Is God a moral monster?
Thread Closed 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
06-05-2014, 08:30 PM
RE: Is God a moral monster?
(06-05-2014 07:11 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  "God commanded rape."

"There is no reasoning with a rape apologist."

"God condones rape."

These are all remarks coming from people here and have been directed towards me so I will in this thread be addressing them.

Despite the fact that the ones making these statements have yet to provide a grounds for making them that would be objective and not a mere statement of opinion, I will answer them.

The most frequently chosen passage offered to support these assertions is the passage from Deuteronomy chapter 21. It reads:

10 “When you go out to battle against your enemies, and the Lord your God delivers them into your hands and you take them away captive, 11 and see among the captives a beautiful woman, and have a desire for her and would take her as a wife for yourself, 12 then you shall bring her home to your house, and she shall shave her head and [a]trim her nails. 13 She shall also [b]remove the clothes of her captivity and shall remain in your house, and mourn her father and mother a full month; and after that you may go in to her and be her husband and she shall be your wife. 14 It shall be, if you are not pleased with her, then you shall let her go [c]wherever she wishes; but you shall certainly not sell her for money, you shall not [d]mistreat her, because you have humbled her.

This passage gives instructions for how a woman is to be treated who has been chosen to be taken out of captivity by an Israelite and to be brought into the sacred bounds of marriage which at this time in history, was the most desirable thing that a woman could hope for. It afforded her a certain social status far above the status that she would have had as a captive, definite economic security, and the chance to have children at a time in history where women who had children were seen as being blessed, much like women today are still viewed.

God knowing the evil in men's hearts knew that certain laws would need to be put in place to keep men from taking advantage of these women and to protect them. So what does God do?

He gives us this passage.

Notice clearly in verse eleven, it is addressed to the man who intends to make the woman his WIFE. Not some sex slave, but his WIFE. In this culture, when a man decided to marry a woman he took on the responsibility of fully providing for and caring for the woman and if he failed to do so he would be subject to the Law.

He is commanded to bring the woman into his house. This means he is not allowed to build a separate little "whore house" out back where he keeps her as some sort of sex toy. He is to take her into his house where she is to shave her head and trim her nails. This was so that the woman might appear as unattractive as physically possible. She is to remove the clothes she was wearing when she was captured. Why? It was common for beautiful women in these particular accursed nations to wear ornate and costly garments that were overtly enticing and attractive in times of war to seduce their foes. It is not hard to imagine this at all for if women dress as they do today and their life does not depend on it, then think of what they were capable of when their city was being surrounded by an army!Drooling

All of the above was done to deter the man from marrying the woman just because she was hot. Tongue

God knew these men and knew their propensity for being carried away with lust by the appearance of a beautiful woman. So in order to make sure this marriage and consummation was not something based on mere lust and on a whim, He gave instructions that would make the man have to see the woman day in and day out for a full month in an unattractive state while she was also allowed to mourn for the loss she had experienced.

I imagine many a man during this month changed their mind about the whole thing and never even went through with it. Only those determined to go through with it did.

Only after a month of this, and only after the man had determined to make the woman his wife would it be allowed for him to have sexual intercourse with her and even then the passage is clear. It says he MAY do this, not that he MUST. There is no command here to have sex with the woman at all.

God after this, knowing the evil in men's hearts, and in order to give further protection to the woman says that the woman is NOT TO BE SOLD for money or MISTREATED if the man no longer want her to be his wife, but rather, must be free to go wherever she wishes!!!!

Now bear in mind, this is not just any woman. These women were women who had been taken alive as captives from some of the most wicked, most vile, most insidious societies that have ever existed. These societies and cultures made the Nazis look like the Little House on the Prairie family. Gasp

They were known for child sacrifice, debaucherous sexual rituals and barbaric treatment of men women and children of neighboring cultures. These women in question more than likely had participated either directly or indirectly in child sacrifice and temple prostitution to include all manner of filthiness like beastiality etc. etc.

So these were not some innocent little women that spent their days frolicking in the fields picking pansies. Many of them were hardened, barbaric, seductive and devastatingly wicked women that would make Aileen Wuornos look like Mary Poppins.

