Hey yo, you ever think about what life would be like if some guy didn’t suck on some cow tiddies and discovered milk?
Old testament God:
Alright i made everything for YOU. Ya you like that dontcha?
Eve: ya but BEEG brain tree?
God: that is literally the one thing i dont want you to do
Eve: ... *slowly bites apple*
God: ALRIGHT FVCK OUTTA HERE AND IMMA MAKE BABIES HURT YOU 🖕🏿 but here's another chance
Humanity from then on like 300,000 more times: hey G man, i know you've done all this for us. But that was like 30 minutes ago, and we're doin that whole new year new me thing so byeee
My in depth analysis of OT so far. Dont spoil the NT for me but I here this Jesus guy has a crazy story arc.
@StiffWood, spoiler, he dies
@StiffWood, yeah, cuz God never orders his people to do barbaric things like slaughter, genocide, slavery, rape, and rampant oppression. Nossir, that’s not in there at all.
@I Are Lebo, show me where God orders people to have slaves. Where he states you must rape. Where God states you have to oppress. Oh and where he orders for genocide and slaughter (exclude where he states he will help countries to give them his favor because thats not ordering slaughter that's a pledge to protect his people) (oh and maybe exclude where he eliminated objective evil)
@TR8R, your name.... its what you are to me and my trust
@StiffWood, God gives explicit orders regarding the owning of slaves in Exodus 21. Rape in Genesis 13. Oppression is literally sprinkled throughout, particularly in Deuteronomy and Leviticus. For genocide, the Samsonites are an excellent example, where God ordered the Hebrews to slaughter the men and adult women but to keep the virginal daughters for themselves. Samuel 15 is another example where God orders the murder of children.
The biblical God is objective evil. You only don’t see that because you’ve been indoctrinated into ignoring every part of the bible that conflicts with your personal interpretation of it. You realize the bible calls for death to those who mix fabrics, right? According to the OT, wearing polyester makes you deserving of death. Also if your son is unruly you are to murder him (Deuteronomy 21).
Try reading the whole book and not just the parts you like.
@I Are Lebo, thank you for our daily reminder that you abhor religion.
You do the same thing you claim others do and cherry pick scripture. Anyone can do that (Paul includes slavers in a list of unrighteous in 1st Timothy). Take your own advice and read it in its entirety, don’t just hunt for “gotcha” moments. Its a story about God and the whole story is necessary for an inkling of understanding. One philosopher said something about there being more riddles than words. We won’t get it all.
Try reading the whole book and not just the parts you DONT like.
@Snarfel Burger, I have. Every positive message within the bible is eclipsed by its evil. The ONLY way to derive a positive or healthy moral worldview from the bible is to approach the bible already possessing this moral worldview. This is because the books were written during the Bronze Age and the authors did not understand many things we do today. It’s not about “gotchas”, it’s about exposing the abhorrent ideas presented in the scripture. Lessons about ethnic superiority, stories about blind obedience and divine wrath. I don’t understand anyone who can read the story of Job and not come away realizing what a psychopath Jehovah is. The book is filled with contradictions, stories that refute other ones.
You’d do well to watch some of the lectures and debates on YouTube from Matt Dillahunty. You can learn from someone who knows the bible a hell of a lot better than you or I exactly why it’s an immoral book that is used to indoctrinate people into believing things that are not true.
@Snarfel Burger, as for Paul denouncing slavery, that doesn’t mean jack shït when God Himself endorses it and not once ever denounced it in either the old or New Testament. You’re the one cherry picking, not I. I was specifically asked where in the Bible evil is endorsed and I answered the question. I don’t ignore the good or the bad in the bible, but the bible advocating for goodwill towards your fellow man is massively outweighed by its assertion that owning other people as property is morally good. “Honour thy father and mother” is outweighed by “he who lies with another man as he would a woman is an abomination unto the lord and shall be stoned to death”.
You ignore the bad to focus on the good while accusing me of cherry picking and that makes you a hypocrite.
@I Are Lebo, Where do you think we got our “moral worldview” that the authors back then just “wouldn’t understand”? It didn’t come from nothing, we have our morals precisly because of our Judeo-Christian traditions.
For every “Matt Dillahunty” there’s also a brilliant theologian out there who knows more about the bible than you or I do. And you’d do well to listen to some of them too, instead of just looking for lecturers who reinforce your already held beliefs. I guarantee there’s not a critique you can come up with that hasn’t been tackled and thought over for generations of philosophers. You can find plenty of reasoned responses to the argument “God is a meanie”. That is a very old argument that really says nothing. “There’s nothing new under the sun”.
Obviously you’re missing something when you read scripture. Unless you’re smarter than every thinker in history that read the Bible and took something spiritual from it. I imagine you wouldn’t be surprised...
@I Are Lebo, by the spiritual views of some of your academic heroes. I hope you’d be willing to condescend them as much as you do the religious people on this app. We’re not dumb, we’re not indoctrinated, we can think and reason for ourselves. And if you don’t take from religion what we do, then okay. But stop acting like you’re this enlightened thinker among a bunch of weak minded peons.
