davewhite04
Valued Senior Member
Raithere said:
Can you quote a reference that backs this statement up?
The Passion
- Thread starter spidergoat
- Start date
Can you quote a reference that backs this statement up?
http://www.amnesty.org/davewhite04 said:
davewhite04
Valued Senior Member
spidergoat said:
Water wrote:
“It is my understanding of Christianity that is up to you to severe yourself from God, or to love Him. But if you don't love Him, then you don't care whether you will send yourself to hell anyway.
”
Raithere Responded:
What is there to love? Please do tell me. I mean, I enjoy life and all but there sure is a lot of pain and death and suffering. What's the deal? How am I supposed to love someone who tortures children?
So it is my understanding that Raithere was referring to God and not man. So what was the point of posting this website? Unless you're the type of Atheist who throws his hat of logic out the window when something bad happens and blames God.
Dave
Raithere,
The god you are referring to is the god of a particular Western theology, a burgeois snob who created us in order to offend himself, and to take it out on us ...
There is no reconciliation, no love in that god, for he is a wicked god, man-made.
The Bible can be read in many ways -- and it is read with a particular interest, and theologies are also formed with particular interests.
Note that I am not blaming you here. The god as prominently Roman Catholicism or Calvinism paint him is a dreadful thing.
For consideration, read this article, I think it will give you some insights on this particular Western conception of god: http://www.orthodoxpress.org/parish/river_of_fire.htm
The god you are referring to is the god of a particular Western theology, a burgeois snob who created us in order to offend himself, and to take it out on us ...
There is no reconciliation, no love in that god, for he is a wicked god, man-made.
The Bible can be read in many ways -- and it is read with a particular interest, and theologies are also formed with particular interests.
Note that I am not blaming you here. The god as prominently Roman Catholicism or Calvinism paint him is a dreadful thing.
For consideration, read this article, I think it will give you some insights on this particular Western conception of god: http://www.orthodoxpress.org/parish/river_of_fire.htm
P.S.
I am not sure this is possible.
If you go to hell, you won't be tortured much more than you are now.
Maybe you just have no desire to love God anyway, so ... to each his own.
But imagine this, as it is, for an eternity ... an eternity of seeing God as a torturer -- that *is* hell.
Raithere said:
I am not sure this is possible.
If you go to hell, you won't be tortured much more than you are now.
Maybe you just have no desire to love God anyway, so ... to each his own.
But imagine this, as it is, for an eternity ... an eternity of seeing God as a torturer -- that *is* hell.
Raithere was probably thinking of parts in the bible where God instructs people to attack another people, including throwing babies onto rocks. My point is that any time human rights are violated, God is complicit, since he does not prevent it.davewhite04 said:
davewhite04
Valued Senior Member
spidergoat said:
Well you can assume this, but my question was not directed at you, and I'm sure Raithere is big enough to answer it himself, if he wants, he doesn't require his friends to answer for him.
Dave
Certainly, how many examples would you like?davewhite04 said:
(emphasis mine)
Nice guy, huh? Don't do what he wants and he'll kill your children in some of the most horrible ways imaginable.
Heck, he'll kill your children even if you didn't have anything to do with what's going on. They just have to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.
~Raithere
davewhite04
Valued Senior Member
You Wrote:
How am I supposed to love someone who tortures children?
I wrote for something to back this statement up.
So let me dissect this:
Your examples:
Genesis 19:24 -25 Then the LORD rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven; And he overthrew those cities, and all the plain, and all the inhabitants of the cities, and that which grew upon the ground.
Genesis 19:28 And he looked toward Sodom and Gomorrah, and toward all the land of the plain, and beheld, and, lo, the smoke of the country went up as the smoke of a furnace.
Jeremiah 29: 16-18 Know that thus saith the LORD of the king that sitteth upon the throne of David, and of all the people that dwelleth in this city, and of your brethren that are not gone forth with you into captivity; Thus saith the LORD of hosts; Behold, I will send upon them the sword, the famine, and the pestilence, and will make them like vile figs, that cannot be eaten, they are so evil.