But God being the God He is, despite these women being who they were, put restrictions on his own people to make sure they were respected and protected!!!!!

Incredible. Today such women would be labeled by many as incorrigible and worthy of no respect whatsoever.

But God is not like man. He is merciful and loving and set up rules and laws so that even the lowest of the low would be protected from wanton abuse.

So you can see when looking at this passage, far from it saying what you all claim it says, it actually serves only to prove my point. That God is compassionate and has concern for people, especially women at a time in history when women were seen as little more than property by the majority of the cultures in existence.

God is not a "he". It has no circulating testosterone. More proof your deity exists nowhere but in your head as an anthropomorphized myth. The three letter meme pronounced "gawd" has no coherent definition. God gave us nothing. Humans wrote all the texts in the OT, and every one flows directly out of the culture which produced them. There is nothing unique in any of them that did not already exist in the culture. Scholars know pretty much how and when the texts were produced. I see you have no clue, and have never even taken Biblical Studies 101.
Go Away. Stop preaching your ignorant bullshit. Loser.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
[+] 5 users Like Bucky Ball's post
06-05-2014, 08:30 PM (This post was last modified: 06-05-2014 09:31 PM by Reltzik.)
RE: Is God a moral monster?
(06-05-2014 07:11 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  "God commanded rape."

"There is no reasoning with a rape apologist."

"God condones rape."

These are all remarks coming from people here and have been directed towards me so I will in this thread be addressing them.

Despite the fact that the ones making these statements have yet to provide a grounds for making them that would be objective and not a mere statement of opinion, I will answer them.

Okay. While you do that, and without comment as to whether your god exists, I will carefully examine your response looking for a single datapoint: The woman's right to consent. In particular, is she in a position where she can feel safe saying no, and does whether she says no mean a damn thing.

(06-05-2014 07:11 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  The most frequently chosen passage offered to support these assertions is the passage from Deuteronomy chapter 21. It reads:

10 “When you go out to battle against your enemies, and the Lord your God delivers them into your hands and you take them away captive,

None in this verse.

(06-05-2014 07:11 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  11 and see among the captives a beautiful woman, and have a desire for her and would take her as a wife for yourself,

None in this verse, though there are implications that the woman (who has been taken captive) is not in a safe place. Furthermore, there are indications that this rule only applies to situations where she is desired as a wife, rather than just a sex object. (Or were wives only sex objects in the Bible? Either way, not nice.)

(06-05-2014 07:11 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  12 then you shall bring her home to your house, and she shall shave her head and [a]trim her nails.

No indications in this verse either. Her wishes for or against marriage, or sex, aren't even remotely considered. (Also, wtf? What if on the opposite end of the scale she, somehow, maybe Stockholm Syndrome, totally fell in love with the guy and wanted to get married? Why are you making her shave her head?)

(06-05-2014 07:11 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  13 She shall also [b]remove the clothes of her captivity and shall remain in your house, and mourn her father and mother a full month; and after that you may go in to her and be her husband and she shall be your wife.

Okay, so not only is she a prisoner of war, but she's dependent on her captor for clothing (or maybe she's being kept prisoner naked, whatever), and also for shelter and, presumably, food and water in a desert environment. Her ability to say no without fearing for survival is quite dubious. But it doesn't MATTER. In this passage (supposedly authored by God? I have no idea what your views are on Biblical authorship, but if you were going to accredit it to mortal authorship you'd probably have gone that rhetorical route instead of the one you took) God has condoned "going into", ie, sexual penetration of, a captive of war WITHOUT EVER ONCE SEEKING CONSENT. Or even asking WHETHER she consented and then, you know, ignoring the answer. Much less considering whether that answer was genuine or only offered under duress. Sex has been explicitly permitted absent consent. And then, to make it worse, there's the element of marriage, which implies that the sex absent consideration of consent will be a habitually repeated, lifelong event.

I specify "sex absent consideration of consent" because for all we know, hey, the woman's fine with it. And for all we know, she isn't. That's the point. WE HAVEN'T ASKED. At no point is there the slightest requirement that the captor give a solitary damn about it. It's less important than trimming her fingernails.

We can stop right here. Rape. Has. Been. Condoned. But hey, let's continue.

(06-05-2014 07:11 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  14 It shall be, if you are not pleased with her, then you shall let her go [c]wherever she wishes; but you shall certainly not sell her for money, you shall not [d]mistreat her, because you have humbled her.

Okay, so you can't then sell her but only if you went ahead and took this marriage option. But you can let her go.... to, what, starve to death on the streets? Whatever. Not important! .... also, she's been humbled? WTF? What kind of sex HUMBLES a woman? (Yes, I know there are answers to that. Just, not many answers that speak well to this position.)

(06-05-2014 07:11 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  This passage gives instructions for how a woman is to be treated who has been chosen to be taken out of captivity by an Israelite and to be brought into the sacred bounds of marriage which at this time in history, was the most desirable thing that a woman could hope for.

Most desirable thing that could be hoped for in Israel, maybe. In Greece... or Ireland... or hundreds of other places.... even at that time in history... women could hope for a higher station.

(06-05-2014 07:11 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  It afforded her a certain social status far above the status that she would have had as a captive, definite economic security, and the chance to have children at a time in history where women who had children were seen as being blessed, much like women today are still viewed.

Okay, so it's better to be a raped wife than a raped captive? .... not gonna touch that one. The status of the rape victim is totally irrelevant to whether it's rape. As is whether a child comes from it. As is how society views mothers. Also, if she can just be let go on a whim, as mentioned above, how the hell is that economic security?

(06-05-2014 07:11 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  God knowing the evil in men's hearts knew that certain laws would need to be put in place to keep men from taking advantage of these women and to protect them. So what does God do?

He gives us this passage.

10 And whosoever amongst you shall in any manner penetrate in a sexual manner one who is unwilling, or one who is not free to express their unwillingness 11 be the victim stranger or wife, foreigner or Israelite, highly born or low 12 the offending member's offending member shall be severed with a dull blade 13 but the rest of his manhood shall remain, to torment him for life.

Yup, that's a totally clear and unambiguous condemnation of rape.

.... wait, that's not what was written. What was written was...

"Okay, you can rape your war captives, just wait a month and alter their appearance first, and marry them."

... it doesn't pack quite the same strength of condemnation, IMO. But then what do I know?

(06-05-2014 07:11 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  Notice clearly in verse eleven, it is addressed to the man who intends to make the woman his WIFE. Not some sex slave, but his WIFE. In this culture, when a man decided to marry a woman he took on the responsibility of fully providing for and caring for the woman and if he failed to do so he would be subject to the Law.

Whereas the sex slave is completely unprotected by this passage. It would be interesting to see which passage condemns sex slavery.

Also, he didn't have to provide and care for her if he, you know, let her go, as this passage explicitly allows.

Also, marital rape is still rape. And. Nowhere. Does. She. Get. To. Consent.

(06-05-2014 07:11 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  He is commanded to bring the woman into his house. This means he is not allowed to build a separate little "whore house" out back where he keeps her as some sort of sex toy.

No, but chained to a support beam in the attic is fine.

(06-05-2014 07:11 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  He is to take her into his house where she is to shave her head and trim her nails. This was so that the woman might appear as unattractive as physically possible. She is to remove the clothes she was wearing when she was captured. Why?

Ummm.... lemme think.... uh.... BECAUSE IT DOESN'T MAKE A DAMN DIFFERENCE AS TO WHETHER IT'S RAPE!

(06-05-2014 07:11 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  It was common for beautiful women in these particular accursed nations to wear ornate and costly garments that were overtly enticing and attractive in times of war to seduce their foes.

Riiiiiight. Because "hey, look at all those hot women that other city has, and look at all the weapons we're holding in our hands, and look at this passage that says we can force them to have sex with us" is a such a perfect strategy for deterring or undermining conquest. Put a whole bunch of ugly women in revealing clothes on the wall, THAT might make them slink away.

.... but probably not, if there needs to be a section of the Law forbidding sex with livestock.

(06-05-2014 07:11 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  It is not hard to imagine this at all for if women dress as they do today and their life does not depend on it, then think of what they were capable of when their city was being surrounded by an army!Drooling

Well, let's see.

