This is where you make the fundamental error. I am here to debate religious issues because I have an interest in the subject, while living happily knowing there is no god, (good or bad). As far as discussions go however, I will question certain aspects of the bible/religion and indeed discuss them in depth. The issues of love and care and dying for humanity etc have all been covered extensively, leaving little reason to go into them. On the other hand when it comes to me questioning the 'not so nice' issues in the bible nobody has yet even managed to provide a semi-decent answer. The best people seem to be able to manage is that god is god and can do whatever the hell he wants to do.
I am a man who knows humans exist, and having a lot of time and respect for humans in general I need to question these issue because it is extremely perverse a notion to see people believe in and worship a being that according to the text has annihilated them left, right and center.
It also comes down to the christian/jewish specific version of god because there are very few people of other religious stances on this forum.
Let's get it straight: The religious man makes the claim, (i.e "god is loving"). I then look at the 'evidence' he has provided, (the bible), and notice that this being kills mankind over and over and over. He closes innocent womens wombs for the actions of one man who was lied to, (Abimelech), and so on all the way down the line. Nearer the end we see jesus saying he has come not for peace or love but to set a man against his father, a woman against her mother.. Further on from that we see the eventual outcome where this being destroys the planet and everyone on it via some extreme methods, only to end up dooming the mass majority of mankind to an eternal fiery pit.
The evidence seen here does not point to "loving". Instead of an answer to that I just get comments like "god can do whatever he bloody well wants to", and more likely in your case: "Snake is just a hater". These do not in any way go against the evidence that is still there and still unanswered.
But it is readily apparent that christians don't really know or appreciate what "love" is. We can experiment a little here. As you will know, jesus has told you to "love thy neighbour". Would you agree that the word "love" here is actually more akin and in line with "respect"? Do you think you really love your neighbour. Tell you what, let me ask you: do you love me Jenyar, as told to by jesus? I'll get to the rest once you answer the question.
This doesn't actually answer my question, (or even pay attention to it).
No. That's what you maintain, and have shown in your responses: god kills everyone but it doesn't matter because he's protecting our "actual" selves, (our life with him). You state this a couple of sentences down. I maintain that from a biblical standpoint man was killed excessively by this entity many call "loving", and that one of the reasons for the slaughter of man by this being was as a direct result of his jealousy.
I think you've just mistaken a point in our discussion from the end of page 1/2.
To put it in an analogy for you:
My daughter gets to 23 let's say and gets married. This man then becomes the main man in her life. At this point from a biblical god standpoint, I would get jealous that her attention is focused elsewhere and kill her for it.
-------
So you think I should kill them? Kids will be kids right? But what rules exactly are we talking about here? Let's face it, from an OT perspective, those 'rules' you speak of include stoning bad children to death and not being homosexual, which are quite frankly unfair rules to demand obedience to, whether god agrees or not. Everyone else agrees, because we no longer do it, (and generally accept homosexuals). god is ignored when it comes to those laws. Does that make you a disobedient child aswell? Yes, it does. Wouldn't you be a little bit miffed if he came down and killed you with plague because of it?
These are the more serious laws, but let's look at the typical 'child' behaviour from the OT. The jews, (gods children), were wandering through the desert for years eating nothing but manna. They complained and nagged, (as children do), that they required something a bit more substantial than manna - namely meat. Moses, being the spokesperson, went to god and said: "you know we're sacrificing all these animals to you..", (analogy equivalent of forcing these children to give me all their food and sweets), ".. can they have some?"
To this god said ok and provided them with a mass amount of quails. From analogy standard that's me giving these children a bunch of their favourite foods - and not because I love them so do that naturally, but because they were starting to piss me off with all the nagging. However, the story gets worse. Just as the humans sat down to eat the quails god gave them all plague and killed them. That's the analogy equivalent of me giving these kids a ******** candy bar. That does not make a good parent.
No, if not only because of the bad attitudes people lump on them, making their job twice as difficult.
