SisterSalome

How do your beliefs benefit you and society?

138 posts in this topic

GB, I put no stock whatsoever in anything the bible has to say.  I don't believe Jesus was a real person.  Therefor, what Jesus "did" or "did not do", concerns me not at all.  It's just a fable.  It would be a lot like me worrying about little red riding hood's behavior, you know?  It strikes me that for someone who puts themselves against Christianity in so many ways, you sure do quote their book a lot, eh?  Now, as for myself, I have become confident enough in my own value and values to say that I flat out disagree with your treatment of many of the members here, and find it to be at the least insulting to those of us who do try to get along with others.  You don't sugar coat things, which I can certainly appreciate, and you stand firm on your beliefs, something else I respect.  I just don't think you have to be as abrasive as you are.  I think you excuse this behavior however you can, usually fitting circumstance around yourself, instead of the other way around, you know?  That is, of course, my opinion.  

So, if that was used to attack evil in an indirect way...so what?  It's someone else's choice how they fight evil, man.  Not yours.  You certainly don't decide for me at all, just as I don't decide for you.  Yep, I realize I criticize your methods above, kind of the pot and kettle, isn't it?  Still, I don't deride you for deciding to follow your own methods.  That would be pure foolishness, deriding someone for being who they are, now wouldn't it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Gnostic Bishop said:

I have read the bible and have judged that what the scribes put into some of the Jesus' mouth is quite immoral and yes, he was quite silent on many things that he could have helped mankind with. Slavery, gays, witches and women.

I do not mind what they put in the more Eastern Jesus' mouth though. I find those teachings to be helpful.

 

Regards

DL

If you want an enlightend Eastern Master, why not go with Buddha?  You could avoid all that sifting and cherry picking.  Well, there's no accounting for taste.

:rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Dan56 said:

No, that's why I oppose abortion :). God had a rule "Touch not mine anointed" (Psalm105:15 & 1 Chronicles 16:22), which was an order not to physically harm them. and the reason David never killed King Saul when he had the opportunity,. Saul was appointed by God as was David. I personally think David should have bore the death penalty, but since he was anointed king, God upheld the law by taking his son instead.. And imo, that was probably a greater punishment to David than losing his own life. 

 

I want to be clear about what you said.  I don't want to put words into your mouth.

You seem to be saying that God could not punish David directly, because David was the anointed and could not be harmed.

If that is what you are saying, I am relieved that you are not in a position to interpret law.  Any law.  I find your interpretation of law quite remarkable.

In America, murder is against the law.  When people break that law by committing a capital offence, there are plenty of judges who can and do impose the death penalty -- despite the laws against murder.

Evidently, you think God lacks the sophistication to interpret law as well as a Texas Judge.

In any event, we have not even mentioned God being all powerful.  Surely God is capable of enforcing His own law.  Without harming the innocent in the process.

Who thinks that it is permissible to harm the innocent in pursuit of justice?  Only one category of people holds to such values.  Terrorists believe it is permissible to harm the innocent in order to punish the guilty.  Congratulations.  You think like a terrorist.

:sigh2:     :whist:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Dan56 said:

But we're not talking about a human judge here are we... The punishment was against David... And since your a pacifist, I'm guessing you would have preferred a human judge who would have conveniently overlooked the murder of Uriah? Brown nosing murderers is hardly taking a superior moral position. Peace, love, and understanding is a warm & fuzzy cliche, but its not too practical when there's a killer in the crowd :) 

 

How can you say the punishment was against David when his child was the one to be tortured for 6 days then killed?

Further on this issue. Not that you care what you bible says.

 

Ezekiel 18:20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.

 

Deuteronomy 24:16 (ESV) "Fathers shall not be put to death because of their children, nor shall children be put to death because of their fathers. Each one shall be put to death for his own sin.

 

Ezekiel 18:20 (ESV) The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.

 

The declaration which says that God visits the sins of the fathers upon the children is contrary to every principle of moral justice. [Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason]

 

Regards

DL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, cuchulain said:

GB, I put no stock whatsoever in anything the bible has to say.  I don't believe Jesus was a real person.  Therefor, what Jesus "did" or "did not do", concerns me not at all.  It's just a fable.  It would be a lot like me worrying about little red riding hood's behavior, you know?  It strikes me that for someone who puts themselves against Christianity in so many ways, you sure do quote their book a lot, eh?  Now, as for myself, I have become confident enough in my own value and values to say that I flat out disagree with your treatment of many of the members here, and find it to be at the least insulting to those of us who do try to get along with others.  You don't sugar coat things, which I can certainly appreciate, and you stand firm on your beliefs, something else I respect.  I just don't think you have to be as abrasive as you are.  I think you excuse this behavior however you can, usually fitting circumstance around yourself, instead of the other way around, you know?  That is, of course, my opinion.  