@Snarfel Burger, I’ve searched for them and have found them all wanting. The God character in the bible is not a “meanie”, he’s a sadist, a narcissist, and is generally malevolent towards mankind. I have never heard a justification for the bibles support of slavery that wasn’t either a fallacious appeal to authority or apologetics dismissing whole sections of the bible in order to claim ‘context’.
I’ve seen Dillahunty debate most of those ‘brilliant’ theologians, and they’ve come across like morons because they are incapable of addressing the single most important question regarding the bible, which is “is it true”? And it’s not.
As for our moral worldview, we got it from the enlightenment. Judeo-Christian values form the foundation the same way that tribal formation is the foundation of civilization, but we’ve progressed far beyond being needed to be threatened with a magical sky daddy in order to be civil with each other.
It has nothing to do with intelligence, it’s about logic.
There is no logical reason to accept the bible as true because there is no evidence supporting it and the claims are absurd and self contradicting. God cannot be both omnipotent and benevolent. That conflicts with reality. The claims in the bible of the genesis of the earth and of man have been disproven.
When you accept a claim that important without evidence, that’s what makes you a weak minded peon.
As for academic heroes, I do. I look up to Jordan Peterson, for instance, but when he debated Matt Dillahunty (there’s a reason I brought him up specifically, look him up and educate yourself), he came across looking like an idiot. There’s no rational argument for the existence of God because there is no evidence for the existence of God. This means that either God is not real, or it’s not desirable to God that his existence be known.
Either way, the character in the bible is an immoral thug who punishes far in excess of reason, holds mutually exclusive points of view, and is evil.
The character of Jehovah murders and orders murders while also ordering Thou Shalt Not Kill. He is against adultery but kills a guy for refusing to impregnate his widow. He torments Job, slaying his family and striking him down again and again, simply to test for blind obedience. The story of Isaac shows how He cares more about being loved than about being good.
Seriously, I’ve made arguments for why the bible is immoral but you’ve made no counter arguments. Stop dismissing what I’m saying and address it, or go away and be happy in your cult.
@I Are Lebo, No, I won’t. Because you (as Jordan Peterson would put it) are possessed by your beliefs. You’re very close minded and believe you are brighter than two thirds of humanity. You and I have already had this exhausted debate on this app over the last several years. You’ve made up your mind and there is no convincing you. All I ask is you stop trying to bait every religious person on here into an argument so you can announce to the world again and again how much you hate God. It comes across as someone who is trying to convince themself more than anyone else. Like clockwork, if I see a picture with a hint of a religious topic, I can sure as hell (pun intended) find an “I Are Lebo” comment below, trying to saying something snarky to bait someone into listening to his diatribes. Sometimes I take the bait and sometimes I don’t. This time I did. I just hope whatever hurt you’re going through abates someday.
@Snarfel Burger, I’m possessed by my beliefs and I’m closed minded when I give you a source for my arguments and you point blank refuse to look into it any further? You don’t even know who he is, do you? You massive hypocrite. You’ve presented me with nothing to change my mind with, only dismissals and ad hominems.
I’m provocative because I’m trying to instigate an actual defence of religion, rather than fallacious appeals to authority or irrational appeals to faith. Give me an actual argument why your faith isn’t gullibility or why the bible isn’t immoral and I promise I will listen with an open mind.
(I’m also provocative because I’m an asshole, but that’s not really relevant.)
@I Are Lebo, I have gone back and forth with you in the past. We’ve gone point by point with one another. You and I both know its futile. From my perspective, how can I engage with an absolutist who states “there is NO God” rather than repeating wiser men and atleast taking the stance of “I don’t know”. All your critiques of religion are on the morality of the God worshipped, yet you don’t believe in His existence, so what does it matter?
@Snarfel Burger, when did I ever say there is no god?
@I Are Lebo, you’ve referred to him as a “fairytale” countless times in the past. Even on this picture in response to someone else. What does that imply?
@Snarfel Burger, then I apologize for not being clearer. The fairytale I’m referring to is the bible. The biblical character of God certainly doesn’t exist, mainly because He’s self contradicting. But whether or not there is a Supreme Being, or even an actual Jehovah whose character isn’t accurately portrayed in the bible, is something that I cannot know and therefore would not assert.
The bible is an unverified book that tells fables. I have no argument or objection against it’s use as a teaching tool or even as a spiritual guide, even though I strongly disagree about many of its supposed merits. However I do object, quite strongly, with its use as a historical document, as well as its classification as Divine Word. There are some horrendous things in that book, and if the behaviour of the God in those stories is accurate, he’s a monster.
This is the root of my anti-religion (because these points are not unique to Christianity):
If you examine it critically, it makes no sense and does not conform to reality. None of it can be observed or experimented with.
If you take it at face value, it’s filled with atrocious things. As Steven Weinberg said, “With or without [religion] you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.”
