Ok, I have a question (pertaining to religion; specifically Christianity)

The Old Testament God has certainly kind of struck me as being kind of a jerk.

GabuEx

Wow, first time I've heard a Christian say that :P You got nerve :P

So I'll restate my question: Why does God, throughout the bible, appear to behave in a manner in which love is not,and yet the bible goes on to define God as being what love is?

-Sun_Tzu-

Because we, humanity, created good and evil. God didn't create good, nor did It create evil. Indeed, for good to exist, evil must also exist and vice versa and, furthermore, if God created good then It, by default, created evil and that, of course, contradicts the Christian theology.

To be honest, I don't really know. The Old Testament God has certainly kind of struck me as being kind of a jerk. Perhaps it's just yet another indication that the stories therein are to be taken as parables with a message rather than a true account of historical fact. Perhaps the language used was not correctly translated (as I've said before, the word "hate" is not used as we understand it today), although that would not completely account for things like the Great Flood. I imagine that many would special-case God, saying that since he is all knowing and all powerful, he can do things while still being pure love - although I find this a massive cop-out.

Or, perhaps it's just a collection of ravings of delusional men who saw things that weren't there are wrote things that weren't true.

To be honest, I'm really not too concerned with the factual nature of things in this area. As far as my life goes, it would change nothing.

GabuEx

Pragmatic theism? Are you a theist? If you don't mind my asking.

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

The Old Testament God has certainly kind of struck me as being kind of a jerk.

dog64

Wow, first time I've heard a Christian say that :P You got nerve :P

Jesus had a lot of nerve breaking many of the old Hebrew traditions, talking to the adulterous woman at the well, hanging out with prostitutes and tax collectors, telling the Pharisees they were a bunch of elitists.

In the eyes of the Jews of the day, Jesus was a dangerous rebel, why do you think he had kind of an underground following?

To be honest, I don't really know. The Old Testament God has certainly kind of struck me as being kind of a jerk. Perhaps it's just yet another indication that the stories therein are to be taken as parables with a message rather than a true account of historical fact. Perhaps the language used was not correctly translated (as I've said before, the word "hate" is not used as we understand it today), although that would not completely account for things like the Great Flood. I imagine that many would special-case God, saying that since he is all knowing and all powerful, he can do things while still being pure love - although I find this a massive cop-out.

Or, perhaps it's just a collection of ravings of delusional men who saw things that weren't there are wrote things that weren't true.

To be honest, I'm really not too concerned with the factual nature of things in this area. As far as my life goes, it would change nothing.

GabuEx

That's how I've always looked at it. Just look at the story of Noah, does God resemble God or does he resemble a disappointed parent? I've always looked at the story of Noah as a teaching to respect one's own parent(s), rather than a historical account of God's might. Moreover, the behavior and personality of God changes too frequently for me to be able to interpret references to God to be references to one literal entity.

[QUOTE="dog64"]

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

The Old Testament God has certainly kind of struck me as being kind of a jerk.

cu_be_cie

Wow, first time I've heard a Christian say that :P You got nerve :P

Jesus had a lot of nerve breaking many of the old Hebrew traditions, talking to the adulterous woman at the well, hanging out with prostitutes and tax collectors, telling the Pharisees they were a bunch of elitists.

In the eyes of the Jews of the day, Jesus was a dangerous rebel, why do you think he had kind of an underground following?

Well, Jesus was preaching to some of those people. He wasn't getting involved in their acts, rather he was trying to change their ways.

[QUOTE="dog64"]

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

The Old Testament God has certainly kind of struck me as being kind of a jerk.

cu_be_cie

Wow, first time I've heard a Christian say that :P You got nerve :P

Jesus had a lot of nerve breaking many of the old Hebrew traditions, talking to the adulterous woman at the well, hanging out with prostitutes and tax collectors, telling the Pharisees they were a bunch of elitists.

In the eyes of the Jews of the day, Jesus was a dangerous rebel, why do you think he had kind of an underground following?