But let's use this analogy, it works well. What I would do at an early stage, (as is also generally done in schools), is teach my child about pregnancy and other related sexual issues. I would tell her that it is probably more beneficial to ensure a condom is always used if and when she decides to engage in sexual intercourse, (which is entirely her decision).
Thus far we have the equivalent of god informing you of something that isn't specifically beneficial for you. He gives you the lowdowns on it and tells you how to avoid it.
My daughter then goes out, has sex and ends up pregnant. These are the two factors:
1) She listened to my advice but an accident happened, (condom split etc). or..
2) She listened to my advice but didn't really understand or pay attention to it and ended up pregnant.
In case 1 I would say to my daughter that no matter what she decides or does I will be with her and behind her 100%. I am aware that life does not always go specifically as we might want, but that gives me no call to disown her, or more to the point: No call to punish her for the rest of eternity.
In case 2 I would say to my daughter that no matter what she decides or does I will be with her and behind her 100%. I am aware that life does not always go specifically as we might want, and humans do make mistakes, but that gives me no call to disown her, or more to the point: No call to punish her for the rest of eternity.
Tell me, has she actually done anything 'wrong'?
But let's get this straight: It's not just a threatened eternal punishment for not listening to his advice and rules, but for not accepting or loving him. The self centeredness of that is utterly sickening.
But this is not god's form of parenting, going back once again to the earlier OT comment, we can see god stating that you should kill your son by stoning him to death if he is naughty, (Deut). That is god's form of parenting. The minute they step out of line or fuck up, give them plague. Hey but don't stop there, just to rub salt into the wounds you can also expel them to an eternal pit of fire.
Actually I just happened to pick up this weeks magazines, (for the competitions
), and have found an excerpt from a good parenting book. I don't agree specifically with all the advice in it, but I find some parts worth quoting for the sake of this discussion:1) Ensure that the punishment fits the crime.
From a biblical standpoint: Abraham lied to Abimelech and said that Sarah was his sister. Abimelech then chatted her up to which god then came down and threatened him with death before closing the wombs of all the women in Abimelechs household. This certainly doesn't fit the crime. Abraham, (gods own), had bold faced lied, (which he later said because he was scared for his life - thus not trusting enough of god to keep him alive), and as a result to that, the "punishment" given to an innocent for an innocent mistake was the closure of the wombs of a bunch of innocent women who weren't even a part of the innocent mistake.
Then we could go to the jews in the desert. They nagged for some meat. Ok, some parents might see this as a "crime", but what punishment do you think fits? Do you honestly state that god's punishment of plague to death fit the crime of nagging?
I could give you many more examples but this shall suffice for now.
2) Be sensitive. Make it clear that it's the bad behaviour that is unacceptable, not the child.
From a biblical standpoint: They never got to find out because god just slaughtered them all. We're not even talking about the occasional person here and there but every single person on the planet save half a dozen.
3) Be brief. Apply your penalty as soon as possible after the bad behaviour and complete it quickly.
From a biblical standpoint: I really don't consider "eternity" as completed quickly.
The reason it says to complete it quickly is because: "long term punishments - such as making a child miss a favourite TV programme for three weeks - may seem reasonable at the time but delays, and time to replay the incident, allow bad feelings to set in."
So to answer your question in short format: No, I don't think it's beneficial for a person to be pregnant at 14 in this day and age. But to add to that nor do I see what punishing them for their mistakes will do to rectify the situation to any worthwhile degree, whereas absolute love and support can only help to make everyone feel better about the whole thing. Nor would I kill her for making a bad decision.
Let's put this in another way shall we?
A couple decides to let their 14 year old boy read the bible with murderous scenes in it. The young boy thinks about the book and it makes him curious about it. He goes out and drowns some people. Now who is responsible?
I had a debate with a reporter from the New York Times who stated that Grand Theft Auto should be banned because it contained images of graphic violence. He mentioned a case whereby 2 children went out after playing it and started shooting peoples cars.
I mentioned that as this is the case he might aswell just ask for a ban on Tom & Jerry which shows just as much violence and might cause kids to go round smacking each others teeth out with pianos and dustbin lids - or indeed getting hold of some dynamite and shoving it in people's mouths, only to laugh when they explode.
The problem is with the person, not the product or the provider of that product. If a man watches Superman and then believes he can fly, it is something within him. I've seen many films with sex scenes, and yet I don't then jump up and go bonk the nearest person to me.
As long as you explain the issues in a nice loving manner to ensure the kid pays attention to what you're saying - you shouldn't really have a problem - but then if a problem does arise, love can help fix it faster than shackles.
At the end of the day of course, sex is completely natural and generally unavoidable. Once a child gets to a certain age they will start to experiment regardless to what you tell them. Once the body starts producing eggs, it is ready to conceive children whether society looks down on it or not, (in a general respect). When they start having sex, whether they first saw it on TV or not, it is nobody's fault - it is a natural course for every single living thing on the planet, (ok some don't specifically have sex, but you get the point).
Sure, it most certainly can. It is once these destructive things happen that love is needed far above that of a fiery pit in hell.
But is it? There's the question. The guy gets jealous and whacks people because of it. I do not consider that "safe". It is no less damaging than when we're jealous.
Hope you enjoyed it
Funnily enough I too had chips, (but not fishcakes, I opted for battered sausage instead).-------
Right, and yet that's what the majority do. When it comes down to it of course, any statement concerning a godly being is "from a human perspective", and becomes inherently worthless. We cannot claim god as loving, evil, powerful, omnipotent or even existant. It just turns the whole thing into a farce.
Certainly, but no less reason to discuss it. I have nice debates and discussions about all sorts of things: vampires, werewolves and jason and the argonauts to name but a few other non existant ones, and yet it doesn't prevent the discussions concerning the stories of these non existant beings.
But of course he can.
Upon study we can see that vampirism is actually very sexually orientated. The bite on the neck, (one of the most sensual places on the body), never seeing a man being bitten on the neck, the head vampire always very charming - a true ladies man, etc etc etc.
Discussions do not rely on something's existence. The item of discussion can be discussed in whatever way it is seen given the material concerning it. A vampire doesn't have to exist for me to give it actions. These actions are based upon the text/video etc depicting vampires.
By that same token I can discuss god's "actions" as printed in the texts. If we were discussing a different religions texts, then the god in question would be seen to perform different actions, have different morals and ways of dealing with issues and so on. On this forum it generally comes down to the jewish/christian god and the text concerning this god.
No, I am not saying any type of god cannot exist. Whether it does or not is not the concern here. The discussion focuses on the actions of the supposed god in the biblical text. When discussing the biblical god, it is tyrannical by nature, (in the OT mainly), has a habit of exterminating humans on a whim, and does possess and display emotions that even humanity would often turn a nose up to. It doesn't mean he exists or doesn't, I'm just discussing what the text concerning this being states.
When it comes down to it I actually have an incredible amount to work with, (and thus my side is easy). It's not like these are isolated incidents. No, the bible is pack jammed with them. Stories of annihilation and murder, eternal damnation and plagues, closed wombs and sulphur bombed cities.
From the christian standpoint, X god doesn't isn't possible at all. Instead they try to portray the most loving entity in existence that cares for, nurtures and supports his children. The fact is that there is overwhelming evidence to the contrary, people just prefer to ignore it. No, I can't really blame them for that, but it doesn't change the facts of the matter.
You really have no place to go into "understanding". With all due respect to you, but I can understand English just like the next man can. Admittedly my Hebrew is limited, but it's better than some people, and my English is certainly good enough to get the job done. I am also as fully capable as every other person I've ever met of understanding context and other related issues. While I cannot deny you the right to look upon me as if I'm an absolute halfwit, if you so choose to, it basically comes across as a piss poor excuse to ignore what is written in preference of having an entire debate on who's penis is larger.
Basically: A discussion concerning certain aspects of a text does not mean or imply that you haven't read or don't understand the entire text, but that certain aspects are worth discussing in their own right. I am aware that the WHOLE BIBLE doesn't show god slaying the innocent, but that is no reason to ignore the moments when he does.
