Where in the Bible is the Christian God Cruel and/or Incompetent...

[ChristineM]

Do you mean all the anthropomorphisms in the Old Testament, all the men speaking for what God did?
It is Unbelievable that people actually believe God did even half of that stuff.

To me yes, it's unbelievable that people can get hooked on a genocidal maniac story, a god who condones murder, rape, sex slavery, theft. But there are many billions of people who excuse the stories as "just god cleaning out the closet that he in his omni everything built in the first place'

 

[halbhh]

You have evidence of this zombification?

So you say you god can commit genocide with impunity but if any other god tried it it would be murder... Ok...

Isn't genocide defined as killing in the sense of making people dead?

But if we find out the asserted-to-be-killed people are in fact still alive, and simply living in Australia for instance, then...well, it doesn't fit the definition of genocide.

 

[ChristineM]

Isn't genocide defined as killing in the sense of making people dead?

But if we find out the asserted-to-be-killed people are in fact still alive, and simply living in Australia for instance, then...well, it doesn't fit the definition of genocide.

Guesswork is not fact nor are strawmen

 

[halbhh]

Do you mean all the anthropomorphisms in the Old Testament, all the men speaking for what God did?
It is Unbelievable that people actually believe God did even half of that stuff.

The talking points some atheists use at times will try to paint a picture like this --
"a god who condones murder, rape, sex slavery, theft."

Even though we know the common bible famously says instead --

Exodus 20:13 You shall not murder.

( "shall not" just can't be read to be an acceptance of murder or a "condoning murder"...)

Well...what can we say when someone is bringing us such statements?

Maybe it's truly impossible to communicate past that ideology, until the person themselves decides to find out more on their own.

 

[Trailblazer]

The main thing I've seen over and over here are non believers trying to paint it (incompatible with the text of various scripture like the common bible) that people dying in this mortal body are dying final or irreversible death.

That is as I see it the crux of the issue, as what we call death is merely passing from one world into another world.
I don't believe that death of the physical body is reversible, but the body is not who we are and we won't need that body in the spiritual world as we will take on another form, a spiritual body

421. When the body is no longer able to perform the bodily functions in the natural world that correspond to the spirit’s thoughts and affections, which the spirit has from the spiritual world, man is said to die. This takes place when the respiration of the lungs and the beatings of the heart cease. But the man does not die; he is merely separated from the bodily part that was of use to him in the world, while the man himself continues to live. It is said that the man himself continues to live since man is not a man because of his body but because of his spirit, for it is the spirit that thinks in man, and thought with affection is what constitutes man. Evidently, then, the death of man is merely his passing from one world into another. And this is why in the Word in its internal sense “death” signifies resurrection and continuation of life. Heaven and Hell, p. 351

 

[Trailblazer]

To me yes, it's unbelievable that people can get hooked on a genocidal maniac story, a god who condones murder, rape, sex slavery, theft.

Then why do atheists always cite those OT stories as if they represent the real God?

 

[ChristineM]

The talking points some atheists use at times will try to paint a picture like this --
"a god who condones murder, rape, sex slavery, theft."

Even though we know the common bible famously says instead --

Exodus 20:13 You shall not murder.

( "shall not" just can't be read to be an acceptance of murder or a "condoning murder"...)

Well...what can we say when someone is bringing us such statements?

Maybe it's truly impossible to communicate past that ideology, until the person themselves decides to find out more on their own.

Cherry picking does not make the atrocities go away.

PS. If you want to quote me then please be good enough to mention who you are quoting

 

[ChristineM]

Then why do atheists always cite those OT stories as if they represent the real God?

The book represents what believers feel is the real god described in the bible. Citing these stories is far more productive than citing from a Mills and Boon novel.

 

[halbhh]

That is as I see it the crux of the issue, as what we call death is merely passing from one world into another world.
I don't believe that death of the physical body is reversible, but the body is not who we are and we won't need that body in the spiritual world as we will take on another form, a spiritual body

421. When the body is no longer able to perform the bodily functions in the natural world that correspond to the spirit’s thoughts and affections, which the spirit has from the spiritual world, man is said to die. This takes place when the respiration of the lungs and the beatings of the heart cease. But the man does not die; he is merely separated from the bodily part that was of use to him in the world, while the man himself continues to live. It is said that the man himself continues to live since man is not a man because of his body but because of his spirit, for it is the spirit that thinks in man, and thought with affection is what constitutes man. Evidently, then, the death of man is merely his passing from one world into another. And this is why in the Word in its internal sense “death” signifies resurrection and continuation of life. Heaven and Hell, p. 351

Nice quote!

