Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Ravenous D wrote:
So where does God fit in with the eventual heat death of the universe?

Revelation and Daniel would seem to indicate God never intended it to go on forever.

doesn't that make him kind of a dick?

He is described as having a bit of a temper.

And doesn't that kind of take away from his omnipotence?

I wouldn't think so, no.

This is an interesting Documentary
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/evolution/intelligent-design-trial.html
One part shows how Intelligent Design creates evidence and just ignores it. Like to Rotary Organ of a germ or other such things. It is pretty interesting watch. It also shows how small towns are complex aswell and not all "God is law" With one of the biology teachers being a farmer aswell(From what I can see)

One of the major tenants of Christianity is that the point of life cannot simply be death.

All this "God is a dick" business is more than a bit silly.

 Manchu wrote:

One of the major tenants of Christianity is that the point of life cannot simply be death.

All this "God is a dick" business is more than a bit silly.

The purpose of life is whatever we choose.

"Purpose" is a human concept.

Also, if the Bible is 100% accurate and true then he really is a dick.

No, "purpose" is a rational concept. I agree that we can choose irrationality, however.

And, like any book, the Bible has to be read (i.e., interpreted). It's not the Bible that makes God out to be a dick; rather it's the way you choose to read the Bible.

 Manchu wrote:
No, "purpose" is a rational concept. I agree that we can choose irrationality, however.

Our concept of "rationality" is also a human invention, developed and conceived through the prism of human perception. "Purpose" and "Rationality" are no more than WIP theories, not a universal constant.

And, like any book, the Bible has to be read (i.e., interpreted). It's not the Bible that makes God out to be a dick; rather it's the way you choose to read the Bible.

The way you choose to read the Bible? As in, ignore the nasty uncomfortable bits and pretend they don't exist?

Tell me. In what way should I read the passages in which God commands or condones slavery, genocide, rape, human sacrifice, jihad, etc?

It must take some very impressive feats of mental gymnastics to read those passages and not conclude that God is a dick.

I have read the Bible, I grew up in a religious (British) christian family with a CoE Reverand for a grandfather, I still attend church on occasion to socialise with friends and family, I have a reasonable awareness of the Bible, but I have no choice but to conclude that if this book truly is the "Word of God", then God is a monumental dick due to the actions, behaviour and personality that the Bible has attributed to him.

Put it this way. If the universe really does have a God responsible for its creation and who watches over and intervenes in our affairs, then I fething hope its not God as described by the Bible, or the Koran neither. Especially not the Koran.

Rationality is no more a human invention than the laws of nature. The assumption that reality is chaos bereft of meaning until touched by the magic of human thought is nothing more than a fearful, superstitious rejection of all the fruits of science.

And nothing you posted contradicts my previous point about the Bible. It's a book; so you must choose how to read it. If you need it to mean that God is a dick, that says something about where you are in life and where you come from. It says functionally nothing about the Bible itself. The Westburo feths aren't feths because the Bible's awful. It's because they're awful.

By contrast, my tradition understands that texts are historical and have historically changing contexts. For example, whatever the ancient Jews were trying to accomplish by writing these things down in this way, it obviously cannot be the same as what Christians are trying to accomplish by reading it at any point. I understand, in all sincerity, that this is not the easiest insight. But then again, who picks up an ancient text and just assumes they know how it should be interpreted?

Apparently, quite a few people.

I'd say that it's hard to take murdering an entire generation's worth of first borns to be something as that can be considered okay in any context.

 Manchu wrote:
The assumption that reality is chaos bereft of meaning until touched by the magic of human thought is nothing more than a fearful, superstitious rejection of all the fruits of science.

No, it's a realistic understanding of how the universe works. The entire concept of "meaning" is a human creation. The universe doesn't have to mean something to exist and function, it simply does those things. Any greater purpose is something that we as humans decide to see in our lives, for our own benefit. Take us away and the universe will continue to exist and function without us.

For example, whatever the ancient Jews were trying to accomplish by writing these things down in this way, it obviously cannot be the same as what Christians are trying to accomplish by reading it at any point.

So your position is that the events in the bible, even events which are portrayed as a historical account of things that actually happened, are purely symbolic stories that are independent of any real-world events? If so, how far does this policy extend? Did the life and death of Jesus (including the whole "son of god" and "sacrificed for our sins" element) actually happen, or is it just a symbolic story about how god loves us and offers us salvation?

Not that this really redeems the stories very much. Even if they're just meant to be lessons without any historical truth behind them they're horrible lessons. Even ignoring the details of all the genocide and slaughter (enough to make khorne jealous) the fundamental beliefs of Christianity are absolutely appalling from a moral perspective. The core lesson of Christianity is that we deserve to be tortured in hell for eternity, but there is a "benevolent" god that wants to save us from it. But he can't just save us from it directly, he has to go through an absurd ritual of torture and death first, and then only offers to spare us from eternal torture if we obey him properly. If a human parent did that to their child we'd consider them a sadistic monster and they'd be lucky if they survived long enough to be thrown in prison for life, but somehow if god does the same things he's the shining beacon of perfect goodness?

 Peregrine wrote:

Not that this really redeems the stories very much. Even if they're just meant to be lessons without any historical truth behind them they're horrible lessons. Even ignoring the details of all the genocide and slaughter (enough to make khorne jealous) the fundamental beliefs of Christianity are absolutely appalling from a moral perspective. The core lesson of Christianity is that we deserve to be tortured in hell for eternity, but there is a "benevolent" god that wants to save us from it. But he can't just save us from it directly, he has to go through an absurd ritual of torture and death first, and then only offers to spare us from eternal torture if we obey him properly. If a human parent did that to their child we'd consider them a sadistic monster and they'd be lucky if they survived long enough to be thrown in prison for life, but somehow if god does the same things he's the shining beacon of perfect goodness?

That's your interpretation, and that's fine. Assigning this interpretation to other people, however, is entirely pointless.

If I thought that Peter Pan was a horrible children's book because it stresses how bad it is to grow up and begin to take responsibility, you could tell me that you had a different opinion based on the text, but it wouldn't make mine less valid.

When you're not debating facts but personal opinions on how to interpret a story, yelling "You're doing it wrong!" doesn't lead anywhere.

 Allod wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

Not that this really redeems the stories very much. Even if they're just meant to be lessons without any historical truth behind them they're horrible lessons. Even ignoring the details of all the genocide and slaughter (enough to make khorne jealous) the fundamental beliefs of Christianity are absolutely appalling from a moral perspective. The core lesson of Christianity is that we deserve to be tortured in hell for eternity, but there is a "benevolent" god that wants to save us from it. But he can't just save us from it directly, he has to go through an absurd ritual of torture and death first, and then only offers to spare us from eternal torture if we obey him properly. If a human parent did that to their child we'd consider them a sadistic monster and they'd be lucky if they survived long enough to be thrown in prison for life, but somehow if god does the same things he's the shining beacon of perfect goodness?

That's your interpretation, and that's fine. Assigning this interpretation to other people, however, is entirely pointless.

If I thought that Peter Pan was a horrible children's book because it stresses how bad it is to grow up and begin to take responsibility, you could tell me that you had a different opinion based on the text, but it wouldn't make mine less valid.

When you're not debating facts but personal opinions on how to interpret a story, yelling "You're doing it wrong!" doesn't lead anywhere.

Children. An entire generation's worth. One night.

There's interpretation, and then there's genocide.

Your opinion hinges on that part of the story, I get it. Fair enough. One could also extend the interpretation to the whole story and come to a different conclusion, or view the whole thing as allegorical, depending on your denomination of choice.

In the end, it does not matter. The issue here is not "Is murdering the firstborns ok under any circumstances?" (valid point for debate), but "Is my conclusion of the moral of the story more correct than yours?", which leads nowhere.

 Fafnir wrote:
I'd say that it's hard to take murdering an entire generation's worth of first borns to be something as that can be considered okay in any context.

Fairly standard practice of warfare at the time (Mesopotamia was a harsh place to build civilization. One bad crop and you're screwed, so you go invade your neighbor take their food and kill them all so they don't starve). We distaste it for the horror that it is, but given that everyone else was doing it too, kind of pointless to fault them for it. Times change and what is acceptable behavior changes with them. It was normal to have slaves 2000+ years ago. Nearly every western and middle eastern culture carried the practice. Treated every human being like scum of the earth for what was a normal behavior at the time accomplishes little.

