heaven is a ball...

[Sean]

In fact "all and more of the elements" would have to include: Jealousy, spite, pettiness, vindictiveness, bigotry, sloth, gluttony, malice, anger... etc

[thestoat]

... don't annoy god ...

"Thus says the Lord: 'I will bring evil upon you out of your own house. I will take your wives [plural] while you live to see it, and will give them to your neighbor. He shall lie with your wives in broad daylight. You have done this deed in secret, but I will bring it about in the presence of all Israel, and with the sun looking down.'
Then David said to Nathan, "I have sinned against the Lord." Nathan answered David: "The Lord on his part has forgiven your sin: you shall not die. But since you have utterly spurned the Lord by this deed, the child born to you must surely die." "

(2 Samuel 12:11-14)


Would that fall under "anger"? Or would facilitating rape and murder be some other element?

[Sean]

I would tend to describe that as general fuckwittedness... no matter who said it!

[thestoat]

Gotta be careful -

a day shall come for the Lord when the spoils shall be divided in your midst. And I will gather all the nations against Jerusalem for battle: the city shall be taken, houses plundered, women ravished

(Zechariah 14:1-2)

[rubato]

"...
Since God and truth are not mutually exclusive, whenever there appears to be a conflict eiher truth is not yet understood or God is not yet understood. Under the sound principle of using the Bible to interpret the Bible, ... "

So we are to understand that a being who created human beings, who designed all of their faculties and abilities, who made their capacities and in-capacities alike, is unable to communicate clearly with them?

Falling pretty short of 'infallible' aren't we?

We're back at 'superstitious'.


yrs,
rubato

[thestoat]

As you approach a town to attack it, first offer its people terms for peace. If they accept your terms and open the gates to you, then all the people inside will serve you in forced labor. But if they refuse to make peace and prepare to fight, you must attack the town. When the LORD your God hands it over to you, kill every man in the town. But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder. You may enjoy the spoils of your enemies that the LORD your God has given you.

Deuteronomy 20:10-14

This Bible is good stuff ... if you like rape, slavery and murder that is.

[loCAtek]

All of that is Old Testement, which was taken out of context of the Torah.

[thestoat]

It is old testament - but still the Bible - or is that ignored by those who understand these things?

[Big RR]

Cursed them in the name of the Lord"? A far cry from "love thine enemies" or "father forgive them for they know not what they do".

Indeed so, Big RR. Of course I’m sure you read the meaning of “curse” (belittle, dismiss etc)? It occurs to me that the man was a prophet; he prophesied. “In the name of the Lord I’m telling you stupid twerps to shut up and gedadahere or something real bad is gonna happen to youse guys”. Do you think it happened as recorded (see choices in prior post)

Cheers!
Meade

No, but then I do have my beliefs about how factual some of the passages in the bible are; somehow I fail to see how god would avenge a person being called "baldhead" with the killing of a number of the children (and as far as I can see, god was not called baldhead, Elisha was), and yet jesus would cry out for the forgiveness of the very people who scourged and were driving nails into him.

I remain without understanding that omnipotence means a person would not have emotions. I also see no contradiction between an omnipotent message giver and the failure of humans to understand a particular element of that message (or more probably understand but 'prefer' to dismiss) - yet.

So is it your opinion then that god can act out of anger and do something completely irrational and wrong?

[Gob]

Side-step #3 - are you now acknowledging that God exists (but is an "arse" as you prefer to imagine)?

The person you described as killing kids to make a point is an arse. We can discuss a hypothetical person who may or may not exist, without accepting at they exist, strawman.

But yes, God is a person (the person I suppose). He possesses (perfectly) all and more of the elements that make you a peson: will, rationality, goodness, love, mercy, grace, morality, creativity etc etc. Far as we know, those are not attributes of a rock or a pear or an ant.

Why djask?
Meade

because as far as I am aware, only human beings are "persons" gods are not.

[loCAtek]

Except they weren't kids, fallacy #12

[thestoat]

Except they weren't kid

Seems he is well up for killing children tho

Make ready to slaughter his sons for the guilt of their fathers; Lest they rise and posses the earth, and fill the breadth of the world with tyrants. (Isaiah 14:21)

[MajGenl.Meade]

"... Since God and truth are not mutually exclusive, whenever there appears to be a conflict eiher truth is not yet understood or God is not yet understood. Under the sound principle of using the Bible to interpret the Bible, ... "

So we are to understand that a being who created human beings, who designed all of their faculties and abilities, who made their capacities and in-capacities alike, is unable to communicate clearly with them?

