Not Judging God

[Family Man]

It is so tiresome to hear Christians tell us that we can't "judge God." We're not judging God. We're judging the conception of God as presented to us.

Let me give an example from something that has been debated heavily over in BC&H, but I think this gives a slightly different spin to it. In the OT, there is a story where a gang of children who tease one of God's prophets about his bald head. God sends a couple of bears that kill 42 of the bad l'il young ones.

Now, the normal apolgetic for this is that the proper translation for this young men, and they were a gang threatening physical harm to the prophet, and so they got what they deserved. There are major problems with this apologetic, but for purposes of this thread let's grant it in it's entirety.

Now the question becomes, how does this square with the all-powerful, all-knowing, merciful, kind, and just god we're told the Christian God is. It doesn't. Such a god wouldn't have needed to kill anyone, however threatening the gang of toughs might have been. Instead of bears, he could have chosen a wall of fire between his prophets and the toughs (he had, after all, supposively performed that miracle before.) It might have impressed the bad boys with his power used wisely and fairly and certainly allowed his prophet to get away unharmed.

At this point, it might be (and usually is) argued that what is merciful and fair to us may not be to god. But that is simply Orwellian doublespeak. Merciful, fair and just are human concepts, and this story is anything but merciful, fair and just in human terms.

The point of this is not to rehash the bear story yet again. The point of this being that we have two basic choices here. We can:
a) accept a contorted version of the story, where fair, just and merciful means the opposite of what the dictionary says.
or
b) accept that this is a nasty bit of fiction written by ancient humans with an agenda.

Since b) is obviously a possible option, then it is clear that it is not God that we are judging, but rather the story itself and perhaps the humans that wrote it.

So the challenge to theists is this: why should we accept any of your stories about God, written in the Bible or spread throughout your religious communities, as being anything other than human stories. Worse yet, stories that don't make a lot of sense.

[Spenser]

What do bald people put for hair color on their drivers licenses?

No seriously; good post.

[Hedshaker]

Well said. http://www.electronicbboard.com/images/smiles/icon_up.gif

Some of these contrafictory stories in the Bible adds just another dynamic that theists have to deal with in order to hold onto this joke that is their God. Their apologetics are rediculous... if you read this bit first and add that bit and then look at it side ways with squinty eyes it all becomes clear.

If you ned to jump through hoops to make sense of it there's something wrong, and that should surely be a warning sign?

[Biff the unclean]

Originally posted by Spenser
What do bald people put for hair color on their drivers licenses?

No seriously; good post.

"Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head."

It is a good post but seriously we have Xians here who deny morals when they pertain to God (as you just stated). They deny the way the actual world works claiming not to be limited to nature itself. They exempt themselves from the use of logic and proudly claim to be beyond the rational. They even deny that the Bible says what it clearly says if it so suits their purpose.

For people involved in religion this sort of thing probably goes unnoticed. It only shows up when they are asked to defend their indefensible assertions which they would not normally be asked. Lurkers at this site who are iffy about their beliefs are well served by being shown all this nuttiness in one place.

[ComestibleVenom]

Spenser,
They get a genetic test to see haircolor

[Steven Carr]

Family Man
'Now the question becomes, how does this square with the all-powerful, all-knowing, merciful, kind, and just god we're told the Christian God is.'

CARR
Who has the right to judge God to be good , merciful, kind and just? Not we puny humans.

[Family Man]

Originally posted by Steven Carr

CARR
Who has the right to judge God to be good , merciful, kind and just? Not we puny humans.

Which is the nonsensical shield many Christians use so they can ignore the other possibility I pointed out.

[K]

Family Man:

God post. Steven Carr alluded to this in his response as well. Christians say that we can not judge God. However, the people that are really judging God are the CHRISTIANS! They judge Him to be good, kind, merciful, just, etc.

My question to Christians is, "given the evidence presented in the Bible, how could one possibly judge God to be good, kind, just, and merciful?"

If God's 'goodness', 'kindness', 'justice', and 'mercy' don't match the human definitions for these words, how could we possibly assign these human descriptions to a list of God's traits?

[Family Man]

Originally posted by K
[B]Family Man:
God post.

Oops, Freudian slip? :D

Thanks, and you ask a very good question yourself.

[K]

Good (God?) catch. I reread it and didn't even see that.

[7thangel]

Originally posted by Family Man
It is so tiresome to hear Christians tell us that we can't "judge God." We're not judging God. We're judging the conception of God as presented to us.

Let me give an example from something that has been debated heavily over in BC&H, but I think this gives a slightly different spin to it. In the OT, there is a story where a gang of children who tease one of God's prophets about his bald head. God sends a couple of bears that kill 42 of the bad l'il young ones.

Now, the normal apolgetic for this is that the proper translation for this young men, and they were a gang threatening physical harm to the prophet, and so they got what they deserved. There are major problems with this apologetic, but for purposes of this thread let's grant it in it's entirety.

Now the question becomes, how does this square with the all-powerful, all-knowing, merciful, kind, and just god we're told the Christian God is. It doesn't. Such a god wouldn't have needed to kill anyone, however threatening the gang of toughs might have been. Instead of bears, he could have chosen a wall of fire between his prophets and the toughs (he had, after all, supposively performed that miracle before.) It might have impressed the bad boys with his power used wisely and fairly and certainly allowed his prophet to get away unharmed.

At this point, it might be (and usually is) argued that what is merciful and fair to us may not be to god. But that is simply Orwellian doublespeak. Merciful, fair and just are human concepts, and this story is anything but merciful, fair and just in human terms.

The point of this is not to rehash the bear story yet again. The point of this being that we have two basic choices here. We can:
a) accept a contorted version of the story, where fair, just and merciful means the opposite of what the dictionary says.
or
b) accept that this is a nasty bit of fiction written by ancient humans with an agenda.

Since b) is obviously a possible option, then it is clear that it is not God that we are judging, but rather the story itself and perhaps the humans that wrote it.

So the challenge to theists is this: why should we accept any of your stories about God, written in the Bible or spread throughout your religious communities, as being anything other than human stories. Worse yet, stories that don't make a lot of sense.


The existence of evil as even clearly desribed of God were part to understand our relationship unto God as mere clay to the potter. Of which even demonstrated us even through his election. It is a way for us to understand our election through "GRACE."

Also, God had shown it unto us through the very things created:

Romans 1
19. Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
20. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

Ecclesiastes 3
17. I said in mine heart, God shall judge the righteous and the wicked: for there is a time there for every purpose and for every work.
18. I said in mine heart concerning the estate of the sons of men, that God might manifest them, and that they might see that they themselves are beasts.
19. For that which befalleth the sons of men befalleth beasts; even one thing befalleth them: as the one dieth, so dieth the other; yea, they have all one breath; so that a man hath no preeminence above a beast: for all is vanity.
20. All go unto one place; all are of the dust, and all turn to dust again.

Isaiah 45
7. I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.
8. Drop down, ye heavens, from above, and let the skies pour down righteousness: let the earth open, and let them bring forth salvation, and let righteousness spring up together; I the Lord have created it.
9. Woe unto him that striveth with his Maker! Let the potsherd strive with the potsherds of the earth. Shall the clay say to him that fashioneth it, What makest thou? or thy work, He hath no hands?
10. Woe unto him that saith unto his father, What begettest thou? or to the woman, What hast thou brought forth?
11. Thus saith the Lord, the Holy One of Israel, and his Maker, Ask me of things to come concerning my sons, and concerning the work of my hands command ye me.
12. I have made the earth, and created man upon it: I, even my hands, have stretched out the heavens, and all their host have I commanded.
13. I have raised him up in righteousness, and I will direct all his ways: he shall build my city, and he shall let go my captives, not for price nor reward, saith the Lord of hosts.

