Is God an evil bastard?

[toblerone3]

bumpage

 

[danny la rouge]

Did I really used to say "chuggers"?

 

[TruXta]

Apparently. And wot Maurice said.

 

[obtuseobserver]

Of course it is. Creation has given nothing but pain for anyone or anything involved.

the alternative to creation is not creation.... not creation leaves you with nothing to piss and moan about but it also leaves you not being at all. So, why not off yourself then to put things right?

Can't ideas be evil?

yes... see communism

 

[obtuseobserver]

Obviously God, being omnipotent, is the source of what we call "evil" as well as of what we call "good." The being we call "Satan" is one aspect of our experience of what we call "God." Put another way, "Satan" is a particular way of regarding "God."

Nah.

God as origin is the creator of all (if not he is something less than god) and as such everything in creation came from God.

But... think of evil as that which exists at a distance from God in the darkness rather than his copilot.

Aye, Satan is "the Prince of this world" innit? The temptation in the wilderness is an astonishing story in itself, and becomes more so if considered alongside the commentaries provided by Milton in _Paradise Regained_ and Dostoevsky in "The Grand Inquisitor." But logically, we must remember that Satan is an aspect of God--consider the Book of Job, where we find him in heaven, apparently an angel (that is to say a messenger of God) in good stead. There, he conveys God's message to Job, and that message is that the world is a terrible, awful place. Which is, of course, one way of looking at it.

But Milton and Dostoevsky are writing him as a character in fiction. If one subscribes to a biblical faith those accounts are not regarded as fiction. I think it would be a difficult argument to make that either author thought they were describing Satan as he "is" rather than as he needed to be for the purposes of their stories.

I don`t know how people can spend so much time arguing over 2-d descriptions of God/s that were noted so long ago as to be almost completely worthless anyway.
Hell theres a lot of evidence that suggests Yahweh was a flesh and blood character anyway.

What do debates like this ever solve?

Personal experience is the only road to God, meditate, astral project, get in touch with nature. It may sound cheesy but thats the way of truth, being eternal its oft repeated.

descriptions aren't worthless... billions of people take them very seriously

what evidence of flesh and blood?

experience... mysticism is very attractive and can be very rewarding as well

I know its been ages since the original pst was written but i just had to vent my crap.

There is no god, and there are no gods. .

You can't prove that any more than I can prove that their is. In either case we are talking about what one believes. No one can "know" until one knows, at which point it'll be too late to do much about it ;-)

 

[Mooncat]

I've been spending a lot of time in hotels recently so have actually got round to reading those bibles the Gideons leave behind and this Yahweh comes out as an utter utter cunt. Putting entire nations to the sword including women and children (but not the virgins - you get to keep them for yourself) if so much as one person puts up a fight simply for the crime of your civilisation being there first (isn't It all powerful? Can't It just 'poof' them away?) and my particular favourite; mauling children to death by a magic bear just because the kids took the piss out of some dudes bald head.
The bit about Jesus - the so called prince of peace - giving you tips on how to correctly beat your slaves (don't take an eye or a limb out, make sure they survive for at least 2 days because hey - they could have died of anything in that time) - well I'd be the first to nail that fucker to a tree.
I think any actual Christians who've read the whole thing, not just the choice cuts their vicar has told them are suffering from some kind Stockholm Syndrome.

The one god who comes out of the whole thing looking good is Satan - It gets called a liar once or twice but this coming from mouth of such a petulant, psychopath I take this with a pillar of salt.

 

[obtuseobserver]

I've been spending a lot of time in hotels recently so have actually got round to reading those bibles the Gideons leave behind and this Yahweh comes out as an utter utter cunt. Putting entire nations to the sword including women and children (but not the virgins - you get to keep them for yourself) if so much as one person puts up a fight simply for the crime of your civilisation being there first (isn't It all powerful? Can't It just 'poof' them away?) and my particular favourite; mauling children to death by a magic bear just because the kids took the piss out of some dudes bald head.
The bit about Jesus - the so called prince of peace - giving you tips on how to correctly beat your slaves (don't take an eye or a limb out, make sure they survive for at least 2 days because hey - they could have died of anything in that time) - well I'd be the first to nail that fucker to a tree.
I think any actual Christians who've read the whole thing, not just the choice cuts their vicar has told them are suffering from some kind Stockholm Syndrome.

