EvC Forum: How do Christians deal with the violence in the Bible?

Message 167 of 221 (230160)
08-05-2005 12:04 PM

Reply to: Message 165 by iano
08-05-2005 5:58 AM

Re: Can God get it wrong?

Since this is getting a little off-topic (we have other threads going on about many of the things in your last post), I'm only going to respond to the relevant bits.

Not "magically good". God can do no evil and the word 'genocide' is a man-made word which describes a particular 'evil' act. If God can do no evil, yet kills many, then it is not genocide. If you chose not to take it literally, is that because you've decided the action is genocide and can't reconcile a God who committing 'genocide'. If God killing many is not genocide however (because God can't commit evil) then this part of the bible may still be taken literally. That is, could God have a reason to kill many and still be 'right' in his actions? Of course he can! His reasons, which are always right - whether we agree with him or not - are his reasons. He is God after all. By saying God's actions are genocide is to say that we define, for God, WHAT constitutes right and wrong and furthermore, WHEN it's right and wrong - which again is making God into our image of what he should be like. It is worth remembering too, that the Bible talks throughout, more about God's wrath than it does his love.

So, in other words, you are saying that genocide isn't genocide if God does it. If God came and killed off an entire race, it would be a good and just thing, becuase God did it. But if anyone else does anything remotely like that, it would be considered evil. How do you make the jump to justifying everything that God supposedly did?

Hilter claiming that he was in accordence with God's will in no way imples that he was in fact, in Gods will. People can claim what they want: Hitler, Inquisition,Crusades etc. That doesn't make it right...as purveyors of 'the moon is made of cheese' argument have found out.

That's exactly my point! I think that many of the people in the Bible attributed God with actions He did not do! If it's happened constantly for the past 2000 years, why could it not have happened 6000 years ago? Why could such things NOT wind up in the Bible?

That would mean that those parts of the Bible are not inspired by God, but written by man to justify his own actions. You may then rip out those pages because you interpret them as not God-inspired. Now, where do you stop ripping out pages? Where do 100 million people stop ripping out pages-if they base belief in the Bible as being something which is self-determined?

Not so. There is a difference between "inspired by God" and written directly by His hand. I believe the Bible was "inspired" by God - but the authors didn't always get it right, and the people they wrote about weren't always carrying out God's Will they way they claimed to be. God doesn't seem to mess with free will - He lets thing like the Holocaust happen, as well as all manner of "normal" murder, rape, etc. Regardless of which denomination of Christianity is "right" (assuming that Christianity is right at all), the others must be wrong - and God has not prevented them from writing down their beliefs, nor has He struck down their leaders. Why would we assume that He would do so to the Biblical authors, and those who determined which books would be included 1500 years ago?

Sure there are different versions of the Bible, but a closer examination may reveal a)why that is the case b) why the differences (assuming a) was taken into account) in text don't amount to all that much in terms of significance. But what you imply is that 100,000,000 versions (make that 2 billion versions in fact - because that's roughly about how many people in the world claim to be 'Christians') exist and that all are valid.

I don't think I am understanding this the way you meant...but yes. I think that the Bible still fulfills a purpose for God regardless of its translation, because it was never meant (by God, anyway) to be taken word-for-word literally. But this is getting a bit afield again. My position is simply that I don;t believe the violence and horrors attributed to God in the Bible were actually His actions. That's all. Anything further is appealing to consequence, really.

This message is a reply to:
	Message 165 by iano, posted 08-05-2005 5:58 AM		iano has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 168 by iano, posted 08-05-2005 2:38 PM		Rahvin has replied

iano

Member (Idle past 1967 days)

Posts: 6165

From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.

Joined: 07-27-2005

iano Posts Only

Message 168 of 221 (230246)
08-05-2005 2:38 PM

Reply to: Message 167 by Rahvin
08-05-2005 12:04 PM

God and violence and justness and us...