Escaping? No. Rejecting the advances of the people destroying their homes? No. Refusing to have sex with them if the man shaved her head and trimmed their nails and waited a month? No. Anything else relevant to whether this is rape being condoned? NO.

Interesting to see that this situation makes you salivate.

(06-05-2014 07:11 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  All of the above was done to deter the man from marrying the woman just because she was hot. Tongue

But nothing to prevent her from raping her. That was your point, wasn't it? .... (Also, I think crew cuts and trimmed nails are hot. But rape isn't. I like my sex partners willing and eager.)

(06-05-2014 07:11 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  God knew these men and knew their propensity for being carried away with lust by the appearance of a beautiful woman. So in order to make sure this marriage and consummation was not something based on mere lust and on a whim, He gave instructions that would make the man have to see the woman day in and day out for a full month in an unattractive state while she was also allowed to mourn for the loss she had experienced.

Wait, there was nothing in there requiring her to SEE her. Again, chained to a support beam in the attic. Send her bread and water via a servant for a month. Hell, he could rape her in a dark room, even after the marriage. Where's the requirement to actually SEE her? I don't see it anywhere.

But yes, I'll grant that it does proscribe rape marriage of captives based on lust and whim. Instead, it restricts rape to premeditated acts that humble the woman. ... er, sorry, it restricts MARRIAGE to that. (Or marital rape.)

(06-05-2014 07:11 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  I imagine many a man during this month changed their mind about the whole thing and never even went through with it. Only those determined to go through with it did.

Okay, so it's condoning premeditated rape. .... not seeing how this argument works for your position.

(06-05-2014 07:11 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  Only after a month of this, and only after the man had determined to make the woman his wife would it be allowed for him to have sexual intercourse with her and even then the passage is clear. It says he MAY do this, not that he MUST. There is no command here to have sex with the woman at all.

Oh, good, so the man's consent to all of this DOES matter. What about the woman's? SHOW ME ONE SINGLE WORD IN THIS PERMISSION TO HAVE SEX WITH AND MARRY A HELPLESS WAR CAPTIVE THAT IMPLIES THAT HER CONSENT MATTERS A SINGLE SOLITARY DAMN!

(06-05-2014 07:11 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  God after this, knowing the evil in men's hearts,

Oh, so he doesn't have the excuse of ignorance. That's good to know.

(06-05-2014 07:11 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  and in order to give further protection to the woman says that the woman is NOT TO BE SOLD for money or MISTREATED if the man no longer want her to be his wife, but rather, must be free to go wherever she wishes!!!!

I'd say rape counts as mistreatment. ... but okay, let's just let her go... with her family presumably dead or scattered from the war... no requirement to give her a scrap of food... or any cash.... or any food or water.... yup. THAT'S not mistreatment. Oh, and it's the man's choice and not hers. .... also, are there any rules against just GIVING her to a buddy, so long as he doesn't give you any money for her?

(06-05-2014 07:11 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  Now bear in mind, this is not just any woman.

Kinda is, yeah.

(06-05-2014 07:11 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  These women were women who had been taken alive as captives from some of the most wicked, most vile, most insidious societies that have ever existed.

(Or the other half of the Jewish civil war.)

Ah yes, blaming the victim. I was wondering how long that would take.

(06-05-2014 07:11 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  These societies and cultures made the Nazis look like the Little House on the Prairie family. Gasp

According to their enemies' attempts to justify their acts of genocide against them? Yes it does.

(06-05-2014 07:11 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  They were known for child sacrifice, debaucherous sexual rituals and barbaric treatment of men women and children of neighboring cultures.

.... still waiting to hear how this justifies rape. Or, you know, happy happy marriage, if we want to follow your interpretation of all this.

(06-05-2014 07:11 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  These women in question more than likely had participated either directly or indirectly in child sacrifice and temple prostitution to include all manner of filthiness like beastiality etc. etc.

Temple prostitution, if mandatory, is a form of rape. I condemn it. If voluntary... eh, there's some STD issues, but IT'S NOT RAPE. Beastiality is a form of rape. Child sacrifice? EVIL. BUT NONE OF THIS JUSTIFIES RAPE! ... also, if bestiality WERE part of some justification, wasn't there some law making that person unclean so they couldn't be, you know, raped?