Leviticus 26:16 I also will do this unto you; I will even appoint over you terror, consumption, and the burning ague, that shall consume the eyes, and cause sorrow of heart: and ye shall sow your seed in vain, for your enemies shall eat it.
Leviticus 26:22 I will also send wild beasts among you, which shall rob you of your children , and destroy your cattle, and make you few in number; and your high ways shall be desolate.
So from your examples here, who's to blame for the famines, fire and brimstone from the sky etc?
Do you think God took pleasure in this?
Who is torturing the children?
Dave
How am I supposed to love someone who tortures children?
I wrote for something to back this statement up.
Raithere said:
So let me dissect this:
Your examples:
Genesis 19:24 -25 Then the LORD rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven; And he overthrew those cities, and all the plain, and all the inhabitants of the cities, and that which grew upon the ground.
Genesis 19:28 And he looked toward Sodom and Gomorrah, and toward all the land of the plain, and beheld, and, lo, the smoke of the country went up as the smoke of a furnace.
Jeremiah 29: 16-18 Know that thus saith the LORD of the king that sitteth upon the throne of David, and of all the people that dwelleth in this city, and of your brethren that are not gone forth with you into captivity; Thus saith the LORD of hosts; Behold, I will send upon them the sword, the famine, and the pestilence, and will make them like vile figs, that cannot be eaten, they are so evil.
Leviticus 26:16 I also will do this unto you; I will even appoint over you terror, consumption, and the burning ague, that shall consume the eyes, and cause sorrow of heart: and ye shall sow your seed in vain, for your enemies shall eat it.
Leviticus 26:22 I will also send wild beasts among you, which shall rob you of your children , and destroy your cattle, and make you few in number; and your high ways shall be desolate.
So from your examples here, who's to blame for the famines, fire and brimstone from the sky etc?
Do you think God took pleasure in this?
Who is torturing the children?
Dave
Last edited:
I concur.water said:
I have a hard time reconciling this simply with alternative interpretations. Unless we're going to say these things didn't happen and then what's the point of relating them in the first place?
Interesting article. I see some problems with some portions of it but as a whole it only confirms to me what I already believe. That if there is a God and he is good then I have nothing to fear from him. I have only my own deficiencies to account for. Like in Buddhism pain will arise only from those illusions I desire to maintain, the wrongful acts I commit... the pain I cause is the pain I feel.
Why not? Aren't there wise, just, and kind people in the world? Do they not have free will? I guess we'd have to examine why people act wrongly.water said:
Maybe I would love God if I were to meet him. I don't know. Perhaps there is an explanation that would reveal that what I perceive in the world as evil isn't evil. That it is only our misunderstanding that creates the perception of evil. But I don't see it now... I cannot resolve it with what I perceive.
~Raithere
God allows for brutal rules for people who are brutal and can't understanding anything beyond that. To each his own.
Matt. 19:8:
Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning.
Matt. 19:8:
Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning.
water said:
Do you really think that man is any less brutal today than he was 6000 years ago? 4000? 2000? I think we just hide it better today.
Also, I think that it WAS that way from the beginning. At least the seeds of it were there from the beginning. Otherwise, Adam and Eve would not have disobeyed God. To me, this is just another of the many contradictions in the Bible. And this one from Jesus' own lips. :bugeye:
davewhite04
Valued Senior Member
Raithere said:
In all examples God’s actions were the effect not the cause. And without a cause there would be no effect. Because of this, I would accuse the children’s parents and/or relatives of being the torturers. They might not have poured the fire and brimstone out, but they instigated the whole thing.
Dave
davewhite04 said:
Him creating us was an effect? What was the cause?
Raithere,
There a frightening lot of weight in these different interpretations. Whenever you read the Bible you
1. are reading a translation, and translations always reflect a particular understanding of the biblical message, as there is no such thing as a neutral translation (if you are reading it in other languages than the original),
2. are reading it with a particular theology in mind -- this is inescapable as we cannot avoid being exposed to at least some kind of Christian theology.
