I have changed my mind

[Starlight]

Does John 13:34-35 sound like this comes from a violent God?

Yes, these are Jesus’ words, but this came from his Father (John 12:49), his God. — John 20:17.

I mean, read Colossians 3:12-14; Ephesians 4:31-32; etc.

Why did Yahweh kill those in ancient Israel’s past?

He was defending His people, and preserving the prophesied line to the Messiah.... those enemies wanted to kill them! (Didn’t you say that killing is ok “only in self-defense”?)

He was fully justified to protect His own.

We should be glad that Yahweh / Jehovah / the Abrahamic God is one who doesn’t hide His past actions! He didn’t have to tell us what He did. But He is very honest & candid....even if such actions (that He Himself had recorded) open Him up to severe scrutiny.

He is fiercely loyal to those He loves!

You say the violence was only self-defence. But if it was self-defence then why did God according to the Bible wanted them to kill children?
Do you really think that is loving? I know that is NOT loving.

God did NOT command the people to kill children. The man who wrote that used God as an exuse for terrible actions.

 

[Starlight]

Can I ask, since christianity is christ-focused, why would you need to believe the violence in the bible if your perception of god is a god of love?

Not all christians take a literal approach to the bible.

I believe some of the contents in the Bible is from God. But much of the contents is also not from God. Much of the contents is written by humans that used God to justify violence or humans that misunderstood what God wants. They thought God was more angry and hard-hearted than what God really is

Yes you are correct that many christians do not believe that Bible is 100% from God. Many christians believe the same as me about the Bible

 

[nPeace]

No, I still don't know what you mean by reliable.

Do you also believe that the word reliable can be interpreted to mean something other than what it means? I do not take the same approach you do, so if you think reliable means something other than what reliable means, then you should probably say what you meant when you asked the question.

 

[Trailblazer]

Do you also believe that the word reliable can be interpreted to mean something other than what it means?

No, but I think all people have their own ideas about what it means as it pertains to the Bible. I guess that is what we were talking about but that was a while back.

I do not take the same approach you do, so if you think reliable means something other than what reliable means, then you should probably say what you meant when you asked the question.

Maybe I should have but that was so long ago I have forgotten what was said.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

You say the violence was only self-defence. But if it was self-defence then why did God according to the Bible wanted them to kill children?
Do you really think that is loving? I know that is NOT loving.

God did NOT command the people to kill children. The man who wrote that used God as an exuse for terrible actions.

Please keep in mind, that those children will be brought back to life in the Resurrection!
Who has the power to resurrect? (Have you thought of that?)

And yes, God will resurrect them. And their parents again, according to Scripture. (Acts of the Apostles 24:15, “unrighteous“)

But at that time, what were they to do, w/ their parents dead? Starvation wasn’t / isn’t a kind way to die.

And the Canaanites were filthy people, in every way imaginable! We have evidence that they were even involved in child sacrifice!
One of the archeologists who found proof of child sacrifice was Merrill F. Unger, who wrote: “Excavations in Palestine have uncovered piles of ashes and remains of infant skeletons in cemeteries around heathen altars, pointing to the widespread practice of this cruel abomination.” (Archaeology and the Old Testament, 1964, p. 279)
Another source is The Bible Handbook, revised edition, by Henry Halley. He wrote: “Temples of Baal and Ashtoreth were usually together. Priestesses were temple prostitutes. Sodomites were male temple prostitutes. The worship of Baal, Ashtoreth, and other Canaanite gods consisted of the most extravagant orgies; their temples were centers of vice.”
Then Halley states that near these sex temples, archaeologists “found great numbers of jars containing the remains of children who had been sacrificed to Baal. The whole area proved to be a cemetery for new-born babes.” Also found were “enormous quantities of images and plaques of Ashtoreth with rudely exaggerated sex organs, designed to foster sensual feelings. So, Canaanites worshiped, by immoral indulgence, as a religious rite, in the presence of their gods; and then, by murdering their first-born children, as a sacrifice to these same gods…..
Do we wonder any longer why God commanded Israel to exterminate the Canaanites? Did a civilization of such abominable filth and brutality have any right longer to exist? . . . —Pages 166, 167.

And these children were exposed to such behavior & ideas! Would you think they were mentally & emotionally abused? Their life would have been miserable.


I’m sure you’ve heard of “R.I.P.”, yes? Believe it. Trust that Jehovah always knows best. And when they’re resurrected, Isaiah 65:17 will apply.

 

[nPeace]

No, but I think all people have their own ideas about what it means as it pertains to the Bible. I guess that is what we were talking about but that was a while back.

Really? That's news to me. The word "reliable" doesn't have several meanings, as far as I am aware.

Maybe I should have but that was so long ago I have forgotten what was said.

That's good, considering your statement above.

 

[Trailblazer]

Really? That's news to me. The word "reliable" doesn't have several meanings, as far as I am aware.

