The evil god vs. the good God.

The following is taken from another blog I have up entitled, "a theists conversation". It's turning into a different topic than the original, so I figured I'd start a new blog about it and attach all of the conversations from where it changed to the most recent. Please feel free to challenge anything and all that you see. One thing I do ask is for people to back themselves up. If you challenge God, back it up with specific scripture, if you challenge Christians and what they do, back it up with actual happenings(most people have been doing this and I appreciate it). If you challenge athiests claims, back it up. This way whoever you're challenging can do the proper research to find out if they themselves are in error or to confirm what they understand to be true and why.
Keep in mind as well that not everyone who claims to follow Christ actually does so. People seem confused at times by my responses as a Christian, I am one who truely follows Christ. I'm not at all claiming perfection or anything close to it. I am just as much a sinner or screwup as anyone else. Anyone who claims to be perfect is only fooling themselves.

Below the conversations are as follows:

LovE-RicH wrote:
Submitted by caposkia on Sat, 2007-06-09 06:48.

LovE-RicH wrote:

I want to kill Shirley Phelps using only my mind. I can't. Why not?

I don't know Shirley Phelps, but i also don't know why you'd want to kill someone. I guess if you hate them enough. Anyway, sounds to me as if you want to bypass the whole free will thing and be God.

I guess it's true, people don't know the freedom they are given unless it's taken from them. Without "free will", you would not be able to do anything on your own or for yourself. Someone would be making you do it. You would not be aloud to feel differently than whoever is controlling you decided you should feel. You would not even be aloud to think or know anything that the being who was controlling you did not want you to think or know.

Limited free will? Consider this. Maybe you just don't know how to kill someone with your mind yet. Let's take science for example. Scientists have discovered that humans use about 10 % of their brain. What's the rest of it for? What if we could use the other 90%. Is it possible that we do have the ability to kill someone with our minds and just don't know how to?

Obviously God (assuming he's real) created us with the possibility of being able to do much more, otherwise, why would we have so much brain when we use so little of it?

We know that life adapts to it's surroundings and needs. Obviously we had much more ability at one point, because the brain mass is there to prove it. If greater ability than we now know is not possible, then I don't believe we would have adapted with as much of a brain.

[MOD EDIT - fixed quote.]

reply | write to author | quote
Look Her Up!
Submitted by Susan on Sun, 2007-06-10 21:30.

Caposkia, Google Shirley Phelps, her father Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church and I suspect you'll understand.

reply | write to author | quote
oh I see
Submitted by caposkia on Tue, 2007-06-12 16:40.

Susan wrote:

Caposkia, Google Shirley Phelps, her father Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church and I suspect you'll understand.

yea, I was not familar with her particular story, but she is just another of many hypocrits out there who distort God's word to appeal to their idea of what should be. The bible warns us of those people and tells us to basically just ignore them because they're speaking nothing but hot air.

reply | write to author | quote
caposkia wrote:
Submitted by LovE-RicH on Tue, 2007-06-12 20:00.

caposkia wrote:

Susan wrote:

Caposkia, Google Shirley Phelps, her father Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church and I suspect you'll understand.

yea, I was not familar with her particular story, but she is just another of many hypocrits out there who distort God's word to appeal to their idea of what should be. The bible warns us of those people and tells us to basically just ignore them because they're speaking nothing but hot air.

but but but... how can they be hypocrites if they follow the scriptures literaly, and really mean what they say and do? haven't you read the bible? the christian god in the old testament is very cruel, vindictive, homophobic, etc... they are more honest than you are!

that's why the bible is dangerous and should be sold with a warning label: PICTURE!

once you stop cherry-picking and choosing just the pretty parts, and read it as-is instead, and still believe in it, then this shit starts to happen.

<

>btw, i was kidding about killing her, i was just making a point. but i am angry at her for mentaly abusing her children. those kids don't have any friends outside the church, they're not allowed to go for a cup of coffie with anyone, the pretty girls laugh at the idea of them having boyfriends, they make their 5 year olds hold up signs they don't understand ("God hates fags", etc...>

Here's a nice documentary about them:

http://tinyurl.com/2ggr78

reply | write to author | quote
but but but... how can
Submitted by caposkia on Thu, 2007-06-14 21:21.

but but but... how can they be hypocrites if they follow the scriptures literaly, and really mean what they say and do? haven't you read the bible? the christian god in the old testament is very cruel, vindictive, homophobic, etc... they are more honest than you are!

that's why the bible is dangerous and should be sold with a warning label: PICTURE!

once you stop cherry-picking and choosing just the pretty parts, and read it as-is instead, and still believe in it, then this shit starts to happen.