Wow, first time I've heard a Christian say that :P You got nerve :P

dog64

I'm just sayin', there are many things that don't make sense if you take it as a literal historical account. A good example of one that's always caused me to scratch my head is the one where God tells Moses and Aaron to tell the Pharaoh to let the Israelites go, but then God says that he will harden his heart and that he will not listen, and then God sends all the plagues and kills the firstborn sons of all the Egyptians.

I'm not stating that as if it were a fact; it's more just the impression that I've got. Whatever I am, I cannot will away the ability to think logically about the things I read, and there are certain things that just flat-out make no sense at all under a literal reading.

Pragmatic theism? Are you a theist? If you don't mind my asking.

Frattracide

I feel that God is likely to exist, but I do not base my actions on the supposition that he does, and if it were conclusively proven that he didn't, I would not change the way in which I lived my life.

[QUOTE="dog64"]

Wow, first time I've heard a Christian say that :P You got nerve :P

GabuEx

I'm just sayin', there are many things that don't make sense if you take it as a literal historical account. A good example of one that's always caused me to scratch my head is the one where God tells Moses and Aaron to tell the Pharaoh to let the Israelites go, but then God says that he will harden his heart and that he will not listen, and then God sends all the plagues and kills the firstborn sons of all the Egyptians.

I'm not stating that as if it were a fact; it's more just the impression that I've got. Whatever I am, I cannot will away the ability to think logically about the things I read, and there are certain things that just flat-out make no sense at all under a literal reading.

Yeah I understand. There's many things I don't understand, and believe we'll never understand. That's why I'm agnostic, there's some things I believe we'll just never know for sure, one of them being god. The Bible is a good book to read and perhaps it may be god's real inspired word. But even if it is, I think the original "word" is different from the "word" we have now.

[QUOTE="MrPraline"][QUOTE="Maddy_K"] Lol...it's called "obvious sarcasm." Lol.MetalGear_Ninty

That's how I've always looked at it. Just look at the story of Noah, does God resemble God or does he resemble a disappointed parent? I've always looked at the story of Noah as a teaching to respect one's own parent(s), rather than a historical account of God's might. Moreover, the behavior and personality of God changes too frequently for me to be able to interpret references to God to be references to one literal entity.

-Sun_Tzu-

Yeah, I know what you mean. The Genesis creation account especially is one where I'd have a very, very difficult time explaining it if I tried to pass it off as a literal historical account. It's not even just God's personality that's a problem there; there's also the fact that God is depicted as being some dude in the Garden of Eden with Adam and Eve. Jesus is supposed to be the only human incarnation of God that exists within time and space, but if the Genesis account is to be believed, then God had already been on Earth once before in the Garden of Eden.

And not only that, he was also clearly not omniscient, considering that he appeared not to know that Adam and Eve had ate of the Apple of Knowledge until they told him so. This continued to be the case even after they were banished from the Garden of Eden, too, considering that God had to ask Cain where his brother was, so it can't even be said that there was something special about the Garden of Eden, either.

And then there's the issue of God pretty much being a jerk to Cain and then punishing him when he finally had had enough.

All in all, I have to admit that I find it hard to believe that some people take it as a literal historical account. :P To me, it has all the hallmarks of a parable - some of it even strike me as something one might find in a Just So Story, such as the explanation for why snakes slither on the ground and such like.

[QUOTE="nimatoad2000"]religion is poisoncyberdarkkid

[QUOTE="cyberdarkkid"][QUOTE="nimatoad2000"]religion is poisonLocke562

[QUOTE="cyberdarkkid"][QUOTE="nimatoad2000"]religion is poisonLocke562

[QUOTE="JSDempsey"]

The Bible is probably one of the most difficult things to understand. It would really take a religious scholar to answer your question. And dont forget that the bible has undergone several translations and has been edited by rulers throughout history, the bible as we know it now is not the Bible as it originally was.