 

[Koldo]

Then why do atheists always cite those OT stories as if they represent the real God?

I think the answer is along the lines of: We don't really think of any book representing God any better.

Just as an example: In my perspective, Paul had a vision of some kind, be it illusory or not. But all of his writtings? There is no way I am going to believe in any of that just because he had a vision. And that is most of the NT.

 

[Trailblazer]

The book represents what believers feel is the real god described in the bible. Citing these stories is far more productive than citing from a Mills and Boon novel.

Maybe it represents what Christians believe is the real God, but it does not represent what Baha'is believe is the real God, but I realize we Baha'is are in a small minority, so carry on.

 

[halbhh]

Cherry picking does not make the atrocities go away.

PS. If you want to quote me then please be good enough to mention who you are quoting

I'm sorry if you wanted attribution, but it's wording I've seen (not exaggerating) over 50 times, and I so I realize it's common wording and therefore don't think of it as belonging to just one person.

Here's something to think on, if you will, someday: try reading 1rst Peter 3:18-20 and 1 Peter 4:6 -- about what happened to those dying in their mortal bodies who had not been redeemed in their mortal lifetimes. What happened to them after they died? Who offered them the gospel?

 

[Trailblazer]

I think the answer is along the lines of: We don't really think of any book representing God any better.

Why don't you think that any book can represent God any better? Do you believe that the Bible is the only holy book?
Do you think that a book written by men 3,500 years ago represents God or what God is doing in this age?

Just as an example: In my perspective, Paul had a vision of some kind, be it illusory or not. But all of his writings? There is no way I am going to believe in any of that just because he had a vision. And that is most of the NT.

I don't believe Paul had the authority to speak for or about Jesus but that is not most of the NT.
Why would you believe the OT over the NT? Why would it be more likely to represent God?

 

[ChristineM]

Maybe it represents what Christians believe is the real God, but it does not represent what Baha'is believe is the real God, but I realize we Baha'is are in a small minority, so carry on.

The discussion is about the bible, hence the title of the thread

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

I wondered here if you mean a human tyrant, since that was a logical possible meaning.

It didn't fit the sentence to think you meant 'God':

No. No. I absolutely meant God.

Would a tyrant suffer our attacks and evils against himself without striking back?

Uhh... what could you possibly be referring to here? Who has ever had a chance to literally "attack" God? Are you talking about "sin?" Is this your assumption that God takes human-on-human sin as attacks against His existence? Because let's be clear here - being disgusted by something you don't agree should be happening is VERY DIFFERENT than actually having your person attacked. So, in the end, what you're referring to here could very well be cast as God overreacting to things that don't actually involve Him. Let's say two homosexuals have intercourse and God literally destroys them with fire (you know, like supposedly happened at Sodom and Gomorrah). This would be an example of God seeing something go on that He didn't agree with, and instead of DEALING WITH IT, like might display some form of self-control and restraint in the face of things you have no control over and don't literally involve you, He instead decides to physically attack and destroy the people. Sounds like a turd of a being to me. Now, if instead God saw a rapist literally attacking a child, I'd be 100% behind Him physically intervening in some way - especially if He enacted the intervention BEFORE that person were able to harm the child. But instead, what do we see? God doesn't do this. Children instead just get raped, and their rapist to be dealt with "at some later date... maybe."

Of course, to suffer and die at our hands for our sake, self-sacrificially, isn't exactly a tyrant action.

So, because He sometimes does some things that supposedly help us out (do not forget that the only thing God is "saving" us from in your scenario here are consequences He, himself, imposes!), that exonerates Him from being held accountable for anything we think is a wrong-doing on His part? Not hardly. The sometimes tyrannical overlord of Christianity fails to impress me. And in the pursuit of my allegiance to Him, what matters more than making sure I feel comfortable pledging that allegiance? I ask you!

e.g. -- was Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. a tyrant for being willing to face death threats and then continue to work for civil rights even until he was killed, for the sake of civil rights for all?

What a ridiculous leap. This is so dumb it isn't worth addressing seriously.