So, if that was used to attack evil in an indirect way...so what?  It's someone else's choice how they fight evil, man.  Not yours.  You certainly don't decide for me at all, just as I don't decide for you.  Yep, I realize I criticize your methods above, kind of the pot and kettle, isn't it?  Still, I don't deride you for deciding to follow your own methods.  That would be pure foolishness, deriding someone for being who they are, now wouldn't it?

That depends on how you read this.

Proverbs 3:12 For whom the Lord loveth he correcteth; even as a father the son in whom he delighteth.

 

That verse tell me that if I am to live by the tenet of doing unto others, I have to show my love, even if it is tough love, to try to end the evil thinking I see.

 

Regards

DL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

If you want an enlightend Eastern Master, why not go with Buddha?  You could avoid all that sifting and cherry picking.  Well, there's no accounting for taste.

:rolleyes:

I think that true spirituality is trying to make ones self better, and a part of making ones self better, one must fight the evil he encounters.

 

If I lived in the East, I might well go Buddhist. I am in the West though and I owe my community most of my efforts.

 

Regards

DL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You quote me Proverbs, after I tell you I find the bible meaningless?  That doesn't show much understanding, in my opinion.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Gnostic Bishop said:

I think that true spirituality is trying to make ones self better, and a part of making ones self better, one must fight the evil he encounters.

 

If I lived in the East, I might well go Buddhist. I am in the West though and I owe my community most of my efforts.

 

Regards

DL

Perhaps it is perspective.  I live in New York City.  My understanding is that some of the world's greatest Zen Masters are here.  We live in that kind of world.  The old lines don't matter any more.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

I want to be clear about what you said.  I don't want to put words into your mouth.

You seem to be saying that God could not punish David directly, because David was the anointed and could not be harmed.

If that is what you are saying, I am relieved that you are not in a position to interpret law.  Any law.  I find your interpretation of law quite remarkable.

In America, murder is against the law.  When people break that law by committing a capital offence, there are plenty of judges who can and do impose the death penalty -- despite the laws against murder.

Evidently, you think God lacks the sophistication to interpret law as well as a Texas Judge.

In any event, we have not even mentioned God being all powerful.  Surely God is capable of enforcing His own law.  Without harming the innocent in the process.

Who thinks that it is permissible to harm the innocent in pursuit of justice?  Only one category of people holds to such values.  Terrorists believe it is permissible to harm the innocent in order to punish the guilty.  Congratulations.  You think like a terrorist.

:sigh2:     :whist:

 
The law says that a man and woman caught in adultery would be stoned to death. Problem is, the law also required 2 or more witnesses in order to invoke the death penalty. And of course, the death penalty was warranted for murder too, but David didn't technically pull the trigger, he just ordered Uriah onto the front line where the result (death) was pretty much a forgone conclusion. Mosaic Law would not include God’s omniscient ability as testimony, thus, David would not have been condemned by the Law of Moses. In fact, without God’s intervention, David’s sins might have gone undetected. Whereby, God as judge issued the penalties as He saw fit. 
 
The "touch not mine anointed" was a rule for people, but I believe God also complied with it, as I'm aware of no one that received God's anointing who was also killed by God. Of course God being God, can do as he pleases, He doesn't interpret the law, He is the law. But just as Christ kept all the law, I believe God did likewise in the OT. 

We think of death as something bad or morally evil, but God's prospective on death isn't like ours. Jesus said that our eternal soul is far more important than this physical life (Matthew 16:26), and Paul said the afterlife is far better than the one in the flesh (Philippians 1:21-23). Paradise may have been a far better situation in many respects for David’s son than growing up as the illegitimate product of David’s adulterous activity. Just as God ordered the killing of the children of the Canaanites, the death of David's son was not murder, because the death of the innocent often has a purpose, even a divine purpose.
"The righteous perisheth, and no man layeth it to heart: and merciful men are taken away, none considering that the righteous is taken away from the evil to come. He shall enter into peace" (Isaiah 57:1-2).
 
5 hours ago, Gnostic Bishop said:

How can you say the punishment was against David when his child was the one to be tortured for 6 days then killed?

Further on this issue. Not that you care what you bible says.

 

Ezekiel 18:20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.

 

Deuteronomy 24:16 (ESV) "Fathers shall not be put to death because of their children, nor shall children be put to death because of their fathers. Each one shall be put to death for his own sin.

 

Ezekiel 18:20 (ESV) The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.

 

The declaration which says that God visits the sins of the fathers upon the children is contrary to every principle of moral justice. [Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason]

 

Regards

DL

Losing a son conceived in sin was David's punishment. The baby did not inherit his fathers sins, we are responsible for our own sins. But the innocent are often victims of wickedness, not by law, but by the unrighteous acts of others. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Dan56 said:
 
The law says that a man and woman caught in adultery would be stoned to death. Problem is, the law also required 2 or more witnesses in order to invoke the death penalty. And of course, the death penalty was warranted for murder too, but David didn't technically pull the trigger, he just ordered Uriah onto the front line where the result (death) was pretty much a forgone conclusion. Mosaic Law would not include God’s omniscient ability as testimony, thus, David would not have been condemned by the Law of Moses. In fact, without God’s intervention, David’s sins might have gone undetected. Whereby, God as judge issued the penalties as He saw fit. 
 
The "touch not mine anointed" was a rule for people, but I believe God also complied with it, as I'm aware of no one that received God's anointing who was also killed by God. Of course God being God, can do as he pleases, He doesn't interpret the law, He is the law. But just as Christ kept all the law, I believe God did likewise in the OT. 

We think of death as something bad or morally evil, but God's prospective on death isn't like ours. Jesus said that our eternal soul is far more important than this physical life (Matthew 16:26), and Paul said the afterlife is far better than the one in the flesh (Philippians 1:21-23). Paradise may have been a far better situation in many respects for David’s son than growing up as the illegitimate product of David’s adulterous activity. Just as God ordered the killing of the children of the Canaanites, the death of David's son was not murder, because the death of the innocent often has a purpose, even a divine purpose.
"The righteous perisheth, and no man layeth it to heart: and merciful men are taken away, none considering that the righteous is taken away from the evil to come. He shall enter into peace" (Isaiah 57:1-2).
 

Losing a son conceived in sin was David's punishment. The baby did not inherit his fathers sins, we are responsible for our own sins. But the innocent are often victims of wickedness, not by law, but by the unrighteous acts of others. 

 

Let us be clear about what you are saying.  That the innocent victims of evil people can not expect aid or protection from God.  Further, if the innocent can not expect aid or protection against evil -- even less should the innocent expect protection from God against natural disaster.  God is "hands off."  Even worse, the suffering of the innocent might be part of God's punishment for somebody else.

Wow.  What a God.     :blink:   :sigh2:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

Perhaps it is perspective.  I live in New York City.  My understanding is that some of the world's greatest Zen Masters are here.  We live in that kind of world.  The old lines don't matter any more.

 

That is true. I do have other reasons. One being that I owe the church quite a bit for help they gave me while growing up. I am obliged to try to help it first. My own spirituality is ok, IMO, and any Gnostic tradition would have done but Gnostic Christianity won out.

 

Regards

DL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Dan56 said:
 
Losing a son conceived in sin was David's punishment. The baby did not inherit his fathers sins, we are responsible for our own sins. But the innocent are often victims of wickedness, not by law, but by the unrighteous acts of others. 

What is a harsher punishment?

To lose a child, or to be tortured and murdered?

One can recover from the loss of a child and in fact, in Job, God does not seem to think that losing a child is so bad as he allowed Satan to kill Job's whole family just for show and to win a bet.

How can you say that David's baby did not inherit or pay for his fathers sin when he so obviously did?

 

If we are responsible for our own sins as you say, why did God punish the innocent instead of the guilty?

 

You have berried yourself in your immoral doctrine so I will leave you alone on this to lie to yourself to maintain your immoral stance. Satan has you well in hand.

 

Regards

DL

  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, cuchulain said:

You quote me Proverbs, after I tell you I find the bible meaningless?  That doesn't show much understanding, in my opinion.  

The bible is one of the most important books on the planet if read properly. It shows man's struggle to find the best rules and laws to live by up to that point in time. It consolidated much of the ancient wisdom for us and just because Christianity misused it and altered some of it's moral thinking does not take away some of the wisdom in it.

 

Regardless of the source, and Christianity did not originate what I quoted, the wisdom is there.

 

Even if Mother Goose had said those words, they would still be good words.

