest so I can see why it bothers you. Especially all that stuff about you spitting on Christ... you did no such thing and to blame you, by proxy, for what was ultimately Jesus/God's plan to get himself killed is just wrong. After all it was God's will that Jesus die, remember Gethsemane, Jesus was having his momentary second thoughts but ultimately it was God's will that would be the deciding factor.

and it was just me who needed the grace of salvation, Jesus would have still gone to the cross, willingly.

But see that's the thing, Jesus's death is a bad idea on God's part simply for the fact that no solid evidence was left behind and so it leaves it open to faith. Surely God cannot expect us to be willfully gullible and punish us for eternity if we don't swallow such a supernatural story hook line and sinker.

in no way, a failure, because there are those who set their doubts, arrogance and selfishness aside,

The only way the mission was a success was if his purpose was to damn the majority of humans to Hell, because that's what happens in Revelations. God cannot have a half-way victory if he's All Powerful and if he's All Knowing surely he would have realized how poor a plan it was. Imagine if he sent Jesus NOW, if Jesus had never existed in ancient times and he sent him NOW. Scientists would be at a loss for explaining his abilities, he would go around the world performing miracles on live television, the entire world would be able to be saved... Instead he sends Jesus at a time when only the rich could read and write and leaves behind no evidence of his existence save Gospels written more than thirty years after the man's death.

By his yardstick of unconditional love, if even one person accepts it, he is an overwhelming success, because without grace, none would be saved.

Surely there was Salvation before Jesus. Surely not everyone from Old Testament times went to Hell. Seems they were judged by their deeds more often than not - instead of their ability to be gullible enough to believe the Jesus story. Of course depending upon which part of the New Testament you read deeds still figure into salvation according to some, while people like Paul seem to suggest that Salvation is by faith alone. But Salvation by deeds isn't really preferable to salvation by faith alone when a sin so simple as lying can get you an eternal slot in the Lake of Fire.

By the way, I would think the yardstick of unconventional love actually goes the other way. If even one person ends up in Hell than he has failed and if an All Powerful being can fail than he isn't all powerful.

Anyway we've kinda derailed this thread... if you want you can send me a U2U so we can continue this conversation without derailing it any further

reply to post by Titen-Sxull


OK Titen, I just finished my research in regards to your claims. Here are some of what I found (I will not include all of them due to time constraint).

The fact that the things you cited were written in the Bible makes it clear that the God had them written by men for a reason. They serve as a “... a warning to us upon whom the ends of the systems of things have arrived.” - The END of MAN'S RULE (1 Corinthians 10:11) No, not to portray that he is as you say a cruel God.

It's also interesting that even though God is a God of Love he is also “a manly person of war,” “the God of armies,” and “mighty in battle.” (Ex 15:3; 2Sa 5:10; Ps 24:8, 10; Isa 42:13).

Note also about a vision of the Jesus the King of kings and Lords of lords:
Rev 19:11- 16:

“And I saw the heaven opened, and, look! a white horse. And the one seated upon it is called Faithful and True, and he judges and carries on war in righteousness. His eyes are a fiery flame, and upon his head are many diadems. He has a name written that no one knows but he himself, and he is arrayed with an outer garment sprinkled with blood, and the name he is called is The Word of God. Also, the armies that were in heaven were following him on white horses, and they were clothed in white, clean, fine linen. And out of his mouth there protrudes a sharp long sword, that he may strike the nations with it, and he will shepherd them with a rod of iron. He treads too the winepress of the anger of the wrath of God the Almighty. And upon his outer garment, even upon his thigh, he has a name written, King of kings and Lord of lords.”

A mighty warrior indeed!

I'll provide some of the reasons in the next post in case you want to read them or reply to them.


As to the claims you mentioned in your post, I found the aswers very interesting and quite enlightening while researching them - but like what i said I'll just cite some here in order to clarify your mis-statements (again):

Let's take this one:

Confuses the language at the Tower of Babel throwing the world into chaos

Note the account at Genesis 11:4-6 (Darby Bible)

“And they said, Come on, let us build ourselves a city and a tower, the top of which [may reach] to the heavens; and let us make ourselves a name, lest we be scattered over the face of the whole earth.
“And Jehovah came down to see the city and the tower which the children of men built. And Jehovah said, Behold, the people is one, and have all one language; and this have they begun to do. And now will they be hindered in nothing that they meditate doing.”

