Do Gods Exist?

[DBT]

So, what do you make of bible verses that order genocide, murder, rape, condone slavery, tell the reader that God creates evil, creates the wicked for 'the day of evil,' creates the 'vessels fitted for destruction,' etc?

I have never really understood that sort of criticism. It is what it is. It isn't a story book presenting a fairytale through rose colored glasses as they say. If God seems like a monster, then it's because in the reader's estimation he is a monster. It is what it is. As an intense student of the Bible from early on I looked to see what it was, not what I would like for it to be. First off, it describes a time long ago and much different in many ways from today. Personally, my take on each of the points you make above tends to piss people like you off because of my approach.

1. On God creating "evil." At Isaiah 45:7 God the Hebrew word ra is used. Depending on the context it can be rendered bad, calamitous, envious, evil, gloomy, malignant, and ungenerous. Good, bad and evil are subjective. To some God is great, to others he is evil. If I were going to use ra in a way to help the reader understand what the verse is saying I would do it like this: A parent tells a child not to play in the busy street or something really bad (ra) would happen. The child thinks the parent selfish (ungenerous, Hebrew ra) of the parent to restrict them and so does it anyway. The result is calamitous (ra) resulting in the kid being injured and an accident resulting in death. On top of that the parent punishes the child, which the child thinks is evil (ra). Most modern-day translations use the word calamitous, but it's the same thing. God punished Adam and Eve, and brought calamity on the world with the flood. Why? I explain it briefly in The True Meaning of the Bible. Whether you think the Bible literal or fictional, that's what it is.

2. Day of evil / vessels fitted for destruction (Proverbs 16:4; Romans 9:22) is the same thing. It isn't saying God creates wicked people so he can torture them, it's saying people he created choose evil and there will be a day when they are punished. I use this analogy. If you tell a friend not to jump off a cliff or they will be sorry, you don't actually mean they will be sorry, you mean they will be dead. People think "Judgement Day" is a day when everyone literally stands before God and then are sent to hell to be punished, or heaven to be rewarded, but that's religious nonsense. The Bible says we judge ourselves. We decide what we want to do and are held accountable when we die. Hell is a pagan teaching, not a Biblical one. Everyone dies having judged themselves, and suffer everlasting destruction or are rewarded with everlasting life as Adam was intended to live. Death (destruction) or everlasting life. The meek shall inherit the earth.

3. Genocide is defined as "the deliberate killing of a large number of people from a particular nation or ethnic group with the aim of destroying that nation or group." God created Adam to live forever but warned him to respect the "tree of knowledge of what is good and what is bad" (see Meaning from above). People have a choice to live, temporarily, either by what God sees as good or bad but are held accountable in the end. The world of the wicked will eventually get to the point where it will destroy itself like it did with the Nephilim before the flood when the world was first destroyed. After that wickedness, according to God, is permanently ended. So, all races and nations of people are one in God's eyes. Eventually the wicked will be destroyed so that the righteous (in God's eyes) will be allowed to live forever in peace. To God the destruction of large groups of people in the so-called Old Testament and even on a larger scale in the book of Revelation as genocide like we define it, but as preservation of mankind as a whole. He sees us like a shepherd sees a flock. If there is a deadly contagious disease, he will kill many to preserve the flock.

4. Murder was a capital offense; slavery was acceptable to God. Mankind is a steward of the planet, and some things man decides and God tolerates until he takes over.

5. Rape? I would need some scriptural references. Rape was also a capital offense.

It's a moral issue relating to the claim of a God of love, and a God that deliberately creates evil. And the word translated as evil is correct, which other verses confirm.

If you cannot understand the moral implications of creating people 'fitted for destruction' or the wicked for the day of evil, you have a poor understanding of ethics.

The condoning of rape is implied in the 'kill them all, keep the maidens for yourselves' verses.


Quote
“I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster; I, the Lord, do all these things.”

The word “disaster” inserted by the New International Version is misleading and purposely ambiguous so that the uninformed reader could conclude that this word refers to natural disasters, such as typhoons, earthquakes and hurricanes. This dubious translation was deliberately forged to conceal the prophet’s original message. As mentioned above, the King James Version correctly translates this verse, and renders the Hebrew word רָע (rah) as “evil.”

''Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? What if God, willing to show his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory''- Romans 9:21-23

The Lord creates the 'wicked for the day of evil.'' Is that a moral thing to do? To create wicked people for the purpose of evil? The very same 'vessels fitted for destruction?'

"The LORD hath made all things for himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil.'' Proverbs 16:4

Yet we are told;

''The Lord is good to all: and his tender mercies are over all his works.'' Psalm 145:9

Is the lord good to those 'fitted for destruction?''

Was the Lord good toward to maidens taken as trophies when their entire families were slaughtered?

And you say that you can't see a problem or understand the contradictions?

 

[RIS]

It's a moral issue relating to the claim of a God of love, and a God that deliberately creates evil. And the word translated as evil is correct, which other verses confirm.

If you cannot understand the moral implications of creating people 'fitted for destruction' or the wicked for the day of evil, you have a poor understanding of ethics.

The condoning of rape is implied in the 'kill them all, keep the maidens for yourselves' verses.


Quote
“I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster; I, the Lord, do all these things.”

The word “disaster” inserted by the New International Version is misleading and purposely ambiguous so that the uninformed reader could conclude that this word refers to natural disasters, such as typhoons, earthquakes and hurricanes. This dubious translation was deliberately forged to conceal the prophet’s original message. As mentioned above, the King James Version correctly translates this verse, and renders the Hebrew word רָע (rah) as “evil.”

''Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? What if God, willing to show his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory''- Romans 9:21-23

The Lord creates the 'wicked for the day of evil.'' Is that a moral thing to do? To create wicked people for the purpose of evil? The very same 'vessels fitted for destruction?'

"The LORD hath made all things for himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil.'' Proverbs 16:4

Yet we are told;

''The Lord is good to all: and his tender mercies are over all his works.'' Psalm 145:9

Is the lord good to those 'fitted for destruction?''

Was the Lord good toward to maidens taken as trophies when their entire families were slaughtered?

And you say that you can't see a problem or understand the contradictions?

I think you are genuinely raising some important valid criticisms and it's important to me to listen and respond, but I don't think you are listening to me. Years ago I posted on the Sam Harris Reason Project forum and an atheist there, seeing I was a Bible believer, plastered the forum with threads the heading of which were all caps pointing out that as a Bible believer I was homophobic. When I calmly explained that I was homosexual he responded by plastering the forum with threads the heading of which were all caps pointing out that I was a queer and fag. It both amused and amazed me at the time but since then I have learned that often the most vocal critics of a thing really don't care about what they say they care about, they just use it to further their ideological fixation.

I don't know if your concerns are a product of that or an emotional reaction. They are still valid points but if you're coming at it from an emotional or ideological perspective there isn't anything I can say to you. You just need to work that out.

So, before I address the criticisms, and I will nevertheless if you want, tell me what the point is. What we can do about it.

If the Bible is just made up and there is no God what is your point? What should be done? Stop the influence? Burn all the Bibles and get people to wise up and stop believing that shit? Well, I don't think that's a very reasonable reaction for a variety of reasons, but we can explore that if you like.

If, on the other hand, the Bible is a literal account of man and his creator, what then? If he's the monster some think he is you would be wise not to try and fight him unless you want to make things worse and bring destruction unimaginable from a human perspective or get everyone to just go along with him and maybe be better off in the long run.

We can explore that if you like. But it might save time and anguish if I knew where you were coming from. Let me know and then if you like we can take it from there.

 

[pood]

In brief:

Jesus validates the prophets and the God of the OT.

Which simply means: your (plural) view of the scriptures is nothing but erroneous distortions of wishful understanding.

For the layman, ordinary church goer ... all that's needed to know is : Jesus is the verifier. He doesn't refute any scriptures of the OT.