 

Regards

DL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

 

Let us be clear about what you are saying.  That the innocent victims of evil people can not expect aid or protection from God.  Further, if the innocent can not expect aid or protection against evil -- even less should the innocent expect protection from God against natural disaster.  God is "hands off."  Even worse, the suffering of the innocent might be part of God's punishment for somebody else.

"Do you suppose that those eighteen on whom the tower in Siloam fell and killed them were worse culprits than all the men who live in Jerusalem? I tell you, no" (Luke 13:4). So yes, life is a crap shoot, Christians aren't oblivious to evil, they have no special non-victim status. In the big picture, all suffering is the result of sin, and no one is immune. Most of the prophets, apostles, and Christ suffered and died. Sometimes a greater good comes from those who endure hardships, I believe that's God's ultimate plan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Dan56 said:

"Do you suppose that those eighteen on whom the tower in Siloam fell and killed them were worse culprits than all the men who live in Jerusalem? I tell you, no" (Luke 13:4). So yes, life is a crap shoot, Christians aren't oblivious to evil, they have no special non-victim status. In the big picture, all suffering is the result of sin, and no one is immune. Most of the prophets, apostles, and Christ suffered and died. Sometimes a greater good comes from those who endure hardships, I believe that's God's ultimate plan.

"all suffering is the result of sin,"

Let me give you this falsehood as it might apply to human to human but to say that there is no suffering from natural causes that are not sins does definitely exist. Unless, like some Christians, you think God causes natural disasters intentionally.

 

So in thinking human to human. Can lying to someone create suffering?

I would say yes.

 

Is the one who begins a chain of lies or puts the idea of the lie in a mind a sinner, even if done, for as you say, it is to create a greater good comes from those who endure hardships.

 

I will not hide my caveat or what is prompting the question. It is that scriptures say that God puts lies into some and they of course pass on those lies.

 

IOW, is lying a sin when God does it?

 

Regards

DL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dan56 said:

"Do you suppose that those eighteen on whom the tower in Siloam fell and killed them were worse culprits than all the men who live in Jerusalem? I tell you, no" (Luke 13:4). So yes, life is a crap shoot, Christians aren't oblivious to evil, they have no special non-victim status. In the big picture, all suffering is the result of sin, and no one is immune. Most of the prophets, apostles, and Christ suffered and died. Sometimes a greater good comes from those who endure hardships, I believe that's God's ultimate plan.

Then Einstein was mistaken?  God does roll dice with the Universe?     :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Gnostic Bishop said:

"all suffering is the result of sin,"

Let me give you this falsehood as it might apply to human to human but to say that there is no suffering from natural causes that are not sins does definitely exist. Unless, like some Christians, you think God causes natural disasters intentionally

So in thinking human to human. Can lying to someone create suffering?

I would say yes.

IOW, is lying a sin when God does it?

I didn't say there was no suffering from natural causes. God separated himself from sin, the earth isn't as it was created, death entered after our fall. And yes, lies can be harmful, which is why God made a law forbidding lying. God does not lie.

2 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

Then Einstein was mistaken?  God does roll dice with the Universe?     :rolleyes:

God is in control, nothing happens that He doesn't know about (Matthew 10:28-30). But we aren't protected from the environment, sickness, disease, droughts, etc. Jesus said "My kingdom is not of this world". But in the big picture, after affliction and tribulation, God will put it all together and make things right again. There's no dice, the age we're currently experiencing has a divine purpose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Dan56 said:

 God does not lie.

 

Your bible does not agree with you.

God causes them to lies.

 

Now, therefore, behold, the Lord hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of these thy prophets, and the Lord hath spoken evil concerning thee.
1Kings 22:23

Now therefore, behold, the Lord hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of these thy prophets.
2 Chron 18:22

Ah, Lord GOD! surely thou hast greatly deceived this people.
Jer 4:10

O Lord, thou hast deceived me, and I was deceived.
Jer 20:7

And if a prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing, I the Lord have deceived that prophet.
Ezekiel 14:9

For this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie.
Thessalonians 2:11

 

O Lord, thou hast deceived me, and I was deceived. - Jeremiah 20:7

 

To me, Gods worse lie was to Adam and Eve. He told them they could eat of the tree of life and then reneged and in a real sense murdered them by denying them a remedy.

 

That pesky God sure works in mysterious ways. Need I add anything to these quotes for you to retract the false statement you put up of God not lying?

 

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

 

As to our fall, what fall?

 

You do know that Jews wrote the bible, right?

They have no fall. They have an elevation of man and their way makes logical sense while the Christian take of a fall makes no logical sense at all.

 

http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2013/10/20/comparative-theodicy/

 

"Judaism preaches the Rise of man: and instead of Original Sin, it stresses Original Virtue,"

 

Why do you think the Christians reversed the moral of the myth of Eden?

 

Regards

DL

 

Edited by Gnostic Bishop

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Dan56 said:

I didn't say there was no suffering from natural causes.

True, but you did say all suffering, --- and I thought you meant, all suffering and not some suffering.

You do not seem to care much about the truth of the statements you make and catching two examples of shoddy writing in one post is careless.

 

Regards

DL

Edited by Gnostic Bishop

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Gnostic Bishop said:

Your bible does not agree with you.

God causes them to lies.

 

Now, therefore, behold, the Lord hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of these thy prophets, and the Lord hath spoken evil concerning thee.
1Kings 22:23

Now therefore, behold, the Lord hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of these thy prophets.
2 Chron 18:22


Ah, Lord GOD! surely thou hast greatly deceived this people.
Jer 4:10

O Lord, thou hast deceived me, and I was deceived.
Jer 20:7

And if a prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing, I the Lord have deceived that prophet.
Ezekiel 14:9


For this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie.
Thessalonians 2:11

 

O Lord, thou hast deceived me, and I was deceived. - Jeremiah 20:7

 

To me, Gods worse lie was to Adam and Eve. He told them they could eat of the tree of life and then reneged and in a real sense murdered them by denying them a remedy.

 

That pesky God sure works in mysterious ways. Need I add anything to these quotes for you to retract the false statement you put up of God not lying?

 

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

 

As to our fall, what fall?

 

You do know that Jews wrote the bible, right?

They have no fall. They have an elevation of man and their way makes logical sense while the Christian take of a fall makes no logical sense at all.

 

http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2013/10/20/comparative-theodicy/

 

"Judaism preaches the Rise of man: and instead of Original Sin, it stresses Original Virtue,"

 

Why do you think the Christians reversed the moral of the myth of Eden?

 

Regards

DL

 

Good work.  In a similar vein, let us not over look all that hardening of Pharaoh's heart in Exodus.     :D 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

Good work.  In a similar vein, let us not over look all that hardening of Pharaoh's heart in Exodus.     :D 

Another of God's "moral" work.

Then again, according to our friend, God is allowed to punish the innocent instead of the guilty. That is somehow good justice to God and our friend.

 

Thanks for your first.

 

Regards

DL

Edited by Gnostic Bishop

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Gnostic Bishop said:

Another of God's "moral" work.

Then again, according to our friend, God is allowed to punish the innocent instead of the guilty. That is somehow good justice to God and our friend.

 

Thanks for your first.

 

Regards

DL

Speaking of which; if  Pharaoh is guilty because God "hardened Pharaoh's heart"  -- is Pharaoh really guilty?

When the tenth plague comes along, who pays the penalty?  The First Born.  All the First Born.  The First Born of slaves.  The First Born of the beasts of the field.  All the First Born of Egypt.

Seriously, the first born of non-Jewish slaves? The first born of sheep and cattle?  To punish Pharaoh, after God hardened his heart?  Full sarcasm mode.  Now that's a God of justice and mercy.     :blink:     :sigh2:     :whist:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

Speaking of which; if  Pharaoh is guilty because God "hardened Pharaoh's heart"  -- is Pharaoh really guilty?

When the tenth plague comes along, who pays the penalty?  The First Born.  All the First Born.  The First Born of slaves.  The First Born of the beasts of the field.  All the First Born of Egypt.

Seriously, the first born of non-Jewish slaves? The first born of sheep and cattle?  To punish Pharaoh, after God hardened his heart?  Full sarcasm mode.  Now that's a God of justice and mercy.     :blink:     :sigh2:     :whist:

To Christians, yes. To a moral man, no.

As with Job, I can usually get a Christian to admit that he would condemn a man for what he, a believer, forgives God for doing.

That immoral double standard is what Christianity develops in their adherents/victims.

That is why I would ban all such immoral creeds.

 

Here, in the story of David, our friend forgives God and praises his torture and murder of a baby. I did not ask him but I am sure he would condemn any man for doing what he praises God for doing.

 

People do not like that I use tough love on such minds but to just let them pass would be me helping evil grow.

 

I do appreciate your use of humor and analogy but wonder if our friend get's the message in the way you are giving it. I hope so but have yet to see the fruits of your efforts. At least we can say we collectively tried, in every possible way.

 

Regards

DL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Gnostic Bishop said:

Your bible does not agree with you.

God causes them to lies.

 

Now, therefore, behold, the Lord hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of these thy prophets, and the Lord hath spoken evil concerning thee.
1Kings 22:23

Now therefore, behold, the Lord hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of these thy prophets.
2 Chron 18:22

Ah, Lord GOD! surely thou hast greatly deceived this people.
Jer 4:10

O Lord, thou hast deceived me, and I was deceived.
Jer 20:7

And if a prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing, I the Lord have deceived that prophet.
Ezekiel 14:9

For this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie.
Thessalonians 2:11

 

O Lord, thou hast deceived me, and I was deceived. - Jeremiah 20:7

 

To me, Gods worse lie was to Adam and Eve. He told them they could eat of the tree of life and then reneged and in a real sense murdered them by denying them a remedy.

 

That pesky God sure works in mysterious ways. Need I add anything to these quotes for you to retract the false statement you put up of God not lying?

 

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

 

As to our fall, what fall?

 

You do know that Jews wrote the bible, right?

They have no fall. They have an elevation of man and their way makes logical sense while the Christian take of a fall makes no logical sense at all.

 

http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2013/10/20/comparative-theodicy/

 

"Judaism preaches the Rise of man: and instead of Original Sin, it stresses Original Virtue,"

 

Why do you think the Christians reversed the moral of the myth of Eden?

 

Regards

DL

 

 

You have cherry picked your quotes, finding a verse to substantiate what you think while disregarding the context of what's written. I don't have time to refute them all, but will take Jeremiah 20;7-13. This passage is expressing the conflict in the prophet's own mind towards the mockery and slander his preaching brought on him. Verse 7 "Thou hast deceived me", is better rendered; "Thou didst entice me, and I let myself be enticed". Jeremiah refers to the hesitation he originally felt by accepting the prophetic office (Jeremiah  1). The verb does not mean "to deceive," but "to entice or allure" as rendered in verse.10. The same word is used in 1 Kings 22:21 meaning to persuade.or entice. The same case in Ezekiel 15:9 where God's "enticing" a prophet..The expression implies that all events are, in some sense, caused by God, even those which are or appear to be injurious to the individual. The context of Ezekiel 14:7-11, is clearly about a false prophet and the person who comes to him.

I'll agree that God does allow people to be deceived, and there are examples of when people rebel or turn their backs against God where he turns them over to delusion or a lying spirit. But “God is not a man, that he should lie” (Numbers 23:19) and "The Glory of Israel does not lie”( 1 Samuel 15:29). The adversary is that spirit of deception, a liar from the beginning; "In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not" (Corinthians 4:4). God does not lie, but he hardens hearts, sends delusion (2 Thessalonians 2:11), and lets deception flourish (Romans 1).  

And its fine if you prefer some Jewish interpretation that Eden was really the "rise of men", but going from life to death because of disobedience to God hardly seems like an elevation for mankind.

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Gnostic Bishop said:

To Christians, yes. To a moral man, no.

As with Job, I can usually get a Christian to admit that he would condemn a man for what he, a believer, forgives God for doing.

That immoral double standard is what Christianity develops in their adherents/victims.

That is why I would ban all such immoral creeds.

 

Here, in the story of David, our friend forgives God and praises his torture and murder of a baby. I did not ask him but I am sure he would condemn any man for doing what he praises God for doing.

 

People do not like that I use tough love on such minds but to just let them pass would be me helping evil grow.

 

I do appreciate your use of humor and analogy but wonder if our friend get's the message in the way you are giving it. I hope so but have yet to see the fruits of your efforts. At least we can say we collectively tried, in every possible way.

 

Regards

DL

No.  Absolutely not.  This is the dark path of death and madness followed by Mao and Pol Pot.  We don't destroy evil by becoming evil.  That is the lesson from history.  We must learn from the mistakes of the past instead of mindlessly repeating them.

Even worse, religion thrives on persecution.  Ancient Rome made that mistake.  The Roman government took one look at the new cult and tried to destroy it.  Look how that worked out for the world.

Another problem with following in the path of Mao and Pol Pot; is that it turned Atheist into a curse word.  The word is still recovering from these chapters of history.

We should at least make a different mistake.  Persecution does not work.  It's a mistake, it's wrong and it's evil.

:sigh2:     :whist:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now