Teenaged

True, but it isn't supposed to be perfect. It's a compilation of works by many many different authors, ones that were thought to be important enough by the people that put the Bible together to guide the lives of Jews and Christians. No single scripture can tell the whole truth, and all of them together cannot tell the whole truth. Im not trying to come off the wrong way here, im not a Christian fundamentalist or anything, but this is just what ive learned about the Bible.

im not a Christian fundamentalist or anything

JSDempsey

Considering that one of the major tenets of fundamentalism is the idea that the Bible was start-to-finish God-inspired and guided, and thus inerrant in every way, I think that that is rather evident. ;)

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

[QUOTE="JSDempsey"]

The Bible is probably one of the most difficult things to understand. It would really take a religious scholar to answer your question. And dont forget that the bible has undergone several translations and has been edited by rulers throughout history, the bible as we know it now is not the Bible as it originally was.

JSDempsey

True, but it isn't supposed to be perfect. It's a compilation of works by many many different authors, ones that were thought to be important enough by the people that put the Bible together to guide the lives of Jews and Christians. No single scripture can tell the whole truth, and all of them together cannot tell the whole truth. Im not trying to come off the wrong way here, im not a Christian fundamentalist or anything, but this is just what ive learned about the Bible.

[QUOTE="JSDempsey"]

im not a Christian fundamentalist or anything

GabuEx

Considering that one of the major tenets of fundamentalism is the idea that the Bible was start-to-finish God-inspired and guided, and thus inerrant in every way, I think that that is rather evident. ;)

I didn't say that it was all God inspired, in fact i take very little of it with literal meaning. Im just trying to minimize any Christian bashing here. Im mostly agnostic anyway lol.

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

[QUOTE="JSDempsey"]

im not a Christian fundamentalist or anything

JSDempsey

Considering that one of the major tenets of fundamentalism is the idea that the Bible was start-to-finish God-inspired and guided, and thus inerrant in every way, I think that that is rather evident. ;)

I didn't say that it was all God inspired, in fact i take very little of it with literal meaning. Im just trying to minimize any Christian bashing here.

I am merely arguing against fundamentalism whose main tennent is what Gabu described.

PS: Gabu meant that it is evident that you are not a fundamentalist, I think.

[QUOTE="JSDempsey"]

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]I dont believe the "original" (as in the first form of it that went through no translation or re-editing etc etc) Bible was without contradictions, either.

Teenaged

True, but it isn't supposed to be perfect. It's a compilation of works by many many different authors, ones that were thought to be important enough by the people that put the Bible together to guide the lives of Jews and Christians. No single scripture can tell the whole truth, and all of them together cannot tell the whole truth. Im not trying to come off the wrong way here, im not a Christian fundamentalist or anything, but this is just what ive learned about the Bible.

I see. You're probably right anyway.

I didn't say that it was all God inspired, in fact i take very little of it with literal meaning. Im just trying to minimize any Christian bashing here. Im mostly agnostic anyway lol.

JSDempsey

I know you didn't; that's why I said that it was evident that you aren't a fundamentalist.

[QUOTE="JSDempsey"]

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

Considering that one of the major tenets of fundamentalism is the idea that the Bible was start-to-finish God-inspired and guided, and thus inerrant in every way, I think that that is rather evident. ;)

Teenaged

I didn't say that it was all God inspired, in fact i take very little of it with literal meaning. Im just trying to minimize any Christian bashing here.

I am merely arguing against fundamentalism whose main tennent is what Gabu described.

PS: Gabu meant that it is evident that you are not a fundamentalist, I think.

Ah, i think i got the wrong message then.

I don't know if God/Gods exists or not. And it doesn't really matter because it would not really change much in my life if I knew the truth. First we have to define what we mean by God so we could be on the same mind.

What I don't get is why would a God create so many different languages and religions in the world? Why not create a universal language which all people will agree on? And also why would he not smite all the fake Gods and religions?

It seems to me that it really does not matter one way or the other what we happen to believe, the truth is the truth regardless of what we want to believe. There are so many different religions to choose from and probably only 3 of them are right or partly right. All the others are wrong. The odds dictate that some have probably chosen the wrong ones.

What I don't get is why would a God create so many different languages and religions in the world? Why not create a universal language which all people will agree on? X4D

According to the Bible, people did speak in all one language from the start. But god later made man speak in different languages because of the city of Babel being built (Genesis 11:1-9)

And also why would he not smite all the fake Gods and religions?

X4D

Many believe that god will do just that in due time.

I don't know if God/Gods exists or not. And it doesn't really matter because it would not really change much in my life if I knew the truth. First we have to define what we mean by God so we could be on the same mind.

What I don't get is why would a God create so many different languages and religions in the world? Why not create a universal language which all people will agree on? And also why would he not smite all the fake Gods and religions?

It seems to me that it really does not matter one way or the other what we happen to believe, the truth is the truth regardless of what we want to believe. There are so many different religions to choose from and probably only 3 of them are right or somewhat right. All the others are wrong. The odds dictate that some have probably chosen the wrong ones.

X4D

If there exist wrong ones.

One thought that I've had on occasion has to do with just that - the different religions in the world. It seems to me that, if God truly wanted us to know the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, then he could have just beamed that information into our brains. Of course, I'm sure some would argue that that would violate free will, but I don't see how that would violate free will any more than writing a book would that we're supposed to obey to the letter. Both are God relating to the exact same information. So, it seems to me that if there is a God, then he must not have wanted us to know everything there is to know.

One interesting thing I found out a while back is that the golden rule - that we ought to treat others as we would want to be treated - exists in one form or another in every single mainstream religion in existence: Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, Confuscianism, Taoism; you name it, it's in there. Perhaps, then, it could be the case that each religion is in fact God telling us the same things in different ways. Or, perhaps they're all pieces of the puzzle. But, either way, every such religion has led someone to love his fellow man, and in that respect, I would find it difficult to declare one religion as "right" to the exclusion of all the others if they all have led people to act in the way that they ought to act.

four pages and this thread is still civil. It must be some sort of record.

[QUOTE="X4D"]

What I don't get is why would a God create so many different languages and religions in the world? Why not create a universal language which all people will agree on? dog64

According to the Bible, people did speak in all one language from the start. But god later made man speak in different languages because of the city of Babel being built (Genesis 11:1-9)

/sarcasm

*hopes wont get moderated* :cry:

PS: Glitchspot doesnt like spoilers being added in 3:15 local time I suppose.... :evil:

They are two different books. One was passed oraly and the other was written 50 years after Jesus' death. One is the Jewish bible and the other is the Christian bible. Christians use both bible's however concentrate on the new testament.illegalimigrant

But your fundamentalist will claim both are infallible, thus creating the problem the TC highlighted. If you hold that either the OT, NT or both are not infallible there is no problem.

The Old Testament is one of the most schizophrenic religious tomes in the history of mankind. Take it with a grain of salt.

[QUOTE="Maddy_K"]God always acts with love. He knows what's best for us, even if it doesn't seem good to us. He only acts out of love.dreDREb13

Yeeeep. Burning in hell for all eternity for doing one thing wrong and not begging for forgiveness sure is love...

Most of the earliest Christians, prior to the influence of the early Roman Catholic Church, did not believe in eternal punishment in hell.

And neither do I - you're quite right that that would be completely inconsistent with the idea of a God who loves everyone unconditionally.

God is love... but love is not his only quality. The adjective that describes God best is holy. Because God is holy he punishes what is not holy. Because God's love is also expressed from his holiness, he is also merciful. God gives the most pure example of love but is not bound by that one characteristic.mindstorm

God is love... but love is not his only quality. The adjective that describes God best is holy. Because God is holy he punishes what is not holy. Because God's love is also expressed from his holiness, he is also merciful. God gives the most pure example of love but is not bound by that one characteristic.mindstorm

But "love" is clearly defined, and yet God acts in a way love specifically does not. Either he is not love, or the definition of love in the bible is inaccurate. I don't see how claiming that God has other characteristics solves the problem.

[QUOTE="mindstorm"]God is love... but love is not his only quality. The adjective that describes God best is holy. Because God is holy he punishes what is not holy. Because God's love is also expressed from his holiness, he is also merciful. God gives the most pure example of love but is not bound by that one characteristic.-Sun_Tzu-

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]

[QUOTE="mindstorm"]God is love... but love is not his only quality. The adjective that describes God best is holy. Because God is holy he punishes what is not holy. Because God's love is also expressed from his holiness, he is also merciful. God gives the most pure example of love but is not bound by that one characteristic.mindstorm

He doesn't. It is specifically stated that God is jealous and that love is not jealous.

Actually, most people think that the Old Testement was a set of old rules before Jesus Christ died. It would be a contradiction if after Jesus resurrected, God started tellingIsrael to kill pagans.

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]

[QUOTE="mindstorm"]God is love... but love is not his only quality. The adjective that describes God best is holy. Because God is holy he punishes what is not holy. Because God's love is also expressed from his holiness, he is also merciful. God gives the most pure example of love but is not bound by that one characteristic.mindstorm

Bible was written by humasn, not God, so they can modify whatever they want, and you can assume they did.

But he also destroys the good. In 1 Corinthians 13 one of the aspects of love is loyalty. And yet in the book of Job God is not loyal to Job in the slightest bit. Here is a man who God describes as "blameless", as "fearing God" and who "turns away from evil" and yet He causes suffering on him for no reason. And then later in the story He rudely boasts about how mighty and powerful He is, which is again, contradictory to the biblical description of what love is.

-Sun_Tzu-

I think possibly the biggest problem, which I'm surprised you didn't list, is this one:

"(Love) does not envy." (1 Corinthians 13:4)

"God is love." (1 John 4:16)

"The LORD ... is a jealous God." (Exodus 34:14)

There are two things to note here, as well: first, that the Greek word translated into "love", agape, in both cases is the same; and second, that the Greek word translated into "envy" in the New Testament, zeloi, is the same word as the word in the Greek Septuagint for "jealous" (zelotes in the Septuagint, but the same root word).

Thus, we know that all three verses are talking about the same thing: love is not jealous; God is love; God is jealous. Something here, therefore, is amiss.

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]

But he also destroys the good. In 1 Corinthians 13 one of the aspects of love is loyalty. And yet in the book of Job God is not loyal to Job in the slightest bit. Here is a man who God describes as "blameless", as "fearing God" and who "turns away from evil" and yet He causes suffering on him for no reason. And then later in the story He rudely boasts about how mighty and powerful He is, which is again, contradictory to the biblical description of what love is.

GabuEx

I think possibly the biggest problem, which I'm surprised you didn't list, is this one:

"(Love) does not envy." (1 Corinthians 13:4)

"God is love." (1 John 4:16)

"The LORD ... is a jealous God." (Exodus 34:14)

There are two things to note here, as well: first, that the Greek word translated into "love", agape, in both cases is the same; and second, that the Greek word translated into "envy" in the New Testament, zeloi, is the same word as the word in the Greek Septuagint for "jealous" (zelotes in the Septuagint, but the same root word).

Thus, we know that all three verses are talking about the same thing: love is not jealous; God is love; God is jealous. Something here, therefore, is amiss.

Well, I quoted Exodus 20:5, which says pretty much the same thing :P-Sun_Tzu-

Oh, I know you mentioned it there; I mean in reference to your reply to mindstorm.

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]Well, I quoted Exodus 20:5, which says pretty much the same thing :PGabuEx

Oh, I know you mentioned it there; I mean in reference to your reply to mindstorm.

Oh, well, I felt the discussion was more focused on the idea that God only punishes the wicked, therefore he can still be love, so that was why I was focused solely on Job, because God in the book of Job clearly doesn't "cling to what is good".-Sun_Tzu-

True enough.

Job has always been another story that I've had problems with. :P

God is love, and anything that is not God is not love, and anyone that has been in love (truly, actually been in love) will tell you that love is neither compromising nor comfortable toward not-love.

Jealousy in terms of coveting is a loveless sin, but there is another kind of jealousy that is a byproduct of love: is there any husband here that would share his wife? If not, is it out of covet or jealousy, and if jealousy, where does that jealousy come from? Are there any parents that would just give their kids to other parents? We seeing the picture here?

As for trust, why are we still here? If trust between us and God was nonexistent then so too would we be. Trust is earned, as they say, and broken trust is not easily restored, kinda like when a fundamentalist turns atheist.

As for the talk of the OT being a collection of stories, identifying some things in the Old Testament as fable is fine when it is appropriate; chalking the entire thing up to parable just because it forces you to think, however, is not.