God is cruel. But it's OK, because he's God.
Post Reply
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
23-01-2016, 04:25 PM
RE: God is cruel. But it's OK, because he's God.
The Bible (as I see it) has been seen three ways. Literal, Allegorical, Historical.

If it is Literal truth the words and their meanings would have to be taken as they are used. When interpreted this way we get groups like West Burro Baptist Church. But when I hear people take it as the Literal Truth it's because they believe the book itself is written by the Hand of God. Or the very least whispered in someone ear from God.

Allegorical stories are a compilation of "poetry". Hidden meanings and subtle twists, that attempt to convey a different message.

Historical not taken as literal history. But more as a time capsule of a way of thinking from a different time. Thoughts, fears, best understands, of the world as they persevered it.

I see it as the later. But I attack it as the former. Mostly because the majority of people I run into interpret it as that. I've read the book more now that i'm out of the belief, then I ever did when I was a believer. And I feel that many people in the faith's. Take the parts that are read in the churches count that as getting the full story. Or watching one of those Bible programs on TV as getting the accurate story. I've watched many, and it angers me when I see them twisting the stories for the modern audiences. Cherry picking the most popular stories.

From the historical view we can come to the understand of the amazing journey these bloody tales have taken. But we need to see it as that. Because once we start putting this stories in the literal category the whole tapestry falls apart.

But I think that's a major problem. YOU have takening upon yourself to delv a little deeper into the rabbit hole. You read this story's of creation and go "ok they didn't really mean rest, they meant stop creating." "But a whole cutler (jewish)" It means rest.

Defintion: Cease work in order to relax.

I was having an argument the other day with an Agnositc Theist that wanted to fight wheater time exsisted. And that they didn't mean Day in the literal sense they ment day as in Eons. Also a Mormon that said Eternity was never said in the bible, and when I showed her the passages she said they didn't mean Eternity that meant a really long time. I feel that when people use the bible as their source material trying to convey that this is the end all be all the facts of life but have to alter the words or messages so that it ether fits modern understandings. Or as a ride off for why they acted, the book is failing. Instruction manuals shouldn't be allegorical.

Imagine what putting together a table from Ikea would be like if they were allegorical. They're already confusing the start with.

Now from a historical view I can see that 40 days 40 nights doesn't mean a literal 40 days 40 nights it's slang for a long time. Or when you understand the bible was mistranslated numerous times over. Ancient Sumaioan to Ancient Hebrew, to Latin, to English/other. And along the way bits and peaces being altered, omitted, submitted, reinterpreted to produce a plethora of religions that steam from a time of ignorance.

We have ancient relgions that predate that of the abrihamic religions. From diffrent regions threw out the world. Many that had simaliry storys and a few that are still active today. But had longer "life spans" then that of many of the new christian faiths. Poetry, lavish story telling, life lessons all intertwind into tales that we see today as being highly unlikley. Or nothing more then myths. But these stories bleed into those that we see in the bible. But are ruled out as such from people that aren't told all, if not most, of their lives that they have to be taken as fact.


Your a historian? How interesting. What field?

I'll try to illaberate on my conclusion question.

Timmy says Chocolate Ice Cream is the best. He took a day and plenty of money to go to the ice cream store to buy every flavor of ice cream so he could compare and contrast. Now not every flavor was available. But Timmy didn't know this. He didn't like Rocky Road because it had to many nuts. He didn't like vanilla because it was to plain. He didn't like Strawberry because it was to fruity. etc etc.

So after the tastsing he concludes Chocolate is the best ice cream. Now is this absolute truth? No. Of course not! There are many flavors that people can enjoy and have that for them selves decide are the best. But if Timmy started pressing his conclusions on other people. "We should only serve Chocolate!" "Chocolate should be mixed with all the other flavors! So all other flavors become more like Chocolate." Even when pressed I like Pistacio Ice cream. He would close his ears saying "Your talking nonsense! Pistatino isn't even a thing. No one likes Pistatio!"

He didn't even try Pistatio.

No one wants to go into a ice cream store with one flavor.

But as far as Timmy is concerned Chocolate is the best. He weighed his options with the information that was available to him. Dose this make him right?

I hate assuming. But I'll have to assume you were born in a Christian House hold. The majority of the people in your life are Christian. The only flavor of ice cream you've ever tried was Christian. But what I'm interested in would be What other flavors of ice cream you compared your chocolate to and what parts of them did you rule out that made Chocolate for you the best flavor?

If you found archaeological evidence or reliable sources of Jesus of Naserith i'd love to see it. If you have Geological evidence of a great flood. Bring it to the table. If you have a talking animal, unicorn or other mythological beast that appears in the bible bring it out! Science is waiting for it. Let's get this information out there because people need to know.


Agnosticism having inadequate knowledge.
Atheism is lacking the belief.

I don't have adequate information to come to a conclustion. And I require someone to substantiate their evidence as apose to accepting it at face value.

Atheism isn't a hard no. And could proablm just as easliey discribed my thoughts. I just feel it better discribeds my postion. And when you include Agnosticism people are more likely to talk to you, as apose attack you with threats.

I don't find myself being Anti-religious. Until I see it trying to poison the well. Then I become antiment against it. As in my previous metaphor. I rather have an Ice Cream Shop with a viriouty of flavors not just one. Sometimes I even mix my flavors to make a banana split or Sundae. And I wouldn't want to eat ice cream all the time, it would just make me sick.

{better? Yes. But it would kill off the purpose of freewill. He will interact with us to an extent that we are willing to interact with Him (at least from a Christian and Judeist point of view).}

Two simple people, one believer and one non believer coming to consensus on what would be accepted as sound evidence. But for some reason this dosn't come to fruition.


This brings up a lot of problems when people try to seek evidence for God. If an Omnipotent, Omniscent god truly wanted to ramin hidden, then there should be no miracles, no relics, no miraculous appartions, intercessory prayer should not work. Yet such evidence is sought by many.

Since the only reference. Anyone has for god is the bible I'll have to direct the attention there.

In the OT god routinely talked to people directly Adam and Eve, Abraham and Moses.
The 10 plagues in Exodus.
Satan is an angel of God and yet he rejected God. (contraditing the idea that proof of god's exsitence would deny free will)
Judas had ample evidence of Jesus' divinity but still betrayed him.
Jesus apostles and followers, who witness miracles first-hand.

So ether The argument that god cannot reveal himself with out removing free will is flawed. God took away some people's free will, but not others. Or the Bible is wrong.

In these stories the people either had their free will violated, or didn't have any initially, or found God found a way for them to have free will despite having direct evidence of God's existence. Futhermore, if the god of the bible really did exist, and provided proof of his existence there would still be people who would hate and not worship him due to his action in the OT.




I heard most of the Philosophers you stated. On of my favorite things to do is play religious debates. The last one I watched was William Lane Craig vs Sean Carroll. The problem I find when ever I listen to Craig is he's kind of a one trick pony. Always resorting to his version of the Kalam Argument. Most of the people I would refer to are really Philosphers, or theologians. And more Scientists.

Christopher Hitchens(Author), Richard Dawkins (Biologist), Lawrence Krauss (Physist), Richard Carrier(Historian), James Randi (Magician) would be at the top of the list.

More of the man on the street Youtubers are AronRa (biologist), Seth Andrews (former Christain Radio Personality), Matt Dillahunty

I will looking into Huldrych Zwingli, and Seraphim Rose. These are new names to me.


I'll have you know I'm enjoying this conversation. And look forward to your next post.

What made you pick your screen name? You don't come off as annoying to me. Or at least not yet. Smile

“The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing.” Plato
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: