It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Old Testament God is a Bumbling, Primitive, Idiot?

page: 3
15
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 18 2013 @ 11:58 PM
link   

charles1952
reply to post by Akragon
 

Dear Akragon,

You are invaluable! No wonder you are universally loved. When I make a mistake or am unclear, Akragon "The Scalpel," comes to set it right. (No, I haven't forgotten your secret nickname, but I won't use it as long as you keep the cookie shipments current.) This time, I think it was a lack of clarity on my part, thanks for catching it.

Jesus did know where He was going, He prophesied it at least three times in the Gospels. Rather than give you one of my awkward analogies, I'll tell you what I think happened. Up until the time He was on the cross, He knew what was going to happen. Then, somehow, he was completely separated from God. I can almost hear Him saying "Hey! What's going on here? Who turned out the lights?" and similar exclamations of astonishment.

I think, at that moment, he bore His greatest suffering. A time when God, who was always with Him, suddenly wasn't. Did He know, even then, that He was going to Heaven? I don't know. But if the certainty ever left His mind, that was when it happened.

With respect,
Charles1952


I would scarcely say I am universally loved... I have a good many haters on this forum, all of which are Christian ironically... they hate when I poke holes in their theology

Personally I don't believe one can separate him/herself from God... HE is within all of us but many choose to ignore him... When Jesus cried out on the cross, I consider that the moment he lost hope...

The pain he must have went through was beyond belief, beyond hope... Perhaps he questioned why God would let him suffer so much... but he also knew it would happen. Yet somehow I don't think he was ready for the torture he endured. Did he know he was going to heaven? Of course he did... Being the son of God he knew full well that we return home once we're finished here...

As you must know I believe everyone returns home, without exception... Even the most "evil" of us... but not everyone gets to stay... We return here, to the physical if we have no learned our lessons... but perhaps not this planet...

We are given the body we deserve, or what we have created for ourselves through the trials and tribulations of life... and it takes many lives to fully learn everything that is needed to "progress" to the next step... whatever that might be





posted on Nov, 18 2013 @ 11:58 PM
link   
reply to post by windword
 

Dear windword,

I'm almost dancing with joy. Having you and Akragon join in? An embarras de richesses if I've ever seen one.

Excellent points. While I think I can come up with one or two partially satisfactory answers, your questions deserve much thought.


Also, God told the Israelites "Thou Shall Not Kill", then proceeded to order them to kill people of the other cities, because they didn't worship him, and to kill their own kin for various other transgressions.
That gets into a discussion with which you're probably familiar. What does the word "Kill" mean in that setting. Is it taking innocent life? In that case, the transgressors weren't innocent by definition. How does it apply in cases of self-defense, or defense of your country.


Why would God need men to do his dirty work for him? Why not do the deed himself, like he did with the flood and with Sodom and Gomorrah?
That's a question I'm going to have to pass on, I don't know. But would you have been approving if God wiped them out, instead of the Israelites?


Why not make sinners unable to reproduce? In retrospect, this Old Testament God didn't plan things very well.
Dear windword, think for a moment. If no sinner could reproduce, what do you think the population of the world would be today? While environmentalists would be delighted that the Earth was free of the "infection" of Man, there would be none around to enjoy it.


One of my biggest issue with this so called god is the fact that he put his rebellious, fallen angels along side his perfect and beloved creation. Then he allowed these demons to corrupt and rape them! Not very smart, if you ask me.
Here's my best guess. I'm not speaking with any authority. What good is a test if there are no questions you can get wrong?

OK, why did He want to test them? I don't know off the top of my head. Wait, I just had a thought. (That happens every once in a while.) If we object to God allowing Adam and Eve to be tempted, don't we have to object to God allowing anyone to be tempted? Wouldn't that require God to remove all temptation from the world? There goes free will. You can't choose to do wrong if there's no temptation to do wrong. We're back to robots having no option but to do what God tells them to do.

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Nov, 19 2013 @ 12:07 AM
link   
reply to post by Klassified
 

Dear klassified,

I notice you haven't lost your talent with words, ol' STD. (Wait a minute. That's not going to work as an abbreviation. Oooops. Sorry.)

For the first time ever on ATS I feel a little smug. I think I answered your question before I even heard it. Excuse me while I polish my fingernails on my shirtfront. If you find some fault with my analogy to the released prisoner, I'd be pleased to hear about it. I don't want to go around with bad ideas.

You're absolutely right about His complete fulfillment of the law. We are no longer slaves to it. I hope you'll forgive me, but I know almost nothing about Fundamentalist beliefs on this, or any other religious or spiritual question. After at least a couple of decades poking around here and there, I finally settled on Catholicism and I'm still very content with it. Granted, I don't know it as well as I should, but that's my fault not the Church's.

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Nov, 19 2013 @ 12:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Pinke
 





The translation of thou shalt not kill is translated more accurately to murder as in unlawful killing in most cases.


What is a "lawful" killing, according to the God of the Old Testament? He didn't have a problem doing the killing himself when it came to Pharaoh's army or the first born Egyptian children, Onan, who he struck dead for not copulating, or the guy who accidentally touched the Ark of the Covenant, or those kids who called Elijah a baldy.

Why did God need armies to do his killing?

In my opinion, there are several deities/gods described and mythologized in the Old Testament. Not just one. Earlier in Genesis, "God" deals with Cain, who just murdered his brother. God didn't kill him, he exiled Cain. Not only that, he provided life long protection for Cain out in the "real" world. So now, suddenly this "I AM" that lives in a burning bush and a pillar of fire, that's a friend to Moses, a murderer, suddenly wants men to kill men?

I don't think so.


The original word (ratsah) likely had a very deep and varied meaning to the original people that spoke it which wasn't quite the same as murder, and I imagine there is some debate about how the word should be applied in modern terms ... That said, I don't believe the original translation actually contradicts scripture as much as is claimed often.


Killing is killing. This "friend" of Moses' doesn't seem to care what kind of killing it is, he orders it all. He orders men to kill their own families for straying from the law. He orders abortion when husbands aren't sure they're the father. He order babies be ripped of women's wombs. He orders innocent animal to be sacrificed to him. This guy had no respect for life, whatsoever.


Deuteronomy 32
22 For a fire is kindled in mine anger, and shall burn unto the lowest hell, and shall consume the earth with her increase, and set on fire the foundations of the mountains.

23 I will heap mischiefs upon them; I will spend mine arrows upon them.

24 They shall be burnt with hunger, and devoured with burning heat, and with bitter destruction: I will also send the teeth of beasts upon them, with the poison of serpents of the dust.

25 The sword without, and terror within, shall destroy both the young man and the virgin, the suckling also with the man of gray hairs.

26 I said, I would scatter them into corners, I would make the remembrance of them to cease from among men:

27 Were it not that I feared the wrath of the enemy, lest their adversaries should behave themselves strangely, and lest they should say, Our hand is high, and the Lord hath not done all this.


This "God" had enemies whose wrath and pride he feared?


It should (based on my study) refer to specific types of killing, not all types of killing.


Right, because he's the God of all killing. He only approved of men doing sanctioned killing.



edit on 19-11-2013 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 19 2013 @ 12:51 AM
link   
reply to post by Akragon
 


Dear Akragon,

One of the things I treasure about you is that you present the unusual question, the knuckleball-curve-slider pitch. I'm going to re-re-read your post, but this time I think you've caught me looking. In short, What????


I can not respect an entity that promotes killing of the innocent...(even if its something like a lamb)
How can a lamb (or a rock, or a flower) be innocent or guilty? They have no moral code which they follow. They can not form an evil intent. I don't understand. And if you have contempt for any entity that kills the innocent, I must assume you are at least a vegetarian. But even vegetarians violently uproot and end the lives of "innocent" plants. I must really be misunderstanding you.


Respect is earned in my eyes, not freely given
I'm saying "Sir" to anybody who can create a Universe.


Perhaps I might make a suggestion since you did the same... Worship the God that is Called "love"... even the Father of Jesus... And steer clear of the False God in the OT
Thank you, suggestions help keep me on the straight and narrow (usually). But again, I'm forced to say ????? (If that's how you spell it.) My understanding is that the Father of Jesus is the God of the Old Testament. Why did Jesus follow the law of Moses? Why was he always quoting the Old Testament, reading the Torah in Synagogues? Would Jesus pay that sort of respect to a false God? He called the Temple, built according to Old Testament specifications, "My Father's house," and went ballistic over it's misuse.


Hmm... I recall saying Paul is a fraud numerous times... The OT is a book of myth and legend, which also documents a false God worshiped by the Jews of the time... What I was saying is that the supposed atrocities committed by various Tribes of the time were likely made up to influence the followers of this god to invade and conquer the land...
I can agree that the Old Testament has "Myth" or "Legend." It also has poetry, love songs, and church hymns. But I don't agree that it's all fraudulent. And, yes, I remember the Jews worshiping a golden calf. that little slip got them sentenced to 40 years manna and water.


Which is it going to be? The Old Testament is a fabrication, or the Old Testament is the truth?

Both I suppose... Adam and eve... Fabrication
Noahs flood... Fabrication
Talking snake... LOL... FUNNY!
They may be, but I don't have your certainty. Adam and Eve were apparently the first "humans" with souls. Whether they were made individually, or a pair reached humanity and God intervened, or whatever, I don't know. Certainly, only they, God, and the Deceiver were present. Remember Dan Rather? I think he was the one who said "The facts were incorrect, but the story was true."

Noah's flood? I'm willing to agree that it didn't cover the entire world, but the latest discoveries I've heard about declare there was a massive local flood which destroyed pretty much everything.

Talking snake? So you don't believe in telepathy? Or, the snake could have wrapped itself around the fruit and smiled in that snaky way snakes have. Or, I don't know. The point being that people had the opportunity to sin and they took it.

Though I'm sure there were real events documented as well...
To be honest, I tend to rely on the agreement of experts to help me know which is which. Otherwise, I'd be tempted to say the parts I don't like are fabrications.


Sure... I celebrate Xmas as well... but shouldn't Jesus' life be celebrated every day?
YOU'RE RIGHT! I try, many Christians do it much better than I do. I admit, some times I'm distracted by the events of the day and miss my "celebration." But you've pointed out a wonderful path, I'll work on it.


Did he not say Give freely... Not give one day a year... and don't forget to wrap that gift up and put a bow on it?
Again, absolutely right. Unfortunately, in my case, time is about all I have to give. Please accept my gift to you.

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Nov, 19 2013 @ 12:53 AM
link   
I expect what I am about to write will fall on deaf ears for most, but nonetheless I shall share what I understand per the bible. The people in those lands were of the Nephilim offspring and they were an abomination having not remained human for all intents. God wanted them wiped out, and so they were, but as in the days of Noah so shall it be at the end and we shall see hybrid humans again, in fact our scientists are determined to mix our DNA with that of animals.

What is the Old Covenant which Gods children broke over and over? It was the law (ordinances, precepts, and statutes) given to them by instruction and written on stone tablets. What is the New Covenant which Jesus / Yeshua brought in? It was the law (Ordinances, precepts, and statutes) written upon our hearts.

Jer 31:31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
Jer 31:32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD:
Jer 31:33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.

The law is not a burden, but a blessing. The 10 Commandments are a summation spelled out in Deuteronomy and Leviticus. Jesus said,

Mat 19:17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.

Deu 11:26 Behold, I set before you this day a blessing and a curse;
Deu 11:27 A blessing, if ye obey the commandments of the LORD your God, which I command you this day:
Deu 11:28 And a curse, if ye will not obey the commandments of the LORD your God, but turn aside out of the way which I command you this day, to go after other gods, which ye have not known.


Yeshua further stated that not the least stroke of the law would stop until all is fulfilled, and that has not happened.

Mat 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
Mat 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
Mat 5:19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.


If Jesus fulfilling them was all that was needed then we should not bother with the law at all; however, he said to follow him, to keep the commandments, and to serve the Lord. The only covering for sin is the blood sacrifice, and Jesus provided that. Thus even the sacrificial system is still in place only we look to the blood shed for us by Yeshua.

As for it only applying to Israel, we who are not of Israel are grafted INTO them. We are commanded if we want to walk in that covenant with Jesus that we are now part of the house of Israel.

I have to ask myself, which law would Jesus brake today? Which law would he tell his disciples to brake? People mistake the disciples rubbing some grain for doing away with the Sabbath law, when in fact it was not out harvesting, but picking some food for dinner then. We want to justify our actions and find excuses, so we pick and choose passages out of context. "Man was not made for Sabbath, but Sabbath for man" as if that is a license to do whatever we want, and that is not what it says.