Colossians 1
16. For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:

Does not the Bible says it very clear? Paul is even more bold:

Romans 9:
17. For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.
18. Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.
19. Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?
20. Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?
21. Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?
22. What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:
23. And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,

Hoping you understand how the verses concludes that God is showing us how that our election is of "grace."

Peace,
7thangel

[Family Man]

7th Angel --

I don't see how anything you wrote is relevant to the topic of this thread. This is about the proper attitude towards the presented evidence should be, and whether Christians understand our stance on the matter.

[Dargo]

Take away Psalms, and there is little in the Old Testament to support the idea of god being merciful. I have a theory that the authors of Psalm really didn't think Yahweh was all that merciful, but were groveling before him much like you would beg a tyrant to show you mercy. If an earthly ruler was threatening to throw you into the dungeon, you might say "Oh mighty king! Your mercy is without limits. "Spare this lowly worm from your terrible wrath." It's doubtful that the subject actually believed the king was merciful, but was trying to appeal to his vanity.

Some of authors of Psalms had suffered extreme hardships, and they believed god was responsible for them. Once they got past these difficult times they naturally wanted to keep praising god to prevent him from punishing them for their lack of gratitude.

[Diadectes]

The existence of evil as even clearly desribed of God were part to understand our relationship unto God as mere clay to the potter. Of which even demonstrated us even through his election. It is a way for us to understand our election through "GRACE."


Eh?

[Steven Carr]

Originally posted by Family Man

I don't see how anything you wrote is relevant to the topic of this thread.

7th Angel wrote 'The existence of evil as even clearly desribed of God were part to understand our relationship unto God as mere clay to the potter. Of which even demonstrated us even through his election.'

I don't see how anything Angel wrote is relevant to the English language.

Something about human life having been formed from clay.

[clearscreen]

Originally posted by Family Man
So the challenge to theists is this: why should we accept any of your stories about God, written in the Bible or spread throughout your religious communities, as being anything other than human stories. Worse yet, stories that don't make a lot of sense. The Bible is a compilation of many stories by many contributors written at many different times divided into two very different sections, the OT and the NT both of which have been translated and edited multiple times by men (of course I know you already know this). The first five books of the OT are the basis for the Jewish Torah. For the most part, the NT is the basis for Christianity. When you say "the Bible" and "theists", to which do you refer? I would think they would need to be addressed separately. Why do you not ask the same question of Buddhists and Muslims and their religious texts?

Personally, I see no reason for Christians to put stock in the OT, though many (most?) do. I don't understand how they can believe both sides of a contradiction can be true. Could be a mental deficiency or just gullibility. In the OT, God seems to be a real bastard (we don't know who His parents are do we? ;) ) and in the NT He is loving and forgiving overall. Supposedly, Jesus came to demonstrate through his life, teachings, "miracles", death and resurrection, the true nature of God and our souls, ones which contradict many of the teachings in the OT. I give more credence to the NT because it was written more recently, provides testimony from multiple witnesses and describes God in a way that seems more plausible to me. I realize that it was written my men, who may or may not have been inspired by God, but who witnessed the life of Christ and reported it. Many people consider the NT to be a historical document and I can't vouch for it's accuracy one way or the other. Most intelligent, open-minded people (that I know, anyway) realize that the OT is largely mythological.

Why should you accept any of the stories from the Bible? You shouldn't if they disagree with your personal experience and observations about life. There are no reasons to accept any other historical writings either. Personally, I take all that I read and experience and try to make as much sense out of this mysterious existence as I can and, so far, it includes an intelligent, benevolent creator of the universe and an eternal soul, but it does not conform absolutely to any particular religious text.

[7thangel]

Originally posted by Family Man
7th Angel --

I don't see how anything you wrote is relevant to the topic of this thread. This is about the proper attitude towards the presented evidence should be, and whether Christians understand our stance on the matter.

If we come to understand that we have a clay-potter relationship unto God, then proper attitude should be in line with such relationship.

I will detail my post once I get a longer free time.

[braces_for_impact]

Sounds to me like you're simply rehashing the very apologetic mentioned in the OP.

An apology is not necessarily a rational explanation.

[Radcliffe Emerson]

[i]and in the NT He is loving and forgiving overall. [/B]

I dispute that the NT version of God is loving and forgiving. Jesus says we must hate our parents or we are not worthy of him. He tells people to maim themselves if their arms or limbs cause them to sin. He says people will be tortured and cast into a lake of fire for all eternity simply for not believing he exists.
Why would a being who made everything care whether or not puny humans believe he exists? Unless he's so insecure and has such a fragile ego. (to me the ridiculous Tower of Babel story illustrates that).

I don't see much difference between the OT and NT god, other than stories about a guy performing miracles primarily to get people to believe in him.

Sounds like a megalomaniac to me.

[Family Man]

Originally posted by 7thangel
If we come to understand that we have a clay-potter relationship unto God, then proper attitude should be in line with such relationship.

I will detail my post once I get a longer free time.

That's your view of things and it belongs in another thread. It has little to do with this one as far as I can tell.

[clearscreen]

Originally posted by Radcliffe Emerson
I dispute that the NT version of God is loving and forgiving. Jesus says we must hate our parents or we are not worthy of him. He tells people to maim themselves if their arms or limbs cause them to sin. He says people will be tortured and cast into a lake of fire for all eternity simply for not believing he exists.
Why would a being who made everything care whether or not puny humans believe he exists? Unless he's so insecure and has such a fragile ego. (to me the ridiculous Tower of Babel story illustrates that).

I don't see much difference between the OT and NT god, other than stories about a guy performing miracles primarily to get people to believe in him.

Sounds like a megalomaniac to me. Probably a mistranslation of the word hate. He also said "Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me" (Matthew 10:34-37). The message is to love God above all else.

Jesus is also reported as saying "If you want to enter life, obey the commandments." "Which ones?" the man inquired." Jesus replied, "Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony, honor your father and mother, and love your neighbor as yourself." Matthew 19:17-19. Whether or not the story of the 10 commandments is to be taken literally, they are still good principles to live by.

http://www.jewsforjesus.org/answers/qa/parents.htm

The Tower of Babel story is from the OT.

[Family Man]

Originally posted by clearscreen
[B]The Bible is a compilation of many stories by many contributors written at many different times divided into two very different sections, the OT and the NT both of which have been translated and edited multiple times by men (of course I know you already know this). The first five books of the OT are the basis for the Jewish Torah. For the most part, the NT is the basis for Christianity. When you say "the Bible" and "theists", to which do you refer? I would think they would need to be addressed separately. Why do you not ask the same question of Buddhists and Muslims and their religious texts?


Generally speaking, it is Christians that I encounter on this board and in society in general. Muslims I have no contact with. I have known and have been friends with several Buddhists and none of them has ever tried to push their beliefs on me. (Strictly speaking, buddhists are not theists.)

Personally, I see no reason for Christians to put stock in the OT, though many (most?) do. I don't understand how they can believe both sides of a contradiction can be true. Could be a mental deficiency or just gullibility. In the OT, God seems to be a real bastard (we don't know who His parents are do we? ;) ) and in the NT He is loving and forgiving overall.


For the most part, I agree with this analysis, though Emerson has a point. There are mixed messages in the Gospels.