The one god who comes out of the whole thing looking good is Satan - It gets called a liar once or twice but this coming from mouth of such a petulant, psychopath I take this with a pillar of salt.

Literalism; no longer just for the uncurious Christian.

I find it interesting that critics whose tone suggests no small about of malice toward Christianity usually express that POV by doing exactly what they accuse Christians of doing. They cherry-pick stories and treat them literally.

Isn't it odd how when you go looking to find something you usually do? An open and curious mind willing to put in a little effort is required if you want to make sense of the bible. If you don't want to... it isn't.

 

[Mooncat]

Well then please what am I to make of:

When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property.

Exodus 21:20

And

And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the LORD. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them.

Kings 2:24

'suggests no small about of malice'? Have you read the Bible cover to cover?

 

[obtuseobserver]

Well then please what am I to make of:

Exodus 21:20

And

Kings 2:24

'suggests no small about of malice'? Have you read the Bible cover to cover?

I haven't read it all. Most but not all (didn't read much of the poetry for example). There is no shortage of shocking moments be it from the people in the book or from God. Think about David - one of the great heros of the Bible and a complete son-of-a-bitch who in essence orders his general's death so he can have the general's wife (to point out just one of his terrible acts)

If you want shockers why in the world didn't you cite God ordering Abraham to kill his son Isaac? Pretty harsh huh?

You are welcome to make what you wish of it.


regarding the two bears... the simplest clarification is that the "children" were not "children" but young men. The names used to taunt were not as harmless as they would be in today's society. Elisha asked God to remove his protection frpom them - cursed them. That the bears went whoop ass is meant to illustrate why one should prefer to live under the protection of God. The full explanatiuon is a lot longer but a naked reading of just the text in modern english doesn't do a good job of conveying the value of the story to people 2500 years ago.

The slave... again recall to whom the passage is addressed. God did not create slavery anymore than he created arson or theft, these are the product of fallen man. Why the day or two matters? No clue. Like I said, there's no shortage of moments that shock. However, before I use the passage to call God a bastard I'd want to know what was up with the day or two. Also, this passage occurs after the first instance of the decalogue but before the second so I'd want to know if and how that effects the meaning of the passage as well. etc etc etc

 

[Mooncat]

Well for starters the actual phrase 'qetanim na'arim' means 'little boys' in Hebrew not young men but whatever, all you've done is convinced me that the 'protection' of Yahweh is much the same as the 'protection' of the Mafia - He is in effect saying "Nice kids you've got there - shame if anything, you know, happened to them...(all 42 of them!)" - something I would not wish to worship - a bastard in other words and we're back to Stockholm Syndrome.

As to the second part - Sorry but according to the Bible Yahweh DID create arson, theft, rape and murder and the rest of it ("made in his image" remember) and if it wanted to condemn slavery It could have made it a damn sight clearer because after reading this over a number of days I've yet to find the bit that says "hey you know, slavery is bad mmkay" and this is after all supposed to be the inerrant word of god.

If you want to jump through hoops to justify and interpret the bible in a modern context then good for you - you're not a sociopath hurray! But I can't really see the modern context of gloating about 'putting to the sword' to thousands of men, women and children - I wait your explanation

 

[obtuseobserver]

Well for starters the actual phrase 'qetanim na'arim' means 'little boys' in Hebrew not young men but whatever, all you've done is convinced me that the 'protection' of Yahweh is much the same as the 'protection' of the Mafia - He is in effect saying "Nice kids you've got there - shame if anything, you know, happened to them...(all 42 of them!)" - something I would not wish to worship - a bastard in other words and we're back to Stockholm Syndrome.

As to the second part - Sorry but according to the Bible Yahweh DID create arson, theft, rape and murder and the rest of it ("made in his image" remember) and if it wanted to condemn slavery It could have made it a damn sight clearer because after reading this over a number of days I've yet to find the bit that says "hey you know, slavery is bad mmkay" and this is after all supposed to be the inerrant word of god.

If you want to jump through hoops to justify and interpret the bible in a modern context then good for you - you're not a sociopath hurray! But I can't really see the modern context of gloating about 'putting to the sword' to thousands of men, women and children - I wait your explanation

You read Hebrew?