Someone said in one of the threads the reason (not sure who or what thread) and it made sense to me when I read it. 'If God allowed mankind to speak in one tongue – it would have been possible that life could have ended a long time ago.' God could not allow it to happen thus the confusion.

Imagine the outcome of events if these people were allowed to proceed with their plan - “Why, now there is nothing that they may have in mind to do that will be unattainable for them.” (NWT)

The tower is also in defiance of God's command to scatter and fill the earth – they were trying to make a 'name for themselves' and prove that they are more powerful than God. Guess what just a simple adjustment in the brain and tongue the enormous project was stopped on it's tract.

BTW – according to evidence the various religions of man started at this specific location- Mesopotamia. When they abandoned their project and scattered to the four corners of the world they carried with them their religion. If you compare the eastern/western/northern/southern religions - they have similarities – for example the use of idols, use of beads during prayer, etc.

Here's another miss-statement:

Allows Jephthah to sacrifice his daughter as a burnt offering (doesn't intervene)

I'm quite surprised for someone who reads the Bible and missed this very simple account. I guess it's in the motive.

OK here's the explanation:

The account you mistakenly cited to proved God's badness is Jephthah vows to God. He said “If you without fail give the sons of Ammon into my hand, it must also occur that the one coming out, who comes out of the doors of my house to meet me when I return in peace from the sons of Ammon, must also become Jehovah’s, and I must offer that one up as a burnt offering.” In response, God blesses Jephthah by enabling him to strike 20 Ammonite cities with a “great slaughter,” thus subduing Israel’s foes.—Judges 11:30-33.

When Jephthah returns from battle, who meets him but his beloved daughter, his only child! “When he caught sight of her,” says the account, “he began to rip his garments and to say: ‘Alas, my daughter! You have indeed made me bend down, and you yourself have become the one I was ostracizing. And I—I have opened my mouth to Jehovah, and I am unable to turn back.’”—Judges 11:34, 35.

Is Jephthah really going to sacrifice his daughter? By your statement “(doesn't intervene)” means yes.
But that is not correct. Here's why.

First that cannot be what in Jepthah's in mind because Jehovah detests literal human sacrifice, one of the wicked practices of the Canaanites. Read these verses if you are not sure: Leviticus 18:21; Deuteronomy 12:31.

Note also, not only was God’s spirit acting upon Jephthah when he made his vow but Jehovah also blessed his endeavors. As a matter of fact the Scriptures speak well of Jephthah for his faith and for the role he played in connection with the divine purpose. (1 Samuel 12:11; Hebrews 11:32-34) So a human sacrifice—a murder—is completely out of the question. What, then, was Jephthah thinking when he vowed to offer a person to Jehovah?
Jephthah evidently meant that he would devote the one whom he met to the exclusive service of God. The Mosaic Law provided for the vowing of souls to Jehovah. For instance, women served at the sanctuary, perhaps drawing water. (Exodus 38:8; 1 Samuel 2:22) Little is known about such service or even whether it was usually permanent. Jephthah apparently had such special devotion in mind when making his vow, and it seems that his promise implied permanent service.

Both Jephthah’s daughter and later the boy Samuel cooperated so as to fulfill the vows of their godly parents. (1 Samuel 1:11) As a loyal worshipper of Jehovah, Jephthah’s daughter herself was just as convinced as her father that his vow should be carried out.

Note also, the sacrifice was great, for it meant that she would never get married. She wept over her virginity because every Israelite desired to have children in order to preserve the family name and inheritance. For Jephthah, fulfilling the vow meant losing the company of his beloved only child.—Judges 11:36-39.
This faithful maiden’s life was not wasted or as you're implying 'literally sacrificed'. No, she became a full-time servant at Jehovah’s house. But her 'sacrifice' was an excellent, satisfying, and commendable way for her to honor God.

PROOF of this is in Judges 11:40: which says “From year to year the daughters of Israel would go to give commendation to the daughter of Jeph′thah the Gil′e·ad·ite, four days in the year.” And surely he rejoiced in her service to Jehovah.

I can explain the rest of your citation here but it will take time and the result will still be the same – that your conclusions are widely misleading and mostly incorrect.

