Yes but if everthibg the bible says is 100% true then God is a genocidal murderer. If he is capable of that then telling a few lies is nothing. So for one I would't trust him and I would rather be any where than in the company of such an evil being.
-
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!
a curiously hypothetical question
- Thread starter daemonikus
- Start date
Yes but if everthibg the bible says is 100% true then God is a genocidal murderer. If he is capable of that then telling a few lies is nothing. So for one I would't trust him and I would rather be any where than in the company of such an evil being.
mr.guy
crapsack
But, if it isn't explicitly stated in the bible that he lies, wouldn't it be most reasonable to assume that he doesn't?
But if the bible's true, it wouldn't say that he's good...your slippery deduction just fell on it's arse.
No it didn't. First lets take all of the bible as true. This makes God guility of genocide. Now see genocide = evil therefore God = evil. An evil being is much more likely to lie to us, so while good people might get into heaven whos to say heaven is any good? I'm not aware of any reference saying what heaven is.
Also just because the Bible is true doesn't mean it is the whole truth.
Also just because the Bible is true doesn't mean it is the whole truth.
mr.guy
crapsack
Genocide is only evil if god says (in the bible) that it's evil, or when it's evil. If he says it's cool, he's the authority on it.
Therefore god says it's good = it's good.
Firstly, we've already established that god can't be evil unless he says he is. So that's that.
Secondly, i'm curious as to why an evil being is "more likely" to lie: lot's of good people are pathological liars. Your insinuation that one who is prone to a specific evil deed is liable to participate in ALL evil (as you call it) forms and practices is completely unfounded and scandalous.
Perhaps not, but it may just contain the pertainant truth. "Need-to-know", right?
If God doesn't see genocide as evil then I would question all of his morals and any decision he makes as well as wonderer if he has mental health isuses. Good and evil is something each person defines for themself. I would have serious problems with a God that does not see genocide as evil. It would scare me because it would show me that our creator is not kind and careing. It would be like a parent murderer their children.
Point 2. People who are "evil" are more likely to be liers than those who are "good". Mainly because lieing is often an "evil" thing to do. But ask yourself what sort of murderer wouldn't lie to make themselves look better than they are?
If God was truely good then nothing that effects us would be ommited. If he is, as i believe, evil* then he will manipulate the truth to fit his own ends.
*this is entriely in the context of this discussion that I see God as evil, out with I would say no not evil for reasons that would need another topic
Point 2. People who are "evil" are more likely to be liers than those who are "good". Mainly because lieing is often an "evil" thing to do. But ask yourself what sort of murderer wouldn't lie to make themselves look better than they are?
If God was truely good then nothing that effects us would be ommited. If he is, as i believe, evil* then he will manipulate the truth to fit his own ends.
*this is entriely in the context of this discussion that I see God as evil, out with I would say no not evil for reasons that would need another topic
lillitruthseeker
Member
wouldnt hell be more fun though? i just dont imagine it as being some horrible place -- the devil at least has a sense of humor and isnt a mass murderer -- perhaps it is deceiving what they say about hell to make sure you follow god -- but maybe thats all a lie like everything else -- yes i would choose hell also 
mr.guy
crapsack
Which is all beside the point.
I'm sure it's very brave of you to back-talk an imaginary deity in this fashion, but for the sake of the OP you haven't grasped that your musing on ethics are worthless, which is to say, completely wrong: you theorize evil to be of personal perspective, yet the bible is able to claim definitively what is good and what isn't. Since it's now true, any conflicts you have with biblical ethics are your mistake.
So people who've done so-called evil things are necessarily attracted to all other evil things (as you define them).
A point that could really streamline a justice system, no?
"Your honour, i propose that since the defendant willfully did evil by stealing this baby's candy, we can easily agree that he is and will be willing to kill that self-same baby, as he is clearly prone to evil."
"Thus, it's quite obvious that he should be charged with murder."
But doesn't that depend on what he tells you to do? What if he told you to take a machine gun and wipe out every single innocent child in an elementary school? And then head over to the nursing home as an encore?
To the OP: To be totally honest, my gut reaction to this was actually to say that I would commit suicide. I can hardly imagine the absolute devastation I would feel if the premises in the OP were true...it would completely overturn my entire moral system and my personal faith. I would have to choose between having a guilty conscience for eternity or suffering for eternity.
I like to think I'd choose the suffering, but perhaps that's too self-righteous of me. Perhaps I'd be a coward and follow "God."
daemonikus
godkiller
i can appreciate your honesty.
sorry but your logic there is flawed. the context was illustrated in reverse. if the 'evil' man killed the baby and there was candy missing from the scene...it's likely that the candy was stolen by the same person. putting that in better perspective. its more likely that someone who commits a heinous crime such as murder (or genocide) is going to lie than it is to say that someone who lies is going to commit murder.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber
This is a hypothetical question. Is it really hard to accept the scenario (that the Bible is 100% accurate) just for the sake of discussion?
mr.guy
crapsack
Completely irrelevent from start to finish.
That was the point I was making. God can not define what I see as good and evil. I would never want to spend eternity with a being such as the OT God. I could never trust him and I would never like him. The reasons I wouldn't trust him are stated yet you says its "irrelevent" which it isn't.
I have made my point very clear and I can't see anyway of making it any clearer. By now you should either understand it or not.