Reliable: consistently good in quality or performance; able to be trusted.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=reliable+means

If you try to apply that definition to the Bible it opens up a Pandora's Box because it is much too general.
In some ways the Bible is reliable and in some ways it is unreliable, Imo.
Also, there are many books in the Bible and all of them might not be as reliable as others.
Also, what is meant by performance, performance for what?

 

[nPeace]

Reliable: consistently good in quality or performance; able to be trusted.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=reliable+means

If you try to apply that definition to the Bible it opens up a Pandora's Box because it is much too general.
In some ways the Bible is reliable and in some ways it is unreliable, Imo.
Also, there are many books in the Bible and all of them might not be as reliable as others.
Also, what is meant by performance, performance for what?

If someone asks your husband, if you are reliable, I am not sure what his response will be , but if he says no, then that is saying you are unreliable - not reliable... period.
If he says, you are sometimes reliable and sometimes not reliable... Your husband would be trying to change the meaning of the word, as there is no such thing as unreliably reliable.
Something is either reliable or it is not.
If your husband can't count on you, all of the time, then you are not reliable.

There are degrees of reliability, in that one thing can be more reliable than another, based on the fact that it performs better.
For example, you might have two knives, which both do the job - they cut, but one cuts better. You can trust that you don't have to put too much effort in to cut your meat.

The Psalmist said, "The reminders you give are righteous And completely reliable." (Psalm 119:137, 138)

The prophet Daniel said, ". . .forasmuch as you beheld that out of the mountain a stone was cut not by hands, and [that] it crushed the iron, the copper, the molded clay, the silver and the gold. The grand God himself has made known to the king what is to occur after this. And the dream is reliable, and the interpretation of it is trustworthy.” (Daniel 2:45)

Consider this position on the Bible...
The knowledge of the past in the light of archaeological discovery is interesting and appreciated, but not vital. The knowledge of the past in the light of the Bible is, alone, essential and solidly reliable. The Bible, with or without archaeology, gives true meaning to the present and illuminates the future. (Ps 119:105; 2Pe 1:19-21) It is, in reality, a weak faith that must rely on moldering bricks, broken vases, and crumbling walls to bolster it up and serve as a crutch.

I hope you got what that is saying. Unlike those who sit around waiting for the evidence of this or that (i.e. I see no evidence of A, therefore A is nothing), the ones who know that the Bible is a reliable source of truth, do not sit around waiting for scientists to tell them what is the truth.

Is that rational? Yes it is. Why?

Spoiler: Take one example

Uncertainty underlying conclusions. While archaeological discoveries at times have provided a convenient answer to those who have carped at Bible accounts or criticized the historicity of certain events, and while such finds have helped to disencumber the minds of sincere persons who have been overly impressed by the arguments of such critics, yet archaeology has not silenced Bible critics nor is it a truly sound foundation for basing one’s belief in the Bible record. The conclusions drawn from the majority of the excavations made depend mainly upon the deductive and inductive reasoning of the investigators, who, somewhat like detectives, assemble a case for which they argue. Even in modern times, although detectives may uncover and amass an impressive array of circumstantial and material evidence, any case founded purely upon such evidence while lacking in the testimony of creditable witnesses directly relating to the matter in question would, if brought to court, be considered very weak. Decisions based solely on such evidence have resulted in gross error and injustice. How much more so must this be the case when 2,000 or 3,000 years intervene between the investigators and the time of the event.

I am yet to respond to someone who thinks I need scientific consensus on climate change, to know that humans are responsible for climate change, and the problems to the environment. Lol.
When all along I knew that before scientists were willing to admit it.

How did I know? The Bible, and commonsense.
As far back as Genesis, God said that humans ruined the earth in various ways...Genesis 6:11, 12 He sorted out the situation then, and he said he would once and for all "...bring to ruin those ruining the earth.. . ".(Revelation 11:18)

The Bible is reliable in everything it relates to - prophecy, history, science... We are sure the Bible is true, regardless of what people claim.

 

[Trailblazer]

If someone asks your husband, if you are reliable, I am not sure what his response will be , but if he says no, then that is saying you are unreliable - not reliable... period.
If he says, you are sometimes reliable and sometimes not reliable... Your husband would be trying to change the meaning of the word, as there is no such thing as unreliably reliable.
Something is either reliable or it is not.
If your husband can't count on you, all of the time, then you are not reliable.

That analogy does not work because you are comparing a person to a book, the Bible, and this is the fallacy of false equivalence. The reliability of one person cannot be compared to the reliability of an entire book that has many authors.

False equivalence is a logical fallacy in which an equivalence is drawn between two subjects based on flawed or false reasoning. This fallacy is categorized as a fallacy of inconsistency.[1] A colloquial expression of false equivalency is "comparing apples and oranges".