Rahvin writes:

So, in other words, you are saying that genocide isn't genocide if God does it. If God came and killed off an entire race, it would be a good and just thing, becuase God did it. But if anyone else does anything remotely like that, it would be considered evil. How do you make the jump to justifying everything that God supposedly did?

That is precisly what I'm saying. You mentioned the very difference at the heart of the matter yourself. God did vs. we do. God is just in all his actions because he knows absolutely what's right and wrong. He defines whats right and wrong, not us. He tells us not to murder because the reasons we may murder someone are not (either in his or in most countries laws) just reasons for taking a life. His reasons for taking life (which, seeing as he gave it in the first place, is his right to take away when he choses - and he will chose a time for us all). Like, it's not that life on this earth is the main focus of Gods plan anyway.

Given that you don't take all the Bible to be Gods word it's hard to comment`precisely Rahvin. You may not take other parts to be his word either. But presupposing you believed in Hell more or less as described, then you'll agree that God condemning a person to an appalling eternity outside his presence (Hell) to be just. That's far and away a worse fate for anyone than just being removed from the earthly scene. If you believe the latter is just, what's so hard to believe about the former?

iano writes:

Rahvin writes:

That's exactly my point! I think that many of the people in the Bible attributed God with actions He did not do! If it's happened constantly for the past 2000 years, why could it not have happened 6000 years ago? Why could such things NOT wind up in the Bible?

Think I'm getting your drift. If these bits of the Bible aren't God's word then you may very well be right. But the problem remains about how you decide what's Gods word without coming up against the problem of making God in your image. If the justness of Gods actions is determined by how and under what conditions you feel he's acting correctly, then God ceases to be God. He is sovereign or nothing at all. That his actions may at times seem to contradict what we think makes sense - that's understandable - but that's all. Why disease, why death, why depression, why pain, why evil? I'm not asking for a reponse to these things but many would disbelieve the parts of the bible on the basis that these things, to the human viewpoint, aren't signs of a reasonable God. Once we start off down that path, before you know it, you've got a fluffy-bearded old guy, sitting on a cloud, tutting-tutting to himself and saying things like "whatever will that little rascal Hitler think of next"

Not so. There is a difference between "inspired by God" and written directly by His hand.

Again, how does one diffentiate? On the basis of what one personally thinks makes sense, is a dodgy basis. Otherwise each interpretation to their own.

I believe the Bible was "inspired" by God - but the authors didn't always get it right, and the people they wrote about weren't always carrying out God's Will they way they claimed to be.

You mean how the authors who wrote that God told them what to do got it wrong. If these bits of writing were uninspired/Gods hand then you chuck out the whole lot because there's no way to differentiate except by basing it on personal opinion. You making the call about Gods actions on the basis of how you think he should act.

God doesn't seem to mess with free will - He lets thing like the Holocaust happen, as well as all manner of "normal" murder, rape, etc. Regardless of which denomination of Christianity is "right" (assuming that Christianity is right at all), the others must be wrong - and God has not prevented them from writing down their beliefs, nor has He struck down their leaders. Why would we assume that He would do so to the Biblical authors, and those who determined which books would be included 1500 years ago?

What about Ananias and Shaphira in Acts. Held back money and Whoosh - stone dead. God choses when, how and why according to his purpose. He has a plan and his plan is perfect. Far be it for us to comment on the wisdom and timing of it. If every move Montgomery/Eisenhower/Churchill and co. made in the second world war bore no relation to timing and strategy and purpose, the war would never have been won. There was a right time for everything. That it doesn't happen today (you assume. Tsunami perhaps? I don't know.) is like saying a battle commander who isn't always making the moves you (who aren't a battle commander) reckon he should be making, doesn't know what he's doing. Purpose, plan...beyond our wisdom, beyond our call. It's his call.