<

>btw, i was kidding about killing her, i was just making a point. but i am angry at her for mentaly abusing her children. those kids don't have any friends outside the church, they're not allowed to go for a cup of coffie with anyone, the pretty girls laugh at the idea of them having boyfriends, they make their 5 year olds hold up signs they don't understand ("God hates fags", etc...>

Here's a nice documentary about them:

http://tinyurl.com/2ggr78

Oh, don't worry, I read it literally, and I don't just pull out the pretty parts. I checked out some video of what her and her supporters are doing. Please show me where in the Bible it says, "God hates Gays" I'm willing to bet you will not find that in there. The Bible's core beliefs are based on love. You claim she takes the bible so literally.... I guess she missed that part. She's hypocritical by doing what she does and yet showing so much hatred toward people. The Bible says we should be doing everything out of love, without that, it's useless. Her works are useless. She is not showing love.

yea, sounds like i"m taking the ugly parts out, but then again, prove what i just said is not true. I'm not talking about pull the bad parts out of the Bible either. Yea, there are bad parts in there, it wouldn't be the Bible without them.

Another thing to note, Christians are not Jews. You cannot take into account in todays world what the Old Testiment says without taking into account what the New Testiment says. Christians are New Testiment Followers. It plots out clearly what we are to follow from the Old Testiment and what we are not to follow. It also shows us where many missed what was said in the Old Testiment books. Yes, even way back then. It was apparent that people got too pompus with their faith. Sound familiar?

What anti-christians shouldn't be doing is "cherry-picking and choosing" the bad parts out of the bible when in fact there is so much good in it. One needs to take the books as they are, not by little parts in them. If I took parts out of certain books, I can prove to you that dogs like human blood, that we should kill people, and that God says that if you're a sinner, you should mutulate yourself or even kill yourself. You and I both know it doesn't actually say that in the Bible because we are people that read it as a whole and don't take parts out of context. right???

AImboden's picture

God Hates "______"

Didn't god supposedly destroy Sodom and Gomorah because of impure sexual practices??

If he didn't hate the people who practiced such things why would he burn them to death?

(It's hard to ask serious questions about a ridiculous fairy tale.)

answer to the serious question

yes, God did destroy Sodom and Gomorah because of sexual impurities, but basically for the lack of care for another human being.  They were atrocious places.  It was to the point that if there was anyone, male or female, child or elderly that stepped foot in the town limits, they would be repeatedly raped through the night by all the townspeople. 

There is a difference between hating someone and getting angry.  Parents can get furious at their children for doing something stupid or really bad, but they of course don't hate them. (Assuming they are honest good parents).  They will punish them of course.  This was a punishment for them.  They were given fair warning, and one final warning by an angel, whom they tried to rape when it walked into the town.  

If you don't understand how death is a punishment, in the "Fairy Tale" as you call it, death is also not the end, so of course people will have a life after death.  SEE:  blog entitled "a Theists Conversation" for more information regarding death in the bible.  Please feel free to ask me more if that does not answer your question.   

 

AImboden's picture

I understand how death can be a punishment.

I don't want to ask you questions.  If I wanted to know what it says in the Bible, I would read it again.

 

AImboden's picture

But wait, there's more.

I think God hated them.  If he was just mad he would have beat them up instead of burning them to death.

 

AImboden's picture

More...

I thought God was Love.  ???

AImboden wrote:     I

AImboden wrote:

 


 

I don't want to ask you questions. If I wanted to know what it says in the Bible, I would read it again.

 


 

I think God hated them. If he was just mad he would have beat them up instead of burning them to death.

 


I thought God was Love. ???

response 1.

No one has to ask me anything, if you did, it would be your choice.

Response 2.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinions. Just to put my understanding in perspective, maybe that was God's way of "beating them up"

Response 3.

God is love, but he is also just. Would God be good and Just if he didn't punish people for sinning? Many people try to view God as a giant carebear in the sky. He should be viewed more as a parent figure. That's why most Christians refer to God as Father.

AImboden's picture

Justice

If god is all powerful and all knowing, then he intended us to sin.  If he has a problem with people sinning, he should punish himself.