You're welcome.

So Jesus validates the vengeful, genocidal god monster of the OT who supposedly drowned the whole world because he was displeased with his own handiwork? Just checking.

Also, how do you know what you wrote above is true? What supporting evidence do you have, keeping in mind that the bible cannot logically provide evidence of its own veracity?

Thanks in advance.

 

[pood]

Just to follow up on the above, I can say, truthfully, that Superman validates the decision of his father, Jor-el, to send him to earth when Krypton is destroyed to fight for good over evil. In this way, Superman is the verifier of the testament of Joe-el.

Perhaps you will see what I’m driving at.

In a way the problem is even worse for your claim, since, because Jesus was a Jew, one would think that there would be no Christianity today, only Judaism, for the the OT is a Jewish text and Jesus was a Jew. So how did we end up with Christianity, if Jesus validated and verified the Judaic god of the OT?

In any case, it would not surprise me in the least if, in a thousand years, the whole story of Jor-el, Krypton, and Superman is though to be literally true, as opposed to a tale in a comic book and on the silver screen, and we end up with a worldwide religion called Supermaninity with its own bible, priests, scribes, etc.

 

[pood]

Well, since his book advises us to kill witches, kill family members if they try to push a new religion, lets us own people as property, tells us to execute disobedient sons....wwwwhat the fuck is abhorrent to him?
Oh, I know. Eating shellfish.

Instead of criticizing what you don't understand, or regurgitating dumb atheist propaganda, why not investigate that stuff for yourself.

Instead of criticizing what you don’t understand, or regurgitating dumb Jehovah’s Witnesses’ propaganda, why not investigate reality for yourself?

Oh, I know, you think you HAVE investigated reality, but as Krishnamurti points out, all religious believers ever do is “investigate” the conditioned contents of their own minds, and then project the image of what they want to be true onto a reality that couldn’t care less.

 

[RIS]

Also, how do you know what you wrote above is true? What supporting evidence do you have, keeping in mind that the bible cannot logically provide evidence of its own veracity?

Why not?

 

[lostone]

It's a moral issue relating to the claim of a God of love, and a God that deliberately creates evil. And the word translated as evil is correct, which other verses confirm.

If you cannot understand the moral implications of creating people 'fitted for destruction' or the wicked for the day of evil, you have a poor understanding of ethics.

The condoning of rape is implied in the 'kill them all, keep the maidens for yourselves' verses.


Quote
“I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster; I, the Lord, do all these things.”

The word “disaster” inserted by the New International Version is misleading and purposely ambiguous so that the uninformed reader could conclude that this word refers to natural disasters, such as typhoons, earthquakes and hurricanes. This dubious translation was deliberately forged to conceal the prophet’s original message. As mentioned above, the King James Version correctly translates this verse, and renders the Hebrew word רָע (rah) as “evil.”

''Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? What if God, willing to show his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory''- Romans 9:21-23

The Lord creates the 'wicked for the day of evil.'' Is that a moral thing to do? To create wicked people for the purpose of evil? The very same 'vessels fitted for destruction?'

"The LORD hath made all things for himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil.'' Proverbs 16:4

Yet we are told;

''The Lord is good to all: and his tender mercies are over all his works.'' Psalm 145:9

Is the lord good to those 'fitted for destruction?''

Was the Lord good toward to maidens taken as trophies when their entire families were slaughtered?

And you say that you can't see a problem or understand the contradictions?

I think you are genuinely raising some important valid criticisms and it's important to me to listen and respond, but I don't think you are listening to me. Years ago I posted on the Sam Harris Reason Project forum and an atheist there, seeing I was a Bible believer, plastered the forum with threads the heading of which were all caps pointing out that as a Bible believer I was homophobic. When I calmly explained that I was homosexual he responded by plastering the forum with threads the heading of which were all caps pointing out that I was a queer and fag. It both amused and amazed me at the time but since then I have learned that often the most vocal critics of a thing really don't care about what they say they care about, they just use it to further their ideological fixation.