I don't. I relied on a translation that said the term used for boys in that passage was the same (and here I'll forget exactly whom but I think it was Isaac who was referred to using the same term when Eliazar was sent to find a wife for Isaac) as the term used elsewhere to describe young men. The examples cited men aged 28 and 40 iirc.

Arson, theft etc - no, those are the invention of men. What you're venturing down is the "question of evil." How can one reconcile an omnipotent and good God with the existence of evil? He must have created evil too? Right? That's a different discussion.

If God wanted to condemn slavery... why stop there? Why not ask why God didn't make people always behave like angels, live wonderful peaceful lives of satisfying coexistence... forever with no war no disease etc etc etc.

The rest - what's the point? You've made up your mind. OK, you're welcome to make of it what you wish.

 

[Gromit]

There is no such thing as evil. A duality of good and bad exists in all. Even puppies.

 

[Mooncat]

You read Hebrew?

My landlord does - that 'qetanim' (little) is conveniently omitted from the NIV bible still doesn't really help your case much for a just and loving god though. It still killed 'naarim' in a quite horrific way because they wouldn't give it 'respect' - La Cosa Nostra indeed.

I don't. I relied on a translation that said the term used for boys in that passage was the same (and here I'll forget exactly whom but I think it was Isaac who was referred to using the same term when Eliazar was sent to find a wife for Isaac) as the term used elsewhere to describe young men. The examples cited men aged 28 and 40 iirc.

Your translation is wrong and changes qetanim anyway - see above

Arson, theft etc - no, those are the invention of men. What you're venturing down is the "question of evil." How can one reconcile an omnipotent and good God with the existence of evil? He must have created evil too? Right? That's a different discussion.

Yeah yeah yeah - all the good bits are gods work and all the bad bits are mans evil. Why does the bible describe acts of genocide in such a favourable light then? I fail to see how such crimes would not include arson and theft - Please describe what you think putting women and children to the sword (not before checking the girls are virgins first) actually, physically entails. The discussion is titled "Is God and evil bastard" - I think this fits perfectly.

If God wanted to condemn slavery... why stop there? Why not ask why God didn't make people always behave like angels, live wonderful peaceful lives of satisfying coexistence... forever with no war no disease etc etc etc.

Why not just nail a man of straw to a cross and worship that?

The rest - what's the point? You've made up your mind. OK, you're welcome to make of it what you wish.

I'm open to changing my mind - I'm not open to someone saying I need to understand the context of mass murders and rapes (fortunately most of which seem to be made up though I fail to see how this helps the case of Yahweh not being a bastard) to understand the inerrant word of god - how many self confessed xtians actually read ancient Hebrew yet still think their believes on reproductive rights, sexual freedoms and hey- pretty much the whole of science trump mine and everyone else who doesn't share their view of the world?

 

[stuff_it]

Blaming it all on a supernatural being is a bit of a cop out imho.

People's problems, peoples problem to sort it out. Not bloody say it was pre-ordained or permitted or meant to happen, but our job to try and prevent it happening in the future.

 

[phildwyer]

The bit about Jesus - the so called prince of peace - giving you tips on how to correctly beat your slaves (don't take an eye or a limb out, make sure they survive for at least 2 days because hey - they could have died of anything in that time)

Jesus said that?

Blimey you learn something new every day.

Idiot.

 

[DotCommunist]

Blaming it all on a supernatural being is a bit of a cop out imho.

People's problems, peoples problem to sort it out. Not bloody say it was pre-ordained or permitted or meant to happen, but our job to try and prevent it happening in the future.

Deists recon he created us and then left us alone to do just as you say. According to a book what I am reading.

 

[phildwyer]

You know what's really interesting here though?

I think we can agree that a person who believes Jesus of Nazareth to be the author of the book of Exodus knows as near to nothing about Christianity as it is possible to know.

And yet such a person feels compelled to write torrents of vile, blasphemous abuse of Christianity to the internet.

This confirms what I say about aggressive atheism being the "default position" in our society--just as aggressive Christianity was the "default position" in the middle ages.

It is instructive to consider which factors in our society have conspired to produce this blind, knee-jerk atheism among its uneducated members.

 

[butchersapron]

There is no such thing as evil. A duality of good and bad exists in all. Even puppies.

You've just argued that evil exists then haven't you?

 

[Greebo]

Just surprised that nobody got round to quoting Depeche Mode yet:
"I don't believe in blasphemous rumours but
I think that God's got a sick sense of humour and
when I die
I expect to find him laughing."