And if you follow it literally, you brainwash yourself into believing all manner of illogical and irrational things, like denying the shape and age of the earth or whether or not gay people deserve rights. Religion is the number three leading cause of human suffering in my estimate, just behind poverty and war.
I’m not anti God because I don’t see the point. I’ve seen no evidence to believe He’s real and less evidence to show He’s good, but that has no bearing whatsoever on whether or not He exists.
@I Are Lebo, you should try reading the whole Bible sometimes, rather than just your favorite parts. I get that you’re addicted to rape, murder, and slavery, but maybe you should read about love?
God was smart enough to not only give us rules for normal times, but also when things are bad and don’t go our way, but you take that as him condoning the bad. That’s a great example of someone who didn’t actually read it.
You think it’s a fairy tale because you’re too afraid to actually read the thing.
And you think that you being an a-hole has nothing to do with you’re atheistic views? HA! An atheist who’s not a bitter a-hole is a needle in a haystack.
@Child Slapper, I have read the whole bible. It’s a disgusting piece of fiction that has literally motivated centuries of atrocities and about a dozen crusaders against Muslims, Jews, Pagans, Wiccans, and basically every other faith they’ve encountered. Christians nowadays are furthering the AIDS crisis in Africa by preaching against the use of contraceptives. Christians regularly oppress homosexuals, both through targeted harassment and legislative abuses.
They do this because the bible supports these stances. The idea that the rules given in Deuteronomy and Exodus only apply at certain times isn’t supported by anything in the text, and it’s immoral either way. If your son is unruly you should stone him to death? Hell, God kills a guy in the Old Testament for refusing to impregnate his brothers widow. The character of God in the Old Testament is a flipping monster. Why don’t YOU read the whole bible instead of just YOUR favourite parts?
When God commands His people to slaughter a
tribe but to keep the virginal daughters as sex skates, that is explicitly Him condoning the bad.
You are a hypocrite. You call me out for cherry picking while actively doing so yourself. But here’s the thing. While I acknowledge the good in the bible, you refuse to acknowledge the bad. The truth is, the bad VASTLY outweighs the bad. “Turn the other cheek” and “Love that neighbour as thyself” being in the book does not remove “you shall buy your slaves from the heathens around you” or “if a man lays with another man as he would a woman, it is an abomination unto the lord and they shall be stoned to death”.
I know many Atheists who aren’t bitter. I’d recommend you look into the Atheist Community of Austin, but I know that you won’t look into anything that doesn’t support your beliefs. It’s quite clear to me that you don’t particularly care whether or not your beliefs are true or rationally justified. You simply want to hold onto your warm fuzzy blanket of faith. Which is entirely your
prerogative. I hope one day you manage to rid yourself of the indoctrination and fallacious reasoning, but that’s your metaphorical cross to bear, not mine.
You and Snarfel Burger are two peas in a pod. And thanks for the downvote spree on a two week old thread, you sanctimonious prick.
@Snarfel Burger, so, you’re not just a hypocrite, but also a coward. Good to know. You have Child Slapper to thank for bringing me back to this pic two weeks later to see how once again you will issue challenges freely but will not respond to them.
@I Are Lebo, Oh geez! First off, why the hell do you feel so entitled for everyone to engage with your constant protesting? You stated to me, “i’m provocative because I’m an asshole” why should anyone be giving someone like that the time of day?
And how am I a coward? I saw your delayed response, didn’t have time to read it all, forgot, came back later to read it, and there is nothing to respond to. Your last couple diatribes to me are just you regurgitating your strongly held beliefs, once again, with no points for me to really respond to to further a conversation. Besides, its a waste of time. I’ve told you on this pic more than once you and I have had this conversation several times and even responded to one another point by point for days and neither one of us have gotten anywhere. Why waste the time? Not sure how Child Slapper and I are peas in a pod? Because we both believe in God? Hate to break it to ya, but you’re in the minority man. Our ideas aren’t that outlandish.
@Snarfel Burger, you asked me a series of questions and I answered them all. I asked you a couple of questions and you point blank refused to even address them. That’s why you’re a coward, and that’s why you’re a hypocrite.
@I Are Lebo, I’ve given a response to all your questions when we’ve spoken before and you make the same points again and again. What question am I not answering now? You didn’t ask a single question in your last few comments to me. Ask me a question if you need to so badly?
@Snarfel Burger, I have three questions, and I will put them more plainly so that hopefully we can put this argument behind us.
1. How did you determine that the Bible is true?
2. How did you determine that the Bible is morally good?
3. How do you justify dismissing the parts of the bible that endorse, advocate, or even command actions that are considered immoral in every modern civilized country on earth? (Rape, murder, etc)
As an aside, I apologize for lashing out at you in this way. I’m having a frustrating day, and Child Slapper bringing me back to this thread didn’t help, but that doesn’t justify me taking it out on you. So I’m sorry for that.
@I Are Lebo, I very much appreciate that maturity. I usually do not spew so much ad hominem in discussions so I also apologize and hope your day has gotten better. Those are very big questions and even though I could probably do a better job unpacking them in a face-to-face discussion over beers, i’ll try to answer them and pose my own.
1. Faith in scripture didn’t come to me in a eureka moment. It has been slowly through experience (which you can find more biblical ways of saying that). Historical findings, consistencies amongst several authors, the lives of the apostles, etc all help reaffirm my own personal experiences.
2 & 3. I believe most Christians don’t dismiss the ugly parts in scripture but actually wrestle with it. You often say the bad out-weighs the good, but I don’t know if you’ve truly experienced the good. Pretend the God of scripture is real and you can see how people trust He knows what He’s doing and has a plan. If he can create the universe he can make
@I Are Lebo, greatness out of suffering. I can give plenty of anecdotal evidence of that. It’s hard for us in the moment to understand the “why’s” but someone once said it’s like we’re looking at painting through a straw.
In line with your questioning:
1. Do you believe God exists or not?
2. Can we have objective moral laws without Him?
3. If he existed, could you worship/trust him?
@Snarfel Burger, I do not agree with the characterization of the bible as being consistent across multiple authors. My own research of the origins of the bible show a number of inconsistencies. But that’s a very technical discussion that I’m not prepared to have over beers, let alone over this forum, so I’m prepared to leave that under “agree to disagree”. As to your questions,
1. I do not know whether or not A god exists, but I am convinced that the character of God shown in the Bible, also known as Jehovah, is fictitious. There are too many inconsistencies and nonsensical descriptors given of this being for it to be real. As an example, God is described as being both ultimately just and ultimately merciful. Those two are in direct contradiction. Mercy is the withholding of justice. Also, if every action the bible credits God with were to be true, then He is a narcissistic sadist.
There could be a higher power. I have no way of knowing, but I have seen no evidence supporting it.
2. I don’t see how we could have objective moral laws WITH God. If what constitutes morality is just God’s word on what is good and what is bad, that’s still subjective. It’s also unstable, because the idea that all something needs to be morally good is for God to say it is, then slavery and killing gays is good. None of the criticisms I have heard of secular morality are addressed at all by religious morality. As a Secular Humanist, I derive my morals from an objective examination of the consequences of actions. I find many of the moral preachings of the biblical god to be monstrously immoral, including thought crime (he who looks at another man’s wife with lust has committed adultery in his heart), blind obedience (the stories of Isaac, Job, and others), and more. The ‘morals’ imparted by the bible are supremely subjective and interpretable. People have used the bible to justify all sorts of atrocities, so the claim that the bible provides a strong moral framework is not grounded in
reality. Mein Kampf had plenty of biblical references and connections (after all, Hitler was a devout Roman Catholic).
3. I would not worship no matter what, but the trust would be dependant on the nature of the god that was revealed to me. If the biblical God as written was to present himself to me, I would say something along the lines of “how dare you? How dare you create a world that is filled with evil and suffering and then demand that we praise you for it. How dare you take the stance that good and evil matter unless you confess your sins and take a loophole out of having to take responsibility for your fellow man. How dare you appoint a church as your representatives on earth and then turn a blind eye to them raping children for centuries? How dare you condemn the beings you claim to love to an eternity of torment in a hell of your creation? How dare you expect devotion and faith in you while playing the universes biggest game of hide-and-go-seek? Go to the hell you created.”
So no. I would neither worship nor trust a God who will say in one passage that he loves humans and created us in His own image and then in another tells us that we are inherently sinful and corrupt and are deserving of damnation.
I don’t see any reason to trust the being that does that. People thank God for the doctor that took out their cancer, but they never seem to stop to think that in that scenario, God gave them the cancer to begin with.
I also don’t believe that God is true because that God is a petty being who would smite me for spouting such blasphemy against him (Which is another in a long line of similarities between Jehovah and the Kims of North Korea).
@I Are Lebo, I’m done. Sorry for the essay.
@I Are Lebo, I think your “essay” was well spoken. My responses are probably going to be more spiritual rather than technical this time.
1. I don’t believe any perceived inconsistencies in scripture are discrediting just not clearly understood. God IS both ultimately just and ultimately merciful. That is one of the central themes of the gospel. Christ took on all sin in a show of mercy and died in a show of justice for that sin. It was established the wages for sin are death and Christ became the ultimate sacrificial lamb for all humanity.
2. Most the atrocities committed in the name of Christianity are not from genuine following of biblical morality but a bastardization or cherry picking to fit an already established world view. The holy spirit convicts everyone but its usually ignored. It’s not the “consequences of actions” that determine morality because sometimes there are very beneficial consequences for being immoral. But something deep down convicts us all and we know its
@I Are Lebo, wrong.
3. God does not cause the suffering, we cause the suffering. There’s a great song about someone asking “God, why don’t you do something?” and God responds “I did, I created you”. He created a paradise that we left and continue to abandon.
