-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Is God Really Such a Bad Guy?
- Thread starter rrobs
- Start date
rrobs
Well-Known Member
I see your point, but wouldn't it be awfully coincidental that the big change occurred right after Jesus came, saying that he was revealing the true nature of God? Seems more like planning to me. Like it was an integral part of the plot all along.
rrobs
Well-Known Member
Sometimes things can be hard to communicate, especially when it comes to beliefs that one holds.Hmmm... Ok. I've read some of your other posts and I think I understand your point of view, now. Had I read your other posts since the OP, I would have understood your position better. That's my mistake.
I might like to take credit for being so smart to see what nobody else saw, but that's not the case. I learned it from somebody else. Mostly from: Cross Vision by Gregory Boyd.
The aforementioned book answers that very nicely. A lot of it had to do with God's task of redeeming mankind and how He had to work with the culture in which the Jews lived. God can only reveal so much to lame minded people (but He loves 'em anyway
). He made sure to give only the bare amount of information necessary to bring Jesus on the scene. For the rest, He was willing to "stoop" to the level of mankind so they would be able to understand Him. Man was mean and so were all the other ancient Near East gods. It's just what the people were used to for thousands of years and expected, so God just let them think that way. He knew it would get straightened out once Jesus came.Wildswanderer
Veteran Member
A huge portion of the world doesn't live by any of those religions. The dominant "religion" of most in the United States is probably actually something like" be nice" to people and "do more good than bad and you'll go straight to heaven."According to what? As far as I know, pretty much every major religion has it's own version of the golden rule.
Golden Rule - Wikipedia
The "Declaration Toward a Global Ethic"[73] from the Parliament of the World’s Religions[74][75] (1993) proclaimed the Golden Rule ("We must treat others as we wish others to treat us") as the common principle for many religions.[3] The Initial Declaration was signed by 143 leaders from all of the world's major faiths, including Baháʼí Faith, Brahmanism, Brahma Kumaris, Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Indigenous, Interfaith, Islam, Jainism, Judaism, Native American, Neo-Pagan, Sikhism, Taoism, Theosophist, Unitarian Universalist and Zoroastrian.[3][76]
The golden rules is also espoused in the philosophies of Humanism and Existentialism as well.
"Survival of the Fittest" is an evolutionary concept, and "fittest" depends on the context in which the organism is trying to survive. Honestly, humans have the luxury of not playing by those rules anymore... It just isn't that hard in the modern world to find a mate and reproduce.
But it would be more consistent, if one buys into Darwinism, to just declare how they actually live: which is: "me, me, me, everything is about me!"
Nimos
Well-Known Member
Well it might be, obviously one have to remember that the stories weren't written down as they happened, like a writer following Jesus around. Even if you read the different gospels there are quite a difference in how they talk about Jesus, which could suggest that they at least could have been inspired by each other. For instance John is very different compared to the others with Jesus having long dialogs, the whole trial of Jesus is every detailed, to the point where the writer apparently knew what Jesus and Pontius talked about in private, none of this is in the other Gospels in such details. So even between these you can see the character of Jesus changing in how the writer thought he should be.
Also you have to remember that there were lots of people around like Jesus at the time, that would talk about change and so forth. So he weren't especially unique in that regard. A messiah or the meaning of it, is just someone that would save or free the Jews from their hard times. And since they were under the rule of Rome, it very likely that more would talk about freedom etc. Jesus might simply have been better than the rest, or he might have been the son of God, we obviously don't know.
Remember that it said on his sign as he was crucified, "King of the Jews". Which would have been seen as a rebellion against the Roman rule as it was obviously not allowed for someone to claim to be King. And from what I can see, crucifixion was usually done, to either slaves that turned on their masters (probably to scare others from doing it) or for serious crimes, such as rebellion against the rule of Rome. It weren't done to the average thief, as it would be much easier to just kill them. There are different versions of what happened during the "trial":
Matthew:
Matthew 27:11-14
11 - Now Jesus stood before the governor, and the governor asked him, “Are you the King of the Jews?” Jesus said, “You have said so.”
12 - But when he was accused by the chief priests and elders, he gave no answer.
13 - Then Pilate said to him, “Do you not hear how many things they testify against you?”
14 - But he gave him no answer, not even to a single charge, so that the governor was greatly amazed.
So here Jesus doesn't say anything at all.
Mark 15:1-5
1 - And as soon as it was morning, the chief priests held a consultation with the elders and scribes and the whole council. And they bound Jesus and led him away and delivered him over to Pilate.
2 - And Pilate asked him, “Are you the King of the Jews?” And he answered him, “You have said so.”
3 - And the chief priests accused him of many things.
4 - And Pilate again asked him, “Have you no answer to make? See how many charges they bring against you.”
5 - But Jesus made no further answer, so that Pilate was amazed.
Seems to fit pretty well with Matthew, still Jesus doesn't talk.
In Luke we have this:
Luke 23:1-5
1 - Then the whole company of them arose and brought him before Pilate.
2 - And they began to accuse him, saying, “We found this man misleading our nation and forbidding us to give tribute to Caesar, and saying that he himself is Christ, a king.”
3 - And Pilate asked him, “Are you the King of the Jews?” And he answered him, “You have said so.”
4 - Then Pilate said to the chief priests and the crowds, “I find no guilt in this man.”
5 - But they were urgent, saying, “He stirs up the people, teaching throughout all Judea, from Galilee even to this place.”
Here, the guilt have been removed from the Romans, as they suddenly find him not guilty.
In John it goes like this:
John 18:28-32
28 - Then they led Jesus from the house of Caiaphas to the governor's headquarters. It was early morning. They themselves did not enter the governor's headquarters, so that they would not be defiled, but could eat the Passover.
29 - So Pilate went outside to them and said, “What accusation do you bring against this man?”
30 - They answered him, “If this man were not doing evil, we would not have delivered him over to you.”
31 - Pilate said to them, “Take him yourselves and judge him by your own law.” The Jews said to him, “It is not lawful for us to put anyone to death.”
32 - This was to fulfill the word that Jesus had spoken to show by what kind of death he was going to die.
Here you have more dialogs and then "Fulfill the word that..." have been added, which is not in any of the other Gospels. The King of the Jews is not mentioned at all. So the story have clearly evolved between them.
This is just one story in NT, which is written much closer to each other than the NT and the OT is. So I don't think its all that weird that we would see changes from the OT to the NT, especially if the focus have changed from God to Jesus or the messiah.
That is fine, I have no problem with that.
What...? A quick Google search will show that to not be the case...
How did you get to that conclusion?
That's a pretty big assumption, there... Again, how did you get to that conclusion?
Consistent according to what? What about "Darwinism" applies to morals? It's simply a theory of how life changes over time. Morals are a philosophical concept. Evolution is a biological concept. They exist independently of the other.
rrobs
Well-Known Member
Well, I think it might be more appropriate to say 1 Peter 1:23 doesn't appear to agree with 2 Peter 2:20. My opinion matters not.
So here we seem to have a glaring contradiction in the Bible. What to do? We could just say the Bible is wrong and go with the Koran or something. The other option might to be say that perhaps there is a error in translation or my own understanding.
Turns out the translation is fine, so that leave the possibility that I don't understand something and that is the cause of the apparent contradiction. Let's see if we really understand what it being said.
It looks like 2 Peter 2:20-22 is talking about the false prophets mentioned in 2 Peter 2:1. The context thus shows 2 Peter 2:20-22 is talking about false prophets. Nowhere in that chapter is it explicitly stated that these folks were born again. The closest it comes is to say they once, "knew Jesus." Lot's of people "know" Jesus but are not born again. The key is to understand they are called false prophets.
1 Peter 1:23 on the other hand is explicitly talking about being born again.
A common mistake when reading the Bible is assuming that all of it is written to all people. That is simply not the case.
Rom 11:13,
For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office:
Exod 12:3,
Speak ye unto all the congregation of Israel, saying, In the tenth [day] of this month they shall take to them every man a lamb, according to the house of [their] fathers, a lamb for an house:
Eph 1:1,
Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, to the saints which are at Ephesus, and to the faithful in Christ Jesus:
There we have some things being said to the Gentiles, other things said to Israel, and yet other stuff said to the saints. God often says one thing to one group and something totally opposite to another group. That could appear to be a contradiction unless the reader understands God was talking to different people, at different times, and under different circumstances. We need to ascertain to whom something was written and when it was written. Situations changed as history moved on; Eden, no law, law, Jesus, Christianity, and finally the restoration of all things are all unique times, each having its own set of standards.
Neglecting to or about whom it is written, and when it was written causes no end of confusion when it come to understanding the scriptures. In that sense, it's no different than any book ever written. Can you imagine how confusing Harry Potter would be if someone kept confusing Harry with Severus Snapes? It would make no sense whatsoever.
Last edited:
Wildswanderer
Veteran Member
Because google doesn't know everything and your chart is apparently 15 years old. And just because someone says they are Christian is pretty meaningless.What...? A quick Google search will show that to not be the case...
How did you get to that conclusion?
That's a pretty big assumption, there... Again, how did you get to that conclusion?
Consistent according to what? What about "Darwinism" applies to morals? It's simply a theory of how life changes over time. Morals are a philosophical concept. Evolution is a biological concept. They exist independently of the other.
We are a post Christian culture. Some of the principals are still common but it isn't the reality for most urban Americans.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber
The other option is accepting their man-made fantasies that are both loaded with inconsistencies and contradictions. And not just stuff that can be attributed to translation error. Such as, is Jesus the lord of the living and not the dead, or both the living and the dead?
A common mistake with Christians is making assumptions about the person criticizing the Bible and Christianity.
Even what is written to specific people is horrible. What Yahweh spoke to the Hebrews is villainy, misogyny, and a way of living that only makes sense when "kill and enslave them before they kill and enslave you" is sometimes how survival is achieved.
No. I can't. I already said I'm not familiar with Harry Potter. I've never read it, I've never watched it.