At most we can sit back smuggly and look how far we've come

 LordofHats wrote:

 Fafnir wrote:
I'd say that it's hard to take murdering an entire generation's worth of first borns to be something as that can be considered okay in any context.

Fairly standard practice of warfare at the time (Mesopotamia was a harsh place to build civilization. One bad crop and you're screwed, so you go invade your neighbor take their food and kill them all so they don't starve). We distaste it for the horror that it is, but given that everyone else was doing it too, kind of pointless to fault them for it. Times change and what is acceptable behavior changes with them. It was normal to have slaves 2000+ years ago. Nearly every western and middle eastern culture carried the practice. Treated every human being like scum of the earth for what was a normal behavior at the time accomplishes little.

At most we can sit back smuggly and look how far we've come

You're missing the point entirely. We're not judging people for their behaviour and values 2000+ years ago. We're judging the God that they claim said all this was OK and that we should worship today.

The fact that peoples' values were different 2000+ years ago to our values today is irrelevant.

These people claimed through the medium of religious texts and holy books that their values, beliefs and practices were condoned and mandated by God. If God does exist, and he is exactly as described by the Bible, then he apparently saw fit to allow genocide, slavery, rape and all manner of abhorrent acts that would rightly be considered today as crimes against humanity.

God is supposed to be perfect and Omnipotent. If so, then why did he change his mind and decide that things that were cool 6000 years ago are not cool today?

A God that saw fit to permit evil acts like Genocide 2000+ years ago is in my view, Evil and not worthy of worship.

God should be above the excuse of "well, everyone else is doing it." Especially when it comes to genocide. Remember, it wasn't the Jews who killed all the kids, it was God. A being who could get the point across by literally any other conceivable way, and quite a few inconceivable ones, and his very first choice is genocide.

It's one thing for God to stand by as people do horrible things to one another (we can just chalk that up to the evil of man), but for God to do it, that's an entirely different kind of evil.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:

 Fafnir wrote:
I'd say that it's hard to take murdering an entire generation's worth of first borns to be something as that can be considered okay in any context.

Fairly standard practice of warfare at the time (Mesopotamia was a harsh place to build civilization. One bad crop and you're screwed, so you go invade your neighbor take their food and kill them all so they don't starve). We distaste it for the horror that it is, but given that everyone else was doing it too, kind of pointless to fault them for it. Times change and what is acceptable behavior changes with them. It was normal to have slaves 2000+ years ago. Nearly every western and middle eastern culture carried the practice. Treated every human being like scum of the earth for what was a normal behavior at the time accomplishes little.

At most we can sit back smuggly and look how far we've come

You're missing the point entirely. We're not judging people for their behaviour and values 2000+ years ago. We're judging the God that they claim said all this was OK and that we should worship today.

The fact that peoples' values were different 2000+ years ago to our values today is irrelevant.

These people claimed through the medium of religious texts and holy books that their values, beliefs and practices were condoned and mandated by God. If God does exist, and he is exactly as described by the Bible, then he apparently saw fit to allow genocide, slavery, rape and all manner of abhorrent acts that would rightly be considered today as crimes against humanity.

A God that saw fit to permit evil acts like Genocide 2000+ years ago is in my view, Evil and not worthy of worship.

We wouldn't have gotten to where we are today without those atrocities though. Arguably, it was the lesser evil, condoning slavery and genocide so that humanity could one day grow up and realize how bonkers it is.

Does any of this still have to do with the actual topic of the thread, or are we simply back in the usual "my non-God can beat up your God" territory?

These people claimed through the medium of religious texts and holy books that their values, beliefs and practices were condoned and mandated by God. If God does exist, and he is exactly as described by the Bible, then he apparently saw fit to allow genocide, slavery, rape and all manner of abhorrent acts that would rightly be considered today as crimes against humanity.

Historical context (*watches for Not*). Prior to the influence of Zorastrianism, Judaism didn't define things as moral right and wrong. THey defined it as order and chaos. This is the defining feature of Mesopotamian (and Egyptian) religion. The gods (including the God) were forces of order. The ancient Jews defined their worldview according to what was orderly which is why they have so many rules. The Old Testament contains over 600 things to do and not do. When a Mesopotamian city went to war, they went to war because their God told them to. It was their just cause back then (the pearl harbor of the copper age so to speak).