@Snarfel Burger, 1. I wasn’t trying to argue that the inconsistencies between authors discredited it. I do not believe that’s the case, I would only argue that there ARE inconsistencies. The only conclusion I would draw from that is that the stories weren’t all written by the same author, which is corroborated by the stories themselves which do not claim to be written from the same author.
What Christ is alleged to have done is not in any way a negation of the fact that it is a logical negation to be both ultimately just and merciful. Sparing the murderer is merciful to the murderer but is not just to the victim’s family. Any form of mercy is negated by ultimate justice because mercy is the withholding of justice. That’s what mercy is. If the lifelong serial killer repents on his deathbed and goes to heaven but the philanthropic atheist goes to hell for not believing, that’s not just OR merciful. If belief and/or devotion to the Sacrifice is the basis of judgement, then the Being that
established this scenario is ultimate evil. If God is omnipotent, then He did not have to set up reality in which the wages for sin are death. He stacked the deck to begin with.
2. Every single sect of Christianity has performed atrocities by the main forming members. That is a No True Scotsman fallacy. This is true of Catholics, Baptists, Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and every other of the thousands of sects. I’m sorry, but that’s a fallacious, and quite ridiculous notion. What ‘deep down’ constitutes right and wrong are entirely dependent on our upbringing. People living in slums in the third world have a VERY different view of theft than urbanites in first world high class neighbourhoods. A reliance on such a subjective view of morality is the exact mechanism by which religion has been able to radicalize people throughout history. The Charlie Hebdo attack was done precisely because those Muslims were deep down convicted that what they were doing was right and that
what the cartoonists has done was wrong. Such subjective viewpoints can be wrong and therefore are a poor foundation for morality.
3. Here is my problem. What God is and is not responsible for is a shifting goalpost with theists. This isn’t come to from an honest perspective because the exact same people that will say God isn’t responsible for the bad things in your life will say that He is responsible for the good. If God works in ‘mysterious ways’, and He is both all powerful and all knowing, then He is responsible for EVERYTHING. God is in all things. That means god is in all good AND all evil. This selective crediting is dishonest.
While I’m on the subject of dishonesty, referring to the story of Adam and Eve as God creating a paradise and mankind abandoning it is dishonest from both the Christian AND the non Christian perspectives. God set up mankind to fail by testing the morality of a being He intentionally created absent an understanding of morality, and then as consequence
of failing a test that God already knew they’d fail because it was both the inevitable outcome and because He is literally precognitive, God throws mankind out of paradise to be punished in perpetuity as well as their offspring.
I would be thankful to learn that the story wasn’t true because that’s like how people treat Sims when they torture them for pleasure. That’s a sadistic God who is frankly an asshole. Why would he do that to a creation he claims to love? That would be like a father putting a five year old in a playpen filled with wonderful toys, but forbidding them access to one seemingly arbitrary toy, then leaving the child alone until they disobeyed him, at which point he gives them up to child services and abandons them forever.
The claim is that God created everything. That includes the suffering.
(I’m done my response)
@I Are Lebo, Done with your response or done with the conversation? This numbering thing has made it way more manageable but I almost think we should pick one point and go back and forth.
1. I believe there aren’t inconsistencies (we could probably tackle individual ones) but misunderstandings. Kinda like this picture that started this conversation. God is the same God that He was in the OT, He didn’t go through anger management, in fact Revelation sounds like the wrath that God delivered in the OT.
The hard part to explain, and will not satisfy you as a Secular Humanist, is that God does not have to be “logical”. Apologetics argues for reasonable faith but as one of them put it “God, being the supreme being He is, COULD create a rock so heavy he could not lift... and then, He could lift it”. God is “just” and “merciful” Christ didn’t just take the place of the murderer when He was crucified. He took on the guiltiness, He became the sin that the murderer had done. The murderer....
@I Are Lebo, was both spared and condemned. It was mercy and it was justice. The lifelong serial CAN repent, that’s part of the mercy, just because he came late to the game doesn’t mean he can’t get in. That’s what the parable of the workers and their wages is all about. The killer gave those sins to Christ at the end. The philanthropic atheists has still done bad things in his life, even though he may have done many good things. We can’t earn our way into heaven, in my opinion that would be a much worse setup anyway. How many good deeds must you do vs bad deeds. Why are some so much worse or better than others. Just because of how many people you hurt or benefit?
Belief/devotion to the sacrifice is not the basis of judgement. Scripture says the demons in hell know who Christ is. The basis of judgement is did you allow Christ to take your sins? He offered Himself to everyone, God doesn’t want to force you to love Him, He gave us freewill to truly love Him. I’ve wrestled with that...
@I Are Lebo, that same point you made about God setting this system up. But, I believe He did it because it gives us the opportunity to choose and not be forced to love Him. God, being a perfect being can not associate with sin, the wages being “death” mean spiritual death. Sin is rebellion from God, who is “life”. God didn’t necessarily set it up that way, He’s just the opposite of sin.
2. Yes, plenty of “Christians” have committed atrocities. But they’re rebelling against Christianity’s central tenets. Were they loving all mankind? Why were they killing people? Christ already spared us all. He stopped the religious from executing a prostitute. Those atrocities were a direct disobedience to Christ and showed a lack of the Holy Spirit. Also to and earlier point, I don’t think Hitler was a devout Catholic, I think he didn’t care for Christianity and was an occultist. I’m sure he probably used the clout of the church though, like all politicians.
People living in slums will probably..
@I Are Lebo, who are stealing to eat will probably be more likely to be forgiven than the urbanites who aren’t feeding them like Christ commanded.
The Charlie Hebdo attacker wasn’t just “convicted deep down” (probably by Satan) but he had actual backing from the Quran. Christian radical are ignoring scripture to commit atrocities.
3. God stays the same, doesn’t shift any goalposts. God doesn’t create the bad, he uses the bad. You should read a quick bio on Josephine Bakhita. It’s a great example of what i’m talking about. We create the bad, between the devil and us humans, we create the bad.
Adam didn’t know good and evil like God did, but the were still prohibited from eating from the tree. They knew they were prohibited but they trusted the words of the serpent over God’s. And yes, God knew what would happen from the very beginning, but He didn’t make it happen. It’s the free will/love thing again.
God is more like the father who lets his teenager run away, make stupid mistakes
@I Are Lebo, learn life lessons, then go running to embrace His teenager when he finally comes home.
God didn’t create the suffering, we did, and we can end it too.
@Snarfel Burger, wow, after only four hours, and I almost couldn’t find this pic again. It was at the very bottom of my history tab, and gone from both recents and messages.
1. My point about inconsistencies was just that any claim of perfection aimed at the bible is contradicted by the contents of the bible. That’s all.
However, any argument that the foundation of your epistemology “doesn’t have to be logical” is extremely fallacious. That’s the stance of a person to whom it does not really matter whether or not their beliefs are true, but rather how it makes them feel.
The idea that God simultaneously condemns and acquits people means nothing. It’s literally a meaningless claim. If they end up in heaven and see eternal paradise, they haven’t been condemned. If they are sent to eternal torment, they haven’t been rewarded. What Christ did or didn’t metaphorically take responsibility for is irrelevant to the fact that you wrote a whole lot of nonsense down as if it meant anything....
I’m sorry to say it didn’t. God created sin. He defined it, He wrote down the rules regarding it. If God doesn’t want to force me to love Him but will burn me forever if I don’t, then God is EVIL.
2. I didn’t say Christians. I said Christian organizations. If you are an omnipotent being who raised a religious sect to worship you and guide humanity towards the Ideal, then when that religious sect persecutes and oppressed others, you have a moral obligation to intervene. He not only does not do that in the bible, but He directly advocates for the atrocities. The Catholic Church is a criminal organization that rapes children and protects the perpetrators from justice. For God to turn a blind eye to that is like a man saying “I’m going to close this door and let you rape this child. But when you’re dead, I’ll punish you for it”. It’s monstrous.
And Hitler was a devout Roman Catholic. What do you think Gott Mit Uns on the uniforms meant?
In addition. Your snuck in assertion about Satan is ridiculous. How do you know that isn’t YOU who have been deceived by Satan. The bible calls for the murder of gays, yet Christians who follow that are “ignoring scripture to commit atrocities”. Your double standard regarding your religion is rather distasteful.
3. I wasn’t saying God shifts the goalposts, I was saying YOU are. There are contradictory claims. Such as entire chapters detailing how slavery is permissible and moral somehow being contradicted (according to apologetics) by another passage where Peter wants his slave friend freed.
Apologetics is an exercise in mental gymnastics, and as such is almost wholly comprised of dishonest arguing tactics. God created everything, that includes the bad things. He created humans as they are, on purpose. That means He is responsible for the corruption as well as the absolution.
If God wanted Adam not to eat the apple, he wouldn’t have given Adam access. This is in no way comparable to
a father letting his teenage son make mistakes. Adam was a newly created innocent creature absent the knowledge of good and evil. Meaning concepts like obedience and devotion were not understood. It was bad for Adam to defy god and Adam wasn’t capable of comprehending that. This is like an infant displeasing it’s father and being abandoned for it. The punishment for eating an apple was expulsion from paradise and forever after having to suffer. That god is a lunatic if he thinks that’s fair treatment and you’re insane if you think that story is both literally true and morally good.
There is no larger corruption to logical thought than apologetics. No. God created the suffering because suffering is encompassed by “everything”. This selecting praising of god for anything good is dishonest.
However, I still can’t get past the basic point that there is no good reason to accept any of this as being factual. Can you address that with something less vague than “personal experiences”.
Because if your “personal experiences” conclude God is real and my “personal experiences” conclude God is not real, how do we determine who is right?
Off Period | On Period
@Tentastic, good luck guessing which one I am during both times.
Cereal would suck man...
@The Pun Shielder, there'd be nothing to soften it up and it would like eating woodchips
@I Are Lebo, Genesis 13 literally only speaks of, in relation to intercourse, how he will multiply Abrams seed.
Exodus 21 speaks of the rules if you are to own slaves. Not God saying one has to own slaves.
Samuel 15 speaks during wartimes where borders were expanding. Yah he says to kill everyone, taking it out of context and saying just kill children lol, instead of talking about the times, the situation, and everything else is, kind of bumps things out of your retarded edgy 'god dumb, religious ppl dumb, me am smart' opinion. Yah, killing everyone sucks. Yah owning slaves sucks. But people were very different back then and things much worse than that would be happening without that. That's why the God of the new testament kind of changed the meta after jesus. Because humans were more civilized, and populations with morals were established. You cant teach a baby to do a double back flip in a day, you gotta teach em to walk first.
That werewolf is in Joe Rogan's studio.
Well, according to Gnosticism, they are two separate entities. Old testament God basically being an imperfect being that was kind of just created by the true God's existence. Then New Testament God is the true God trying to clean up old testament's mess
@DrWhich, Oh my...
@Link Silverblade, I went down that rabbit hole while trying to figure out if there was meaning in the name of Persona 5's final boss. It's one of the names of that other god
@DrWhich, well, according to Christianity, God is eternal and unchanging and there’s only one true God, so they’d see Gnosticism as heresy.
@I Are Lebo, they do. You don't exactly see anyone practicing it today. The Council of Nicea was to get rid of groups like that
@DrWhich, I don’t think there’s many things that have held back humanity, collectively, as much as the concept of heresy.
Good ol Marshall Rogan
God in the NT is still kinda psychotic.
@I Are Lebo, and we still dont know why god is as he varies around cultures in the world.
@Implicit88, yes, we do. It’s because that’s how fairy tales work. The stories vary because they’re influenced by the cultures telling the stories.
It’s almost like separate cultures wrote it
God really did chill. He went from “an eye for an eye” to “turn the other cheek. “
@Jeremyhawkeye, you know the “eye for an eye” stuff is in the NT too, right?
“If thine right eye offends thee, pluck it out.”
@I Are Lebo, you have strong viewpoints on a book you’ve never read.
@Laugh Dammit, nice bald ass assertion. It’s wrong, too. I have read it. Have you?
@I Are Lebo, you’re trying to use that scripture to prove a point but don’t know what it means at all. Read it again.
@Laugh Dammit, right, my bad. I forgot that your interpretation is the one true interpretation. Sorry about that.
@I Are Lebo, not even saying that. That verse is not a difficult one to understand. Even if you misinterpret it, how do you relate it to “an eye for an eye”? That makes no sense. He’s clearly talking about temptation not retribution.
@Laugh Dammit, I get what you’re saying, but I don’t get why you’re saying it. I wasn’t saying they’re the same in topic, only in tone.
@I Are Lebo, how so? Most people take it as hyperbole.
@Laugh Dammit, they’re equally hyperbolic, I was just referencing the fact that there are some pretty effed up things in the New Testament, as well, however I’m much more familiar with the Old Testament and didn’t feel like looking up a more apt example to “score internet points”, as it were.
@I Are Lebo, I would actually almost consider your OT reference as probably being taken more literal by its audience. Seeing as its actually talking about punitive justice. I think the “code of Hammurabi” actually meant if someone took your eye you get to take theirs. But Christ wasn’t meaning you should rip out your eye, just remove that which causes you to sin. “If ya look at porn on your smartphone all day, you should consider switching to a jitterbug”
@Laugh Dammit, fair enough. How about slavery? I’m really not sure why my mind didn’t go there first, but Jesus advocated in favour of slavery. The Old Testament has pretty explicit rules laid out for owning people as property. It included being able to pass them on to your kids and beat them as long as they don’t die within a few days. So God didn’t really ✌️chill✌️ on the whole ‘right to freedom’ thing.
@I Are Lebo, I don’t think Jesus “advocated” for slavery. He preached contentment in all kinds of suffering, and encouraged people to look heavenward for their reward. Whether that be as extreme as “respecting your masters” or “the government” to as simple as “pay your taxes” or “be content in your wages”. He was actually pretty revolutionary for that time period with his views on equality. “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 3:28)
As for God in the Old Testament he also freed countless slaves and is commonly referred to as a “chainbreaker”. But if I understood every aspect of God, that would make me God, and definitely not worth worshipping. Lol
@Laugh Dammit, “slaves, obey your masters. Not only the kind ones but the cruel ones, and serve them as you would God”. I’ve never heard of God referred to as the chainbreaker before, and other than the demonstrably untrue exodus from Egypt story, I don’t even know of any other tales involving God freeing leaves. The book Exodus lays out pretty clearly that the bible considers nothing wrong with slavery.
None of which addresses the true issue, which is “is any of it true?”