(06-05-2014 07:11 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  So these were not some innocent little women that spent their days frolicking in the fields picking pansies. Many of them were hardened, barbaric, seductive and devastatingly wicked women that would make Aileen Wuornos look like Mary Poppins.

Which if true (aaaand I'd hardly consider the Israelites the most unbiased judge of these things) is relevant to whether God condoned rape.... how? It sounds like an attempt to justify rape. Which can't be. Because there's no rape to justify. Right? .... RIGHT?

(06-05-2014 07:11 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  But God being the God He is, despite these women being who they were, put restrictions on his own people to make sure they were respected and protected!!!!!

Chained to a beam in the attic, forcibly shaved and stripped, raped, and then possibly let go without a single bit of food, water, or coin. Yup. God surely understood how to protect them from wicked, depraved people.

(06-05-2014 07:11 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  Incredible. Today such women would be labeled by many as incorrigible and worthy of no respect whatsoever.

Even if that were true about the women, we wouldn't justify raping them. .... well, I wouldn't. Don't know about you.

(06-05-2014 07:11 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  But God is not like man. He is merciful and loving and set up rules and laws so that even the lowest of the low would be protected from wanton abuse.

Again. These rules limit... SLIGHTLY... the amount of abuse possible, but still leave WORLDS of abuse open.

(06-05-2014 07:11 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  So you can see when looking at this passage, far from it saying what you all claim it says, it actually serves only to prove my point. That God is compassionate and has concern for people, especially women at a time in history when women were seen as little more than property by the majority of the cultures in existence.

God lays out requirements for condoned sex with war captives. If these requirements are met, the sex is condoned. Consent is not one of these requirements. If a man met all of these requirements, but the women did not consent, the sex would still be condoned. Ergo, nonconsensual sex is condoned.

"Nonconsensual sex", in case you're unaware, is synonymous with rape.

Sex without consent is rape. Period. Doesn't matter how filthy the victim might be according to the Bible, or whether she's married to her rapist or not. It's still rape. And in this passage, it's being condoned.
Find all posts by this user
[+] 16 users Like Reltzik's post
06-05-2014, 08:37 PM (This post was last modified: 06-05-2014 08:40 PM by Charis.)
RE: Is God a moral monster?
^^Excellent post. You just articulated everything i wanted to but couldn't, due to my shaking and the whooshing sound in my ears.

Waiting. Jeremy?

A person very dear to me was badly hurt through a misunderstanding and miscommunication. For this, I am sorry, and he knows it. That said, any blaming me for malicious intent is for the birds. I will not wear some scarlet letter, I will not be anybody's whipping girl, and I will not lurk in silence.
Find all posts by this user
[+] 1 user Likes Charis's post
06-05-2014, 08:38 PM
RE: Is God a moral monster?
(06-05-2014 08:26 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  The members of the Westboro Baptist Church have been roundly denounced by the vast majority of churches not only in America, but throughout the world.

Rightly so.

They are good examples of what happens when ignorant, sinful, wicked, hateful, bigots use religion for evil.

Their judgment will be just.

Tongue You mad bro?

Ignorant? Yes, but not of the bible.

Sinful, wicked? According to whose definition of sin? How so? Citation needed.

Hateful bigots? Yes, absolutely following the bible as it instructs them to.

Keep trying.

But now I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth.

~ Umberto Eco
Find all posts by this user
06-05-2014, 08:38 PM
RE: Is God a moral monster?
(06-05-2014 08:19 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(06-05-2014 08:14 PM)evenheathen Wrote:  You mean like reading the bible about the society and culture of the Israelites who make the Nazis look like the Waltons?

Your apologetics are based on a flimsy desire to make the god of the bible look righteous and loving. You're fighting against the bible here. You are swimming against the stream of shit that is the very source for your "hippie version" of the bible that christians today want to pretend is what they follow. It just doesn't wash, friend.

You get to believe what you want to believe. You are not going to be able to justify it, though. You have failed on your first attempt. Give it up.