I don't know if your concerns are a product of that or an emotional reaction. They are still valid points but if you're coming at it from an emotional or ideological perspective there isn't anything I can say to you. You just need to work that out.

So, before I address the criticisms, and I will nevertheless if you want, tell me what the point is. What we can do about it.

If the Bible is just made up and there is no God what is your point? What should be done? Stop the influence? Burn all the Bibles and get people to wise up and stop believing that shit? Well, I don't think that's a very reasonable reaction for a variety of reasons, but we can explore that if you like.

If, on the other hand, the Bible is a literal account of man and his creator, what then? If he's the monster some think he is you would be wise not to try and fight him unless you want to make things worse and bring destruction unimaginable from a human perspective or get everyone to just go along with him and maybe be better off in the long run.

We can explore that if you like. But it might save time and anguish if I knew where you were coming from. Let me know and then if you like we can take it from there.

I have joined in this discussion simply because I enjoy the discussion. My own views are unsettled, not finalized, but I am close to being a materialist skeptical of almost all views that stray too far from physicalism. This physical world, IMO, is the only world of which we have direct evidence. Outside of that, IMO, we can easily fall into solipsism, of which most theism can be deemed a version. As such, I am dubious of even the existence of what most philosophers currently call qualia and rather lean toward the views of the late Daniel Dennett.

OTOH, I can see how some people might equate hypothetical Boltzmann brains with Brahma and even transform that into some version of the Christian God, but regard that as pure speculation difficult to justify based on current knowledge. There are many ways in which some people interpret the Christian God and the Bible and some of those are quite interesting to discuss. Literalism, IMO, is not so interesting.

But theism is fun to discuss, albeit I believe none of it. I consider myself to be an atheistic agnostic. There are many interesting variations of belief and unbelief.

 

[pood]

Also, how do you know what you wrote above is true? What supporting evidence do you have, keeping in mind that the bible cannot logically provide evidence of its own veracity?

Why not?

Does that mean I can rightfully claim that the story of Superman is literally true, without independent verification? If not, why not?

 

[RIS]

Instead of criticizing what you don’t understand, or regurgitating dumb Jehovah’s Witnesses’ propaganda, why not investigate reality for yourself?

Oh, I know, you think you HAVE investigated reality, but as Krishnamurti points out, all religious believers ever do is “investigate” the conditioned contents of their own minds, and then project the image of what they want to be true onto a reality that couldn’t care less.

That is reality.

 

[RIS]

Does that mean I can rightfully claim that the story of Superman is literally true, without independent verification? If not, why not?

You can rightfully claim and find independent verification of anything you want.

 

[pood]

Instead of criticizing what you don’t understand, or regurgitating dumb Jehovah’s Witnesses’ propaganda, why not investigate reality for yourself?

Oh, I know, you think you HAVE investigated reality, but as Krishnamurti points out, all religious believers ever do is “investigate” the conditioned contents of their own minds, and then project the image of what they want to be true onto a reality that couldn’t care less.

That is reality.

So projecting the conditioned contents of your own mind onto reality is reality itself? So you are actually a solipsist?

 

[pood]

Does that mean I can rightfully claim that the story of Superman is literally true, without independent verification? If not, why not?

You can rightfully claim and find independent verification of anything you want.

Where is the independent verification for the literal truth of the bible? — a “truth,” it might be added, that even schismatic Christians disagree about, like the way that the Catholic Church and Jehovah’s Witnesses are at odds about doctrine. What privileges one over the other? What standard, what evidence, what independent verification do you use to decide which one is right, if indeed either is right?

 

[RIS]

Just to follow up on the above, I can say, truthfully, that Superman validates the decision of his father, Jor-el, to send him to earth when Krypton is destroyed to fight for good over evil. In this way, Superman is the verifier of the testament of Joe-el.

Perhaps you will see what I’m driving at.

In a way the problem is even worse for your claim, since, because Jesus was a Jew, one would think that there would be no Christianity today, only Judaism, for the the OT is a Jewish text and Jesus was a Jew. So how did we end up with Christianity, if Jesus validated and verified the Judaic god of the OT?

In any case, it would not surprise me in the least if, in a thousand years, the whole story of Jor-el, Krypton, and Superman is though to be literally true, as opposed to a tale in a comic book and on the silver screen, and we end up with a worldwide religion called Supermaninity with its own bible, priests, scribes, etc.

You mean like science did with fat in less than 100 years?

Fat Fiction reveals how the United States government relied on questionable evidence to support one of our country's most damaging public health recommendations: the “low-fat diet."

 

[RIS]

Does that mean I can rightfully claim that the story of Superman is literally true, without independent verification? If not, why not?

You can rightfully claim and find independent verification of anything you want.

Where is the independent verification for the literal truth of the bible? — a “truth,” it might be added, that even schismatic Christians disagree about, like the way that the Catholic Church and Jehovah’s Witnesses are at odds about doctrine. What privileges one over the other? What standard, what evidence, what independent verification do you use to decide which one is right, if indeed either is right?

How would you do it? And in fact, having made countless claims to that effect in the very brief time I've been here why haven't you done?

 

[lostone]

Instead of criticizing what you don’t understand, or regurgitating dumb Jehovah’s Witnesses’ propaganda, why not investigate reality for yourself?

Oh, I know, you think you HAVE investigated reality, but as Krishnamurti points out, all religious believers ever do is “investigate” the conditioned contents of their own minds, and then project the image of what they want to be true onto a reality that couldn’t care less.

That is reality.

So projecting the conditioned contents of your own mind onto reality is reality itself? So you are actually a solipsist?

Does that mean that people live in different realities? In any case, their actions and the sources they use to justify their views of reality indicate that they do.

 

[pood]

Just to follow up on the above, I can say, truthfully, that Superman validates the decision of his father, Jor-el, to send him to earth when Krypton is destroyed to fight for good over evil. In this way, Superman is the verifier of the testament of Joe-el.

Perhaps you will see what I’m driving at.

In a way the problem is even worse for your claim, since, because Jesus was a Jew, one would think that there would be no Christianity today, only Judaism, for the the OT is a Jewish text and Jesus was a Jew. So how did we end up with Christianity, if Jesus validated and verified the Judaic god of the OT?

In any case, it would not surprise me in the least if, in a thousand years, the whole story of Jor-el, Krypton, and Superman is though to be literally true, as opposed to a tale in a comic book and on the silver screen, and we end up with a worldwide religion called Supermaninity with its own bible, priests, scribes, etc.

You mean like science did with fat in less than 100 years?

Fat Fiction reveals how the United States government relied on questionable evidence to support one of our country's most damaging public health recommendations: the “low-fat diet."

What has this actually got to do with what I wrote and you quoted?

Nothing.

Please address the point.

If a religion were to form around Superman, would that make the Superman story literally true? if no, why not? If yes, why?

 

[pood]

Does that mean I can rightfully claim that the story of Superman is literally true, without independent verification? If not, why not?

You can rightfully claim and find independent verification of anything you want.

Where is the independent verification for the literal truth of the bible? — a “truth,” it might be added, that even schismatic Christians disagree about, like the way that the Catholic Church and Jehovah’s Witnesses are at odds about doctrine. What privileges one over the other? What standard, what evidence, what independent verification do you use to decide which one is right, if indeed either is right?

How would you do it?

I’m asking you.

 

[RIS]

So projecting the conditioned contents of your own mind onto reality is reality itself? So you are actually a solipsist?

I'm not anything so of course can't provide independent evidence that I am. Can you provide independent evidence that I am?

 

[RIS]

Does that mean that people live in different realities? In any case, their actions and the sources they use to justify their views of reality indicate that they do.

Of course they do. My reality is hugely different than that of a starving child in Africa.

 

[RIS]

I’m asking you.

And I'm asking you.