@I Are Lebo, i already mentioned that Jesus quote in my above comment. That dosen’t seem to “advocate” for slavery. Its almost more about accepting your lot in life, because this life is temporary. He talks about obeying the laws of man. Slavery is definitely against the law now. Pretty sure he actually condemns the institution of the slave trade. Not saying its ever okay, but I don’t think slavery back then was the same as what we think of race based chattel slavery today. They actually had way more rights in Hebrew societies. You have to look at Christ’s central message “to love one another” he said over and over, all of mankind not just Jewish people. Slavery, as we know it, would go completely counter to that message.
There is some evidence for the historical exodus. Now, if that evidence is credible or not is a different subject. He’s considered a chain breaker for freeing prisoners, actual slaves, and “slaves to sin”.
@Laugh Dammit, there is no passage in the Bible where slavery is condemned. As for slavery then being different, not in any meaningful way it wasn’t. It involves owning people as property while having the right to treat them as you see fit, with few limitations, and the rules for slaves was dependant on the race of the slave.
On Christ preaching love for your fellow man, that’s one of the many internal contradictions of the bible. Especially considering he also said that he came not to change the old ways but to reinforce them, as well as that he came not to bring peace, but a sword. Telling slaves to obey their cruel masters while also telling the wealthy to abandon material possessions, along with a multitude of other messed up messages of his showed fairly clearly how little regard he had for other people. He straight up told people they should love Him more than their own families.
As for the historical exodus, assuming we are talking about the Jews in Egypt and the whole (Cont)
“Let my people go” thing, that’s total fable. There is no evidence to support Jews being held in Egypt in those numbers. There’s no genealogical evidence, there’s no linguistic evidence. When two different cultures share space, especially when one culture is dominating the other, they blend together at the edges. Masters fück their slaves and father bastards, loan words are introduced into the lexicon, and this is something that does not exist between Egyptian and Hebrew. On top of that, if the amount of Jewish slaves in the fable were accurate, had they formed a human chain, it would have been long enough to stretch from Egypt to Jerusalem without the first person in the chain having left Egypt yet. The math doesn’t add up, nor does the evidence.
Not everything in the bible is false or fictional. Most of it is allegorical or metaphorical. Others have been exaggerated. Chances are good that there really was a Tower of Babel at one point in history, though it was certainly MUCH smaller
than the story claims. Some stories are simply unverifiable and unfalsifiable, such as the burning bush. However, a number of the biblical tales are demonstrably untrue (at least if taken literally). Adam and Eve, Noah and the Ark, the Genesis account, these are not reflective of reality, and we can account for that fact.
@I Are Lebo, this is a lot to unpack and respond to. I’ll try to go in the order you commented. Slavery is condemned in the passage (1 Timothy 1:10) slavers are among a list of unrighteous. Even in Exodus (21:16) when its talking about putting people to death for all sorts of stuff, it mentions people who kidnap or sell other people. 1 Corinthians 7:21 and onward, talks about not becoming slaves to men but slaves to Christ (and no, its not the same type of slavery). There are countless passages referring to salvation being for all and how we’re supposed to treat ALL no matter what race.
Christ did not say he came to “reinforce” the old ways, he said he came to “fulfill” them. No longer are we to be put to death for our sins. Just because Christ said to obey cruel masters that doesn’t mean he condoned the cruel master. He ordered his followers to submit to all sorts of authority that he wouldn’t morally approve of. Whether that was governments that were persecuting them or unholy men.
@I Are Lebo, it was a form of contentment and pacifism. If Christ was who he claimed to be, I see no reason not to drop all possessions and family to follow him. He rarely asks people to do that today. But if he did, I don’t see it being immoral.
@Laugh Dammit, there’s a massive difference between condemning slavery but accepting slavery and being opposed entirely to the practice of owning other people as property. It’s sophistry, though not from you. The bible (and other religious texts) frequently does this in other areas, too. As an example, the handling of money and being an accountant has been seen as dirty and disreputable for eons. That doesn’t mean all money is that way. The bible condemns kidnapping someone and forcing them into servitude, but openly endorses buying slaves “from the foreigners among you”. If your culture (or your holy book) has a problem with slavers making people into slaves but not with the Israelites buying them, owning them, beating them (as long as it doesn’t immediately kill them), and so on, that’s a serious level of cognitive dissonance. Slavers are condemned in Timothy, but slavery itself is not. That’s the whole “love the sinner hate the sin” kind of double think, only going the opposite way.
Telling a slave to obey their cruel master as if that master was God is absolutely condoning the cruel master. “God helps those who help themselves” goes directly in the face of this supposition that people are just supposed to submit to their oppressors. The bible is absolutely loaded with this double talk where you have to perform mental gymnastics just to avoid realizing the contradictions.
I also don’t understand what you mean by “he rarely asks people to do that”. How exactly does he ask anyone anything? On top of that, if you see no reason to not drop all possessions and family to follow him, then why haven’t you?
We’d all be drinking espresso - or soy-lattes.
Man, that could go either way....