Actually I am quite confident that when properly understood and interpreted, the OT gives us the same picture of God as the NT does.

I take the OT at face value and do not attempt to gloss over what is written in it. I believe the entire bible is God's word, not just some of it. I believe it must be rightly interpreted and when it is, it gives us a more complete picture of who God is.

"Properly understood and interpreted". Really ? Thanks for demonstrating your utter ignorance. You do know Yahweh had a wife for a while, I hope. Is THAT the same in the OT and the NT ? "Properly understood" just means "my way". There are countless "interpretations". Tell your Jebus thanks for making himself clear.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
[+] 7 users Like Bucky Ball's post
06-05-2014, 08:38 PM
RE: Is God a moral monster?
(06-05-2014 08:16 PM)Dom Wrote:  Why didn't he just create man the way he wanted them to be in the first place?

God wanted to create something special when He made us. More special than the birds of the air, the beasts of the field, and creepy things that creep on the ground.

More special even than the angels.

He wanted to create us in His Image.

But being made in His Image entailed that we be able to experience what He experiences. To know what He knows. To think like He thinks. To a degree of course.

This entailed creating us with something called a volition or will. The ability to choose.

We presently are not what we can be or what we will become.

God knew of all the evil that would happen before He made us. But He determined that it was worth it because He is greater than our evil choices and mistakes and failures and weaknesses. He is God.

He created us knowing that we would rebel for the same reason a mother and father come together and have a child knowing that that child will experience evil and suffering in this life. They do it in love and hope, knowing that the momentary sufferings and evil their child will experience will be far outweighed by the love and joy this child will have of being loved and being able to love.
Find all posts by this user
06-05-2014, 08:46 PM
RE: Is God a moral monster?
I don't remember passages or anything like that. But from what I do remember.

2 Genocides
1 - Fed a dozen children to 2 BEARS because they called a man baldy whom was the prophet of god with double portions of soul lol.

Denotes females to sex slaves for men and lesser than animals and deserving of stoning to death.

Everyone gets stoned to death - God apparently likes his pot. I never quite understood this about the bible or Christians. If god loves pot and getting people stoned so much than why Christians fight against pot legalization laws so much?! I know wierd huh?

Plus everything ever in the old testament.

I am the moral superior to god.
Find all posts by this user
[+] 3 users Like Shadow Fox's post
06-05-2014, 08:51 PM
RE: Is God a moral monster?
(06-05-2014 08:38 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(06-05-2014 08:16 PM)Dom Wrote:  Why didn't he just create man the way he wanted them to be in the first place?

God wanted to create something special when He made us. More special than the birds of the air, the beasts of the field, and creepy things that creep on the ground.

More special even than the angels.

He wanted to create us in His Image.

But being made in His Image entailed that we be able to experience what He experiences. To know what He knows. To think like He thinks. To a degree of course.

This entailed creating us with something called a volition or will. The ability to choose.

We presently are not what we can be or what we will become.

God knew of all the evil that would happen before He made us. But He determined that it was worth it because He is greater than our evil choices and mistakes and failures and weaknesses. He is God.

He created us knowing that we would rebel for the same reason a mother and father come together and have a child knowing that that child will experience evil and suffering in this life. They do it in love and hope, knowing that the momentary sufferings and evil their child will experience will be far outweighed by the love and joy this child will have of being loved and being able to love.

Heard it a million times already from countless other idiots - you friggin idiot! Why are you so scared of reality? Were you forced to have sexual relations against your will some time in the past? Now that would make your position more understandable.

“Truth does not demand belief. Scientists do not join hands every Sunday, singing, yes, gravity is real! I will have faith! I will be strong! I believe in my heart that what goes up, up, up, must come down, down, down. Amen! If they did, we would think they were pretty insecure about it.”
— Dan Barker —
Find all posts by this user
06-05-2014, 08:58 PM
RE: Is God a moral monster?
(06-05-2014 08:19 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(06-05-2014 08:14 PM)evenheathen Wrote:  You mean like reading the bible about the society and culture of the Israelites who make the Nazis look like the Waltons?

