• 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!

Koran v. Bible

crocusj

Active Member
So he says, not me
No. You do. Or is it literal?

Christ inaugurated a new covenant. There is no NT verse that promotes violence of any kind that I can think of. As for the same God idea. As it is with an individual child so it is with the human race. It is called progressive revelation. As the Human race advances God may change the way he relates to us yet he never changes.
Alternatively, as the human race advances (though I am not sure how that is relevant to how a god would look upon our behaviour - does evil mature?) it changes how it looks upon it's gods. It's called progressive shoehorning. I don't doubt that Christ started a new religion and I don't doubt that the two god's look entirely different.

The same way a parent my spank a pre-teen child for doing something as he grows it may become acceptable. As for the flood in particular, literally or symbolically I guess in your infinite wisdom you would have let the sad twisted tale of a race gone insane commit atrocities for a thousand generations. I said God requires that we do not take life without justification. I do not know what to point to that proves he could not do so but that isn't the issue. The issue is that he had morally justified reasons to start over. It is really pointless to debate something the true nature of is unknown. It is like discussing what type of Governments extra-terrestrials favor.
That is why I addressed both possibilities.
Well, no - again. Spanking is one thing, genocide is another. This was a punishment for it's own sake for those that died, there was no-one left save the righteous few who did not need guidance. It might be a deterent to future generations but serves no purpose to those he is chastising, this in no way compares to parenting


I am not a biologist and find classifications made up out of this air meaningless. Wait a minute are you saying God is terrible because he killed deer and chickens. We do the same thing. God made the animals and it is well within his sovereignty to do with them as he pleases
I wasn't really talking about the animals though that may not have been clear, I was talking about humans on all inhabited continents. Clearly you accept the guilt of the unborn children, the young children and the adults of the entire globe in your interpretation of why a god would be justified in wiping out species, otherwise this god killed innocents for this gods own ends. Is this what you are saying (whether it happened or not)??


I really do not know by what standards it may be determined what God may or may not do. I do however have standards that may or may not allow me to follow him. They are two separate issues.
Clearly. Though by suggesting that they are two separate issues are you saying that his morality conflicts with you own? Otherwise how could you recognise the difference? Is it do as I say or do as I do?


You seem to be suggesting that if you find a thing undesirable that has something to do with it's reality.
It cannot be shown that God did not have morally sufficient reasons for what he did.
Yes, it can. It's not even hard. Killing all humans around the entire globe is moraly unjustifiable. Go figure....




You and I both have killed hundreds of thousands of "innocent" insects and other creatures with our cars, for food, and hunting if you do. Do you wish your child to reject that you exist because of that? That makes no sense. This is really a meaningless line of reasoning. It starts from an unknown point and just gets worse. You are making reality determinations based of desirability of actions you have no access to critique. You might as well say that you reject Jupiter because it is Red and you have decided it has no right to be red.
You're confusing me with someone else, I am not arguing at all about the existence of your god or even myself, just that the negativity is relevant and should be judged by humans. If the bible is interpretive then it can only be judged by humans. If it is literal then it cannot.

Originally Posted by 1robin
That being said as far as the Bible goes I believe you are probably exaggerating the negative actions approved of by God. First the NT which supersedes the OT for Christians contains nothing but turn the other cheek, peace, and love. Only the OT has an eye for an eye or things like that but it has not applied in 2000 years. Regardless if you understand the OT many of those hard teachings are easily resolvable and are much more benign than many critics believe it to be. List some and we can discuss it.



There could just as well be an evil God that would torture all creation. He would be just as real even if evil. Or there could be a God that gave life and is perfectly justified taking it for any reason even if he denies that right to creatures who did not give that life in the first place. Or we could have the God of the Bible who has promised to act consistent with his revelation but who says we being limited fallible creatures many times will not understand what he is doing. Your conclusion does not follow your premise and your premise is based on very shaky and unknowable ground. It has no explanitory power or scope.
I have no conclusion and I would not base any belief or lack of it on the veracity (or the morality) of Noah's flood. Nor would I base any belief or lack of it on whether it matched my morality or not (why on earth would I?). However, I see no reason whatsoever of not asking what I believe to be pertinent questions of those who do believe that the actions of their genocidal god are justified. Should we not ask this direct question of every other person who wields any sort of power at all? I certainly do.
BTW. I apologise for the tardiness of my replies, I am away a lot at the moment.
 
Last edited:

1robin

Christian/Baptist
No. You do. Or is it literal?
What are you talking about? The Bible its self records that the God of the OT and the God of the NT are the same being. It is not something I just made up. Thing said in the OT are quoted by Christ in the new. Predictions made in the old are fulfilled in the new. If you do not agree your contention is with the Bible not me.