Supposedly, Jesus came to demonstrate through his life, teachings, "miracles", death and resurrection, the true nature of God and our souls, ones which contradict many of the teachings in the OT. I give more credence to the NT because it was written more recently, provides testimony from multiple witnesses and describes God in a way that seems more plausible to me. I realize that it was written my men, who may or may not have been inspired by God, but who witnessed the life of Christ and reported it.


It is questionable that the NT was written by those who witnessed Jesus's life. At best, they are repeating stories that may have come down from people who witnessed Jesus's life. (Some, like the birth narratives, are probably outright fictions.)


Many people consider the NT to be a historical document and I can't vouch for it's accuracy one way or the other.


Some of the NT is historical. History deals with normal human events. Miracle stories, like the resurrection, are not considered historical not necessarily because they didn't happen but because it falls outside of normal human events. Much of the NT is a faith document, not a historical one.


Most intelligent, open-minded people (that I know, anyway) realize that the OT is largely mythological.


Most Christians I know would agree with you. Unfortunately, boards like these tend to attract those that take a harder line.


Why should you accept any of the stories from the Bible? You shouldn't if they disagree with your personal experience and observations about life. There are no reasons to accept any other historical writings either. Personally, I take all that I read and experience and try to make as much sense out of this mysterious existence as I can and, so far, it includes an intelligent, benevolent creator of the universe and an eternal soul, but it does not conform absolutely to any particular religious text.


And I don't have any quarrel with this (except there are good reasons to accept historical writings -- remember much of the NT isn't historical in the sense I mentioned.) If you believe this, the more power to you. What I dislike is people imposing their religious views on mine, then telling me I'm judging something I'm not.

Anyway, thanks for the thoughtful response. It was appreciated.

[Jack the Bodiless]

If we come to understand that we have a clay-potter relationship unto God, then proper attitude should be in line with such relationship.
It sounds like you, as a Christian, are endorsing Dargo's point about the grovelling nature of the Psalms.

God made us, God can do as he likes with us, and so forth. You call this "good" and say "God is merciful" in the hope of not getting smashed by the fist of the cosmic bully.

Is this really your position? Because if it isn't, then what is this "clay-potter relationship" and how is it relevant?

[King Rat]

I just had a conversation with a Greek Orthodox theologian about this very topic yesterday. He basically said that modern sola scriptura evangelicals are deluded. He said that people who try to apply a legalistic, rational interpretation of the bible are weak in faith. He went so far as to say that neo-puritanical evangelicals are an embarrassment to christianity. He also felt that it is a dangerous neo-calvinist approach to belief. It makes everyone and everything a danger to their faith, and it is the evil seed that eventually bore the fruit of the crusades, witch burnings, repression of science, and so on.

It was one of the few times when talking to a christian that I nodded my head in assent.

[Pyrrho]

Originally posted by K
...Christians say that we can not judge God. However, the people that are really judging God are the CHRISTIANS! They judge Him to be good, kind, merciful, just, etc.

...

That is worth repeating. Any Christian who says we shouldn't judge God should NEVER say that God is good, kind, merciful, or just, as that is judging God. Damn hypocrites!

[ComestibleVenom]

Originally posted by Steven Carr
7th Angel wrote 'The existence of evil as even clearly desribed of God were part to understand our relationship unto God as mere clay to the potter. Of which even demonstrated us even through his election.'

I don't see how anything Angel wrote is relevant to the English language.

Something about human life having been formed from clay.

Clay may have played a role in introducing the lipid cell wall to genetic material.

[7thangel]

Originally posted by Family Man
So the challenge to theists is this: why should we accept any of your stories about God, written in the Bible or spread throughout your religious communities, as being anything other than human stories. Worse yet, stories that don't make a lot of sense.

This is your argument, right? On what is the sense of believing God when we read in the Bible itself that evil is even performed by God, as you are mentioning the story of 40 children.

The verses I presented were intended to present our insignificance unto God and of the fact that our relationship unto God is likened unto the clay-potter relationship. In the reality of clay-potter relationship, God is free to do all things according to his purpose unto man. And God informs us through the Bible that that is such a fact, thus you can see about the 40 children, the story of Esau and Jacob, Gideon's daughter, the lives of Saul's kins, even the election of Isaac as a promise unto Abraham, and most especially the salvation of Christ through the cross. All theses evil things you see which God performs has nothing to do with man's free will, but of the direct message that God will do whatever he wills according to his purpose. And quite clearly, as revealed by the apostles, especially of that of Paul, man's election is through "PREDESTINATION," which entails that such process of election, man has no contribution to his election, whether mentally, emotionally, nor by his(man) works. Paul clearly said, "He hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world...having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will."

Unfortunately to others, God had really created some pots to destruction. And Paul was bold in saying, "all things work together for good (only)to them that love God, (only)to them who are the called according to his purpose." Thus, you can see itself that there are mighty, noble, and wise men in the Bible who were not elected because they were not part of God's purpose.

More you can see through this thread:The Real Simple Answer (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=65918)

Now the Bible is real, and the very least we could say is that it is manipulated. But seeing that how such a doctrine which itself teach, which seemingly something to be abhorred, lived and passed through centuries and even milleniums unto men, can vouch itself to be a work of God. The centuries of debates among those who hold up unto it, and the temptation for its adherrents in the past to change it just to gain power, even knowing the extent of corruptions of its adherrents as seen through centuries of blood shedding, can verify that such a collection of books were originally written of men that existed and honored. And seeing the books' coherence unto the doctrine of predestination, it deserves a worthful examination. It does not really appeal to anybody but to know the truth of our very existence.

God be blessed,
7thangel

[King Rat]

I don't know about you guys, but I'm convinced. That last bit of witnessing from 7thangel was all it took. Somebody hurry and baptize me before I change my mind.

[Family Man]

7th Angel --

In essence, you're using the inscrutibility argument. God does all these awful things, but it's ok because it's a "direct message that God will do whatever he wills according to his purpose." Which, of course, means that he not fair or merciful on a consistent basis, just capricious and occasionally cruel. You might think such stories are "works of God". I think such stories are the work of men, and convoluted arguments that make all sorts of strange assumptions about "predestination" and "clay-potter relationships" are simply rationalizations designed to preserve belief and not to tell the truth.

If that's what you want to believe, fine. But please don't expect me to believe right along with you.

[Llyricist]

*splashing my beer onto King Rat* In the name of Daddy, Junior and the Spook.......
------------------------------------------------------------------

Seriously, 7th Angel, That Clay - Potter analogy really is tired and in no way apt. If a potter went around destroying most of the pots he makes, while he may have that right, would still be considered "off his rocker" (and would probably be bankrupt in no time flat).

[Dargo]

Originally posted by Llyricist


Seriously, 7th Angel, That Clay - Potter analogy really is tired and in no way apt. If a potter went around destroying most of the pots he makes, while he may have that right, would still be considered "off his rocker" (and would probably be bankrupt in no time flat).

The mad potter insists on using sentient clay out of a desire to force it to his will, instead of using the normal inanimate clay having neither free will nor the capability to feel pain. He doesn't make it obvious what he wants out of them either. The pots have to play a cosmic shell game and hope they figure out the proper will of their creator. There are a lot of false potters trying to lead the poor pots astray making this very difficult. To make matters worse, the true potter doesn't just destroy the pots that fail to live up to his standards. He tortures them for all eternity. Sounds like a great guy to me.

[BioBeing]

Originally posted by Llyricist
(and would probably be bankrupt in no time flat).
In the case of God, the phrase that springs to mind is "morally bankrupt".

[Cancer]

The stories in the Bible were written by people trying to make sense of the world. Each book has it's own unique prespective on the events that happened in their author's lifetimes. The gang of children in that story and the bears that killed them had no more of a "god" connection then you tripping over your shoe laces because you were too careless to tie them. They are both accidents.