Thank God

This message is a reply to:
	Message 167 by Rahvin, posted 08-05-2005 12:04 PM		Rahvin has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 169 by Rahvin, posted 08-05-2005 6:18 PM		iano has replied

Rahvin

Member

Posts: 4042

Joined: 07-01-2005

Member Rating: 7.7

Message 169 of 221 (230309)
08-05-2005 6:18 PM

Reply to: Message 168 by iano
08-05-2005 2:38 PM

Re: God and violence and justness and us...

This answers my question. I strongly disagree with you (I don't think actions are right or wrong just because God says so), but that would be a topic for another thread.

His reasons for taking life (which, seeing as he gave it in the first place, is his right to take away when he choses - and he will chose a time for us all). Like, it's not that life on this earth is the main focus of Gods plan anyway.

Whether God has the right or not doesn't mean it is right for Him to do so. We are sentient beings with free will, and I believe in the concept of human rights - not "humans have whatever rights God chooses to give them and nothing else."

But presupposing you believed in Hell more or less as described, then you'll agree that God condemning a person to an appalling eternity outside his presence (Hell) to be just. That's far and away a worse fate for anyone than just being removed from the earthly scene. If you believe the latter is just, what's so hard to believe about the former?

If we consider Hell to be simply "eternity outside the presence of God," then I have no problem with that. I think it could even be likely. Certainly He is under no obligation to spend time with those who don't want to spend time with Him. I don't think any atheist, should this be the correct view, would complain at spending eternity outside His presence either. After all, they still got an afterlife, and they don’t believe He even exists!

As for the "lake of fire" version of Hell, I don't think it exists, no. Throwing an otherwise very good person into a fiery pit to burn and suffer for eternity for not believing in God is hardly a moral act, and I don't believe God would do such a thing. It would be sadistic.

But the problem remains about how you decide what's Gods word without coming up against the problem of making God in your image.

That may well be a problem, but I'm willing to let a little prayer and rational thought help me out. The Bible is what led me to God, after all...and I think that the good bits were certainly divinely inspired, or at least fit in with God's Will. I'm pretty sure that such parts as "thou shalt not kill," and "love thy neighbor as you love yourself," and "let he who is without sin cast the first stone," are from God.

If the justness of Gods actions is determined by how and under what conditions you feel he's acting correctly, then God ceases to be God. He is sovereign or nothing at all. That his actions may at times seem to contradict what we think makes sense - that's understandable - but that's all. Why disease, why death, why depression, why pain, why evil? I'm not asking for a reponse to these things but many would disbelieve the parts of the bible on the basis that these things, to the human viewpoint, aren't signs of a reasonable God. Once we start off down that path, before you know it, you've got a fluffy-bearded old guy, sitting on a cloud, tutting-tutting to himself and saying things like "whatever will that little rascal Hitler think of next"

I disagree. I'm not the one who determines if an action is moral or not - God already did that. The Bible speaks of forgiveness, love, and mercy. I think those are the true teachings of God. Believing in a God defined by those terms, it's easy to tell what I do and do not believe in concerning the Bible. I've also come to believe that, for much of the Bible, it simply doesn't MATTER one bit if the events really happened or not. The lessons they teach are no less valid, and I wouldn't live my life any differently.

As to disease, death, and evil...well, science shows us, through the theory of evolution, how early life forms gradually evolved over time to eventually produce Humanity. In order for this process to occur, death and disease are necessary. For life to exist on this planet, certain Earth processes, which sometimes result in natural disasters, are necessary. These things are perfectly natural, and do not have to be the direct actions of God (simply consequences of the Earth being habitable and inhabited). Evil is an entirely human thing - without sentience, you cannot be evil. Evil is simply a product of free will - we all have the choice to be decent people or to wreck havoc on our fellow man.

And we can’t hold God responsible for the actions of human beings. He gave us free will - what we do with it is our own fault. God didn't create Hitler to be a monster. Hitler became a monster all on his own.

Again, how does one diffentiate? On the basis of what one personally thinks makes sense, is a dodgy basis. Otherwise each interpretation to their own.