 

AImboden's picture

Biblical logic

I thought you were just another heretic at first. 

Since you believe parents should punish their children with death, I can tell you are true to the teachings of the Bible. 

Kill your kids, they'll learn from it!

AImboden wrote:

I thought you were just another heretic at first.

Since you believe parents should punish their children with death, I can tell you are true to the teachings of the Bible.

 

lol, wow.  I'm not sure what kind of reaction you want from that one, but let me try the logic approach. 

First, I do have to admit, you made me laugh, but I know too that because the Bible to you is only a fairy tale, you see God and people as equals.  

Let's look at the Bible as a fairy tale.  You and I know in fairy tales anything is possible and can be true, so this should be easy to understand.  To say what you said, the "you believe parents should punish their kids with death" is to say that God kills their Spirits/souls, whatever you want to call it.  Not true.  Read the book of Romans if you haven't already, you'll see that there is a difference between your fleshy body, and your spirit body.  God punishes by killing the flesh.  I can tell you didn't check out my other blog, because that makes this all clear.  In a comparison to humanistic standards, that would be like taking something material from your kids, like video games, or tv for a while.  Tell me parents don't do that.  

So now you'll say, yea, but eventually, those kids get those material things back.  Ok, God gives you a second chance at life!  First through Jesus, then in Revelation, you'll see there are 2 resurrections or (bringing people back to life)  One resurrection is for people who have accepted the fact that Jesus suffered and died because of their sins and have followed him, the other is resurrected into a life of judgement.  Not so that they have to sit in a court and await their death sentence, but to 'try again' with new understanding.  There's obviously more to the story, but you can read it for yourself... only if you want to.  I'm not saying you have to.  

 

You also called me a heretic.  Or that you at least thought I was.  I'm glad you noticed that I'm not going against my church, or that I'm expressing my own opinion for that matter.  I'm mearly expressing what I know to be true.  I'm on this site for the same reasons Sapient is beleive it or not.  I hold his beliefs from the Christian perspective.  I'm on here to grow as well.  I want people to challenge what I know, that's the only way I can know for sure what i know is true.  The only way I will change my understanding is if someone will clearly show me, and reference to where they found the information that goes against what i believe.  So far, few have tried to refute what I believe with opinions, and very few have given me references to where they get their ideas from.  I have been approached by heretics.  

A true athiest will scratch their opinions and quick conclusions and show me where in the bible it says "you are to punish your kids with death"  or any other radical claim they may present.   

Disclaimer:  nothing in this reply was intended to offend.  I wanted to say I appreciate that reply because it gives me new understanding of where people can take things if not explained clearly enough.  I will be sure to take care in explaining further that approach in the future.  Thank you

 IN Christ's love,

 Nick

AImboden's picture

Oh, ok.

No, I mean that parents are directed to kill their children if they misbehave.

 You will find all of the laws that Jesus proclaimed in Leviticus and Deuterotomy.

 If you don't kill non-believers and bad children, you are a heretic.

That is what I meant.

 

oh ok

huh... You are right, Leviticus and Deuteronomy are the books of laws. You will find most of the laws in those books, though Jesus amended a few. Keep in mind Jesus did not proclaim that all the laws were still valid after him.

I also have read those books, and don't remember any part telling parents to kill their children just for misbehaving. Or to kill non-believers for that matter.  Do you know the Book, Chapter and verse you read that from? Thanks

 

In Christ's love,

 

nick

 

 

AImboden's picture

I'll look it up.

Its way after the part where they heal leprosy by dipping a live bird in blood.

Jesus taught that you should do all the things that the Jews taught. He came to fulfill the law, eh?

Where do you sacrifice your animals?

AImboden's picture

Leviticus 20:9

That is one place where believers are instructed to kill their children.

I will find the place where it says you should stone to death people who try to lead you away from worshipping yaweh.

Why don't you find a place that says the rules changed after Jesus?

I'll be waiting.

 

the place

AImboden wrote:

That is one place where believers are instructed to kill their children.

I will find the place where it says you should stone to death people who try to lead you away from worshipping yaweh.

Why don't you find a place that says the rules changed after Jesus?

I'll be waiting.

 

 

Find a place where it says the rules have changed... hmmm. nope can't do that..  I'm sorry if I mentioned the rules actually changed.  If I said that, I was wrong. 

Oh, but before you pop the champeign, let me explain to you how Jesus fulfilled the law.  It's all in the Gosples.  