 

[halbhh]

Why don't you think that any book can represent God any better? Do you believe that the Bible is the only holy book?
Do you think that a book written by men 3,500 years ago represents God or what God is doing in this age?

I don't believe Paul had the authority to speak for or about Jesus but that is not most of the NT.
Why would you believe the OT over the NT? Why would it be more likely to represent God?

In the OT we often see God not really willing to explain much or justify His actions.

For instance, He destroys the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah it would seem in Genesis chapter 18-19 (though he may have been willing to spare Sodom if it had even just 10 righteous people) because “The outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is so great and their sin so grievous 21 that I will go down and see if what they have done is as bad as the outcry that has reached me...." and then the 2 visitors to Sodom seem to provoke all the men of the city ('young and old') to demand they be turned over for seeming rape and brutalism and probably murder. -- Certainly evil stuff, but bad enough to destroy the whole city???

He doesn't explain more...in the same time period...

Only later, much later, centuries later, does God explain!

Think on that. Centuries later!

Finally He explains:
Ezekiel 16:49 Now this was the iniquity of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed, and complacent; they did not help the poor and needy.
Ezekiel 16:50 Thus they were haughty and committed abominations before Me. Therefore I removed them, as you have seen.

but, also He will allow them to be restored:
Ezekiel 16:53 But I will restore Sodom and her daughters from captivity, as well as Samaria and her daughters. And I will restore you along with them.
(the city, that people as a whole, restored)

So....this is not exactly a prompt and clear explanation. It is explained later in time...perhaps when those who would listen would better be able to understand how it is that 'arrogance' and 'not helping the starving poor' are actually serious sins, instead of just ordinary human life that is ok or fine....

It's like the people in the earlier time were not ready to understand. Didn't even have the concept that arrogance would be an evil. Not yet. Not yet ready to understand.

 

[ChristineM]

I'm sorry if you wanted attribution, but it's wording I've seen (not exaggerating) over 50 times, and I so I realize it's common wording and therefore don't think of it as belonging to just one person.

Here's something to think on, if you will, someday: try reading 1rst Peter 3:18-20 and 1 Peter 4:6 -- about what happened to those dying in their mortal bodies who had not been redeemed in their mortal lifetimes. What happened to them after they died? Who offered them the gospel?

Right, if that makes you feel better. Did you ir did you not copy it directly from my post?

There ya go with the ignorant condescending again. Yes, read the bible, read 3 of them cover to cover plus verses of several more. The bible is not a historical treatise, it it not proof of supernatural.

 

[ChristineM]

Why don't you think that any book can represent God any better? Do you believe that the Bible is the only holy book?
Do you think that a book written by men 3,500 years ago represents God or what God is doing in this age?

I don't believe Paul had the authority to speak for or about Jesus but that is not most of the NT.
Why would you believe the OT over the NT? Why would it be more likely to represent God?

What you believe or dont believe is irrelevant to the bible. The bible is the book under discussion, not your faith.

Oh and think the bible is just a book of mythology, what it represents is the belief of a small number of people at that time

 

[halbhh]

Who has ever had a chance to literally "attack" God?

It's better in any discussion to attempt to narrow to just 1 or 2 issues, or best just 1, because I've learned by experience it's very easy to balloon into a dozen or more topics and end in confusion where people lose track of what each other are saying.

So in the interest of discussion, I picked 1 salient issue.

Question: Who has ever had a chance to literally "attack" God?

Here is an instance:

Matthew 26:67 Then they spit in His face and struck Him. Others slapped Him
Matthew 26:68 and said, "Prophesy to us, Christ! Who hit You?"

(I'm assuming people realize that Christians understand that Christ is literally in identity with God -- is God. Christians believe that Christ literally is God, one with God, together, unity. We call this the mystery of the Trinity.)

 

[Trailblazer]

So....this is not exactly a prompt and clear explanation. It is explained later in time...perhaps when those who would listen would better be able to understand how it is that 'arrogance' and 'not helping the starving poor' are actually serious sins, instead of just ordinary human life that is ok or fine....

It's like the people in the earlier time were not ready to understand. Didn't even have the concept that arrogance would be an evil. Not yet. Not yet ready to understand.

Yes, that is how I believe God operates... God reveals His Will through Prophets and Messengers and they reveal what humans are able to understand at the time of revelation. There were many things humanity was not ready to hear in the days of Jesus, and that is why Jesus said:

John 16:12-13 I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.

John 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.