I find it utterly amazing that the RCC destroyed Sabbath keeping, and the Protestants went right along with it. They destroyed the Lunar calendar and set up the solar calendar. They destroyed observing the celebration / feasts of the Lord and instituted Pagan fertility feasts of Saturnalia (Christmas) and Easter instead of Passover. Heck, few even know the true blessings of Shevuote (Pentacost) or the Year of Jubilee. We are stiff necked, hard hearted instead of hearts of flesh which are tender to the Lord. We love false teachers who tell us what we want to hear, and so God has given us a spirit of delusion. One day the blinders shall be removed, and many will weep bitter tears for their selfish unloving hearts.



posted on Nov, 19 2013 @ 01:02 AM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 


Charles,

You said that you would do anything to have a conversation about religion with normal people. I'm not sure you got your wish, but I feel I'm, for the most part, in good company here.





What does the word "Kill" mean in that setting. Is it taking innocent life? In that case, the transgressors weren't innocent by definition. How does it apply in cases of self-defense, or defense of your country.


There are tons of laws that clarify and address those issues in the Old Testament. Some of them really silly.


Deuteronomy 25
11 When men fight with one another, and the wife of the one draws near to rescue her husband from the hand of him who is beating him, and puts out her hand and seizes him by the private parts,

12 then you shall cut off her hand; your eye shall have no pity.”


Some fairer than others.



Deuteronomy 22
25 But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die.

26 But unto the damsel thou shalt do nothing; there is in the damsel no sin worthy of death: for as when a man riseth against his neighbour, and slayeth him, even so is this matter:

28 If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;

29 Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.




Dear windword, think for a moment. If no sinner could reproduce, what do you think the population of the world would be today? While environmentalists would be delighted that the Earth was free of the "infection" of Man, there would be none around to enjoy it.


Well, I didn't mean ALL sinners, LOL, just the ones that God sent the Israelites to kill. If these people were so terrible, killing babies and all, God could have made a generation barren, and that would be the end of them. Easy Peasy!

It seems to me the purpose of these horrific ordeals of war was to to terrorize and intimidate the next city, so that they would be a little easier to conquer. That's not something a "God of Love" would do.



posted on Nov, 19 2013 @ 01:07 AM
link   
reply to post by kissy princess
 

Dear kissy princess,

Thanks a lot for bringing up DCT (I forget what it stands for just now. Old age setting in.) I am neither a philosopher, scripture scholar, or particularly bright person, but I would like to offer a quick thought on the subject.

A logical contradiction can be considered a lie, a sin against truth. To say something is "X" and "Not X" is a lie. Lying is against the moral law. Just as we (I would hope) would not steal from a Salvation Army kettle because it goes against our very being, so God would not create a moral law against His own being. It came into existence because the morality described therein is a part of Him.

So, lies (logical or otherwise) are out, so too are a bunch of other things we call sin. Not because God decided they should be, but because they have to be in a Universe which God created.

As this is my first shot at understanding, I could be way off. But it feels right to me. Comments are appreciated.

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Nov, 19 2013 @ 03:50 AM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 



How can a lamb (or a rock, or a flower) be innocent or guilty? They have no moral code which they follow. They can not form an evil intent. I don't understand.


They cause no harm... Which is not to say that something like a tiger which kills its prey is "evil"... They are only acting according to their own nature... Even man acting by his/her own nature is programed to kill... but we can choose to rise above such actions.

Jesus was the lamb of God... he caused no harm in word or action



And if you have contempt for any entity that kills the innocent, I must assume you are at least a vegetarian. But even vegetarians violently uproot and end the lives of "innocent" plants. I must really be misunderstanding you.


Unfortunately no... I am as much a carnivore as anyone.... but I do not kill my food. It comes pre-killed... Yet there are exceptions to this rule of "causing no harm" Jesus was also a fisherman (or at least this is assumed) with the story of meeting peter... Fish do not feel Pain...


I'm saying "Sir" to anybody who can create a Universe.


Fair enough... but who is to say the OT God was the "creator" of the universe?

In fact... recently I've come to think that the OT God was quite possibly an alien being using technology to fool the primitive folk... The so called "burning bush" could have been a hologram. I mean, fire that doesn't burn?

Exodus 19
16 And it came to pass on the third day in the morning, that there were thunders and lightnings, and a thick cloud upon the mount, and the voice of the trumpet exceeding loud; so that all the people that was in the camp trembled.

17 And Moses brought forth the people out of the camp to meet with God; and they stood at the nether part of the mount.

18 And mount Sinai was altogether on a smoke, because the Lord descended upon it in fire: and the smoke thereof ascended as the smoke of a furnace, and the whole mount quaked greatly.