What you end up with is X god with a big portion of that X being the X I have been talking about, and another portion of that X being something else. You can't just remove my X because it's not the WHOLE X.
No. I am discussing god because this is a discussion forum. You can believe he exists or not, I do not particularly care, and nor would I generally go out of my way to try and show or 'prove', (religious understanding of the word), that god doesn't exist. What I am doing is discussing the traits, actions and qualities of the biblical god according to the text describing that god. If we were discussing Apollo or Zeus, I would undoubtedly be discussing issue related to them. It doesn't mean they exist or don't exist, and nor would it mean that I was trying to show that they don't.
If it came down to that I would simply say: "god doesn't exist". End of story. Nobody can successfully argue that and I could just leave it there and be happy. I'm here to discuss issues found within religious texts and that's it - merely because I find it interesting to do so.
Says who? Why obviously? Why without a doubt? Justify that.
Fine, let's look at a rabbit. We're not "small and furry", we don't have a "big pointy ears", but yet in many ways the rabbit is just like we are. He raises a family, he finds a place to live, he does poo's and eats food, he feels pain and fear etc etc.
It is in no way silly to think that just because we differ in some instances that it means we differ in every instance. Is a rabbit's fear any different to our own? Is a rabbit's anger and hostility towards enemies any different than our own? I'm sure we can debate these points, but would you go so far as to say: "obviously, without a doubt"?
To be honest I think the issue has become confused. You said:
"Cain could have said, "oh, this sacrifice isn't ok for you, let me fix that," but instead was lost in self-hate"
By that very same token I could say:
"god could have said, "oh, this isn't exactly the kind of sacrifice I wanted, but thanks for it anyway", but instead was lost in self-hate"
It comes out the same. Why is this now something god can't do but Cain can? Your paradox quote doesn't really have a place here.
Ok I'm interested. Give me your understanding of gods 'love'.
Asking would certainly be nicer than demanding, however I have no problems with that. Just give me a certain topic you'd like me to explore. Let it be known however that I cannot give a good argument for the existence of a god.. because there aren't any.
I guess I could just say: [insert god name here] exists because [insert text name here] says so.
It doesn't come down to any need for any god to be interpreted in any way. What it does come down to is, (yes), common sense and logic which would dictate that all such beings/things that are completely without evidence to suggest their existence remain as non-existant until such time whereby there is evidence to promote it. There is nothing wrong with an idea, an assumption, a guess.. the problem comes with claiming reality under such instances.
No logical man with common sense states leprechauns are real because an old book says so, or because a woman down the street swears she has seen one. Common sense and logic would demand that leprechauns remain on the 'fictional' shelf until such time where there is actual leprechaun evidence to study.
That's not to say anyone is wrong, but it cannot be attested to as truth or reality until such time where it can be shown as truth and reality.
I discuss specific gods because it's interesting, but his/her/it's existence or non-existence is not dependant upon what it says in a book but upon the actual evidence pertaining to such existence.
That is not bias, it's sanity. On the other hand let's look at your everyday christian. Do they believe in Apollo? Zeus? Vishnu? or any one of the million other god's on the planet? Do they believe in leprechauns, fairies or mothmen? Why do you honestly think the answer to these questions would be no? Lack of evidence perhaps? How many christians don't believe in dinosaurs? Not many I wouldn't have thought, and why not? Because there is loads of evidence to suggest they existed perhaps?
See, even a christian understands it. But then comes the bias.. "mine" is real, everyone elses is bollocks. That's completely illogical and completely lacking in common sense. To use a worthwhile quote:
"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F. Roberts
So you see common sense and logic are not bias. We all use it, we just attach to one specific instance where we forget it exists. It doesn't in any way change the situation.
Sure, there might be a god. That is unbiased right? There might be leprechauns, Apollo might exist, the hairy invisible banana might exist. Anything might exist. It doesn't change the facts that I highlighted above.
Regards to all.
Last edited:
