Is the Judeo-Christian God evil?

a reply to: jmdewey60

Previous Text It is sort of vague on that probably on purpose so as to not take the focus away from the actual act, which is the real character, this sort of smooth talking that may be the view of the Jerusalem priesthood of the seducing influence to engage in false worship in the "groves" or other natural places like caves.

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

Present Text "Common sense" should tell you that I was talking about the writers of the Garden story in Genesis. If I meant the writer of Romans, I would have said, "Paul".

If you were talking about the Jerusalem priesthood (as you say) then it is even more confusing. There was no Jerusalem priesthood in the era of the writers of the Garden story. The authors of the accounts of Moses were in the era of about 1273 BC to about 1100 BC and there was no Jerusalem priesthood at this time. Moses died in about 1273 BC and he carried two tablets of stone which contained the ten commands of God to the Hebrews. Written on both sides of the two tablets of stone by the finger of God. I cannot believe that the ten commandments could or would be hieroglyphs or cuneiform carved into just two stones and then placed into the dimensions of an ark of testimony. Till proven otherwise I will assume that the two tablets of stone were in a alphabet style and not pictures. I have read extensively from both isles and shall never agree that the Hebrews carried tons of stones about the desert containing the Torah. That in itself is far fetched.

The reason for assuming that we were still discussing Romans is simply that Paul was the accepted author of Romans and our conversation had been commentaries of Romans. Nevertheless, how could you have meant Jerusalem priesthood in referencing the writers of the Garden story?

Text My mention of "groves" is not accidental and is what I think the 'tree of knowledge' represents in the story, the problem that the Israelite authorities were constantly having trouble with, the tendency for the common people to go to private worships in the groves, which would have been seen by the temple priesthood as being "pagan". Paul never talked about the evils of worshiping in groves.

I understand exactly where you are at in your understanding of the entire garden story and in fact most all of the bible. Yes you are correct in stating that I believe that the Lord God is responsible for evil being in the world. I have several times explained that concept so will not go there again. If I am wrong then the Apostles are also wrong because they teach the same as I have learned from them. Adam and Eve did sin (which is called evil) and they also did eat from the tree of knowledge just as is written in Genesis. No, there are not mythical characters in this account in my belief.

You have avoided some of the crucial answers to our discussion. Where did the understanding of sin and evil originate? What is the difference between sin and evil? Was the God of Abraham the only Creator of our existence? Was the entire garden story a fable? Is there more than one god in existence? Could you expound these questions and give reason for your belief?

a reply to: Seede

There was no Jerusalem priesthood in the era of the writers of the Garden story. The authors of the accounts of Moses were in the era of about 1273 BC to about 1100 BC and there was no Jerusalem priesthood at this time.

Actual biblical scholars who study the book of Genesis date it very late.
Rather than other books of the Old New Testament being dependent on it, it seems Genesis is dependent on the other books.
So it is pretty late, placing it in the later kingdom era.

Till proven otherwise I will assume that the two tablets of stone were in a alphabet style and not pictures.

I wasn't even talking about that.
I was talking about the entire first five books of the Old New Testament.

I have several times explained that concept so will not go there again.

You haven't done so convincingly.

. . . sin (which is called evil) . . .

Just repeating it doesn't make it true.
Do you have anything to support that claim, because you are not citing an accepted definition?

Where did the understanding of sin and evil originate?

Those things were not invented by the writers of the Bible.
They were already existing words, and is an indication of human nature that they would have to be created because people do wrong things, and bad things happen to people whether they are bad or good.

What is the difference between sin and evil?

People sin without necessarily having evil intentions.
Evil can be anything or everything, depending on your point of view.

Was the God of Abraham the only Creator of our existence?

No.

Was the entire garden story a fable?

No.

Is there more than one god in existence?

Yes.

Could you expound these questions and give reason for your belief?

I could, and have quite a bit on this forum.

a reply to: jmdewey60

[There was no Jerusalem priesthood in the era of the writers of the Garden story. The authors of the accounts of Moses were in the era of about 1273 BC to about 1100 BC and there was no Jerusalem priesthood at this time.]

Text Actual biblical scholars who study the book of Genesis date it very late. Rather than other books of the Old New Testament being dependent on it, it seems Genesis is dependent on the other books. So it is pretty late, placing it in the later kingdom era.

Give me a date on this "later kingdom era". What is your reference material of these biblical scholars? Who and what are their credentials? In Talmudic studies the Torah is the central theme and was the only source in original Christianity up to Hadrian (about 135 CE). All other Hebrew biblical literature is dated from Torah. By this it is just the opposite of your statement.

a reply to: Seede

Give me a date on this "later kingdom era". What is your reference material of these biblical scholars? Who and what are their credentials?

This comes from reading a whole pile of books on the subject so I can't hardly go back through them for quotes, at least easily or in less than a year or something, looking up all the references.
I can though easily give a quote from Wikipedia.

Julius Wellhausen, the 19th century German scholar responsible for the classical form of the documentary hypothesis, did not attempt to date J more precisely than the monarchical period of Israel's history. In 1938 Gerhard von Rad placed J at the court of Solomon, c. 950 BCE, and argued that his purpose in writing was to provide a theological justification for the unified state created by Solomon's father, David. This was generally accepted until a crucial 1976 study by H.H. Schmid, called in English "The So-called Yahwist", demonstrated that J knew the prophetic books of the 8th and 7th centuries BCE, while the prophets did not know the traditions of the Torah, meaning J could not be earlier than the 7th century. A number of current theories place J even later, in the exilic and/or post-exilic period (6th–5th centuries BCE).
en.wikipedia.org...

Focus in on the second half of the quote and that will support what I was saying earlier.
This is the currently accepted norm for dating the first five books of the Old Testament.
The first chapter of Genesis is even later and is atributed to the author P which stands for "priestly".

In Talmudic studies the Torah is the central theme and was the only source in original Christianity up to Hadrian (about 135 CE). All other Hebrew biblical literature is dated from Torah. By this it is just the opposite of your statement.

Are you a rabbi?

a reply to: Akragon

Not all Christians do it. I will grant you that a lot of them do, they subscribe to a school of Theology called Dispensationalism. I prefer to call it Christian Zionism, or Israel Worship. There are a lot of OT teachings and doctrines that are great and should be taught today, however, the NT is the covenant that we are under. The reason I said Judeo-Christian is an oxymoron is because is because you can't subscribe to Judaism and Christianity at the same time. It is widely said that the Jews, Christians and Muslims worship the same God, but that isn't true at all. The Christian God has a Son named Jesus Christ, and is one God who exists in three co-equal persons... the other two religions worship a Unitarian god.

a reply to: jheated5

That right there is the reason why I did not believe in a god when my parents decided to teach me about him/it/them. It is full of paradoxes, especially in the holy books. How could an omnipresent omnipotent being make such mistakes, or any mistakes, for that matter?

a reply to: loremipsum

It is full of paradoxes, especially in the holy books.

By "Holy books" do you mean the Bible?
I don't think they say that God is omnipotent like we think today as what that word means, but rather "the sovereign god".

originally posted by: loremipsum
a reply to: jheated5

That right there is the reason why I did not believe in a god when my parents decided to teach me about him/it/them. It is full of paradoxes, especially in the holy books. How could an omnipresent omnipotent being make such mistakes, or any mistakes, for that matter?

Because it is a plasma field; it has no form other than that it imagines into beingness. If you are speaking of MISTAKES you need to address those problems to the HUMAN BEING (it best creation EVER)

originally posted by: loremipsum
a reply to: jheated5

That right there is the reason why I did not believe in a god when my parents decided to teach me about him/it/them. It is full of paradoxes, especially in the holy books. How could an omnipresent omnipotent being make such mistakes, or any mistakes, for that matter?

Because it is a binary 1s and 0s information plasma field; it has no form other than that it imagines into being (a very creative creator as IT JUST IN THE INFORMATION FEEDBACK BUSINESS mirroring itself to understand define its OWN BEINGNESS). If you are speaking of MISTAKES that have been made you need to address those problems to the HUMAN BEING it imagined into existence (its best EXPRESSION creation EVER). Where is the thank you for that?

a reply to: vethumanbeing

There is no thank you for that. First reason for that, is frankly, that it is impossible for you to know that there is a god. No matter what you 'feel', you cannot prove it and thus there is no reason to assume it. The second reason is that thanking god for creating you is like thanking your mother for giving birth to you. If I didn't exist, I wouldn't know it. And what is

Because it is a binary 1s and 0s information plasma field

supposed to mean?

a reply to: jmdewey60

Yes, I mean the Bible, but also the Qur'an and any other book claiming to be the word of (a) god. I'm sorry, but I have to disagree with you there. Allow me to quote, for this example, the Bible:

"For nothing will be impossible with God." - Luke 1:37
"Behold, I am the Lord, the God of all flesh. Is anything too hard for me?" - Jeremiah 32:27
"Great is our Lord, and abundant in power; his understanding is beyond measure." - Psalm 147:5
"Jesus looked at them and said, 'With man it is impossible, but not with God. For all things are possible with God.'" - Mark 10:27

That last sentence in Mark 10:27 alone claims omnipotence. And while we know that they talked their way out of the Bible being inerrant, they still claim the Bible is true. This quote confirms that:

"The entirety of Your word is truth, and every one of Your righteous judgments endures forever" - Psalm 119:160

a reply to: loremipsum

"For nothing will be impossible with God." - Luke 1:37

Jesus was quoting Genesis 18:14, using the Greek word that is here translated as "impossible" from the Septuagint.
Outside of this verse in the Bible, the Greek word wouldn't have that same meaning, but it is translated that way in order to fit the story in Genesis of the visitor to Abraham telling him that what he said about Sarah having a child was not too wonderful a thing as to be beyond God.
Normally, in other Greek writings, the word means "weak", as in being too weak to be able to do something.
People read the English translation and think that it is saying something different than it really is.

"Jesus looked at them and said, 'With man it is impossible, but not with God. For all things are possible with God.'" - Mark 10:27

Which could be read from the Greek as: "Things God gives have power".
Bible translators give the version that makes sense to them.
The phrasing here in the Greek is just too vague to develop a whole doctrine like that from.

originally posted by: loremipsum
a reply to: veteranhumanbeing

[I]loremipsum[/I]There is no thank you for that. First reason for that, is frankly, that it is impossible for you to know that there is a god. No matter what you 'feel', you cannot prove it and thus there is no reason to assume it. The second reason is that thanking god for creating you is like thanking your mother for giving birth to you. If I didn't exist, I wouldn't know it.

[I]Veteranhumanbeing[/I] Because "GOD the Absolute Unbounded Oneness is a binary 1s and 0s information plasma field.

Loremipsum[/I] And what is this supposed to mean?

What ME WORRY? God is just information; NO FEEL GOOD FACTOR (I can think it into being because I OWN imagination and am VERY CREATIVE; my specialty actually); as it is not a physical being. It expresses itself as YOU KNOW IT as binary 1s and 0s. It is a self ORGANIZING evolving presence that steps down from "IDEA to energetic GASES to an eventual HEAVEY MATTER physicality that you are part of as another individualized ASPECT OF ITSELF (this is where you get down on your hands and knees); you were imbued with the 'clay matterform' an actual eternal CLOCK/SOUL/SPIRIT why? to REMEMBER your BEGINNINGS. Anyone wants to KNOW GOD??? study THYSELF FIRST and question this: WHY ARE YOU HERE EXACTLY? (to discover dogmatic belief systems that can primer school you into enlightenment/ or you yourself can explore/explain your reason for being; (to your parents or your dog if you'd like).

edit on 8-6-2014 by vethumanbeing because: (no reason given)