People were instructed to "kill animals" for atonement for their sins.  A question was asked why we don't kill animals anymore, or where we kill animals now.  Well, Jesus "fulfilled" that part of the law.  He was the ultimate sacrifice.  So no more killing of animals needed.  He died for all our sins, so we don't have to sacrifice anything anymore.  

Now because that ultimate sacrifice for "ALL" sins has been done, why would we still need to stone someone for not believing or adultury. They have a chance now to repent. BTW, I'm not familiar with the law that says stone non-believers, Jews were taught to not associate with them.  I'm not sure though, i think that was more of a pharase teaching and not  of God. I could be wrong on that. 

Maybe the part you're talking about are the devil worshipers.  The "demonic" ones were known to be posessed by demons. 

I don't know, you'd have to be more specific.  Please reference to exact verses and chapters, It's hard to find something small in such a large book. It's hard to give specific answers if the references are vague.  I do know you'll find the answers somewhere in the Gosples, which are Matthew, Mark, Luke, Or John.  Acts and Romans as well as Hebrews has a lot of clarified input as well.  

Susan's picture

Animal Sacrifice

caposkia wrote:

People were instructed to "kill animals" for atonement for their sins. A question was asked why we don't kill animals anymore, or where we kill animals now.

Sorry to jump into this, but the sacrifice of animals is a hot button with me.

I've never understood why an innocent animal had to suffer or be killed because some human sinned.

It seems like Tom was a bad boy so I'm going to punish Bill. It's misdirected aggression.

It just makes no sense to me.

 

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.

AImboden's picture

You contradict yourself and Jesus

Jesus said the rules won't change because of him.

You say you are a Christian, but that the rules changed because of "Christ", who said the rules aren't changed.

You made my list of irrational people.  I'm not going to argue with you anymore.

AImboden wrote: Jesus said

AImboden wrote:

Jesus said the rules won't change because of him.

You say you are a Christian, but that the rules changed because of "Christ", who said the rules aren't changed.

You made my list of irrational people. I'm not going to argue with you anymore.

This is an example of why I think that the Jesus of the Gospels and the Christ Paul describes are two radically different concepts. 

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin

interrested

jcgadfly wrote:
AImboden wrote:

Jesus said the rules won't change because of him.

You say you are a Christian, but that the rules changed because of "Christ", who said the rules aren't changed.

You made my list of irrational people. I'm not going to argue with you anymore.

This is an example of why I think that the Jesus of the Gospels and the Christ Paul describes are two radically different concepts.

I'm interrested in hearing more from this view 

caposkia wrote: jcgadfly

caposkia wrote:
jcgadfly wrote:
AImboden wrote:

Jesus said the rules won't change because of him.

You say you are a Christian, but that the rules changed because of "Christ", who said the rules aren't changed.

You made my list of irrational people. I'm not going to argue with you anymore.

This is an example of why I think that the Jesus of the Gospels and the Christ Paul describes are two radically different concepts.

I'm interrested in hearing more from this view

Happy to help but it'll have to wait until I get off my work computer.

Give me a few hours? 

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin

Susan wrote: caposkia

Susan wrote:
caposkia wrote:

People were instructed to "kill animals" for atonement for their sins. A question was asked why we don't kill animals anymore, or where we kill animals now.

Sorry to jump into this, but the sacrifice of animals is a hot button with me.

I've never understood why an innocent animal had to suffer or be killed because some human sinned.

It seems like Tom was a bad boy so I'm going to punish Bill. It's misdirected aggression.

It just makes no sense to me.

 

First, you don't need to appologise for jumping to this, and I think it's a very good, valid question.

 Sounds like you're saying something along the lines of, someone sinned, so someone else has to sacrifice an animal for them.  Not true unless you were a preist, where in that time, it was understood to explain to the preist what you have done wrong and to the fact that you are going to try to better yourself.  The idea being the preist can help you along in your troubles.  (at least that's what they were suppose to do)

Anyway, I couldn't give you a strait forward answer on why of all things it was an innocent animal that needed to be killed, but none for sure were tortured for the sins of people.  God in fact made it very clear in the bible not to do that to animals.  e.g. the part where God made a donkey speak and question it's master why he was beating him.  

My assumption would be this though;  would you do that wrong, whatever it was again if you had to kill a cat every time you did it???  