Your apologetics are based on a flimsy desire to make the god of the bible look righteous and loving. You're fighting against the bible here. You are swimming against the stream of shit that is the very source for your "hippie version" of the bible that christians today want to pretend is what they follow. It just doesn't wash, friend.

You get to believe what you want to believe. You are not going to be able to justify it, though. You have failed on your first attempt. Give it up.

Actually I am quite confident that when properly understood and interpreted, the OT gives us the same picture of God as the NT does.

I take the OT at face value and do not attempt to gloss over what is written in it. I believe the entire bible is God's word, not just some of it. I believe it must be rightly interpreted and when it is, it gives us a more complete picture of who God is.

Ok, I think you are stretching the bible in a few places to accommodate the "not rape" clause, but I will buy into your interpretation for the sake of argument. God doesn't say rape is ok, but it sure hints at rape all over the place. Sounds pretty rap-ey to me. Those aren't my biggest objections to the bible though.

Can you explain the passages Leviticus has in regards to slavery and beating slaves? Rape is bad, slavery ok? Beating slaves ok? I'm confused there.

In Judges and Samuel God explicitly tells his subjects to kill everyone of their enemies; men, women, children, babies, even the animals, and sow salt into the fields. Utter destruction and genocide. What did the cows do to piss off god? Oh, and the babies, and the pregnant woman, ect.

In Samuel god punished the first king of the Israelites because he went to go kill a bunch of people on gods orders, and he returned with captors. He took the virgins I think, and the fattest cows. God was very upset, because he told Saul in no uncertain terms to kill everyone and everything, and he meant everyone and everything. Saul lost favor that day in the eyes of the lord, and Gods new favorite, David, got the spotlight. David was always sure to kill everyone when god asked him to, apparently.That is a passage I would love clarification on.

In the book of judges, I forget which chapter but I can find it if you don't believe me, there was a fellow who really wanted victory in battle. He told god he would sacrifice the first thing to come out the front door when he got home, because people where big on open ended promises back then. Low and behold the first thing to walk out the door is his young daughter. He is pretty upset, she goes away in the mountains for a month for some reason, insinuation she comes back and some point and he kills her. I found that really hard to understand.

In the 2nd sameul Eliza(?), the profit to come after samuel, is going through a town one day, and some little shit was making fun of his bald head. Eliza took the high road, turned the other check, and then had she-bears come out of the wood work and kill 40 fucking kids. Seriously, its in there. Not sure how you interpret morality from that.

These are genuine concerns I have, and one of many reasons I found the bible to be a laughable authority on any morality. Please explain this to me so that I can understand how god is both good and appears to be a giant asshole at the same time.

(btw please don't misinterpret my disrespect for your belief as disrespect for you. Your a good guy Jeremy, at least you seem to be, but the bible is a shitty book Smile. I'll be as open minded as I can to your arguments to justify it though ).
Find all posts by this user
[+] 1 user Likes Michael_Tadlock's post
06-05-2014, 09:02 PM
RE: Is God a moral monster?
(06-05-2014 08:38 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(06-05-2014 08:16 PM)Dom Wrote:  Why didn't he just create man the way he wanted them to be in the first place?

God wanted to create something special when He made us. More special than the birds of the air, the beasts of the field, and creepy things that creep on the ground.

More special even than the angels.

He wanted to create us in His Image.

But being made in His Image entailed that we be able to experience what He experiences. To know what He knows. To think like He thinks. To a degree of course.

This entailed creating us with something called a volition or will. The ability to choose.

We presently are not what we can be or what we will become.

God knew of all the evil that would happen before He made us. But He determined that it was worth it because He is greater than our evil choices and mistakes and failures and weaknesses. He is God.

He created us knowing that we would rebel for the same reason a mother and father come together and have a child knowing that that child will experience evil and suffering in this life. They do it in love and hope, knowing that the momentary sufferings and evil their child will experience will be far outweighed by the love and joy this child will have of being loved and being able to love.

This man is SO delusional he actually thinks he knows the mind of his deity. The kool-aid is strong in this one. "He wanted to create us in His Image." If horses had gods, their gods would be horses.

Get back to me when he's converted someone. It will never happen.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
[+] 3 users Like Bucky Ball's post
Thread Closed 
Forum Jump: