The Bible God: Cruel, Savage, Deranged, Evil, Barbaric, Intolerant, Insanely Jealous, Vengeful and Bloodthirsty?

You really should be a comedienne, Sandi_T. You bring laughter to me on a dreary day.

And thanks for confirming my hypothesis.

That is a choice, not a forced destination. Time is running out and the rats are becoming scared, don't you feel it. Tick tock tick tock.

After all rats backwards are stars.

That's actually a fair question, ajk. Why is there a "problem of evil" in the creation of a loving God?

An equally fair question for those who dismiss God's existence, in my opinion is: Why in a randomly evolving universe is there so much love, joy, good, and peace in the absence of a loving God?

The problem with both questions are that they are ill-posed logically. They are prejudicial straw men with the questioner's desired response built into the question.

For a very good answer to your question, ajk, I suggest you read "Evil and the Justice of God" by N.T. Wright. It is an academic book that has very few scripture quotes. Tom Wright is one of the most respected New Testament theologians in the world.

people suffer, it is the human condition. mankind is in a fallen state and the adversary is allowed to be in this midst.

i suffered much abuse, like Sandi, that i shared in her recent thread. i wondered where God was during all of that. took me a while to see it in the proper light. there is evil here, and calamity, and people suffer. some suffer unto death. this is the nature of the world. but, it does end. this evil will not last. the ways of the world will end and a new way will come.

but, God WAS there for me, in the midst of my suffering, and brought me thru, just as Sandi has come thru. i have learned many hard lessons and this is my lot in life. i learned how to love the unlovable, perseverance, patience, compassion, mercy, steadfastness, strength of enormous capacity, forgiveness, fortitude, endurance, diplomacy, etc etc.

these are what God has planned to do with the evil and calamity that was upon me. he turned it from ashes to beauty.

Why did mankind not protect its own? Why now blame God, but reject at the same time?

Quote: God Admits to the Base Human Vice of Jealousy?

Uh, whatever. I can't be bothered to argue with idiots who try to change the meaning of words. The meaning of the word is jealousy. Ownership. Possession. IT IS MINE.

God was not "protective" of their desire to worship him, he was POSSESSIVE of it, and murderous when he didn't get it. Trying to claim that means something sweet and lovely is the same thing that all abusers do... the "possessiveness" and ownership and control is out of LOVE, no really.

Beyond that, I'm not going to bother with the drivel about how it doesn't mean what it says, and doesn't say what it means, and how the word should be changed because god wasn't being mean when he was murdering people for not loving him. Whatever. It should be self-evidently absurd, and if it's not, then the person for whom it's not obvious is far too deeply enthralled for anything I say to penetrate.

------------------

Quote: Did God Command that Babylonian Babies be Killed by being smashed Against Rocks?

This one always struck me as absurd, so I won't bother. That people even try this one is kind of silly. There's enough real stuff to point out that they don't need this junk.

------------------

Quote: Isn't God Unbelievably Merciless and Heartless for Ordering the Killing of a Man Just for Gathering Sticks on the Sabbath?

Ah, well. The author here has a good point. I should kill my daughter for willful defiance, too. It sure would make my life a lot easier. Killing for willful defiance is always a good excuse. Next time she picks something up that she isn't supposed to, I'm sharpening my knives!

I'm sure to get an acquittal for that one!

(stupidity. not every person being defiant is going to run off and murder someone, give me a fucking break. And for the record, I'm being sarcastic, don't worry. My child is safe, even if she picks up a stick after I tell her not to [the horror!])

Then they go back into how wonderful slavery was. Uh, whatever.

-------------------

Quote: Isn't the Bible Barbaric for Ordering that Rebellious Sons be Stoned to Death?

Quote: Does the text say we should stone *children*? You assume it does.

They try first to get you to start thinking it's only adults who defy their parents being put to death. Ah, well, now it's all okay. Oh, but wait, then they admit this:

Quote: The Hebrew term for "son" (ben) employed here is indefinite.

Historically speaking, what this verse is for is to kill sons who won't marry according to their family's demands. Examination of historical data would lead anyone except an apologist to recognize these as what we would refer to today as honor killings. They were generally done without trial, just as they are in Islam today.

Such killing of daughters was also not uncommon. But of course, that's irrelevant, since girls are not important, only sons. Girls, once "dishonored" are no longer money for the family, thus killing them is more expedient than not doing so.

However, let's not talk about that, since the jewish society was of course so very honorable, upstanding, and without flaw because they worshiped the ULTIMATE MORAL AUTHORITY who kept them from doing evil... (not so much).

You are wrong. One form of slavery was employment. The other two were not. There were three forms of ownership of other human beings in that culture, and two were called 'slaves'. The EMPLOYED were called SERVANTS. They had a right to redress.

The INDENTURED were called SLAVES. They had a right to redress.

The SLAVES were called SLAVES (inheritable PROPERTY without rights). Property slaves had no right to redress or anything else. They were like children, who had even less rights than women.

who's idea were these?

Where do you get this stuff? There were fewer complexities of "that timeline" than there are of our current one. They were propagandizing one small region of the world. That's it. Their own little section of the world and history is what they propagandized.

And by the way, there is a LOT of proof that they DID just make stuff up. Not a SINGLE Record of their mighty DAVID or SOLOMON anywhere. With their vast empires and their hordes of dead... NO ONE ANYWHERE mentioned them except the bible!

AND, there are even records of the area that David and Solomon supposedly ran that show totally opposite histories... that these areas didn't belong to any "isrealites" at all! In fact, they were ruled by others and no one anywhere knows of any Saul, David, or Solomon.

They DID try to reform history, and it fails when one actually studies. There is very little proof for a lot of the bible--and zero proof for much of it.

That's because it's propaganda.

And I mentioned that they were killed for not believing the propaganda--and I still spoke to the concept of killing someone simply for NONBELIEF. So please don't try to make it out that I'm dismissing things as propaganda as if I'm not addressing the issue at hand/argument presented.



I did not say that YOU PERSONALLY said it's okay.

If we believe the bible, apparently God's idea.

If we believe the bible, it doesn't matter whose idea they were, since God couldn't be bothered to change the system or show them that they were in error. Since the ultimate moral authority thought it was fine and never once says anything against it, even makes rules in how to do it PROPERLY, we are left with the assumption that it's not a problem.

I ask you again. Is the god of the bible the ULTIMATE MORAL AUTHORITY, or NOT? Why are you avoiding the question?

Painfully obvious: mankind took that role to themselves according to Scripture.

You attack to old wine and the new wine at the same time?

What wine is it you hate about God? Stop mixing the wine!

Hmmm? Did they come from the universal order of Tao?

Ah, so the rules of the bible, attributed to God are actually MAN'S RULES.

Well, nice to see one of you admit that. Refreshing!

Man made the rules about how it was okay to cane slaves and that kicking your raped slave out the door with nothing because you grew "tired" of her was okay.

We definitely agree on that, but the bible claims that's GOD'S LAW.

What a conundrum. Hmmm.

You sure love to put words into people's mouths, Sandi_T!

Most every philosophy or spiritual practice has a way of dealing with "The Problem of Evil." What's yours?

Why don´t you answer your own question Sandi and honor us with your amazing knowledge about the God you Hate.

wrong. slavery was man's idea formed from evil intent of the adversary. the idea given is that man's ideas are better than God's.

God provides a way of escape of all calamity. Free will is a principle as sound and solid as the forces of gravity or other principles of physics. it is in motion, it is created, and cannot be uncreated (or God chooses to not go back on His creation of it)

the adversary is responsible for taking what God instructed and intended and distorting it with corruption.

God's ultimate moral authority is his Word aka the Word of God aka the Christ or Logos his Son Jesus.

Wow, you don't have "Germany" on your tag. I'm surprised, since you're mindlessly parroting his garbage. But then again, you don't seem to have any thoughts of your own, as evidenced by this comment.

I have hardly hidden the fact that the bible god is FAKE, and all of the "rules" attributed to him are jewish/israeli propaganda.

No, it's very clear that the bible [nor its fake god] is certainly NOT the ultimate moral authority. Because not only does it condone slavery, but it also forgets to condemn pedophilia.

Now, why would the bible god forget to condemn pedophilia?

Because the writers of it practiced it actively, that's why. THEY thought nothing was wrong with it, and thus their Golem-god thought nothing of it.

Why does the bible god not condemn slavery? Because it's a construct of the Israeli mind, and they thought nothing of slavery--as long as they weren't the ones enslaved.

It's very obvious why many immoral acts are perfectly acceptable according to the bible. Because as Salt keeps pointing out, the bible has to be read NOT according to any ULTIMATE MORAL AUTHORITY, but according to the concepts and idea of the PEOPLE of the time in which it was written.

If it had anything to do with a REAL ultimate moral authority, it would contain ultimate moral truths DESPITE the mentality of the time in which it was written.

It does not. Because no genuine ultimate moral authority was involved in its writing.

The God of the Bible is the Ultimate Authority

"He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still: and he that is holy, let him be holy still. And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last. Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city. For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie."

Rev 22:11-15

Look again my dear, you are indeed blind.

Again, you refuse to answer the question. Why?


Regardless of "the adversary", the bottom line is that the bible makes provisions for slavery and for a man's family to be used to coerce him into becoming property.

You can try to claim that "the adversary" alters that, but it is there in the book in black and white.

The bible condones, even instructs in, the use of a man's family to force him to lifetime slavery. Whatever "god's" intentions in that, it remains despicable.


See, the problem, as I see it, is that you think that WHAT you call God is more important to God than THAT you call God.

God answered your calls even when you didn't call him jesus or yahweh or jehovah.

I'm not going to try to say that there isn't truth in the Bible. Even christians admit it, as one of them said... you can't catch a fish with a bare hook.

The problem is the lies and the coercive nature of the bible that demonizes you calling God by any other name or accepting any idea about god not supported in THIS book.

God was always with you, because God is always with everyone. God's "name" is not Jesus, and God never gave instructions on "proper" ownership of slaves.

God was never ONLY on the side of the Israelites and never helped them murder thousands of people because he was pissed off at the other people for daring to NOT be born Israelite.

Etc. and ad nauseum.

There's truth in the bible embedded between the lies about God.

If you've managed to glean the truth out and discard the rest, GREAT!

But the problem is that there is so much deception and outright coercion and manipulation in this propaganda piece about how "god is only on OUR side!" that it's psychologically damaging for a LOT of people.

i apologize and will provide more answer for you. first, i have to feed my kids. be back shortly.

Why do you not answer my question? Why mix old and new wine together? The Gentiles drink what others spit out......

Wait, now you are saying that God is fake?

You have also claimed(in the past) that the God of the Bible is also the Devil?

But in your "visions" you spoke to Jesus? And just how does the Tao fit into all of your wisdom?

Last Edited by Rose of Sharon on 10/29/2011 11:09 AM

Because your question struck me as facetious. Are you one of those who believes the NT is the only "real" part of the bible, or what?

Maybe you don't understand the concept of the thread as a whole? I'm responding to the link in the opening post... have you read it or did you just randomly jump in at the end of the thread and bag on me because I'm the only one here speaking against the bible?

Clarify what exactly you're asking me. Thanks.

as Al Gore says, we deserve everything we got coming to us

LOL, you're really confused. I don't think you've actually read the story at all. If you did, you have hardcore reading comprehension problems. Seriously.

I'm not going to derail this thread with trying to help you understand. It appears to be beyond you to begin with, and it's discourteous to add to that.

Answer the question....I've read enough of your diatribes to know your m.o. Your hate is vapid! I've mixed it up with you in the past. Short memory? I am only interested in defending my Father......whom you refuse to even consider being benevolent, let alone have a relationship. You only want to attack attack attack.

I'm not laughing!