I don’t think it's so dodgy. Human reason has managed to figure out quite a bit about the universe. Combined with a little prayer and a good, independent moral compass, I've found that it's not so hard to differentiate.

You mean how the authors who wrote that God told them what to do got it wrong.

You assume that the authors were always the same as the people in the stories. They weren't. But yes, in some cases, I'm sure that people thought they had a mission from God when God had nothing to do with it. Look at some of the more radical fundamentalists.

Here's a quote from one such rabid wrath-of-God fundy:

quote:
"God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah, and he is going to destroy you and a lot of others."- Florida State Rep. Allen Trovillion, speaking to a group of gay Orlando-area high school students, as quoted in Newsweek Magazine (April 23, 2001 issue).

And I wonder if you can guess who said these:

quote:
"Secular schools can never be tolerated because such a school has no religious instruction and a general moral instruction without a religious foundation is built on air; consequently, all character training and religion must be derived from faith ... We need believing people."

quote:
"Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord."

quote:
"What we must fight for is to safeguard the existence and reproduction of our race and our people, the sustenance of our children and the purity of our blood, the freedom and independence of the fatherland, so that our people may mature for the fulfillment of the mission allotted it by the creator of the universe."

I think it would be foolish to believe that people like these didn't exist in biblical times, and that even the authors couldn't have had their own biases, prejudices, and hatreds. Those last quotes, by the way, were made by Adolf Hitler.

What about Ananias and Shaphira in Acts. Held back money and Whoosh - stone dead.

Who says it ever even happened? Or if it did, who says it happened exactly the way the Bible says? And besides, upon reading that verse, it looks like he dies of fright over the possibility of offending God. It never explicitly states that God killed him, and even if it did, such a death is perfectly explainable without invoking the supernatural.

Here's the quote:

quote:
Act 5
5:1 But a certain man named Ananias, with Sapphira his wife, sold a possession,

5:2 And kept back part of the price, his wife also being privy to it, and brought a certain part, and laid it at the apostles' feet.

5:3 But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land?

5:4 Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God.

5:5 And Ananias hearing these words fell down, and gave up the ghost: and great fear came on all them that heard these things.

5:6 And the young men arose, wound him up, and carried him out, and buried him.

He was terrified over lying to God, and became so afraid he likely had a heart attack. Doesn't mean God "struck him down." That's interpretation, similar to interpreting a natural disaster as God's Wrath. If natural disasters are God's Wrath, then God must be really angry at the Bible Belt - most of it lies right in Tornado Alley!

He has a plan and his plan is perfect. Far be it for us to comment on the wisdom and timing of it. If every move Montgomery/Eisenhower/Churchill and co. made in the second world war bore no relation to timing and strategy and purpose, the war would never have been won. There was a right time for everything. That it doesn't happen today (you assume. Tsunami perhaps? I don't know.) is like saying a battle commander who isn't always making the moves you (who aren't a battle commander) reckon he should be making, doesn't know what he's doing. Purpose, plan...beyond our wisdom, beyond our call. It's his call.

But I'm not saying He doesn't have a plan. I'm saying that I don't believe He committed evil acts like genocide and mass murder as described in the Bible. I'm saying that God doesn't strike people down for offending Him, or committing "sins" (I don't think that everything fundamentalists consider to be sinful is a sin, but that's besides the point).

This message is a reply to:
	Message 168 by iano, posted 08-05-2005 2:38 PM		iano has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 170 by iano, posted 08-06-2005 2:59 PM		Rahvin has replied

iano

Member (Idle past 1967 days)

Posts: 6165

From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.

Joined: 07-27-2005

iano Posts Only

Message 170 of 221 (230476)
08-06-2005 2:59 PM

Reply to: Message 169 by Rahvin
08-05-2005 6:18 PM

Re: God and violence and justness and us...

Rahvin writes:

This answers my question. I strongly disagree with you (I don't think actions are right or wrong just because God says so), but that would be a topic for another thread.

Whether God has the right or not doesn't mean it is right for Him to do so. We are sentient beings with free will, and I believe in the concept of human rights - not "humans have whatever rights God chooses to give them and nothing else."

But he never makes a mistake. He can do no wrong. Even if we don't agree with him (on whatever issue) his decisions are always the correct ones. He has a right and he is always right.

You're correct on him giving us free-will. But there is no biblical warrant for the idea that there are no conseqences for the choices we make - when he choses to respond to those choices.

If we consider Hell to be simply "eternity outside the presence of God," then I have no problem with that. I think it could even be likely. Certainly He is under no obligation to spend time with those who don't want to spend time with Him. I don't think any atheist, should this be the correct view, would complain at spending eternity outside His presence either. After all, they still got an afterlife, and they don’t believe He even exists!

An athiest might think differently if he were to spend a moment thinking about what such an existance would be like. No presence of God means what precisely? We might take pleasure, happiness, joy, peace, security, love, comfort, friends etc, for granted when they grace our lives but these things are God-given. If God moves out, everything about us that is "made in his image and likeness" goes out too. No peace, no joy, no hope, self-loathing (because the person will realise the massive error they made), no happiness, no comfort etc. Worst of all...no escape. Hell is surely too good a word for it. The Bible, wherever it talks about Hell paints an appalling picture. Whatever it is, it ain't neutral

God doesn't throw otherwise good people into Hell. He only throws the 'wicked'. Obvious question is who are the wicked? In deciding this God will obviously use a standard by which he measures good/wickedness. And his standard is high, impossibly high. Every single person born is steeped in wickedness. Up to our necks in it. According to his standard, everyone deserves Hell. If you disagree and think some folk are 'otherwise very good' could you tell me according to which standard you measure this goodness. If it's your own or societies then you're probably right. Trouble is, God won't be using that standard. He uses his own. There will be very many 'good' people in Hell. It's a tragedy but one of their own making.

But if someone elses prayer and rational thinking decides for them which parts are Gods words and which are not...and these produce a radically different Bible, then whose Bible is the right one? You say yourself you think the 'good bit' are his words. "What's true is what I decide is true" That's how folk make the bible mean anything they want it to. And they have done precisely that

I disagree. I'm not the one who determines if an action is moral or not - God already did that. The Bible speaks of forgiveness, love, and mercy.

It also speaks of wrath and judgement and punishment. More so than forgiveness,love and mercy.

I think those are the true teachings of God. Believing in a God defined by those terms, it's easy to tell what I do and do not believe in concerning the Bible. I've also come to believe that, for much of the Bible, it simply doesn't MATTER one bit if the events really happened or not. The lessons they teach are no less valid, and I wouldn't live my life any differently.

"I think they are the true teaching" implies you don't know for sure. If you only think, you may be wrong, if you're wrong, how wrong. Very wrong perhaps? In order to be sure you were on the right track, you would have to KNOW this was Gods word. Then the question arises, how does one know what the right bit. Like I said if you're relying on self or others to tell you, how do you know that you or they are getting it right?

As to disease, death, and evil...well, science shows us.....

The Bible has a very different take on it. It's called the Fall. There was no death, disease,evil on earth before the Fall. Do you believe in Adam and Eve and the Fall (of man from perfect relationship with God)?

I agree completely.

Human reason has managed to figure out quite a bit about the universe. Combined with a little prayer and a good, independent moral compass, I've found that it's not so hard to differentiate.

What if someone elses prayers and compass differed from your own. And they believed the parts of the Bible in which God could be argued to have given folk permission to 'ethnically cleanse the land' and take it over. Say they did as you do and left parts out which they don't think are God-inspired or true. If they came and took over your land and house on the basis that "God told them to do it and it's in the Bible that this can happen" on what basis can you say they were wrong. If you can chop n' change and interpret what feels right for you, why not them?

I don't assume that. Again the question, if you decide what is God's word, basing it on personal opinion/prayer/moral compass - why are you right and others not. If you point to the Bible here as a guide remember they can point to another, different Bible. Stalemate. And he with the biggest guns wins...

I think it would be foolish to believe that people like these didn't exist in biblical times, and that even the authors couldn't have had their own biases, prejudices, and hatreds.

I agree. Even the Apostle Peter got a bollocking from the Apostle Paul because he was avoiding hanging around with Gentiles even though he knew God had opened the door to allow Gentiles into his plan of salvation.

God didn't produce the Bible for his amusement. He did it for us. I find it difficult to see why God would take this trouble then allow a bunch of fundys to get right in the midst of it and propagate a bunch of stories which was going turn folk off him. It seems more logical that God would have been able to ensure that what he wanted to get said would be said. Even if that meant folk might get the wrong idea about it..

That Fundys now take the Bible and twist it's message to say the things you quoted is not a problem with the Bible, its a problem with the people who twist/mis-interpret so.

A question before we go much further just to clear something up. What proportion of the bible (%) do you think is Gods word + as he meant it to be written + which hasn't been mistranslated over the years to change the meaning in any significant way?

This message is a reply to:
	Message 169 by Rahvin, posted 08-05-2005 6:18 PM		Rahvin has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 171 by jar, posted 08-06-2005 3:01 PM	iano has not replied
	Message 173 by Rahvin, posted 08-06-2005 6:01 PM	iano has replied

jar

Member (Idle past 420 days)

Posts: 34026

From: Texas!!

Joined: 04-20-2004

Message 171 of 221 (230477)
08-06-2005 3:01 PM

Reply to: Message 170 by iano
08-06-2005 2:59 PM

Re: God and violence and justness and us...

According to the Bible God can and does make mistakes. The Flood was one.

This message has been edited by jar, 08-06-2005 02:01 PM

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
	Message 170 by iano, posted 08-06-2005 2:59 PM		iano has not replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 172 by Faith, posted 08-06-2005 5:11 PM		jar has replied

Faith

Suspended Member (Idle past 1470 days)

Posts: 35298

From: Nevada, USA

Joined: 10-06-2001

Message 172 of 221 (230530)
08-06-2005 5:11 PM

Reply to: Message 171 by jar
08-06-2005 3:01 PM

Re: God and violence and justness and us...

According to the Bible God can and does make mistakes. The Flood was one.

Nowhere do I see anything in the Bible to indicate that God considers the Flood a mistake.

If I did I doubt I'd be a believer. I can't imagine worshiping (treating as all-worthy) a fallible God.

This message is a reply to:
	Message 171 by jar, posted 08-06-2005 3:01 PM		jar has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 174 by jar, posted 08-06-2005 6:10 PM		Faith has replied

Rahvin

Member

Posts: 4042

Joined: 07-01-2005

Member Rating: 7.7

Message 173 of 221 (230550)
08-06-2005 6:01 PM

Reply to: Message 170 by iano
08-06-2005 2:59 PM

Re: God and violence and justness and us...

But he never makes a mistake. He can do no wrong. Even if we don't agree with him (on whatever issue) his decisions are always the correct ones. He has a right and he is always right.

I agree that He is always right and always makes the right decision. That's why I don't think he ever DID those evil things. I'm not sayiong God ever did anything wrong, I'm just saying I believe the Bible mistakenly says He did things that WOULD have been wrong had He actually done them.

You're correct on him giving us free-will. But there is no biblical warrant for the idea that there are no conseqences for the choices we make - when he choses to respond to those choices.

Quite the contrary - the sacrifice of Jesus gives people who have performed horribly evil deeds a free ride to Heaven if they simply repent and accept His forgiveness. It's that "salvation by grace" thing, remember? That would be a hefty "no consequesnces," as long as you say you're sorry. COnsequences are only given to non-believers in the typical Christian view.

I took the previous explanation of Hell to mean simply outside the presence of a loving God, to know He exists but to be kicked out forever. That doesn't necessarily mean that the atheist would be unable to find his own degree of happiness without God, as he has always done during his earthbound life. HEaven would be Heaven simply beacause we would be happiER in God's presence. That's all.

If you give a free ride to muderers and rapists who later accept Jesus, but throw Ghandi into Hell because he wasn't a Christian, that's not justice and has nothing to do with "wicked" or not. The entire point of the Cross was the forgiveness of the wicked, and afterwards if you throw anyone who doesn't believe into Hell for no other reason despite anything else, Hell ceases to be a punishent for the "wicked" and begins being a scare tactic for faith. That's one of the reasons I don't believe it exists.

The interpretation of the Bible, even in a literalist view, is still based on faith. Not all literallists even agree on everything.

Basically, I don;t place my faith in the Bible. I found that would be too shaky a ground - science and observable evindence can prove a literally true Bible to be wrong. Instead, I base my faith on a personal relationship with God, with the Bible being only a book that CAN point the way to God.

It also speaks of wrath and judgement and punishment. More so than forgiveness,love and mercy.

Yes, it doesn. And I only think that one of these aspects is the True God. But that's a matter of personal faith.

FOrgive the semantics. I try to be sensitive to other peoples beliefs. I don't say things that mean "I'm right and everybody else is wrong!" I believe what I believe. I have faith that I am right. But I'll not be inflammatory and tell you that you are flat wrong. Faith and belief are a personal matter.

Besides, in my view, you don't have to be "right" in terms of doctrine and dogma to have a relationship with God or to get into Heaven. God cares about our hearts and souls, not our intellectual dissection of the Bible. I strongly disagree with you, Faith, and many others here. But I don't believe that (assuming I'm right) you're going to Hell for not agreeing with me. Taking this into account, saying "I know this to be true" is just needlessly inflammatory.

Not in the literal sense, no. I don't believe in some magic tree that gave us all a conscience, or that we were condemned from birth because our ancestor ate of it. I think Genesis is a basic allegorical origin story, and has no basis in reality. I do agree, though, that man's purpose was to have personal relationships with God. I think that was the point of the story - we were created to give God some company, in a manner of speaking.

I think He DID ensure that what He wanted to be said was written. I just think that a lot of extra got in there too, becasue of free will and the iussues involved with having a human author. Remember, the Bible IS a guiding stone to God for even those who don't take it literally. I think that's all He wanted.

That Fundys now take the Bible and twist it's message to say the things you quoted is not a problem with the Bible, its a problem with the people who twist/mis-interpret so

Quite correct. But remember that a lot of these fundies take a literal interpretation of the Bible to reach their horrible conclusions.

That's a question I can't answer. The Bible led me to God, and for me, I think that WAS its purpose. If you don't take the bible literally and base your faith on God instead of a book, then the mistranslations and interveining time and author's biases don't matter.

Again - my personal view, and what I believe to be true. Not trying to "prove" my beliefs in any way, just stating them and my reasons.

This message is a reply to:
	Message 170 by iano, posted 08-06-2005 2:59 PM		iano has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 183 by iano, posted 08-07-2005 3:35 PM		Rahvin has not replied

jar

Member (Idle past 420 days)

Posts: 34026

From: Texas!!

Joined: 04-20-2004

Message 174 of 221 (230553)
08-06-2005 6:10 PM

Reply to: Message 172 by Faith
08-06-2005 5:11 PM

Re: God and violence and justness and us...

Well Genesis 8 certainly gives that impression. That why God decides not to ever do it again. If you read the Bible literally, that's pretty much the only possible conclusion. God says "Whoops, screwed the pooch that time, went too far big time, I promise not to do it again."

Personally, that's one of the many, many reasons that so the Bible was never meant to be read literally.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
	Message 172 by Faith, posted 08-06-2005 5:11 PM		Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 175 by Faith, posted 08-06-2005 8:57 PM		jar has replied

Faith

Suspended Member (Idle past 1470 days)

Posts: 35298

From: Nevada, USA

Joined: 10-06-2001

Message 175 of 221 (230592)
08-06-2005 8:57 PM

Reply to: Message 174 by jar
08-06-2005 6:10 PM

Re: God and violence and justness and us...

I assume you mean Genesis 8:21,

...and the LORD said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake; for the imagination of man's heart [is] evil from his youth; neither will I again smite any more every thing living, as I have done.

which I read as simply God's assurance that He won't do it again, which we are to trust as a promise He'll keep. No overtones whatever that He considered the Flood a mistake.

This message is a reply to:
	Message 174 by jar, posted 08-06-2005 6:10 PM		jar has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 176 by jar, posted 08-06-2005 9:41 PM		Faith has replied

jar

Member (Idle past 420 days)

Posts: 34026

From: Texas!!

Joined: 04-20-2004

Message 176 of 221 (230599)
08-06-2005 9:41 PM

Reply to: Message 175 by Faith
08-06-2005 8:57 PM

Re: God and violence and justness and us...

Yup, begins there and continues on into 9. If you don't see the tone of regret and mistake then fine. But reading it literally would carry yet another example of GOD once again simply not being too smart, to having once again failed to realize what he was doing.

Which is pretty much the early story of God, God simply doesn't know what's going on. It was the same way back in the earlier chapters of Genesis, if you read them literally, God is clueless.

That's why I don't have a problem with the violence in the Bible. Most of it simply never happened. The rest can be attributed to common human practices during the period or to exageration as is done in many morality plays. It's only a literal reading that portrays God as a clueless dolt.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
	Message 175 by Faith, posted 08-06-2005 8:57 PM		Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 177 by Faith, posted 08-06-2005 9:45 PM		jar has replied

Faith

Suspended Member (Idle past 1470 days)

Posts: 35298

From: Nevada, USA

Joined: 10-06-2001

Message 177 of 221 (230603)
08-06-2005 9:45 PM

Reply to: Message 176 by jar
08-06-2005 9:41 PM

Re: God and violence and justness and us...

Now you're confusing me. That is YOUR idea, not mine. I simply read it as written, as a promise not to repeat the Flood, for our sake. You are the one who is calling God a dolt, who doesn't know what he's doing and changes his mind. And again, how there's anything in such a god to inspire worship is beyond me.

This message is a reply to:
	Message 176 by jar, posted 08-06-2005 9:41 PM		jar has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 178 by jar, posted 08-06-2005 9:49 PM		Faith has replied

jar

Member (Idle past 420 days)

Posts: 34026

From: Texas!!

Joined: 04-20-2004

Message 178 of 221 (230604)
08-06-2005 9:49 PM

Reply to: Message 177 by Faith
08-06-2005 9:45 PM

Re: God and violence and justness and us...

No, it's not me, it's the Bible that builds that portrait. And I agree to a great extent with you, the God of the Bible, if it's read literally, does not inspire worship.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
	Message 177 by Faith, posted 08-06-2005 9:45 PM		Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 179 by Faith, posted 08-06-2005 9:52 PM		jar has not replied

Faith

Suspended Member (Idle past 1470 days)

Posts: 35298

From: Nevada, USA

Joined: 10-06-2001

Message 179 of 221 (230606)
08-06-2005 9:52 PM

Reply to: Message 178 by jar
08-06-2005 9:49 PM

Re: God and violence and justness and us...

No, it's not me, it's the Bible that builds that portrait. And I agree to a great extent with you, the God of the Bible, if it's read literally, does not inspire worship.

Aaargh. YOU are the one who thinks the passage says that God is saying he made a mistake which is what makes him doltish. *I* did not say that, YOU did. Everything you attributed to a literal reading is like what YOU said.

This message is a reply to:
	Message 178 by jar, posted 08-06-2005 9:49 PM		jar has not replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 180 by Rahvin, posted 08-07-2005 12:11 AM		Faith has replied

Rahvin

Member

Posts: 4042

Joined: 07-01-2005

Member Rating: 7.7