Another note would be that it says in the bible that it was a pleasing smell to God.  They also killed animals in the same manner for food to eat, so it was not any more cruel than to slaughter an animal for food.  They didn't have slaughter houses or specific people who did that for them either, most had to do it on their own. 

Yet another note would be that livestock, (which was usually what was sacrificed) was considered a valuable trading tool, be it that money was not the main source of buying and selling in those days.  It was almost like paying a fine.   

Susan wrote:

.

take your time


I'm interrested in hearing more from this view

Happy to help but it'll have to wait until I get off my work computer.

Give me a few hours?

 

Oh, by all means take your time.  I might not get to your reply on this till at least tomorrow anyway, maybe later.  This week's a busy one for me.   

irrational list tally

AImboden wrote:

Jesus said the rules won't change because of him.

You say you are a Christian, but that the rules changed because of "Christ", who said the rules aren't changed.

You made my list of irrational people. I'm not going to argue with you anymore.

 

Honestly, I have to say, I'd have to add you to my list of "irrational people" as well.  Why you may ask?  well, it could be that you missed the very first sentence of my reply to you; 

"Find a place where it says the rules have changed... hmmm. nope can't do that..  I'm sorry if I mentioned the rules actually changed.  If I said that, I was wrong."

...and that you have concluded exclusively by putting words in my mouth that I'm an irrational person.  You need to read more carefully.

If you were misunderstanding the "fulfillment" that Jesus did, then let me try and clarify.  NO RULES HAVE CHANGED. They've only been fulfilled.  Just like the sacrifice rule was fulfilled each time someone sacrificed an animal for their sins.  That sacrifice fulfilled their obligation to the law... until the next time they sinned.  JESUS, was the ultimate sacrifice.  THE BLOOD SHED FOR ALL, SO THAT SINS MAY BE FORGIVEN.  This means all sins after his death have already been payed for.  The sacrifice was already made for ALL SINS.  This would be ALL SINS from the death of Jesus through the time he returns to the Earth as mentioned in Revelation.   I don't know how many more ways I can say it.  Viewing it from a Fairy Tale point of view, this should be easy to understand.  There are laws, the obligations are fulfilled through Christ for all those who accept it.  

This means that those who sinned in any way, shape, or form, can be forgiven if they accept the ULTIMATE SACRIFICE.  Which means, you don't need to kill people anymore, because they're already forgiven.... wait now.... they're forgiven IF THEY ACCEPT THE ULTIMATE SACRIFICE.   Which means you can't just go around doing whatever you please, no repentance, and then expect that you were already forgiven.  It is a life choice you make; but I'm getting off the subject.  

Irrationality would be to say that means the law has changed.  It's basically like getting parking tickets, but having someone else pay them off for you.  The law has not changed, it's still illegal to park there, or as long as you have, but someone else is taking the punishment for you.  Just try not to do it again.   

Does that make more sense???

DISCLAIMER:  None of the above was meant to be taken in an angry way or in any way shouting or yelling.  The capitolized words or phrases were just for emphasis.  It was meant to be strait and to the point in clearer terms than last time.   

neptewn's picture

Was this what people were

Was this what people were looking for?

New Testament Stuff

Romans 1: 29-32

29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,

30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,

31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful

32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them

Your mind will answer most questions if you learn to relax and wait for the answer. - William S. Burroughs

Susan's picture

caposkia wrote: Sounds

caposkia wrote:

Sounds like you're saying something along the lines of, someone sinned, so someone else has to sacrifice an animal for them.

I guess I didn't phrase it very well.  I'll try again.

If a human sinned, he had to kill an innocent animal who did nothing wrong.

It's my understanding that the critter wasn't always even used for dinner so that makes it a terrible waste of life and it was a death for no reason. 

caposkia wrote:
Not true unless you were a preist, where in that time, it was understood to explain to the preist what you have done wrong and to the fact that you are going to try to better yourself. The idea being the preist can help you along in your troubles. (at least that's what they were suppose to do)

I realize times were different, but the thought of a priest saying, "You fouled up.  Now go kill your goat to repent." makes me want to scream. 

caposkia wrote:
Anyway, I couldn't give you a strait forward answer on why of all things it was an innocent animal that needed to be killed, but none for sure were tortured for the sins of people.

HHmm.  I think "dead" and deprived of life kinda sums that up. 

caposkia wrote:
God in fact made it very clear in the bible not to do that to animals. e.g. the part where God made a donkey speak and question it's master why he was beating him.

Um.  Yeah.  Talking donkeys.  Sorry, I just can't buy into that one. 

caposkia wrote:
My assumption would be this though; would you do that wrong, whatever it was again if you had to kill a cat every time you did it???

I do not see cats, dogs, pets as "just animals".

You're talking livestock.  Also, times were different and folks did slaughter their own dinner.

caposkia wrote:
Another note would be that it says in the bible that it was a pleasing smell to God.

 Your god has a sense of smell?  Your god likes the smell of fresh-killed blood?

caposkia wrote:
They also killed animals in the same manner for food to eat, so it was not any more cruel than to slaughter an animal for food. They didn't have slaughter houses or specific people who did that for them either, most had to do it on their own.

Again, that doesn't address the fact that they killed innocent animals.  Dead.  Gone.  Probably burned up their bodies.

I'm not saying they tortured the critters to death.  I'm saying that life was forcibly taken from a critter because a human did something wrong. 

caposkia wrote:
Yet another note would be that livestock, (which was usually what was sacrificed) was considered a valuable trading tool, be it that money was not the main source of buying and selling in those days. It was almost like paying a fine.

Paying a fine with nothing to go into the coffers.

Again, my point is that a LIFE was taken from an animal because a human fouled up. 

In my opinion, that's just plain mean.  I thought all life was supposed to be precious.

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.

I guess i didn't phrase it well...

Susan wrote:

I guess I didn't phrase it very well. I'll try again.

If a human sinned, he had to kill an innocent animal who did nothing wrong.

It's my understanding that the critter wasn't always even used for dinner so that makes it a terrible waste of life and it was a death for no reason.

I get where you're coming from.  We also have to look at it that  back then people didn't sin nearly as much as people do now.  So it's something that was more easily avoidable.  People in fact wanted to avoid that, it's a lot of work to do something like that.  I guess a curiosity question from me would be what would be the alternative as a punishment from God?  Keep in mind some of the punishments were for severe crimes that people would also go to jail for here nowadays for extended periods of time.  Also understand this is a people familiar with what it is to be under slavery, and so a community service punishment wouldnt' mean much.  

 

Susan wrote:

I realize times were different, but the thought of a priest saying, "You fouled up. Now go kill your goat to repent." makes me want to scream.

...but it wouldn't be a preist telling you you fouled up now go kill something.  It'd be you coming to a preist admitting you screwed up and bringing that as an offering for forgiveness... not for the preist, but for God.  The preist was just the mediator per/say. 

Susan wrote:

HHmm. I think "dead" and deprived of life kinda sums that up.

sure.... ok 

Susan wrote:

Um. Yeah. Talking donkeys. Sorry, I just can't buy into that one.

lol, think of the whole thing as a fairy tale.  The point was that God was highly against the torture of animals.  He in fact punished people for doing so.   

Susan wrote:

I do not see cats, dogs, pets as "just animals".

They didn't see livestock as "just animals" either.  The Shepard in fact would actually carry a sheep on his back if it was noticably tired from the days' journey.  They knew them all by name and even counted them. The sheep were pampered like we do for cats and dogs.   

Susan wrote:

Your god has a sense of smell? Your god likes the smell of fresh-killed blood

well... no, that's why they were burnt offerings.  do you not like the smell of a barbeque?  of if you are a vegitarian or vegan, don't others like the smell of barbeques??? 

Susan wrote:

Again, that doesn't address the fact that they killed innocent animals. Dead. Gone. Probably burned up their bodies.

 yea, you're right

Susan wrote:

Again, my point is that a LIFE was taken from an animal because a human fouled up.

In my opinion, that's just plain mean. I thought all life was supposed to be precious.

well, a big misconception about God is he is actually NOT a big carebear in the sky.  

Don't get me wrong.  If I was faced with the fact that I had to kill an animal with my bare hands like they were to do then, I just couldn't do it, or would have a really really hard time doing so.  I don't even hunt, basically for the reason of; I don't think I could pull the trigger to take the life of another animal.  So with that said, I completely understand where you are coming from.  

To really start into fully understanding the value of this "innocent slaughter" to God, would be to go into the value of blood and life to God.  

now again, view this as a fairy tale, that way you can see it as anything's possible and are able to view it with an open mind.  Open mind meaning nothing is impossible.  