What sort of so called "God" needs fire and smoke, thunder and lightning to land on top of a mountain?

Kinda sounds like a "craft" with rockets to me honestly...


My understanding is that the Father of Jesus is the God of the Old Testament. Why did Jesus follow the law of Moses?


Seems to me he broke and changed the laws of Moses... Which is why so many people wanted him dead...

There is no healing on the Sabbath... that is death.

There is no letting adultery pass... that is death.

You do not call yourself the son of God... that is utter blasphemy... and DEATH!!


Why was he always quoting the Old Testament, reading the Torah in Synagogues?


he was raised as a jew... He learned their book from an early age... and if you read you'll find he did not quote the OT very much... and when he did he used bits and pieces of it only to get his point across to his followers. The OT was the only scripture they used at the time so he used what he needed and nothing more.


Would Jesus pay that sort of respect to a false God?


I don't believe it was out of respect that he used the OT... only out of necessity. AS I've said, when you deal with a certain religious folk you need to use what they know... IF I was speaking to someone who claims to be a gnostic I would use the scripture they respect... When I speak to Christians, I don't pull out gnostic or Buddhist scripture because they usually don't know or respect it... Though, that is one thing that is special about the gospels... It doesn't matter who you talk to... even atheists will respect the wisdom of Jesus, as long as you don't tell them its him



He called the Temple, built according to Old Testament specifications, "My Father's house," and went ballistic over it's misuse.


IF this "house" was dedicated to "his Father" and people are not showing the proper respect... why wouldn't he be pissed regardless of how meaningless it actually was.... HE said his Fathers house has many mansions... hardly something that is built with the hands of man.


I can agree that the Old Testament has "Myth" or "Legend." It also has poetry, love songs, and church hymns. But I don't agree that it's all fraudulent. And, yes, I remember the Jews worshiping a golden calf. that little slip got them sentenced to 40 years manna and water.


They were already lost... why does it matter where they wandered? And I didn't actually say it was "fraudulent"... It is about the god of the Hebrews... whoever or whatever that was.


Adam and Eve were apparently the first "humans" with souls. Whether they were made individually, or a pair reached humanity and God intervened, or whatever, I don't know. Certainly, only they, God, and the Deceiver were present. Remember Dan Rather? I think he was the one who said "The facts were incorrect, but the story was true."


It is genetically impossible for Adam and eve to have been the only two people on earth... they had children, who had children with each other... and we know for a fact that when bothers and sisters or even cousins have babies, nothing good comes of it... Now imagine our species IF it started with incest...

Did you happen to see Idiocracy?




Talking snake? So you don't believe in telepathy?


LOL... I suppose the talking donkey was a telepath as well?


Again, absolutely right. Unfortunately, in my case, time is about all I have to give. Please accept my gift to you.


Gladly... I always appreciate talking to you brother


edit on 19-11-2013 by Akragon because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 19 2013 @ 04:05 AM
link   
Hello Charles, good chatting with you again.
Gonna point by point some of the stuff here.


charles1952
reply to post by SaturnFX
 


You think you could take that, even if you knew that you were returning to heaven?

Yes, yes I do.
The flogging, thorns, etc. This is pain, Pain can be channeled (after a certain amount of pain, you actually stop feeling it).
I don't want to go into details, but I know people (not of, but actually know) who do such things for pleasure.
The human brain has a wonderful coping ability.
The people I spoke of do it not to inherit kingship in heaven, they do it for a more mundane sense of pleasure. Granted, the environment is different, but point is, it wasn't some incomprehensible treatment.
Personally, I don't like pain, then again, I wonder why on earth boxers do what they do.
Oh, right, for money / fame


I couldn't. But He didn't even know that. Remember His famous words, "My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me?" He didn't know he was going to Heaven, He didn't even have God available to ease His pain. He was without God, a condition people also call "Hell."

That quote right there is a whole new can of worms that should be considered
Ultimately, the religion supports the idea that Jesus totally knew of God / heaven / his place. Any less and it -all- falls apart. Losing faith at the very end isn't the sign of a deity , avatar of, or even messiah...so gonna say that there must have been a misinterpretation (probably not, but for storys sake and keeping Jesus as something more than just some carpenter)


I'm also confused by your claim that the Resurrection was a magic trick. Tell me, how was it done?

Pixie dust of course.
aka, technology is a possibility, tech we maybe couldn't even fathom still now (nanotech as a random example keeping the body in stasis and the brain alive). Point is, just because we don't have a current explanation, doesn't mean it is unexplainable. It is a shortcut to just fill god in the blanks.



What magician today can take a dead body and restore it to life?

There is work being done already with reviving someone that was dead for minutes, also lots of research in stasis. Again, just going with the high tech / potential alien consideration.


And that is, since Jesus fulfilled (read: revoked / amended) the former rules, it demonstrates that the diety in question is -not- infallible.
My apologies, but "fulfilled" is not the same as revoked or amended. When one is released from prison, it isn't because the sentence was revoked or amended, it's because the punishment has been fulfilled.

17 Do not think that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets. I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.

Yes, he said things, but he did alter the law
Stone the adultress as per the rules...suddenly he -amended- it by adding the sinless being the person who tosses the first stone. You can't say that isn't amending it.

As far as the being let out of prison thing, I would suggest its a bad example. There was no stipulation that you had to sacrifice animals, not eat certain things, etc until the messiah came...it was just a rule flat out..not a sentence that had an expiration date (citation needed to show otherwise)



Oh, and thinking that God is unreal because mere humans don't have the words or concepts to depict him accurately as he is, seems faulty to me.

I don't think I said God is unreal...I couldn't possibly know that.
What I do suggest though, based exactly on what you said, is that humans concepts and depictions of said deity is unreal. The holy books (from pretty much all religions) are those depictions and concepts of man about a deity.

I stand with my thought that if there is a god, a proper creator of the universe that spans for at least 150 billion light years -source and in its very scope would put our entire solar system about as significant as a electron shooting around an atom...he probably doesn't give much of a rats behind about the smell of burned offerings on our planet..or anything even remotely understandable by our flea sized brains.

So, maybe there was a "magic man" who walked around, but chances are very high that if there was something significant about him, it was probably more tech based than paranormal. Just going with reasonable consideration here.

As far as why aliens or some advanced race from ??? would create holy books? Teaching civilization perhaps? it is all about control really. Bibles origins are from the ancient Sumerian religions, and most of that was a dawning of how to live in a society of law and agriculture...I am not sure to what extent I buy the ancient aliens hypothesis, but it doesn't sound too unreasonable.

The ufo pheonomona has been going on since the dawn of time to some extent, the labels just change, from djinn, elves, sirens, demons, angels, etc...adaptation to new concepts on old things based on new knowledge and understanding. Should we still be seeing ancient gods as ancient gods and demons? Bit stuck in the past if we choose not to understand and identify them more.
edit on 19-11-2013 by SaturnFX because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 19 2013 @ 05:15 AM
link   
Doing a search for "Biblical Atrocities" yields disturbing results.

It looks like the whole bible is just a tally log sketchbook of a serial killer.

Men, Women, Children, Animals, and even the unborn, whole cities, crops and fields are put to willful slaughter, stoned to death, maimed, burned, enslaved, raped, and utterly destroyed over and over and over.

Here's one list

Biblical Scorched Earth:
"Thus saith the LORD of hosts, I remember that which Amalek did to Israel, how he laid wait for him in the way, when he came up from Egypt. Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass." (I Samuel 15:2-3)

Essentially, kill everything that breathes, even if it's an animal.

"Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the LORD in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the LORD. Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves." (Numbers 31:16-18)

Kill everything with a penis, even babies, and everyone that isn't a virgin, but the rest; save those for divinely sanctioned copious raping later.

Kinda makes you want to vomit.

There seems many sites floating about detailing biblical atrocities. I enthusiastically encourage some perusal.




posted on Nov, 19 2013 @ 06:34 AM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 


I understand the thread, what I don't understand is why would you discuss this matter? The title of thread is blasphemous and disrespectful to the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit. This alone is a reason to ignore the original thread.

Why are you trying to understand if God is a bumbling primitive idiot? By starting this thread you throw wood onto the fire and open up to comments from disbelievers who blasphemy God.

Some folks are determined to reject the message of Jesus. There are many reasons why this is true, but they all boil down to one truth—Satan has poisoned their hearts to the good news of God's Kingdom in Jesus Christ. Rather than keep beating our heads against a wall that the evil one has erected in the heart of someone, God calls us to move on in our efforts to reach others. If we are in the same family or office or neighborhood and have regular proximity to them and can't move on, then we are called to live our faith before them and pray that our actions will demonstrate the faith we profess not to support them or get caught up in their trap.


BTW: I notice you often say, "I apologize" in your posts. You have no reason to apologize.

Meek is not weakness.



posted on Nov, 19 2013 @ 07:13 AM
link   

windword
reply to post by Pinke
 

What is a "lawful" killing, according to the God of the Old Testament?

Hiya Windword,

I don't particularly disagree, I also find the Christian's God morality questionable, and I still hold my Atheist membership card and intend to renew my membership for 2014.

The point regarding the meaning of the word 'killing' in Hebrew isn't related to morality, it's related to the internal consistency of the bible. I think if you're going to criticize any belief you have to do it from a position of understanding that belief. We both may agree God's actions are immoral, but the wording of the ten commandments would not condemn those actions as they are God's laws or 'lawful killings'.

For me I suppose that part of it doesn't seem to matter. It seems to me that biblical morality isn't particularly special, consistent or not.

This especially jumps out when referencing temporary laws or instructions such as in the OP. To me this implies the same moral relativism that secular moralists are accused of. Even if I agree that secular morality cannot judge God's morality (I don't) it still doesn't explain the inconsistencies.

Why were no preemptive deadlines placed on these temporary laws? Why haven't they been updated? God moves in mysterious ways they say, but so too does culture and society. Why does the biblical God follow the exact same trends that we would expect any law or moral creating system to follow?

I suppose the belief is that God knows all, and therefore knows exactly what to do or say to produce the correct result, but that just gives God the excuse to make absolutely no sense what so ever. Evil happens? Free will aka our fault. Message doesn't make sense? Mysterious ways aka our fault. Flood? Our fault. Person nailed to cross? Our fault. Imperfect world? Our fault.

The freewill belief doesn't go far in my mind either since tempting a living creature with eternal life doesn't appear to be allowing that freewill to blossom in my mind. To offer eternal life whilst making this current life as confusing and difficult as possible just seems cruel and unusual.

Any monotheistic religion made by an infinite intelligence should make instant sense at all times unless that God is intentionally being confusing. If that God is intentionally being confusing, then I won't recognize them as God. Arrogant? Maybe, but I'd devote my life to attempting to understand such a being if I thought it existed.



posted on Nov, 19 2013 @ 08:02 AM
link   
reply to post by SaturnFX
 


There was no sacrifice. There was a transmutation.



posted on Nov, 19 2013 @ 08:02 AM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 


I think we all need to be retrospective with anything historical.

2300 years ago, we were all bumbling idiots...but maybe one was a bit smarter that those at that time and tried to guide others?

RIP Moses



posted on Nov, 19 2013 @ 08:05 AM
link   
reply to post by Fraudfinder
 


If that's the case, why are you here? Leave us sinful blaspheming heathens to burn in peace. Sounds like a better time than listening to you.



posted on Nov, 19 2013 @ 08:12 AM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 



Just as we (I would hope) would not steal from a Salvation Army kettle because it goes against our very being, so God would not create a moral law against His own being.


But making the epitome of all evil and sending it to earth was perfectly acceptable? Creating an angel he knew would turn evil? Giving birth to Satan? Giving the prince of darkness dominion over the creatures he was so jealous of was a logical and moral course of action? Us humans were the reason he fell to begin with. Then he gets cast out of heaven to spend the remainder of his years with the creatures he was so disgusted with. But clearly, God does not commit to sources of action which violate his own nature.

Think again, Charles. If bad ideas were an artform, God would be Da Vinci or Michelangelo.
edit on 19-11-2013 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 19 2013 @ 08:38 AM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 



I notice you haven't lost your talent with words, ol' STD. (Wait a minute. That's not going to work as an abbreviation. Oooops. Sorry.)

And you haven't lost your sense of humor. LOL!


For the first time ever on ATS I feel a little smug. I think I answered your question before I even heard it. Excuse me while I polish my fingernails on my shirtfront. If you find some fault with my analogy to the released prisoner, I'd be pleased to hear about it. I don't want to go around with bad ideas.

Again that wit. lol. I'm not here to find fault. The analogy works for what it is meant to convey.


You're absolutely right about His complete fulfillment of the law. We are no longer slaves to it. I hope you'll forgive me, but I know almost nothing about Fundamentalist beliefs on this, or any other religious or spiritual question. After at least a couple of decades poking around here and there, I finally settled on Catholicism and I'm still very content with it. Granted, I don't know it as well as I should, but that's my fault not the Church's.

You answered everything I asked and more. Thank you.



posted on Nov, 19 2013 @ 09:22 AM
link   
reply to post by charles1952

Dear Charles,
It is so refreshing to see a meaningful thread in the forum. To be honest, I'd nearly given up on the topic. Thank you, dear Charles, for creating a thread with some substance! I didn't see it until this morning, and it's already 3 pages long; you see how thirsty we "thinkers" were for something new to chew on?

I've read through all of it (though I'm sure more posts will be coming while I'm composing this one)...I am not an OT expert, by any means, but I'd like to address the main points and some of the views that you and others have already included...and maybe some thoughts of my own.

I'm trying to look at the big picture, and my questions are much the same as yours.
As for Cogito's remark, I can certainly understand the contempt or disdain that one feels when "meeting" this 'God' via interpretation of a collection of ancient writings, and as you may recall, I'm stuck at the point where translations and versions and interpretations of dead languages merge.

I study many things, but my main "filter" for this lifetime is language: its uses, its evolution, its imperfections and levels of nuance and clarity. All my life I've been like this. Words, words, words...

Having said that, I don't think ANY of the Bible versions are likely to be actual 'documentary evidence', so I will address what I understand of the OT 'God' just as I would (and do) all characters from literature, movies, real-life interactions, etc. I hope that is an acceptable way to address your thoughts.
 


One of the main purposes of these laws was to keep the Israelites identifiable and separate from their neighbors. God had set them aside to be a special people dedicated to Him, and things like scraggly beards were simple ways of doing that. Other laws, such as the dietary and health laws also served to re-emphasize the distinction between pure and impure.

Why would an all-knowing 'God', who sees into the hearts and minds and truth of EVERYTHING he 'created', not be able to tell his 'chosen people' apart from the riffraff? This, to me, sounds like a way for human rulers and law enforcement personnel to know who is in their jurisdiction, much like orange jumpsuits, or school uniforms. Does this facial hair 'law' mean that 'God' will only pay attention to those who dress in the proper manner for him to identify them? Like a school principal? Like a prison warden?

I find it lame to think that 'God' wouldn't be able to tell them apart - would just "know" which were his class - and for that reason, I reject the OT God. Not as a bumbling, primitive idiot, but as an "invisible boss" who is paranoid, narcissistic, mentally unstable, and psychopathic. With huge control-freak issues. And in any case, I do not believe that 'God' is a PERSON, with human characteristics.

When I was a working as an educator in the public school, and in the role of counselor, I knew the kids. I knew them personally. I didn't have them wear special shirts or buzz-cuts; I feel that each of us, having a personal body to move us around and experience this world, are intended to represent our uniqueness in whatever ways we can. Dress and grooming are personal choices. They reflect our inner selves to the outside world, visually (and sometimes audially - such as wearing jingling jewelry).

Forcing a "uniform" on someone does not "create" who they really are. Some of my favorite clients were Catholic school-girls, and they were FAR from 'angelic' - even if they WERE dressed the same as their cohorts. I think we do a disservice to people who are disallowed from expressing themselves visually. It would make 'God''s job harder if we all looked identical, like bees in a hive.

No. The only logical reason for imposing uniforms and dress codes is to identify who belongs where, or to represent an umbrella organization. No omniscient 'God' would require such a thing. ONLY RULERS and human leaders, whether nuns in a local school, or gang-bangers who run with Crips but not Bloods, need 'uniforms' to identify their 'chosen people.' It is purely a human construct. NOT divine ordinance.

And here I've burned up bandwidth just addressing the FIRST of your points about the law.

I will address the others, too, if you like. I have more thoughts....
Sorry for being so longwinded on this one.

Fondly,
wildtimes



posted on Nov, 19 2013 @ 09:29 AM
link   
I have a question that isn't worth creating an entirely new thread for...

I was just informed that, apparently, in the first century, "virgin birth" meant that the child was born of a woman's first-ever sexual intercourse. Basically, the act of taking her virginity produces a child, and that child is classified as having had a "virgin birth". Is there any truth to this statement?
edit on 19-11-2013 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
15
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join