We should take the stories in the Bible seriously when they match up with our own serious thoughts. It's not hard to critically read the Bible and understand the intention of the writers, despite the sometimes childish conclusions of their messages. But foolish to one man is wisdom to another.

As to why you should take claims of the Bible being true, it's up to you after you read the whole thing. Although the new testament was written by fallible humans just like the old testament, the strength of what Jesus was trying to teach speaks for itself I think.

[Pyrrho]

Originally posted by Cancer
The stories in the Bible were written by people trying to make sense of the world. Each book has it's own unique prespective on the events that happened in their author's lifetimes. The gang of children in that story and the bears that killed them had no more of a "god" connection then you tripping over your shoe laces because you were too careless to tie them. They are both accidents.

We should take the stories in the Bible seriously when they match up with our own serious thoughts. It's not hard to critically read the Bible and understand the intention of the writers, despite the sometimes childish conclusions of their messages. But foolish to one man is wisdom to another.

As to why you should take claims of the Bible being true, it's up to you after you read the whole thing. Although the new testament was written by fallible humans just like the old testament, the strength of what Jesus was trying to teach speaks for itself I think.

It certainly does speak for itself; just to give a bit of it, here are a few things in Matthew (there is more of a like nature in the other books of the New Testament as well, but I don't want this to become excessively long):
Matthew

Jesus strongly approves of the law and the prophets. He hasn't the slightest objection to the cruelties of the Old Testament. 5:17

Jesus recommends that to avoid sin we cut off our hands and pluck out our eyes. This advice is given immediately after he says that anyone who looks with lust at any women commits adultery. 5:29-30

Jesus says that most people will go to hell. 7:13-14

"the children of the kingdom [the Jews] shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth." 8:12

Jesus shows no compassion for the bereaved, saying to a man who had just lost his father: "Let the dead bury the dead." 8:21

Jesus sends some devils into a herd of pigs, causing them to run off a cliff and drown in the waters below. 8:32

Cities that neither "receive" the disciples nor "hear" their words will be destroyed by God. It will be worse for them than for Sodom and Gomorrah. And you know what God supposedly did to those poor folks (see Gen.19:24). 10:14-15

Jesus says that we should fear God who is willing and "able to destroy both soul and body in hell." 10:28

"Whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven." 10:33

Jesus condemns entire cities to dreadful deaths and to the eternal torment of hell because they didn't care for his preaching. 11:20-24

When Jesus' mother and brothers want to see him, Jesus rudely asks, "Who is my mother? Who are my brothers?" So much for Jesus' family values. 12:47-49

Jesus explains that the reason he speaks in parables is so that no one will understand him, "lest ... they ... should understand ... and should be converted, and I should heal them." 13:10-15

Jesus will send his angels to gather up "all that offend" and they "shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth." 13:41-42, 50

Jesus is criticized by the Pharisees for not washing his hands before eating. He defends himself by attacking them for not killing disobedient children according to the commandment: "He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death." (See Ex.21:15, Lev.20:9, Dt.21:18-21) So, does Jesus think that children who curse their parents should be killed? It sure sounds like it. 15:4-7

Jesus refuses to heal the Canaanite woman's possessed daughter, saying "it is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it to the dogs." 15:22-26

Jesus condemns the whole world, saying "Woe unto the world because of offenses." 18:7

Jesus advises his followers to mutilate themselves by cutting off their hands and plucking out their eyes. He says it's better to be "maimed" than to suffer "everlasting fire." 18:8-9

In the parable of the unforgiving servant, the king threatens to enslave a man and his entire family to pay for a debt. This practice, which was common at the time, seems not to have bothered Jesus very much. 18:25

Rich people don't go to heaven. For as Jesus says, "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God. 19:23

In the parable of the marriage feast, the king sends his servants to gather everyone they can find, both bad and good, to come to the wedding feast. One guest didn't have on his wedding garment, so the king tied him up and "cast him into the outer darkness" where "there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth." 21:10-14

Jesus condemns the Jews for being "the children of them which killed the prophets." 23:31

Jesus had no problem with the idea of drowning everyone on earth in the flood. It'll be just like that when he returns. 24:37

God will come when people least expect him and then he'll "cut them asunder." And "there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth." 24:50-51

Jesus will give to those who already have and take from those who have nothing. He must've been a republican. 25:29

Jesus tells us what he has planned for those that he dislikes. They will be cast into an "everlasting fire." 25:41

Jesus says the damned will be tormented forever. 25:46

This verse blames the Jews for the death of Jesus and has been used to justify their persecution for twenty centuries. 27:25

The above is from:

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/inj/long.html

You can find many other such wonderful stories of Jesus. Jesus, if he really existed as depicted in the Bible, was a very evil man.

[Cancer]

Yes, with a bunch of out of context Gandhi quotes, you can make him look like a very evil man too. Anyone who is truely interested in the teachings of Jesus will read the Bible front to back, and critically examine it after.

[7thangel]

Originally posted by Llyricist
*splashing my beer onto King Rat* In the name of Daddy, Junior and the Spook.......
------------------------------------------------------------------

Seriously, 7th Angel, That Clay - Potter analogy really is tired and in no way apt. If a potter went around destroying most of the pots he makes, while he may have that right, would still be considered "off his rocker" (and would probably be bankrupt in no time flat).

Yes, seriously, you are the ones asking the question about God being evil when all along you could read in the Bible:

Isaiah 45:7
I(God) form the light, and create darkness: I(God) make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.

Are your questions serious, or just clowning around? Seriously, and "honestly," you are just embarassing yourself unto me.

Now, I gave you an honest and serious answer. And even supported my answer using the very book you are ridiculing. To add, do you think I am answering just to make an argument? Understand very well that my argument, if taken wisely, does not make my position above anyone elses'. I guess, I deserve an honest and serious answer too. That is, if you are really are an honest and smart person.

BTW, sober up a little bit, you're drinking too much of Daddy and Junior's pee, I mean beer.

[Spenser]

Originally posted by Cancer
Yes, with a bunch of out of context Gandhi quotes, you can make him look like a very evil man too. Anyone who is truely interested in the teachings of Jesus will read the Bible front to back, and critically examine it after.

Is this the best you could do? I'd like to see you try to make Gandhi look as evil as the above examples, examples that are the actualy words from the bible supposedly written by God (or his inspiration). :rolleyes:

[Pyrrho]

Originally posted by Cancer
Yes, with a bunch of out of context Gandhi quotes, you can make him look like a very evil man too. Anyone who is truely interested in the teachings of Jesus will read the Bible front to back, and critically examine it after.

No matter how much of the context one reads, those portions show Jesus is evil. The only way to avoid this conclusion is to have one's mind numbed by reading too much of the boring drivel at one sitting, or if one is already corrupted to imagine that what is evil is somehow good. But, by all means, let anyone read as much of the context as they wish; they will then find more disgusting bits to consider.

[Cancer]

Originally posted by Pyrrho
No matter how much of the context one reads, those portions show Jesus is evil. The only way to avoid this conclusion is to have one's mind numbed by reading too much of the boring drivel at one sitting, or if one is already corrupted to imagine that what is evil is somehow good. But, by all means, let anyone read as much of the context as they wish; they will then find more disgusting bits to consider.

False dicotomy.

The point is you can't take a random sentance out of a parable or story that is meant to warn of the consequences of sin and use that as evidence of the "evil" nature of a man.

[Spenser]

Originally posted by Cancer
False dicotomy.