God is a Spirit being, not a flesh being like us.  There is a big difference, and just because a person dies in the flesh does not mean they're  dead/gone/extinct/non-existant.  They are still alive in the spirit.  The book of Romans in the Bible covers this with more detail.  However, God does put value on fleshy or material things.  One big value is blood.  Just like pure gold or diamonds are more valuable to us than tainted gold or colored diamonds, pure blood is more valuable to God.  I guess it could be viewed as a spiritual currency.  

It seems disgusting and wrong to us, but how does it look from the Spiritual side?  

I'm sorry if I lost you or totally grossed you out.  I guess that's the best way I can explain it.  If you want a better explanation, you can contact me and I can ask others who may know more about this, or you can contact the Christian Research Institute at http://www.equip.org.  They seem to have all the answers to the most difficult questions and they might have more information than I can give you.  I am only one person and don't really know much.  Only what I've said.   

Though i don't know much, it's a compilation of proofs that i've seen first hand that has me holding on to what i know to be truth.   

Susan's picture

caposkia wrote: I get

caposkia wrote:

I get where you're coming from. We also have to look at it that back then people didn't sin nearly as much as people do now.

Huh? Are you trying to say that humans were more moral "way back when"?

These folks had children with their slaves. Married people, I might add. I would suspect they lied and cheated and stole, too. I'll bet there was cruel gossip, bad parenting and coveting going on all over the place. Gosh, I'll bet (according to your rules) there were even some golden idols and false gods that were being worshipped.

caposkia wrote:
So it's something that was more easily avoidable.

Different societies have different acceptable "norms".

Come on now. You've just got to be joking!

caposkia wrote:
People in fact wanted to avoid that, it's a lot of work to do something like that.

Fear can control the masss who are kept ignorant.

caposkia wrote:
I guess a curiosity question from me would be what would be the alternative as a punishment from God?

That's only if you believe in a god and your particular rules of sinning.

If you steal, society pretty much takes care of that part.

 

caposkia wrote:
Susan wrote:

I realize times were different, but the thought of a priest saying, "You fouled up. Now go kill your goat to repent." makes me want to scream.

...but it wouldn't be a preist telling you you fouled up now go kill something. It'd be you coming to a preist admitting you screwed up and bringing that as an offering for forgiveness... not for the preist, but for God. The preist was just the mediator per/say.

Wouldn't it make more sense to make things right with the injured party instead of running to a priest with a dead goat?


caposkia wrote:
lol, think of the whole thing as a fairy tale.

BINGO!

caposkia wrote:
They didn't see livestock as "just animals" either. The Shepard in fact would actually carry a sheep on his back if it was noticably tired from the days' journey. They knew them all by name and even counted them. The sheep were pampered like we do for cats and dogs.

And then they had them for dinner. See? Not the same thing.

caposkia wrote:
Susan wrote:

Your god has a sense of smell? Your god likes the smell of fresh-killed blood

well... no, that's why they were burnt offerings. do you not like the smell of a barbeque? of if you are a vegitarian or vegan, don't others like the smell of barbeques???

Wait a minute. You said that your god liked the smell.

By the way, I love good bar-b-que! Folks can make a burnt offering to me anytime. Smiling

caposkia wrote:
well, a big misconception about God is he is actually NOT a big carebear in the sky.

What happened to the good, loving and kind god that xians are always talking about then?

Why would you worship something that's mean and nasty and vengeful? Personally, I don't think something like that deserves any type of respect and certainly not worship.

caposkia wrote:
To really start into fully understanding the value of this "innocent slaughter" to God, would be to go into the value of blood and life to God.

Then your god should respect innocent life which it's pretty obvious isn't the case.

caposkia wrote:
now again, view this as a fairy tale, that way you can see it as anything's possible and are able to view it with an open mind. Open mind meaning nothing is impossible.

It is a fairy tale. And fairy tales are just that, right along with Mother Goose. Being open minded has nothing to do with being able to discern fables.

caposkia wrote:
God is a Spirit being, not a flesh being like us. There is a big difference, and just because a person dies in the flesh does not mean they're dead/gone/extinct/non-existant.

Sorry. Dead is dead. Gone. Defunct.

caposkia wrote:
They are still alive in the spirit.

What proof is there that there is an afterlife? Talked to any dead relatives lately? Or rather, have any dead relatives talked to you?

Please keep in mind that I believe the bible is just a collection of stories and not statement of fact.