Falling pretty short of 'infallible' aren't we?

We're back at 'superstitious'. yrs,
rubato

Interesting but misaken. Communiation may be clear but not understood for many reasons. For example, it was for a time thought that the world was flat owing to certain beliefs that were thought (erroneiously) to be put forward in the Bible. Along comes the observation that it is not flat. An apparent conflict between truth and God for some church-dudes. Eventually they had to realise they didn't understand God as well as they thought.

It would have to be proven that any "not yet understood" communication (is there one or is this hypotheitical?) is intended by God to be understood at this time (or in a past time) versus an intention to communicate a truth which can only be understood at some future time. "Infallibility" is not threatened for the same reason - first it would be necessary to prove that God's purpose was to have X understood at a certain point (pick a date - AD 1763, August 3) but that on that date everyone who tried to understand it could not. Then one might point out that God's intention had failed despite his wiling otherwise.

You are welcome back at superstition; I'm not happy there but each to their own
Meade

[MajGenl.Meade]

Do you think it happened as recorded (see choices in prior post)

No, but then I do have my beliefs about how factual some of the passages in the bible are; somehow I fail to see how god would avenge a person being called "baldhead" with the killing of a number of the children (and as far as I can see, god was not called baldhead, Elisha was), and yet jesus would cry out for the forgiveness of the very people who scourged and were driving nails into him.

OK well the issue of factuality was covered in more than one of the interpretative choices listed. The Bible does not say that God sent the bears in response to Elisha's words. It's a strong inference made by the author and it may be the case; some people believe that. Or it may be coincidental or prophesy. In any case the point remains exactly the same: when people mock God they leave themselves open to consequences. They were not simply calling Elisha names but were mocking God's choice of prophet. If you examine the context you'll find he was deep in anti-God territory. I don't see any connection between this event and the crucifixion of Jesus or that the one is in contradiction of the other.

I remain without understanding that omnipotence means a person would not have emotions. I also see no contradiction between an omnipotent message giver and the failure of humans to understand a particular element of that message (or more probably understand but 'prefer' to dismiss) - yet.

So is it your opinion then that god can act out of anger and do something completely irrational and wrong?

Nope. God is nable to do something completely irrational and wrong. It is not my opinion that God can act out of anger - it is the opinion of the Bible (inspired by God who should know) that He is angered by things that men do. He does not experience human petty anger but on the contrary has righteous wrath against sin. My point was that "omnipotence" has no causal connection with feelings or lack of them and not does all-powerful have any connection to humans failing to accept a clear message.

Meade

[MajGenl.Meade]

Side-step #3 - are you now acknowledging that God exists (but is an "arse" as you prefer to imagine)?

The person you described as killing kids to make a point is an arse. We can discuss a hypothetical person who may or may not exist, without accepting at they exist, strawman.

But yes, God is a person (the person I suppose). He possesses (perfectly) all and more of the elements that make you a peson: will, rationality, goodness, love, mercy, grace, morality, creativity etc etc. Far as we know, those are not attributes of a rock or a pear or an ant.

Why djask?
Meade

because as far as I am aware, only human beings are "persons" gods are not.

Yeah I was trying it on, eh? Now back to facts. I didn't describe God killing kids. There are a number of ways to approach the passage - I don't know which is correct 100% if any. I don't have to know. What I understand is the message the author intended - opposition to God is a bad idea. Perhaps I'll pick that Elisha shouted belittling words to the yobs who were harrassing him. Shortly thereafter, bears attacked them. Wrong place, wrong time - perhaps they were too distracted by their own cleverness to see what Elisha saw coming? Perhpas I'll pick prophecy.

This is prophecy: 'One of the guild prophets was prompted by the LORD to say to his companion, “Strike me.” But he refused to strike him.  Then he said to him, “Since you did not obey the voice of the LORD, a lion will kill you when you leave me.” When they parted company, a lion came upon him and killed him' (1Kings 20:35-36). (Kind of interesting: the prophet needed to get to King Ahab and planned to disguise himself as a wounded soldier to do so; he need an injury! The next guy gives him the necessary whack that the first guy refused to help with. Of course if the first guy had done what was needed, he wouldn't have departed and met up with the lion. He should have stuck with the prophet).

I'd agree gods are not persons. God is. Wikipedia is helpful:

Prior to the advent of Christianity, the word "persona" (Latin) or "prosopon" (πρόσωπον: Greek) referred to the masks worn by actors on stage. The various masks represented the various "personae" in the stage play, while the masks themselves helped the actor's voice resonate and easier for the audience to hear. In Roman law, the word "persona" could also refer to a legal entity.

In his work, De Trinitas, Tertullian became the first person recorded by history to use the word in a quite different way: to signify a being that is, at least in principle, complete, autonomous and fully responsible for his own acts. He not only adopted and adapted "person" to theological use, he also was the first to use the words "Trinity" (Latin: trinitas) and "substance" (substantia) in relation to God. He was the first to speak of three persons in one substance (Latin: una substantia et tres personae). Just as modern physicists have given strict technical meaning to a word like "color" in order to explain the inner workings of the quark, Tertullian gave strict technical meaning to the words "person", "substance" and "trinity" to explain the inner workings of the Christian Godhead...... Tertullian thereby launched the modern understanding of the word "person." The modern meaning originates in the Christian theological explanation for how God exists in Himself

We should have reached open-minded doubt that god did anything to qualify as "arse". There are many non-arse explanations.

Meade

[Big RR]

Nope. God is nable to do something completely irrational and wrong. It is not my opinion that God can act out of anger - it is the opinion of the Bible (inspired by God who should know) that He is angered by things that men do. He does not experience human petty anger but on the contrary has righteous wrath against sin. My point was that "omnipotence" has no causal connection with feelings or lack of them and not does all-powerful have any connection to humans failing to accept a clear message.

Meade--my opinion is a little different; I think human perception has changed about god throughout time. Early perceptions of god, around the time of the exodus, were colored by the desire to have a powerful and emotional god, symbolized the by the desert volcano (pillar of smoke by day, fire by night) seen by those wandering in the desert. God was then seen as a weapon that his "chosen" could carry with them, something that existed in (or rested his feet on the footstool called) the arc of the covenant, a god who helped to kill thousands of enemies in exchange for dedicated obedience to hundreds of rules almost as superstitions . Jesus changed the perceptions of the god of wrath and anger to the god of love and forgiveness,fostering the belief of a personal god who interacts with each of us, something further enhanced after the protestant reformation. We do not generally view god and and massacring people for silly slights(like calling a man, whoever he is, bald head) because that same god did not massacre those who tortured and killed his son (as for the veracity and accuracy of this account, let's just leave it be).

True, not all religions have made this same progression, but I do think the understandings of most in this area have changed.

[thestoat]

because that same god did not massacre those who tortured and killed his son

He does tell us to kill everyone who has religious views that are different than your own. (Deuteronomy 17:2-5)

[Crackpot]

I'm pretty sure that's out of context there Stoat.

Gob

You're also operating under the assumption that death is worst thing that could happen. I've come to the conclusion that God really don't see it that way. In fact if we mortals could be sure of "everlasting life" and "paradise in the hereafter" I don't think we would either.

[MajGenl.Meade]

Big RR, thanks, yes I quite understand what you say but this part baffles me a bit:

We do not generally view god and and massacring people for silly slights(like calling a man, whoever he is, bald head) because that same god did not massacre those who tortured and killed his son (as for the veracity and accuracy of this account, let's just leave it be).

I'm having trouble formulating the comment I want to make in response to the above. Perhaps this way:

The veracity and accuracy of the account does matter because:

If the passage actually describes God massacring people for silly slights, then that's a wrong thing for God to do; we have to agree with atheists.

If it doesn't describe God massacring people for silly slights then why categorize it as coming from a false perception people had of God?

Not sure if that's really clear. I'm not saying you believe the passage is true. Nor saying that you think God massacres people for silly slights. But do you think that the passage describes God massacring people for silly slights?

No believer I know of views God as massacring people for silly slights; 2 Kings doesn't describe that either. I would agree with your example of the crucifixion as confirming that God did not massacre people for either horrible or silly slights. Either then or before. God is changeless - good Old Testament doctrine.

Meade

[MajGenl.Meade]

because that same god did not massacre those who tortured and killed his son

He does tell us to kill everyone who has religious views that are different than your own. (Deuteronomy 17:2-5)

Again C/P, I rather think that it's not so much "out of context" as much as it is simply a false statement. In Deuteronomy 17 God did not tell "us" to kill "everyone" who has "religious views" that are different from "your own".

Instead, God directed that those of His chosen people who did evil and who broke the covenant between He and they, notably in worshipping false gods instead of the true Creator God, were to be stoned. It would require proper investigation and proper witnesses.

That so many of the "faithful" spent the next thousands of years breaking the covenant as often as possible seems to indicate that unlike Dylan's plea, hardly anyone got stoned

Meade