The result is that the average reader of the Bible is screwed twice.
The same verse can be interpreted to be a justification to go to a holy war, or to keep integrity as a Christian (Matt. 12:30 "He that is not with me is against me" is such a notorius verse).
But maybe it is wise to take the Bible's advice and not judge (most theologies agree on that), and moreover, God never says in the Bible anything to the effect of "Go ye, and fight over what I have supposedly said!"
I'm sure this whole quagmire is not even remotely as bad to God as we make it out to be to ourselves.
I do believe they happened, but that we have to keep in mind God's motive for doing so. Was He merely being whimsical and wicked, or was He simply making an end to an evil, or did what He did for pedagogical reasons, so that others would learn from it?
Note that God is the Almighty Physician, and that even if He ordered to brutally kill those babies etc., this doesn't mean that He didn't provide ways for alleviating their suffering -- He is the one who can give eternal life.
This is Christianity's solution to the problem of justice -- even though things are bad now, God is the one who can make it better, if not in this life, then in the afterlife. It's consistent.
Yes. I think in this regard, Christianity and Buddhism are not different, the same concept is only conceptualized in different ways. Suffering comes because we cling on to perishable things.
In Christianity, there is the Judgement and eternity in heaven or hell, in Buddhism, it is the rebirth. In Christianity, the pain is concentrated into one life+afterlife, in Buddhism it is spread over many lives. The effect is essentially the same though.
Of course there are wise, just and kind people in this world. But it's not like they were born that way. It takes a lot of experience to become that way.
Yes, we ought to examine why people act wrongly.
I'll just say here that my bet is that popular religion has made a huge deal of what it takes to know God, and thus effectively blurred what was clear to the ancients.
My bet is that it is all much much simpler.
Maybe it's because you cling on to perishable things. But humans cannot not cling to them, so they are quite bound to see evil.
There a frightening lot of weight in these different interpretations. Whenever you read the Bible you
1. are reading a translation, and translations always reflect a particular understanding of the biblical message, as there is no such thing as a neutral translation (if you are reading it in other languages than the original),
2. are reading it with a particular theology in mind -- this is inescapable as we cannot avoid being exposed to at least some kind of Christian theology.
The result is that the average reader of the Bible is screwed twice.
The same verse can be interpreted to be a justification to go to a holy war, or to keep integrity as a Christian (Matt. 12:30 "He that is not with me is against me" is such a notorius verse).
But maybe it is wise to take the Bible's advice and not judge (most theologies agree on that), and moreover, God never says in the Bible anything to the effect of "Go ye, and fight over what I have supposedly said!"
I'm sure this whole quagmire is not even remotely as bad to God as we make it out to be to ourselves.
I do believe they happened, but that we have to keep in mind God's motive for doing so. Was He merely being whimsical and wicked, or was He simply making an end to an evil, or did what He did for pedagogical reasons, so that others would learn from it?
Note that God is the Almighty Physician, and that even if He ordered to brutally kill those babies etc., this doesn't mean that He didn't provide ways for alleviating their suffering -- He is the one who can give eternal life.
This is Christianity's solution to the problem of justice -- even though things are bad now, God is the one who can make it better, if not in this life, then in the afterlife. It's consistent.
Yes. I think in this regard, Christianity and Buddhism are not different, the same concept is only conceptualized in different ways. Suffering comes because we cling on to perishable things.
In Christianity, there is the Judgement and eternity in heaven or hell, in Buddhism, it is the rebirth. In Christianity, the pain is concentrated into one life+afterlife, in Buddhism it is spread over many lives. The effect is essentially the same though.
Of course there are wise, just and kind people in this world. But it's not like they were born that way. It takes a lot of experience to become that way.
Yes, we ought to examine why people act wrongly.
I'll just say here that my bet is that popular religion has made a huge deal of what it takes to know God, and thus effectively blurred what was clear to the ancients.
My bet is that it is all much much simpler.
Maybe it's because you cling on to perishable things. But humans cannot not cling to them, so they are quite bound to see evil.
Cottontop3000,
There is certainly technological development. But I think that as far as moral reasoning is concerned, people haven't changed much.
I suggest you to start a thread on the Fall, if you wish.
The situation is rather complex, as it was nothing like we have now, and there's a lot of things to consider.
There is certainly technological development. But I think that as far as moral reasoning is concerned, people haven't changed much.
I suggest you to start a thread on the Fall, if you wish.
The situation is rather complex, as it was nothing like we have now, and there's a lot of things to consider.
I have to admit this fits perfectly the morality proscribed in the Bible.davewhite04 said:
I just happen to think it's horrific and immoral. One person screws up and everybody gets fucked... even people who couldn't conceivably have anything to do with the cause of the reprisal.
So tell me, based upon God's example, if we catch a murder should we kill his children too?
~Raithere
I concur. In fact I'll go you one further. I don't believe it is possible to interpret the Bible's intent exactly as it was written (or any such ancient text for that matter). Consider the insurmountable difficulties just in translating modern Chinese to modern English. To assume we have more than a vague grasp of some of these concepts as they were intended 2000 years or more ago is absurd.water said:
What damage then to those who commit these acts at his behest? And wouldn't it be appropriate to mention something about how God took the children of the wicked away and protected them from fear and harm? Instead, the Bible mentions specific harm to children many times, even those not yet born. Are then the children culpable for the sins of the parents? We're not just talking about a fall from grace here. That already happened.
And probably a major reason why it's so successful. Believers can always take comfort in believing that God will redress the injustices.
It seems to me that's not what religion is really about. Religion is about us, not God, whether God is real or not.
~Raithere
Raithere,
Yes. I myself speak four languages, bits of others and have a linguistic education. The implications of what a translation is, how meanings function in a language and how language functions as such -- all this gives me quite a scope of the problem.
In a way, the Bible does achieve something very important that otherwise could hardly come to pass: It triggers one to inquire, thoroughly, and that makes a person humble.
I take God provides for them as well.
Unless there is a theory that a new apostle came in instead of Judas, Judas is sitting with Jesus:
Matt. 19:28: Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, at the renewal of all things, when the Son of Man sits on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.
Sin transcends the sinner. Not in the sense that the child would be culpable of the sin of his parents, but in the sense that the sin of his parents corrupted a child, and turned him to sining. For example, a child growing up in a family with alcoholism and domestic violence will inevitably learn some negative behaviour, and/or in the try to get away from that negativism, unwittingly take a path that is sinful (like killing his parents, escaping into drugs, etc.).
Hence mercy and Jesus, to make amends and to offer an example of how to get out of such a troubling situation.
But this is the only way to believe in justice! In human society, justice is never done, we have merely convenience.
I think I see why you commented the way you did.
And yes, religion is about us.
Yes. I myself speak four languages, bits of others and have a linguistic education. The implications of what a translation is, how meanings function in a language and how language functions as such -- all this gives me quite a scope of the problem.
In a way, the Bible does achieve something very important that otherwise could hardly come to pass: It triggers one to inquire, thoroughly, and that makes a person humble.
I take God provides for them as well.
Unless there is a theory that a new apostle came in instead of Judas, Judas is sitting with Jesus:
Matt. 19:28: Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, at the renewal of all things, when the Son of Man sits on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.
Sin transcends the sinner. Not in the sense that the child would be culpable of the sin of his parents, but in the sense that the sin of his parents corrupted a child, and turned him to sining. For example, a child growing up in a family with alcoholism and domestic violence will inevitably learn some negative behaviour, and/or in the try to get away from that negativism, unwittingly take a path that is sinful (like killing his parents, escaping into drugs, etc.).
Hence mercy and Jesus, to make amends and to offer an example of how to get out of such a troubling situation.
But this is the only way to believe in justice! In human society, justice is never done, we have merely convenience.
I think I see why you commented the way you did.
And yes, religion is about us.