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

No, He isn't , although many would like to represent Him as being such. He is Love and Mercy.

What do you think?





?

Tell THAT to the poor cunts in HELL..getting a good DOSE of his LOVE and MERCY.

Yes, the god of the bible an immoral egotistical arrogant tyrant

because

of the association with a religion(~)

Every religion has a god > NOT Our Creator(~)
ty

absolutely not. and as the website breaks down each of these topics, one can see the context and reasons for each one.

i am hoping this sheds light to those who refuse to come to God because of their bitterness against Him thinking Him a tyrannical, vengeful, bloodthirsty God.

its is masterful deception on the part of the adversary that leads many to turn from God.

amen

lol right

Not a chance. He is LOVE.

Holy texts have been manipulated over time to lead you astray.

Agreed

I think the view of God that some have as portrayed in the thread title comes from not having read the story of scripture as a narrative.

there's nothing 'holy' about religion > its ALL man-made opinions and assumptions(~)

religion is Spiritually worthless(~)



Last Edited by theSearchingJones on 10/28/2011 06:35 PM

Indeed.

God gave us free will, which me means we have the decision to make to obey his commands of the bible or not we all know the consequences for not obeying and willing choosing to diobey which is sinning. He demetrated his love for us by sending his only son to the cross! Cause he knew which choice we would all make.If that is not love then I dont know what is. All we have to do now is repent and choose to believe in Jesus and yet we still fail to make that decision as well cause its alot easier being apart of this sin filled world. Time is up he has given us all these last warning choose him now beacuse we all know the consequences for not.

It's fairly simple to make a few word changes... or have a hermeneutic that "re-interprets" some words into a private doctrine.

But it would be much more difficult to corrupt the overall story.

amen again!

I could never worship a God that regrets his creation and then demands blood sacrifice in order to spare it.

take a moment to read the topics in the website.

that's absurd. so you have a dif god, big deal, it still does nothing to stop the murders and tortures. cares not for whole countries in africa starving to death every day.
so you will say men do that stuff, right?
well, in my eyes it is just as evil to have power to stop evil and just stand there and watch.
so screw your creator, which is just ET's anyway. they could care less about us. we're cattle to them.

So, yes, AC, I agree that there is much evil in the world.

How would you and your beliefs deal with "the problem of evil?" (seriously)

deception, so what? how does that make it right that innocents are slaughtered and tortured daily while your god just stands there?
ain't talking about a book, talking about the here and now, and how it has been for people for all our known history. evil has always run wide open and there is no force for good to stop it.

i have no belief. and all i know to do about evil is try to console and help those i can and try to keep my own self from being totally crushed by it.
it's a very harsh life but at least i'm dealing with it head on.

Fair enough. Thanks for answering. Most people have a spirituality that has a plan for dealing with evil. I guess you're in the minority on that.

TOPIC: Women being Forced to Marry their Rapists, and Women being Stoned to Death for Not being Virgins on their Wedding Night:

The Bible says:

Deuteronomy chapter 22 (TEV)

13 "Suppose a man marries a young woman and later he decides he doesn't want her. 14 So he makes up false charges against her, accusing her of not being a virgin when they got married.
15 "If this happens, the young woman's parents are to take the blood-stained wedding sheet that proves she was a virgin, and they are to show it in court to the town leaders. 16 Her father will say to them, "I gave my daughter to this man in marriage, and now he doesn't want her. 17 He has made false charges against her, saying that she was not a virgin when he married her. But here is the proof that my daughter was a virgin; look at the bloodstains on the wedding sheet!' 18 Then the town leaders are to take the husband and beat him. 19 They are also to fine him a hundred pieces of silver and give the money to the young woman's father, because the man has brought disgrace on an Israelite woman. Moreover, she will continue to be his wife, and he can never divorce her as long as he lives.

20 "But if the charge is true and there is no proof that she was a virgin, 21 then they are to take her out to the entrance of her father's house, where the men of her city are to stone her to death. She has done a shameful thing among our people by having intercourse before she was married, while she was still living in her father's house. In this way you will get rid of this evil.

Apparently, the reason it was so important that a woman could guarantee her virginity on marriage was because in the days before a welfare state, when the literal survival of a family could depend on their ability to farm their land, it was essential that the paternity of any future head of an extended family who were all relying on that land for support could not be contested by greedy people who would claim that they had no right to the land because the head of the household might not be a legitimate heir, because his mother hadn't been a virgin when she married. If someone contested the family's rights to their land and succeeded, they could be forced off it, and become destitute, and potentially starve. Thus, it was vitally important for family survival that women remained virgins until marriage, and faithful to their husbands afterwards.

From an article called Are the Laws in the Old Testament About Rape and Virginity Unfair to Women? by Glenn Miller:

"... Secondly, we need to understand that Israelite law was not applied ‘blindly’ and ‘superficially’ to cases that came up. ...

Although we don’t have any records of court cases going back to OT Israel, the rabbinic writers-often demonstrating significant continuity with ancient practice-certainly didn’t apply the ‘bloody sheet’ test in an unreasoning fashion:

“Several rabbinic sources shed light on the legal aspects of the problem of virginity. In various cases brides are accused of having already lost their virginity but the sages invalidate the accusation. All these cases appear in two collections of baraitot, one in the Palestinian Talmud and the other in the Babylonian Talmud, and the sages who appear in them, with the exception of R. Ishmael b. R. Yose, are all from the house of the nasi. In the first story, in which the protagonist dates from the Second Temple period, a man went before Rabban Gamaliel the Elder and claimed that he failed to find the signs of virginity in his wife, but Rabban Gamaliel believed the wife, who claimed that she came from the Dorkti family, which was a family in which women were known not to bleed when they lose their virginity (bKet. 10b). The same claim was twice brought before Rabbi, who accepted the wife’s explanation and rejected the husband’s complaint in both cases: in the first, the wife attributed her failure to bleed to years of famine (Ibid.), and in the second the wife maintained that her hymen fell from the rigor of climbing the steps of her father’s house (yKet. 1.1, 25a).R. Ishmael b. R. Yose, when he heard the case of the woman ‘whose signs of virginity were no larger than a mustard seed,’ ruled in her favor and even said a blessing over her…” ...