Alternatively, as the human race advances (though I am not sure how that is relevant to how a god would look upon our behavior - does evil mature?) it changes how it looks upon its gods.
I have no idea what you were saying here. An example: God required the sacrifice of perfect rams, bulls etc... in the old testament in order to push sin's debt ahead year by year. It is what is referred to as a type and shadow of something real. The real thing was Christ who blood would once and for all remove the debt of Sin. Evil did not change or mature, yet he accounted for it two ways. The same can be said with ceremony versus grace. It is as if God raises up the human race like a child and is able to or chooses to relate to us in different ways at different times, not the he is any different. Israel was held to an extremely high moral standard for a specific reason. Because they would be the race by which the messiah would come. He wanted the example and reputation to be such that would draw attention to Jesus. Now that Jesus has come many of those hundreds of laws are no longer necessary.
This was a punishment for its own sake for those that died, there was no-one left save the righteous few who did not need guidance.
So then he should have left those people to their desires and had a thousand generations of lawlessness, oppression, true slavery, misery, injustice, and abuse. He did not kill them to straighten them up. He killed them to remove them from the equation. The same thing we do with herbicide concerning insects. You leaving them alive to poison the entire human race for 1000 years would truly be a malevolent act.
I was talking about humans on all inhabited continents. Is this what you are saying (whether it happened or not)??
1. It may be a symbolic story and no children ever died then.
2. God could easily have a morally sufficient justification for killing them all.
3. Even if innocent children did perish they will go to heaven if they were under the age of accountability.
4. I believe that hell is not a fiery furnace where people are tortured forever. That is a Catholic tradition used to scare people into the church, only. I believe it is an eventual annihilation of the soul. God produced and gave these people a soul. How is it beyond his sovereignty to take it back or destroy it forever. I consider that perfectly just.
New International Version(©1984)
Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell.
Clearly. Though by suggesting that they are two separate issues are you saying that his morality conflicts with you own?
I am saying a God may exist whether or whether or not his morals and mine line up. At some point I would not follow a God whose morals differed from mine enough but that has no bearing on his reality. Are you suggesting God is or should be constrained to the same morals he constrains us by? How can you possibly defend that?
Yes, it can. It's not even hard. Killing all humans around the entire globe is morally unjustifiable. Go figure....
This is why I am glad God is in charge not men. You would in your well-meaning ignorance either strip men of free will of let evil result in hundreds of years of complete depravity and the end of righteousness on earth.
If the bible is interpretive then it can only be judged by humans. If it is literal then it cannot.
I would think the example set by Christ would be far more representative and applicable than some 4000 year old record concerning literal or symbolic people who were so depraved it forced God to do something that grieved him terribly.

"The character of Jesus has not only been the highest pattern of virtue, but the strongest incentive to its practice, and has exerted so deep an influence, that it may be truly said, that the simple record of three short years of active life has done more to regenerate and to soften mankind, than all the disquisitions of philosophers and than all the exhortations of moralists."
William Lecky One of Britain’s greatest secular historians
.
He was the meekest and lowliest of all the sons of men, yet he spoke of coming on the clouds of heaven with the glory of God. He was so austere that evil spirits and demons cried out in terror at his coming, yet he was so genial and winsome and approachable that the children loved to play with him, and the little ones nestled in his arms. His presence at the innocent gaiety of a village wedding was like the presence of sunshine.
No one was half so compassionate to sinners, yet no one ever spoke such red hot scorching words about sin. A bruised reed he would not break, his whole life was love, yet on one occasion he demanded of the Pharisees how they ever expected to escape the damnation of hell. He was a dreamer of dreams and a seer of visions, yet for sheer stark realism He has all of our stark realists soundly beaten. He was a servant of all, washing the disciples feet, yet masterfully He strode into the temple, and the hucksters and moneychangers fell over one another to get away from the mad rush and the fire they saw blazing in His eyes.
He saved others, yet at the last Himself He did not save. There is nothing in history like the union of contrasts which confronts us in the gospels. The mystery of Jesus is the mystery of divine personality.
Scottish Theologian James Stuart

I have no conclusion and I would not base any belief or lack of it on the veracity (or the morality) of Noah's flood. Nor would I base any belief or lack of it on whether it matched my morality or not (why on earth would I?). However, I see no reason whatsoever of not asking what I believe to be pertinent questions of those who do believe that the actions of their genocidal god are justified.
BTW. I apologise for the tardiness of my replies, I am away a lot at the moment.
Don't worry about the time between posts I am plenty busy myself these days. If more people believe in a God that sends the majority of people to hell than any other God in human history, then it's obvious that belief or non belief does not hinge on whether that God does anything I do not like. I think it far more common that people make up their mind about God then select what the choose to justify it. If we can accept a God who justice results in Hell for billions to then turn around and balk at the flood is illogical. There is nothing more right or wrong about killing off a race of men that have went completely evil during their life than to cast a man into hell if he died at thirty and never repented. Even concerning the innocent children.

1. They were destroyed by the flood and went straight to heaven.
2. They were destroyed by the flood and they no longer exist.
3. Every one had to return that which they did not create or own, their soul.

I do not know if your an atheist or agnostic or what but lets compare a system with God to one without a God.

With God:
1. We have a universe that has a purpose.
2. Morality has a standard and is an absolute concept.
3. No matter what the injustice and misery of this life all is eventually made right for eternity.
4. We have an origin and a destination.
5. Life has an ultimate meaning, purpose, value, sanctity, rights, and equality.
6. There is hope in seeing relatives after death.
3. The universe is not the master of destiny but is controlled by a moral God.

Without God.
1. The universe is meaningless and random.
2. Morality is an arbitrary concept and never has a foundation greater than preference or opinion. Nothing is actually wrong just inconvenient.
3. None of the injustice of life is ever put right.
4. We have no meaningful origin and no destination at all.
5. We are biological anomalies without rights, value, sanctity, purpose, or ultimate meaning.
6. We will never see our loved ones after death.
7. The universe has no meaning and will eventually die a heat death.

I can easily see which side is morally desirable even given morally questionable rare events like the flood. None of this proves what exists or not but rather what is more desirable.
 
Top