 

[Gromit]

You've just argued that evil exists then haven't you?

Nah I just over simplified.

It's an abstract concept to label actions disapproved of by collective opinion in that timeframe.

So called evil acts can be viewed as good from another angle or historical distance. E.g. one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

 

[butchersapron]

Nah I just over simplified.

It's an abstract concept to label actions disapproved of by collective opinion in that timeframe.

So called evil acts can be viewed as good from another angle or historical distance. E.g. one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

You've just done it again.

 

[krtek a houby]

There is no such thing as evil. A duality of good and bad exists in all. Even puppies.

Especially puppies.

 

[Gromit]

You've just done it again.

I've just changed my viewpoint this instant. Evil exists and you are it.

 

[phildwyer]

Nah I just over simplified.

It's an abstract concept to label actions disapproved of by collective opinion in that timeframe.

So called evil acts can be viewed as good from another angle or historical distance. E.g. one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

But the fact that evil is historically determined does not mean that it does not exist.

To the contrary, it means that it does exist.

 

[Mooncat]

Jesus said that?

Blimey you learn something new every day.

Idiot.

Actually he was more of a cunt - he told Luke that you can kick fuck out of your slaves even if they didn't know they were doing anything wrong. I know ignorance of the law is no excuse but come on

“The servant who knows the master’s will and does not get ready or does not do what the master wants will be beaten with many blows. But the one who does not know and does things deserving punishment will be beaten with few blows. From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked.

Luke 12:35 48 & 47

You know what's really interesting here though?

I think we can agree that a person who believes Jesus of Nazareth to be the author of the book of Exodus knows as near to nothing about Christianity as it is possible to know.

And yet such a person feels compelled to write torrents of vile, blasphemous abuse of Christianity to the internet.

This confirms what I say about aggressive atheism being the "default position" in our society--just as aggressive Christianity was the "default position" in the middle ages.

It is instructive to consider which factors in our society have conspired to produce this blind, knee-jerk atheism among its uneducated members.

I think the factors in our society that have conspired to produce this atheism is that people can claim some kind of moral high ground because they take guidance from a book that condones genocide. "Vile, blasphemous abuse" doesn't really compare with putting swords in the stomachs of women then sticking their fingers up the cunts of young girls to see if there's any blood and if not slitting their throats. Uneducated? I was a Sunday School sap till my early teens - its only actually reading this bullshit cover to cover that's made me realise what a crock of shit it all is. Richard Dawkings (peas be upon him) couldn't of written anything better.

 

[phildwyer]

Actually he was more of a cunt - he told Luke that you can kick fuck out of your slaves even if they didn't know they were doing anything wrong. I know ignorance of the law is no excuse but come on

Luke 12:35 48 & 47



I think the factors in our society that have conspired to produce this atheism is that people can claim some kind of moral high ground because they take guidance from a book that condones genocide. "Vile, blasphemous abuse" doesn't really compare with putting swords in the stomachs of women then sticking their fingers up the cunts of young girls to see if there's any blood and if not slitting their throats. Uneducated? I was a Sunday School sap till my early teens - its only actually reading this bullshit cover to cover that's made me realise what a crock of shit it all is. Richard Dawkings (peas be upon him) couldn't of written anything better.

The Luke passage is a parable, you twit.

Regarding the Old Testament: the entire point and raison d'etre of Christianity is to abolish its literal sense and replace it with a series of figurative senses.

You really should find out the first thing about Christianity before writing of it in such vile, offensive terms.

 

[Mooncat]

Regarding the Old Testament: the entire point and raison d'etre of Christianity is to abolish its literal sense and replace it with a series of figurative senses.

Please explain how you know this. Is is the same for all xtians or can I expect some variation of the No True Scotsman fallacy?

 

[Casually Red]

Gods not evil , he's an artist . Sometimes art can be extremely beautiful , sometimes painful and terrible to behold. Nontheless its awesome in the fullest sense of the word.

 

[phildwyer]

Please explain how you know this. Is is the same for all xtians or can I expect some variation of the No True Scotsman fallacy?

No, it's true for all Christians. I learned it from reading books.

 

[Mooncat]

No, it's true for all Christians. I learned it from reading books.

Which books and have all xtians read them?