In the end though, none of these things really matters to atheist since they are not real events - just stories of 'goat herders' as some here like to put it. So imho it's a waste of time challenging the validity of the Bible if one doesn't really believe them.

reply to post by edmc^2

A mighty warrior indeed!

A mighty warrior and a child murderer. In order for God to be a mighty warrior he has to violate his own commandments. Not only does he have to violate the Thou Shalt Not Kill commandment but he also has to violate Jesus's commandment to love thy neighbor and turn the other cheek. Clearly killing someone is no way to show love and is the opposite of turning the other cheek.

Someone said in one of the threads the reason (not sure who or what thread) and it made sense to me when I read it. 'If God allowed mankind to speak in one tongue – it would have been possible that life could have ended a long time ago.' God could not allow it to happen thus the confusion.

I'm not really questioning God's motives in the story, merely his method. You see to an All Powerful being all things are possible so why would his idea involve casting the world into chaos instead of, perhaps, appearing in the sky to tell people not to build a tower to Heaven. After all if they are all speaking with one tongue it offers a unique opprotunity for God to communicate with his creation ALL AT ONCE, instead he throws them into chaos suddenly. This would be devilishly cruel, to suddenly not be able to communicate properly and humanity would be divided against itself. So God would be creating conflict and confusion, yet I thought God was NOT the author of Confusion.

they were trying to make a 'name for themselves' and prove that they are more powerful than God.

Can't have that can we? Why does God's ego seem so out of control in the Bible? He has to have all the power, the glory, the righteousness and he's so jealous about people worshiping any other God that he'll punish you for eternity if you do. By the way the story says nothing about them trying to be more powerful than God, it does say they were building a big building... Apparently the size of the skyscraper made God feel insecure.

First that cannot be what in Jepthah's in mind because Jehovah detests literal human sacrifice

I'm well aware that God doesn't like human sacrifices TO OTHER GODS but it sends a mixed message when it comes to human sacrifice to Yahweh. Leviticus 18:21 says God doesn't like human sacrifice to MOLECH, it says nothing of sacrifices other than those. As you pointed out Deuteronomy 12:31 has God saying they should not burn their sons and daughters but the Isaac and Jephthah stories point directly to the that happening, I mean God quite literally COMMANDS Abraham to sacrifice his son, now of course he doesn't allow Isaac to be sacrificed but such is not the case with Jephthah. Nowhere in the story does God intervene and in fact God's spirit comes upon Jephthah before he makes the vow. And what of Exodus 22:29 where God demands the first born sons be given to him without hesitation, now it doesn't say sacrificed but given God's past activities in regards to first born children it is a bit worrying.

Jephthah apparently had such special devotion in mind when making his vow, and it seems that his promise implied permanent service.

It says nothing of the sort. Jephthah specifically states that he will offer whatever comes out his door as a BURNT OFFERING, he says nothing of service or special devotion. If it were true and he had this in mind when making the vow than why was he so broken up about it when his daughter came out to greet him? According to the Bible he tore his clothes and his daughter went off for two months to weep for her virginity, hardly the activity of a girl just going to become a priestess or merely being "devoted" to God. You are once again reading into the text what is simply not present.

The vow says he will offer what comes out of his door as a burnt offering. And verse 39 says that Jephthah "did as he had vowed"... nowhere does it mention her becoming a servant.

This faithful maiden’s life was not wasted or as you're implying 'literally sacrificed'. No, she became a full-time servant at Jehovah’s house. But her 'sacrifice' was an excellent, satisfying, and commendable way for her to honor God.

Only the Bible doesn't say any of that, you just made it up. It doesn't say she became a servant. Verse 40, which you use as proof that she wasn't sacrificed, is actually proof that she was as it says the women of Israel go out to COMMEMORATE his daughter. The King James version actually uses the word LAMENT instead of Commemorate, hardly seems like something they would have done if she survived.

So imho it's a waste of time challenging the validity of the Bible if one doesn't really believe them.

Hardly. The reason I challenge it is because I used to believe it, at least until I actually read it in better detail, and I know millions still do believe it. While I don't so much mind a belief in God I do detest putting faith in a book above the actual deity which is the plight of fundamentalism. Their God is the Bible and they fail to separate the two defending, to the end, a book which depicts their deity as a vile repugnant bumbling tyrant.