It's my opinion that the only "afterlife" there is, is the memories of us that our loved ones carry.

caposkia wrote:
One big value is blood. Just like pure gold or diamonds are more valuable to us than tainted gold or colored diamonds, pure blood is more valuable to God. I guess it could be viewed as a spiritual currency.

You don't see that as odd? Gruesome car accidents and emergency rooms must really be a good time for your god.

caposkia wrote:
It seems disgusting and wrong to us, but how does it look from the Spiritual side?

Just pretty odd that someone would believe that.

caposkia wrote:
I'm sorry if I lost you or totally grossed you out.

Nope. I'm pretty hard to gross out. You didn't lose me, but I do admit to shaking my head and rolling my eyes. (Sorry. That's an honest answer.)

caposkia wrote:
I guess that's the best way I can explain it. If you want a better explanation, you can contact me and I can ask others who may know more about this, or you can contact the Christian Research Institute at http://www.equip.org.

Thanks for the offer, but I can pretty much guarantee that I will continue to shake my head and roll my eyes wondering how anyone could possibly believe this.

Maybe years and years ago when people were uneducated and superstitious, they would believe anything an authority figure told them. But today we have a wealth of information available to us and we can look for scientific explanations.

caposkia wrote:
I am only one person and don't really know much. Only what I've said.

I appreciate your explanations and I can tell you've put a great deal of thought into them.

 

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.

you're welcome

I do what I can.  I appreciate your patience and understanding.  It's apparent that there are many views that we will just never agree on, but then again, the truth cannot be told to you unless you're willing to hear it.

Keep in mind I'm a person that was in your shoes.  It took some truely hardcore evidence to prove to me that this understanding was true.  It also took some scholars and bible translators to help me understand the "why's" of certain things.  

Yes, I've seen evidence in my own life of existence of an after life.  I've also got close honest friends who have first hand experience with this.  A few of them through devil worship.  Ironically, it's how they found it all to be true, then turned away from that and found God.  I've also seen evidence of a loving God.  He can't be all sensitive about everything, parents can't be that way with their kids unless they want them to grow up being spoiled brats, neither will God with us.  

I don't expect you or anyone to believe anything I've said here either.  My hope is they won't immediately dismiss it as non-sense, but if they do, that's their choice.  I found the truth by harshly critiquing and challenging it all.  Prayer also played a role.  I was shown the proof i needed.   

Thank you again for your time and intreguing conversation.  I have found it challenging and reaffirming.   

Susan's picture

Be Nice To The Critters!

You're so right.  There are things on which we will never agree.

I find it so interesting that two people can see/hear/read the same thing and come up with totally opposing views of the conclusion.

 Of course, it mystifies me how anyone can really think about theism, look at the details, study the science and believe in a god.

You, on the other hand, seem to have done that and are equally mystified how I cannot!

But, you know, as long as you're nice to the critters, you're all right in my book!

Thanks for an interesting conversation.

 

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.

AImboden's picture

Irrational

To believe there is a loving godfather in the sky is irrational by itself.

 To still believe it and continue to assert your beliefs after all the arguements I have made against your posts makes you nuts.

 Go ahead and believe your bullcrap.  I'm not going to read your mindless rant anymore.

Are Worthy of Death

neptewn wrote:

Was this what people were looking for?

New Testament Stuff

Romans 1: 29-32

29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,

30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,

31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful

32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them

 

Sorry for the delayed response on this one.  It might be what people were looking for however, it says they are "worthy of death" for being ignorant; e.g. "without understanding...without natural affection...unmerciful"  and being bratts; e.g. "Disobedient to parents...dispiteful..." and the list goes on including murderers.  It never said anywhere to "kill your children".  It's saying we are all worthy of death.  For any of the stuff we might have done or been like listed above.   

...but...but...

AImboden wrote:

Go ahead and believe your bullcrap. I'm not going to read your mindless rant anymore.

 You had said you're not going to argue with me anymore a few posts back in this blog.  Yet... here you are, ranting about how annoyed you are with my views and being very rude about it.  I'm here because I enjoy a good intellectual conversation.  I truely believe in what I know and want others to know about it too.  Most importantly, my "irrational bible" tells me to always challenge what I know and allow people to challenge my understanding so I can rethink it and know for sure whether what I know is true or not.  

No one is forcing you to read my blog, if it bothers you that much, follow through with your claims; e.g.

"I'm not going to read your mindless rant anymore."