But the most important thing to understand about ANE virginity (and marital fidelity, also) is its socio-economic function, in inheritance-based cultures. ...

But, almost universally, adultery carries the death penalty in the ANE-because of the criticality of being able to prove paternity…it was a major foundation of community existence and stability.

Now, what this creates is an interesting socio-economic dynamic. The larger the household and landholdings, the more important to the community and to the family for the absolute certainty of paternity. This places a tremendous value on (1) demonstrable virgins and on (2) women with the ‘promise of fidelity’ (i.e., from a “good family”). The managing parents of a ‘rich’ household would diligently try to find a mate for a son that could satisfy these two criteria.

From the other side, the parents of a daughter would obviously seek the best possible future for her. This would generally mean trying to arrange a marriage into the most economically-stable family in the community, to provide the girl with every possible advantage for the future. This would primarily entail protecting her ‘demonstrable virginity’ to ensure that she would find a home in the highest-strata families. Needless to say, if the girl was deprived of her virginity via a rapist or seducer (and didn’t marry said individual), her probability of being sought out by families in desperate need for a demonstrable virgin (in other words, the families with the most inheritable property and land!) would drop to zero. This would make the task of providing for/ensuring the long-term welfare of the daughter that much more difficult. ..."

Deuteronomy chapter 22:

28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay the girl’s father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.

Here is a clear case in which the rapist has (1) stolen the girl’s ability to guarantee paternity, and by doing so has greatly limited her future options; and (2) has limited her father’s options of arranging a good marriage for her.

The rapist is now forced to become what he has cheated the girl out of-a ‘well off’ husband. The fifty shekels bride-price (see below on the Exodus 22.16 passage) is five years worth of average wages, and is the price paid by the Pharaoh Amenophis III for the women of Gezer destined for his harem.

The girl’s future is now assured-she has a guaranteed support source (he cannot divorce her)-and she has a ‘big’ bride-price on deposit. ...

What was this mohar or bride-price all about?

It can be thought of as a ‘pension’ or ‘social security’ for the woman. It was kept by the father (out of the clutches of her husband!), but not ‘owned’ by him:

Furthermore, it is probable that the father enjoyed only the usufruct of the mohar, and that the latter reverted to the daughter at the time of succession, or if her husband’s death reduced her to penury. ...

There is some evidence that this was a variable amount in Israel, and that it was negotiated by the parents. In some of these cases of rape and/or seduction, the price being paid is typically higher than what would normally have been paid, so this was both a disincentive for would-be rapists, and a compensation for ”lost opportunities” for the woman. ..."

Some sceptics ask why Christians don't stone women to death for not being virgins on their wedding nights nowadays, assuming that it must be because "even Christians" can understand the "stupidity and barbarity" of the Bible's laws! They clearly misunderstand the place of the Law - that it was meant for the people of Israel to last until Christ died.

for the rest of this topic:
[link to www.broadcaster.org.uk]

It was also meant for a nation who had been in slavery for over 400 years who had no concept of how to live life: they had never had to!

God works with us at a level we will understand, and that was true in this instance.

For those who say Christians should do the same things as God gave to the released slaves thousands of years ago must be relating to God the same ways as the released slaves did thousands of years ago.

So you think that by being cruel, savage, deranged, evil, barbaric, intolerant, insanely jealous, vengeful and bloodthirsty when you speak about God, you can make Him look cruel, savage, deranged, evil, barbaric, intolerant, insanely jealous, vengeful and bloodthirsty?

Yeah I get it.

TOPIC:
How can God be Loving If We're All Burdened with Original Sin?:

From an article called Is Original Sin "Fair"? Why are we Punished for Adam's Sin? from the Tektonics website:

"... In other words, Adam's sin, and the resultant punishment of spiritual and eventually physical death, was a pattern-connection that was established and set the legal precedent for death to be inflicted as the penalty for all sins. A loose parallel may be found in the incidence some years ago of the crime of carjacking. There was no specific definition of, or remedy for, this crime when it first became popular. When it became more popular, it was defined out as a specific crime (where before, prosecutors had to select from and cobble together charges from existing laws) and given a specific punishment. The analogy breaks down because there was no previous sin with the original sin, but the point to be drawn is that Adam's sin and punishment was an original example as well as a case of original sin. We pay for, and are punished because of, Adam's sin, only in the same sense that present-day carjackers experience their specific punishment because of a precedent set by their criminal forebears, which engendered a more specific legal reaction. ..."

[link to www.broadcaster.org.uk]

the point of this thread is to squash these ideas because they are grossly incorrect.

God is about JUSTICE with a commandment about MURDER and THEFT so he is not all the above.)

And I would add that the "original sin" was more than a spiritual matter. Prior to this point, there was no death, no sickness, no illness, no decay, no indication of entropy.

But as the Apostle Paul writes, "As in Adam all die, so in Christ all [the same all!] will be made alive."