Characteristics

This fallacy is committed when one shared trait between two subjects is assumed to show equivalence, especially in order of magnitude, when equivalence is not necessarily the logical result.[2] False equivalence is a common result when an anecdotal similarity is pointed out as equal, but the claim of equivalence doesn't bear scrutiny because the similarity is based on oversimplification or ignorance of additional factors. The pattern of the fallacy is often as such: "If A is the set of c and d, and B is the set of d and e, then since they both contain d, A and B are equal". d is not required to exist in both sets; only a passing similarity is required to cause this fallacy to be used.

False equivalence - Wikipedia

The Bible is reliable in everything it relates to - prophecy, history, science... We are sure the Bible is true, regardless of what people claim.

Can you prove that as a fact? If not, it is just a subjective personal opinion. We all have those.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

The Bible is reliable in everything it relates to - prophecy, history, science... We are sure the Bible is true, regardless of what people claim.

You are confusing knowledge with belief. You assertion that the Bible is true is a statement of faith, not proven fact.

 

[nPeace]

That analogy does not work because you are comparing a person to a book, the Bible, and this is the fallacy of false equivalence. The reliability of one person cannot be compared to the reliability of an entire book that has many authors.

False equivalence is a logical fallacy in which an equivalence is drawn between two subjects based on flawed or false reasoning. This fallacy is categorized as a fallacy of inconsistency.[1] A colloquial expression of false equivalency is "comparing apples and oranges".

Characteristics

This fallacy is committed when one shared trait between two subjects is assumed to show equivalence, especially in order of magnitude, when equivalence is not necessarily the logical result.[2] False equivalence is a common result when an anecdotal similarity is pointed out as equal, but the claim of equivalence doesn't bear scrutiny because the similarity is based on oversimplification or ignorance of additional factors. The pattern of the fallacy is often as such: "If A is the set of c and d, and B is the set of d and e, then since they both contain d, A and B are equal". d is not required to exist in both sets; only a passing similarity is required to cause this fallacy to be used.

False equivalence - Wikipedia

Can you prove that as a fact? If not, it is just a subjective personal opinion. We all have those.

Are you saying, one cannot trust what is written in a book?

 

[nPeace]

You are confusing knowledge with belief. You assertion that the Bible is true is a statement of faith, not proven fact.

It's no different to the assertion that man evolved from ape. Or other claims you accept. So what of it?

 

[Trailblazer]

Are you saying, one cannot trust what is written in a book?

I am not saying that. You or anyone else can trust whatever you have a reason to trust.

 

[nPeace]

I am not saying that. You or anyone else can trust whatever you have a reason to trust.

Then you lost me. What does your post have to do with anything then?

 

[Bird123]

I do not believe anymore that the Abrahamic God is the one true God.

But i believe in a intelligent force/spirit/God who has created the universe/universes. But i believe God has no spesific religion.

I believe God send holy souls/wise humans to this world to teach us love, holiness, order, justice, peace, kindness.

I believe God do not care about which religion humans believe in, God care about our heart, that we are kind and loving to each other

Yes, you are headed in the right direction. Very Good!! It has never ever been about religion or believing.

That's what I see. It's very clear!!

 

[Trailblazer]

Then you lost me. What does your post have to do with anything then?

I said that.you or anyone else can trust whatever you have a reason to trust.
That does not mean everyone will trust what you trust.

 

[Trailblazer]

Yes, you are headed in the right direction. Very Good!! It has never ever been about religion or believing.

That's what I see. It's very clear!!

Maybe you missed what she said.

Meandflower said:

But i believe in a intelligent force/spirit/God who has created the universe/universes. But i believe God has no spesific religion.

I believe God send holy souls/wise humans to this world to teach us love, holiness, order, justice, peace, kindness.

I believe God do not care about which religion humans believe in, God care about our heart, that we are kind and loving to each other

She did not say she does not believe in any religion, she said she believes that God has no specific religion. She also believes in Messengers of God (God send holy souls/wise humans)

 

[nPeace]

I said that.you or anyone else can trust whatever you have a reason to trust.
That does not mean everyone will trust what you trust.

I meant where you said... That analogy does not work because you are comparing a person to a book, the Bible, and this is the fallacy of false equivalence. The reliability of one person cannot be compared to the reliability of an entire book that has many authors.
... and then you said a lot about fallacy.
If one can trust what is written in a book in the same way they can trust a person and what they say, I don't understand what purpose your post served.

 

[Trailblazer]

If one can trust what is written in a book in the same way they can trust a person and what they say, I don't understand what purpose your post served.

I was saying that I cannot trust what is written in the Bible the same way I can trust a person like my husband.
I never said that you cannot trust what is written in the Bible the same way you can trust a person.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

It's no different to the assertion that man evolved from ape. Or other claims you accept. So what of it?

No it's quite different. There is no evidence that God inspired the Bible or any other sacred text. It is entirely an item of faith for a person. The theory of evolution, on the other hand, is based on evidence (and tons of it).