Treating the Bible as though it has no place in history is bad reading. It's only a flaw against God if you hold to Biblical literalism, but I think most of us see by now that just doesn't work.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:

 Fafnir wrote:
I'd say that it's hard to take murdering an entire generation's worth of first borns to be something as that can be considered okay in any context.

Fairly standard practice of warfare at the time (Mesopotamia was a harsh place to build civilization. One bad crop and you're screwed, so you go invade your neighbor take their food and kill them all so they don't starve). We distaste it for the horror that it is, but given that everyone else was doing it too, kind of pointless to fault them for it. Times change and what is acceptable behavior changes with them. It was normal to have slaves 2000+ years ago. Nearly every western and middle eastern culture carried the practice. Treated every human being like scum of the earth for what was a normal behavior at the time accomplishes little.

At most we can sit back smuggly and look how far we've come

You're missing the point entirely. We're not judging people for their behaviour and values 2000+ years ago. We're judging the God that they claim said all this was OK and that we should worship today.

The fact that peoples' values were different 2000+ years ago to our values today is irrelevant.

These people claimed through the medium of religious texts and holy books that their values, beliefs and practices were condoned and mandated by God. If God does exist, and he is exactly as described by the Bible, then he apparently saw fit to allow genocide, slavery, rape and all manner of abhorrent acts that would rightly be considered today as crimes against humanity.

A God that saw fit to permit evil acts like Genocide 2000+ years ago is in my view, Evil and not worthy of worship.

We wouldn't have gotten to where we are today without those atrocities though. Arguably, it was the lesser evil, condoning slavery and genocide so that humanity could one day grow up and realize how bonkers it is.

And yet genocide and slavery are still in the world today.

Being all powerful and all knowing, there would probably be a better way for him to convey the point that doing those things is not particularly good. Remember, this is God. A God who can supposedly choose to intervene at any point in time to point out that what we've been doing is kind of bonkers already.
During that whole ~200 year period of slavery in America, God could have popped his head in at any time and told us that maybe, just maybe, subjugating an entire race of people like that probably isn't the nicest thing in the world. Being... you know, GOD, I don't think he'd have much difficulty convincing people of his case.

Hell, keep in mind that a lot of the people who ran that whole slavery racket at the time used the bible to justify their actions. You would think that if slavery was something so bad, God might find using his good book as endorsement for it to be slightly blasphemous and start... you know... throwing a few lightning bolts or something.

You seem to be attributing the actions of humans to God. Genocied and slavery in the world today are the choice of humans through their own free will. Some may use the bible to justify that, but people will twist anything to justify what they wish to do. I don't think it can be any clearer than Mark 12:31:

"The second is this, 'YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.' There is no other commandment greater than these."

I don't think it could be much clearer.

 Steve steveson wrote:
You seem to be attributing the actions of humans to God. Genocied and slavery in the world today are the choice of humans through their own free will. Some may use the bible to justify that, but people will twist anything to justify what they wish to do. I don't think it can be any clearer than Mark 12:31:

"The second is this, 'YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.' There is no other commandment greater than these."

I don't think it could be much clearer.

Again, missing the point.

Its the Bible, not us that attribute these actions to God. The Bible pretty clearly states that God commanded or permitted many horrific acts.

Are you saying that the Bible is wrong and God didn't command those things?

If so, then how can the Bible possibly be considered the Word of God if it is so full of inaccuracies and lies about what God did and did not command.

 Steve steveson wrote:
You seem to be attributing the actions of humans to God. Genocied and slavery in the world today are the choice of humans through their own free will. Some may use the bible to justify that, but people will twist anything to justify what they wish to do. I don't think it can be any clearer than Mark 12:31:

"The second is this, 'YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.' There is no other commandment greater than these."

I don't think it could be much clearer.

Except where God personally did the job in Exodus.

 Fafnir wrote:

 Steve steveson wrote:
You seem to be attributing the actions of humans to God. Genocied and slavery in the world today are the choice of humans through their own free will. Some may use the bible to justify that, but people will twist anything to justify what they wish to do. I don't think it can be any clearer than Mark 12:31:

"The second is this, 'YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.' There is no other commandment greater than these."

I don't think it could be much clearer.

Except where God personally did the job in Exodus.

And again in Sodom and Gomorrah.

And again in Noah's flood.

And again in Jericho.

According to the Bible, God is a murderer.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

Its the Bible, not us that attribute these actions to God. The Bible pretty clearly states that God commanded or permitted many horrific acts.

Are you saying that the Bible is wrong and God didn't command those things?

Basically what you're saying is "Biblical literalism doesn't make sense." Yeah. That's kind of obvious with the whole Nye. vs Ham thing?

Given how masochistic Israel's version of history is (like really, how many times did they get punished for various things according to themselves?*), it's not that hard to conceptualize their use of God to justify their acts. Like, every other human being circa 500 BCE.

*No really. Most of the Old Testament is easily summed up in as the Jews do something bad, get punished, God sends someone to teach them a lesson about how wrong they were, but they didn't really learn their lesson cause the whole thing happened again a decade later and that makes up like, half of the OT's contents. Really. Almost like they're trying to religiously rationalize their position ina post-Exile period of some kind after 40 years of imprisonment and being fed to lions in pits apparently.

 Fafnir wrote:
I'd say that it's hard to take murdering an entire generation's worth of first borns to be something as that can be considered okay in any context.

From our modern point of view, yes... it's abhorrent. However, back near the "beginning" of civilization, the best ways to ensure a conquered enemy stayed that way, was what we now call genocide. The Khans did it throughout Asia....


As a historian, when reading history, you REALLY need to turn off the morality part of your brain... I mean, by most modern "morals" polygamy is dead wrong, yet in the past, rulers/wealthy people had entire harems of women to keep them happy. What you're doing is quite literally forcing your own morals onto a situation, where you shouldn't be... Because often times, for those people, at the time of their actions, they were doing the right things, by their standards.

Well, killing firstborn sons is good for evolution I guess?

Nope, still not on topic...

 d-usa wrote:
Well, killing firstborn sons is good for evolution I guess?

Nope, still not on topic...

sure it is.... Survival of the Fittest





Horrible, horrible joke that one

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Fafnir wrote:
I'd say that it's hard to take murdering an entire generation's worth of first borns to be something as that can be considered okay in any context.

From our modern point of view, yes... it's abhorrent. However, back near the "beginning" of civilization, the best ways to ensure a conquered enemy stayed that way, was what we now call genocide. The Khans did it throughout Asia....


As a historian, when reading history, you REALLY need to turn off the morality part of your brain... I mean, by most modern "morals" polygamy is dead wrong, yet in the past, rulers/wealthy people had entire harems of women to keep them happy. What you're doing is quite literally forcing your own morals onto a situation, where you shouldn't be... Because often times, for those people, at the time of their actions, they were doing the right things, by their standards.

And concerning the actions of man alone, that's all fine and dandy (well, okay, not fine and dandy, but acceptable).

But again, this isn't about genocide at the hand of man, but at the hand of God.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

From our modern point of view, yes... it's abhorrent. However, back near the "beginning" of civilization, the best ways to ensure a conquered enemy stayed that way, was what we now call genocide. The Khans did it throughout Asia....

As a historian, when reading history, you REALLY need to turn off the morality part of your brain... I mean, by most modern "morals" polygamy is dead wrong, yet in the past, rulers/wealthy people had entire harems of women to keep them happy. What you're doing is quite literally forcing your own morals onto a situation, where you shouldn't be... Because often times, for those people, at the time of their actions, they were doing the right things, by their standards

.

Again thats not the point.

We're not talking about the values and morality of people thousands of years ago.

We're talking about the values and morality of the God who according to the Bible and religions that are still practiced today, supposedly commanded, permitted or personally committed these acts.

God is supposed to be a constant. Perfect and omnipotent. Thats what the Bible tells us.

Saying that "you shouldn't apply your morals to people who lived thousands of years ago" is ignoring what the Bible itself says about God. We're NOT applying modern morality to ancient people. We're applying modern morality to the actions of God who is supposedly still around, and who was around during Biblical times and did some very nasty stuff.

 d-usa wrote:
Well, killing firstborn sons is good for evolution I guess?

Nope, still not on topic...

So what? After 20 pages of discussion, how much more is there to be said thats On Topic?

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:


God is supposed to be a constant. Perfect and omnipotent. Thats what the Bible tells us.

God is constant, humanity is not.