The point is you can't take a random sentance out of a parable or story that is meant to warn of the consequences of sin and use that as evidence of the "evil" nature of a man.

Then what say you about Jesus ordering a disciple to steal a horse in times when horse theft was punishable by death? Not to mention against the 10 commandments?

[Magus55]

Originally posted by Pyrrho
It certainly does speak for itself; just to give a bit of it, here are a few things in Matthew (there is more of a like nature in the other books of the New Testament as well, but I don't want this to become excessively long):


The above is from:

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/inj/long.html

You can find many other such wonderful stories of Jesus. Jesus, if he really existed as depicted in the Bible, was a very evil man. Don't expect to ever have your alleged problems with the Bible ever be taken seriously when your source is SAB. Use something not quite as stupid and ridiculous.

[Spenser]

Originally posted by Magus55
Don't expect to ever have your alleged problems with the Bible ever be taken seriously when your source is SAB. Use something not quite as stupid and ridiculous.

That's funny, SAB's source is the Bible...

[Magus55]

Originally posted by Pyrrho
No matter how much of the context one reads, those portions show Jesus is evil. The only way to avoid this conclusion is to have one's mind numbed by reading too much of the boring drivel at one sitting, or if one is already corrupted to imagine that what is evil is somehow good. But, by all means, let anyone read as much of the context as they wish; they will then find more disgusting bits to consider. If its not in context, it loses its meaning. A lot of what Jesus spoke of is in parables. Yet SAB ignores that and just assumes Jesus was speaking literally. Again, SAB should be deleted off the internet, and never seen or heard from again. Its the most pathetic attempt at Biblical contradiction i have EVER seen, and most atheists agree.

[Magus55]

Originally posted by Spenser
That's funny, SAB's source is the Bible... SAB's source is taking every single quote in the Bible out of context.

[Demigawd]

Originally posted by Magus55
SAB's source is taking every single quote in the Bible out of context.

Yes, by reading the bible literally. An interesting juxtaposition between atheist and fundamentalist, wouldn't you say, Magus?:D

[Llyricist]

Originally posted by 7thangel
Yes, seriously, you are the ones asking the question about God being evil when all along you could read in the Bible:

Isaiah 45:7
I(God) form the light, and create darkness: I(God) make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.

Are your questions serious, or just clowning around? Seriously, and "honestly," you are just embarassing yourself unto me.

Now, I gave you an honest and serious answer. And even supported my answer using the very book you are ridiculing. To add, do you think I am answering just to make an argument? Understand very well that my argument, if taken wisely, does not make my position above anyone elses'. I guess, I deserve an honest and serious answer too. That is, if you are really are an honest and smart person.

BTW, sober up a little bit, you're drinking too much of Daddy and Junior's pee, I mean beer.
First of all, It was my first beer that I had just opened when I posted that... so I WAS sober.

Secondly you in no way have defended your idea of God from the charge of insanity.

Thirdly, drop the "unto's", YOU are impressing no one here with them.

Fourthly, sorry if common ideas of what is good and sane contradict your bible's ideas, but they do. And the God described within the bible is neither good nor sane by the human (and only) definitions of the words.
bare in mind I didn't characterize the god of the bible as evil....I said he was insane.

[7thangel]

Originally posted by Llyricist
First of all, It was my first beer that I had just opened when I posted that... so I WAS sober.

Secondly you in no way have defended your idea of God from the charge of insanity.

You did not consider all the details of my argument, or perhaps you did not understand the full implication.

Thirdly, drop the "unto's", YOU are impressing no one here with them.

Just in case, English is my second language, please bear with me. Anyhow, though my two cent's faces look like Mickey Mouse's they sure are "real."

[quote]Fourthly, sorry if common ideas of what is good and sane contradict your bible's ideas, but they do. And the God described within the bible is neither good nor sane by the human (and only) definitions of the words.
bare in mind I didn't characterize the god of the bible as evil....I said he was insane.

I do consider that misrepresenting God as insane in my argument may meant of the following:

1. All the details were not considered.
2. Ignorance of what clay-potter relationship entails, and therefore deny it.
3. Clown about it, presuming they are smarter.

Just in case, I still hope that you read the thread "The Real Simple Answer" to know better my position.

[Llyricist]

Originally posted by 7thangel
Just in case, English is my second language, please bear with me. Anyhow, though my two cent's faces look like Mickey Mouse's they sure are "real."
I apologize for that, I did not know. I myself, couldn't begin to try a conversation in a second language, so please accept my apology.
Originally posted by 7thangel
You did not consider all the details of my argument, or perhaps you did not understand the full implication.
I do consider that misrepresenting God as insane in my argument may meant of the following:
1. All the details were not considered.
2. Ignorance of what clay-potter relationship entails, and therefore deny it.
3. Clown about it, presuming they are smarter.

Just in case, I still hope that you read the thread "The Real Simple Answer" to know better my position.
No I considered all the details, I KNOW what the clay-potter relationship entails, and while I ALWAYS have a sense of humor about things (my comment toward King Rat was entirely separate from my reply to you) My reply to you was quite serious.

There is no way that a potter who exercised his "right" to destroy whatever he made would be conseidered sane. Sorry.

[Autonemesis]

Originally posted by Magus55
SAB's source is taking every single quote in the Bible out of context.

Oh? Here's a sample page (http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/gen/3.html) from SAB showing Genesis 3 in its entirety, context intact, with the comments in the margins.

How can this be seen as taken out of context? The text is highlighted in the same way as any other annotated version of the Bible. You just don't like the annotations. But the text isn't taken out of context, it's right there in its entirety, all of it.

[Autonemesis]

Originally posted by 7thangel
2. Ignorance of what clay-potter relationship entails, and therefore deny it.

Clay is incapable of being ignorant of or of denying its relationship to the potter. This analogy does not map to actual human beings.

[Autonemesis]

Originally posted by Magus55
Again, SAB should be deleted off the internet, and never seen or heard from again. Its the most pathetic attempt at Biblical contradiction i have EVER seen, and most atheists agree.

Your posts should be deleted off the IIDB. Yours are the most pathetic attempt at Biblical apologetics I have EVER seen, and most theists and atheists agree.

In other words, who the FUCK are you to call for censoring anything on the internet, or off of it? Ashcroft has a job opening for your kind, I hear, jackboots are optional.

[Magus55]

Originally posted by Demigawd
Yes, by reading the bible literally. An interesting juxtaposition between atheist and fundamentalist, wouldn't you say, Magus?:D The entire Bible isn't literal, and even the parts that are need to be read in context to understand their meaning. SAB just peoples quotes out of nowhere, and says look a contradiction, when reading 2 verses ahead of it, reads "this is a parable". SAB is stupid, and I will never give any respect or acknowledgement to anyone that bothers using it.

[Dargo]

Originally posted by Magus55
SAB's source is taking every single quote in the Bible out of context.

I'd really like to see one of you Christians use out of context quotes from Gandhi or another highly respected figure (a deist or atheist would be ideal), and make him or her look as bad as your savior does. You have to quote complete unaltered sentences at a minimum. None of the out of context quotes in the SAB use incomplete sentence and many of them quote paragraphs, so your quotes should follow this guideline. If you succeed, you can post it on this board and make all of us infidels look foolish. We will want references to verify your work. This should be easy to do according to your claims, so it's time to put your money where your mouth is.

[Magus55]

Originally posted by Autonemesis
Oh? Here's a sample page (http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/gen/3.html) from SAB showing Genesis 3 in its entirety, context intact, with the comments in the margins.

How can this be seen as taken out of context? The text is highlighted in the same way as any other annotated version of the Bible. You just don't like the annotations. But the text isn't taken out of context, it's right there in its entirety, all of it. And yet SAB still has absolutely no clue how to study scripture. What from that page is actually a valid contradiction? Adam dying isn't it, because thats spiritual death. Adam's physical death will result from God guarding the tree of life, which would have given Adam immortality had He eaten from it. Spiritual death is mentioned throughout the Bible, which is what that verse is referring to. Adam's perfect fellowship with God was severed.

[Magus55]

Originally posted by Autonemesis
Clay is incapable of being ignorant of or of denying its relationship to the potter. This analogy does not map to actual human beings. Compared to God, humans are about as intelligent as clay. The analogy still fits.

[Magus55]

Originally posted by Autonemesis
Your posts should be deleted off the IIDB. Yours are the most pathetic attempt at Biblical apologetics I have EVER seen, and most theists and atheists agree.

In other words, who the FUCK are you to call for censoring anything on the internet, or off of it? Ashcroft has a job opening for your kind, I hear, jackboots are optional. Actually, there is a poll in elsewhere showing that the majority of the people on this board don't mind me posting.

And I have freedom of speech. I have every right to say SAB should be shut down. If you insist on using it, don't expect anyone to take your Biblical contradiction allegations seriously. You are just a whiny baby who can't deal with the fact that God might actually exist and send your sorry arse straight to hell.

[Llyricist]

Originally posted by Magus55
Compared to God, humans are about as intelligent as clay. The analogy still fits.
And I'm still waiting for a good defense of the potter's sanity.

[Autonemesis]

Originally posted by Magus55
And yet SAB still has absolutely no clue how to study scripture. What from that page is actually a valid contradiction?

For one thing, Adam and Eve hid from God in Gen 3:8-9.

3:8 And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God amongst the trees of the garden.
3:9 And the LORD God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou?

So, is God all-knowing/omniscient? Or is he not? Besides, the contraditions are not the only reason to discount the Bible as reliable for any number of purposes.

Adam dying isn't it, because thats spiritual death. Adam's physical death will result from God guarding the tree of life, which would have given Adam immortality had He eaten from it. Spiritual death is mentioned throughout the Bible, which is what that verse is referring to.

Yes, well then throughout the Bible, God is presented as knowing all things. Except when Adam and Eve hid from him, and God went looking for them ("Yoo-hoo!"). Maybe God was just pretending not to know where they hid.

But as for your explanation, it's fine and dandy and all, but it doesn't say that in any of the actual text of Gen 3 (which is presented intact at SAB, all of it). I guess you're using some other annotated version of the Bible.

Here's another curiosity in Gen 3:

3:24 So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.

Where is the garden of Eden now, and where are the Cherubims with the flaming sword that God placed at the east of it?

[Autonemesis]

Originally posted by Magus55
Compared to God, humans are about as intelligent as clay. The analogy still fits.

Enough with the insults! Go wear sackcloth in private, you are creeping me out!

[7thangel]

Originally posted by Llyricist
I apologize for that, I did not know. I myself, couldn't begin to try a conversation in a second language, so please accept my apology.

Apology accepted.

No I considered all the details, I KNOW what the clay-potter relationship entails, and while I ALWAYS have a sense of humor about things (my comment toward King Rat was entirely separate from my reply to you) My reply to you was quite serious.

Actually, I like that humor part. I myself make jokes and I welcome jokes. Thus, I responded with a joke also. ;)

Unfortunately, some people does not really intend their joke to fun and learning, but rather intend them for personal hurt. And when their intentions did not work and rather bounced back to their hurt, reaping what they sowed, being as they are, flaunt their embarassing state. It is common to theists and atheists alike. I think Jobar was absolutely right, the eye cannot see itself. And yes, I am human, and sometimes does not realize that, me too, do sometimes fall to that embarassing same scenario. :(

There is no way that a potter who exercised his "right" to destroy whatever he made would be conseidered sane. Sorry.

We do judge any potter who destroy his works by his purpose, not by mere his action of destroying it. A potter puts his purposes above his pots. If the potter makes pots for the main purpose of using them for a short time, and then destroy them because he would make better ones, he has all the rights and therefore he is sane to do so.

[Magus55]

Originally posted by Autonemesis
For one thing, Adam and Eve hid from God in Gen 3:8-9.

3:8 And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God amongst the trees of the garden.
3:9 And the LORD God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou?

So, is God all-knowing/omniscient? Or is he not? Besides, the contraditions are not the only reason to discount the Bible as reliable for any number of purposes.



Yes, well then throughout the Bible, God is presented as knowing all things. Except when Adam and Eve hid from him, and God went looking for them ("Yoo-hoo!"). Maybe God was just pretending not to know where they hid. Who said God doesn't know where they are? All it says is God asked where they were. God wanted Adam and Eve to reveal themselves to Him.

Here's another curiosity in Gen 3:

3:24 So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.

Where is the garden of Eden now, and where are the Cherubims with the flaming sword that God placed at the east of it? The garden would have overgrown under the curse of the Earth, and eventually was destroyed by the flood. No need to guard a garden that gets destroyed and buried now is there?

[BioBeing]

But we are not pots!

Let me repeat - WE ARE NOT POTS!

I am a human being. I care for my fellow humans. I care for animals. I do not wish needless harm on any being. I wish for the farm animals I eat to be treated humanely.

I do not think it acceptable to have the attitude that it is OK to just up and smash another life just because I feel like it.

For a god to how such a blatant disregard for his supposed creation is sick.

Many problems humans have in dealing with other humans can be seen in how they treat animals. The kids who went on the shooting spree in Columbine, IIRC, had a past history of torturing cats. For most pyschologists, I think this to be a huge red flag, indicating a problem with that kid to integrate properly into society.

If your analogy stands, it is like God tortures six kitty cats before breakfast. Every day. For fun. And, for that, I judge him, and find him wanting.

[Llyricist]

Originally posted by 7thangel
Apology accepted.
Thank you :)
We do judge any potter who destroy his works by his purpose, not by mere his action of destroying it. A potter puts his purposes above his pots. If the potter makes pots for the main purpose of using them for a short time, and then destroy them because he would make better ones, he has all the rights and therefore he is sane to do so.
No, a potter puts his PROFITS above his pots. (I'm just reminding you here that you are attempting an analogy with something real-life people are experienced with). So still, unless this guy can make a profit from his behavior, it would seem the guy is not strictly sane. If this guy knows that the next batch will be better, then he isn't omniscient to begin with. And no, he IS NOT sane to destroy HIS mistake.

[7thangel]

Originally posted by Magus55
Compared to God, humans are about as intelligent as clay. The analogy still fits.

Thanks, Magus, that is actually an excellent argument. I may not use it as for now, but will surely use it in the future.

[7thangel]

Originally posted by Autonemesis
Clay is incapable of being ignorant of or of denying its relationship to the potter. This analogy does not map to actual human beings.

God's point is that it is He who created us into being. In fact, Paul said, "In Him we live, and move, and have our being."

And further to demonstrate it, God showed it through the prophecies, showing what he decreed happens. Also, He demonstrated through fullfilling his promises on Isaac, the election of Jacob, most especially the fulfillment of the law through Christ.

[Family Man]

Well, so much for this thread. Any moderators want to do me a favor and close it?

[BioBeing]

From the OP:
So the challenge to theists is this: why should we accept any of your stories about God, written in the Bible or spread throughout your religious communities, as being anything other than human stories. Worse yet, stories that don't make a lot of sense.

7thAngel
God's point is that it is He who created us into being. In fact, Paul said, "In Him we live, and move, and have our being."

And further to demonstrate it, God showed it through the prophecies, showing what he decreed happens. Also, He demonstrated through fullfilling his promises on Isaac, the election of Jacob, most especially the fulfillment of the law through Christ.
Your answer, Family Man, is that we should accept the Bible because the bible tells us to. [and no, that makes absolutely no sense to me].

[7thangel]

Originally posted by Llyricist
Thank you :)

Your welcome. No problem really. :)

No, a potter puts his PROFITS above his pots. (I'm just reminding you here that you are attempting an analogy with something real-life people are experienced with). So still, unless this guy can make a profit from his behavior, it would seem the guy is not strictly sane. If this guy knows that the next batch will be better, then he isn't omniscient to begin with. And no, he IS NOT sane to destroy HIS mistake.

Your position actually shifted to God-man relationship, and using the common thought that man is a moral agent, and thus you are already denying what real clay-potter relationship entails. You must note that parts of my argument is that the Bible is proving our clay-potter relationship unto Him. Proven by what Paul teaches. And that the proof also includes the demonstration through the evil actions of God on the 40 children, of Gideons daughter, of Saul's kins. of Christ's crucifixion, etc. So your position now is just the denial of my argument.

[Family Man]

Originally posted by BioBeing
Your answer, Family Man, is that we should accept the Bible because the bible tells us to. [and no, that makes absolutely no sense to me].

Ultimately, all 7th Angel is doing is begging the question. He's assuming his god exists, that it doesn't matter if he appears fair or merciful, and throwing out a whole bunch of theology to justify it. Why I should care about "clay-potter relationships" or "predestination" isn't clear to me and I don't think he cares much either. It appears to me that he's talking to himself. He certainly hasn't addressed any of my concerns.

[7thangel]

Originally posted by Family Man
Ultimately, all 7th Angel is doing is begging the question. He's assuming his god exists, that it doesn't matter if he appears fair or merciful, and throwing out a whole bunch of theology to justify it. Why I should care about "clay-potter relationships" or "predestination" isn't clear to me and I don't think he cares much either. It appears to me that he's talking to himself. He certainly hasn't addressed any of my concerns.

Maybe I wasn't addressing your concern. Can you please enumerate those concerns? Sometimes I anticipate too much in my answers. I will appreciate your response.

[Family Man]

This is what I intened this thread to be about.

Believers come to me frequently and say, God is fair, merciful, and just and that we can know that because Bible stories tell us so.

I look at the Bible and notice that many of the stories describe behavior that is not fair, merciful or just (and gave an example).

A common response to that is: "You can't judge God."

That response, however, is not legitimate. I'm not judging God. I'm judging the claim that the Bible provides a consistent picture of a fair, merciful and just God. Since the Bible is held out as the standard, if it falls short, I'm justified in disbelieving the claim. Essentially, the theistic response is begging the question. I don't know that God exists. That's what the Bible was supposed to supply me.

Your position appears to be, yes, God isn't always fair, just and merciful but that you have a theology that addresses that point. And that's fine if that's what you want to believe. But I'm not asking for an explanation of why God fails to be fair, just and merciful, and your theological justification should probably be in a different thread.

[davidm]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Magus55
Compared to God, humans are about as intelligent as clay. The analogy still fits.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by 7thangel
Thanks, Magus, that is actually an excellent argument. I may not use it as for now, but will surely use it in the future.

Godboy and His Supernatural Clay

Godboy lives in a split-level house in a bland suburban tract called Heaven. Heaven has always been: unlike the natural world, it requires no first cause. There are no parents in Heaven, and Godboy is perpetually eight years old. Because he has never had parents, or even siblings, he has never been socialized.

Godboy is short and pudgy. He wears a white T-shirt with horizontal red stripes, blue jean shorts and red high-top sneakers. He also wears a beanie with a propeller on top. When he is pleased, the propeller turns lightly; when he is provoked, it spins violently with a mad whizzing sound.

Godboy's favorite toy is his Supernatural Clay.

One day, after all eternity had passed, Godboy, bored, made Adam out of the clay. He made sure Adam was stupid -- as stupid as, well, clay. Seeing Stupid Adam, his propeller lightly spun. Godboy mulled over his creation. Then he tore a hunk of clay from Adam's side and molded Eve. He made her stupid, too.

"Heh-eh-heh-eh," Godboy chortled, picking his nose.

He turned the stupid creatures loose in the backyard, which he caleld Earth. He sent them to a garden in the yard. As he saw his clay golems off, he whispered after them, sotto vocce, "Don't eat the apple! Heh, eh-he-eh..."

He had made a tiny clay apple with a little razor buried inside. Since he was omniscient, he knew that his stupid clay creatures would take a bite from it. Sure enough, they did. He could hear them screaming as the razor cut up their little clay tongues. Godboy's propeller spun in ecstasy. He jumped up and down, clapping his hands and saying, "Heh-eh-eh-he-eh-eh..."

He made lots more clay golems and let them run loose in the yard. They were all stupid and immoral, just as he had foreseen they would be an eternity ago, before he had ever made them. One day he grew bored with them, then angry. His propeller whizzed with a vengeful hiss.

He gathered up all the clay golems and threw them into the bathtub. Then he turned on the hot water. He saved only one golem and his family, parking them on top of a rubber ducky that floated on the water that was rapidly filling the tub. The other clay golems were screaming in agony as they struggled to keep from drowning. Two tiny clay children were clawing their way up the side of the tub; Godboy forced them back into the water and, for good measure, held their little heads under it.

"Heh-eh-eh-he-eh," Godboy said, as all the clay corpses began to float to the surface. The water was now running over the side of the tub.

But Godboy wasn't done yet. He gathered up the corpses and brought them into the afterlife. After inundating them with water, he would now raze them with heat.

He carried the clay figurines into the kitchen, where a microwave oven bore a label that said, "Hell." He opened the oven's doors and threw the clay characters inside. Then he turned on the oven to full blast. From within came sizzling and popping nosies; black smoke poured out. Blood-curdling screams could be heard; Godboy jumped up and down, clapping and shrieking with delight.

Waiting a few moments, he opened the oven and took out the clay people. They were twisted and gnarled and charred black, but still conscious, writhing in agony.

He touched up some of their wounds with a little more Supernatural Clay. Then he threw them back into the microwave and once more turned up the heat to full. He decided he would subject them to this torment for the rest of Eternity. It was just the sort of decision that an unsocialized eight-year-old boy with Supernatural powers might make.

After all, the clay belonged to him: It's my clay! Mine! Mine! Mine!

Godboy would have many other fun exploits with his clay people, who eventually wrote a book about him, claiming to depict a fair, just and merciful Godboy.

[7thangel]

Originally posted by Family Man
This is what I intened this thread to be about.

Believers come to me frequently and say, God is fair, merciful, and just and that we can know that because Bible stories tell us so.

I look at the Bible and notice that many of the stories describe behavior that is not fair, merciful or just (and gave an example).

A common response to that is: "You can't judge God."

That response, however, is not legitimate. I'm not judging God. I'm judging the claim that the Bible provides a consistent picture of a fair, merciful and just God. Since the Bible is held out as the standard, if it falls short, I'm justified in disbelieving the claim. Essentially, the theistic response is begging the question. I don't know that God exists. That's what the Bible was supposed to supply me.

Your position appears to be, yes, God isn't always fair, just and merciful but that you have a theology that addresses that point. And that's fine if that's what you want to believe. But I'm not asking for an explanation of why God fails to be fair, just and merciful, and your theological justification should probably be in a different thread.

Thank you for responding.

[Family Man]

Originally posted by 7thangel
Thank you for responding.

Why do I feel like I should have won a door prize or something?:confused:

[King Rat]

Why do I feel like I should have won a door prize or something?

At least I got a beer baptism out of the deal.

What did you get again?

[Matrioshka_Brain]

Is it just me, or is the clay concept just saying "Might makes Right"?

________________________________
"Hey I made you you little shit! And I gave you free will, so you can act in accordance with my plan. Judge not lest ye be judged, but I'm off limits. Yep. What? No, I don't have any responisbilities to you, my creation, if you were created defective, you deserved it, because I wanted it."

"So what if you didn't get into heaven because you died before you could conceve of me, or weren't intellegent enough, or never heard of my true self on account of geographic location, or were tricked by local memes or the nature of the reality that I created, and I knew of the enevitable outcome. Not my problem! Not happening to me, so what do I care?"

"I had every right to tear apart those 42 kids when I didnt have to, they belonged to me, and pissed me off like I knew they enevitably would. It felt good. No pain involved, I didn't feel a thing. What? Do unto others as you would have them do unto you? Oh, thats only for you guys. Same with all that no killing stuff."

"You see, the reason it is good is becaue it does anything to anyone on a whim, uninhibited, and let nasty things happen to people because they're not it, and it's temporarily amusing to it. Why is that so hard to understand?"
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That is essentially the way we are told it works, and why we are told to swallow the tripe.

The "Godboy and the Supernatural Clay" story also sums up the christian theological perspective quite nicely.

The christian god charicter Yaweh seems to lack any kind of Empathic Awareness of others. Strange.

[Autonemesis]

NM, OT, Sorry about that.

[Dargo]

Originally posted by Matrioshka_Brain


The christian god charicter Yaweh seems to lack any kind of Empathic Awareness of others. Strange.

His followers are apparently expected to have at least some empathic awareness although they don't show it much. I seem to recall the Bible saying something about doing unto others as you would have them do unto you. I can also remember many sermons intended to make me feel guilty for not sharing the gospel and thus causing people to go to hell for my inactions. I often heard about we were supposed to have a burden for lost souls. Too bad god doesn't have any sort of burden like this. He either would have made sure every one had a chance to hear the gospel with sufficient evidence to believe it was true, or better yet never created hell in the first place. It’s hardly surprising that most of his followers would emulate their gods indifference to suffering..

[Matrioshka_Brain]

Dargo -

Yeah, I know. But the thing is, that most christians, if they say something/someone else doing that, they'd think it/he/she was an asshole. I can't stand the double standard.

A being with no moral inhibitions twards aware beings and no feelings for them, is not moral. It simply does what it does becase nothing can stop it, and it wants to.

Morality, goodness, and justness, are all charicteristics applied by humans to aware entities whom follow by a baisc code of right and wrong. A volcano is not immoral. Vitamin B12/Riboflavin is not moral. Creating a volcano would normally be immoral. Administering a healthy quantity of B12 to a consenting individual in need of it {ok perhaps this is a terrible analogy} would normally be considered moral.

But soon as a god is thrown in the equation, we are slapped with "its its unknowable plan"{which, may be good or bad, since we don't know}, or "god works in misterious ways" {especially odd when a murder is the subject, but then again it's part of its "unkowable plan", isn't it?}. Or the "might makes right" arguments, ownership, and the idea that Self-awareness, at any level, has no bearing on morality (clay lumps).

I don't see why theists feel the need to call their diety good, since it has no moral code or feelings twards self-aware beings {except getting pissed off, occasional fondness} - only settings for wich its victims/pets/subjects are to follow (Morals), or they will be beaten into submission.

It seems to be either cognitive dissonance regarding the psycological makeup of the charicter Yaweh (selfish) and objective morality [either there is none, the Yaweh doesnt' follow it becase it doesn't have to, or it's whatever the Yaweh feels like today], a strange example of moral relitivism, an attempt to keep from being beaten into submission, or a combination of the above possible reasons.

___________________________________________________
Personally, with the idea of "Unconditional love" for both twards and from their god charicter, I don't see why it's so hard for theists to admit that their god charicter is not good, but selfish, uncaring, and amoral, and that by everything they know of as good and just does not appear at this interval in thier protagonist's psycological makeup. It makes the problem of evil vanish.

Any theists {or others} care to comment? I'd be interested to hear what you'd have to say.

[7thangel]

Originally posted by Matrioshka_Brain
Is it just me, or is the clay concept just saying "Might makes Right"?

I guess, you do not know well my position. Please read this thread (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=65918) for better comprehension of my position.

BTW, ask a potter if he has all the right to do whatever he wants to the clay.

[King Rat]

BTW, ask a potter if he has all the right to do whatever he wants to the clay.

Right up until his pot becomes sentient and walks away.

Would you just quit with the potter analogy already, it fully sucks.

[7thangel]

Originally posted by King Rat
Right up until his pot becomes sentient and walks away.

Would you just quit with the potter analogy already, it fully sucks.

Honestly, my analogy is excellent and can easily be understood. Atheists' insistence to win the arguments just misrepresent it, or maybe, just really ignorant of my position.

[Weltall]

Originally posted by 7thangel
Honestly, my analogy is excellent and can easily be understood. Atheists' insistence to win the arguments just misrepresent it, or maybe, just really ignorant of my position.

We have two choices that I can see here given the reaction to your position: Your position is rational and you haven't done a good job of explaining it or your position is irrational and you won't realize it even after your argument has been deconstructed. Let's see here...

[Matrioshka_Brain]

"BTW, ask a potter if he has all the right to do whatever he wants to the clay."

You sidestep sentience. And you forget that owership is a human made concept.

Take this for example:


A human genetically engeneers a child. The child is designed to have multiple gastly health problems and die before reatching maturity. But in the meantime, it is put to meaningless, slave labor. The engeneer has no legal code to deal with.

Is the engeneer:

A). Good - he's doing what he wanted with what he made.
B.) An asshole - A child abuser.

Now add: just before death, the engeneer downloads the child's consciousness into a matrix-thingie where it will suffer endlessly until the local star blows up, as a form of punishment becase of another condition it created and knew full well about, but the child could not on occount of the engeneer's actions. A or B?

You could say "oh, but he didn't actually create the matter or soul", to which I woudl reply "What does that have to do with it?"

How does creation differ from finding, in regards to a sentient being? Once it's there it's there. The creator in no objective sense owns the creation. It just does what it wants to with it. And if it has no regard for the feelings of a sentient creation, then it is not behveing in a "good" way, but selfishly.

Clay to sentient-pot-potter is a perfict example of "Might makes Right" - the best example there is, in fact.

The Yaweh has a being that doesn't do what it wants, Yaweh turns big and green green and says "Yaweh SMASH!" without any moral inhibitions.

You might say that "Compared to the Yaweh charicter, we are as intellegent as clay" - please explain to me why this is relevant, if, after all, we are made in it's mental image. We, being much smaller/lesser, are simply just easyer for it to smash when it feels like.

G2G, might elaborate on it later.

[Jack the Bodiless]

Honestly, my analogy is excellent and can easily be understood. Atheists' insistence to win the arguments just misrepresent it, or maybe, just really ignorant of my position.
As you have already conceded the argument (by admitting that God is amoral and "might makes right"), I fail to see what your point is.

This discussion is for those Christians who still wish to maintain that God is "good". You are apparently not among them.

If you DO still wish to be among them, then you still have questions to answer.