Aasimar
Atheist
One of the problems is that this is impossible, aside from the translation issues (Which bible is 100% accurate?), the blatant contradictions, if taken literaly, would prove impossible.
I hate quoting scripture, but I'll just put up one example.
Exodus 20:5 (King James Version)
5Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;
Ezekiel 18:19-20 (King James Version)
20The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.
The bible can't be taken literally because it doesn't even agree with itself. The discussion of "If God had a consistent book free of contradiction that was assumed to be 100% true, would you believe." If possible. But given any bible I've ever been shown (Except of course the cut and paste create-your-own-bible of the internet
) Even if I assumed it was 100% true it still wouldn't make any sense.I'm not trying to flame or shoot down the discussion by an means, but when you say assume the bible is 100% accurate what do you mean? As in which bible, whenever there is an inconsistancy, which side are we to take.
daemonikus
godkiller
as the original poster i will say that in no way was the question intended to spark an argument over the legitimacy of the bibles claims. personally i dont see a lot truth in the bible. however that is not the question. i was simply curious as to what peoples reactions would be if it were proven to be true (regardless of how impossible it may seem).
i really struggle to see the irrelevance. i also struggle to see how the parallel can be illustrated any clearer.
mr.guy
crapsack
Yes he can. He can define your opinion (which, at this point, is all it really its) as right or wrong. It's really easy.
Oh well.
You're welcome to your views, i just don't think your slippery slope of evil and evildoers is terribly fair or relevant. In short, just poor and shortsighted reasoning.
No lacking clarity. They're just useless points in light of the OP.
Then i forsee many more struggles for you upon this here horizon.daemonkis said:
joeboonda
Well-Known Member
There are SEEMING inconsistencies in the Bible but all have been dealt with. The above, both are true, the sin of the father does extend to the children, for he teaches them, alcoholism is an example. However, this chain can be broken, the son decides to drink in moderation or quit altogether, and teaches his son abstinence or temperance. It only teaches that we are each responsible for our own choices, our own sins, but that if we sin, our children will very likely follow our example, if we curse, are abusive, arrogant, liars, adulterers, blasphemers, theifs, etc. our children may be, too.
The God of the Bible is Love. The people He destroyed were wicked beyond imagination. If the firstborn of Egypt were slain, they were simply slain, not cast to Hell. God is love and loved us enough to pay for our sins Himself on the cross. As there are Physical Laws, there are also Spiritual Laws, such as the penalty for sin is death. Sin breeds death, that is just a spiritual fact. So, God in His great love for us stepped up and died for us while we were yet sinners and enemies of a Holy God. He did this and offers eternal life freely, to completely, absolutely undeserving sinners such as we are, a free gift from a loving God.
The God of the Bible is Love. The people He destroyed were wicked beyond imagination. If the firstborn of Egypt were slain, they were simply slain, not cast to Hell. God is love and loved us enough to pay for our sins Himself on the cross. As there are Physical Laws, there are also Spiritual Laws, such as the penalty for sin is death. Sin breeds death, that is just a spiritual fact. So, God in His great love for us stepped up and died for us while we were yet sinners and enemies of a Holy God. He did this and offers eternal life freely, to completely, absolutely undeserving sinners such as we are, a free gift from a loving God.
daemonikus
godkiller
you seem to have all of a sudden given up trying to prove any of your points. you've resorted to simply saying 'oh well' and claiming rebuttals to be useless. your ability to defend your position appears to be minimal beyond the surface.
that was your parallel. when presented with an opposing view point you simply said
you didnt give any grounds for why you thought it was 'irrelevant'. you can't oppose something without having a reason....well....i suppose you can (as you appear to be doing) but your brain would turn into mush in due time.
i never suggested they were cast into hell. depriving innocent families of the life of thier first born is enough. perhaps they did go to heaven. but if my daughter was killed by god so that he could prove a point to the leader of my country i would probably burn down the first church i saw out of sheer blind rage towards this 'god of love'. and thus furthering my resolve (again) to take my place in hell.
JayHawes
Active Member
The Question of the Bible being 100% accurate cannot truly be discussed as though it is very simple. Why? Because to discuss it we would have to ciscuss each individual reason as to why it is not accurate. Which could be up to hundreds of reasons.
Some may refuse to accpet that the bible is 100% accurate maybe:
1) Becuase you were not raised Christian
2) Becuase you may not like Authority
3) Becuase you dont like Christians
4) Because a "Christian" you knew did something bad
5) Becasue you dont understand one verse
6)There is so much evil in the World
7) They made it up
8) I like living in sin (drugs, sex, so on)
We really dont know all the reasons why someone will reject the bible. Not everyone tells, instead they hide behind things. And push things. Do i believe that the bible is 100% accuate? If you mean the History- yes, if you mean the prophecy- yes, and if you mean the accounts of Jesus- yes.
Some may refuse to accpet that the bible is 100% accurate maybe:
1) Becuase you were not raised Christian
2) Becuase you may not like Authority
3) Becuase you dont like Christians
4) Because a "Christian" you knew did something bad
5) Becasue you dont understand one verse
6)There is so much evil in the World
7) They made it up
8) I like living in sin (drugs, sex, so on)
We really dont know all the reasons why someone will reject the bible. Not everyone tells, instead they hide behind things. And push things. Do i believe that the bible is 100% accuate? If you mean the History- yes, if you mean the prophecy- yes, and if you mean the accounts of Jesus- yes.