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

reply to post by RevelationGeneration

Repent of your blasphemy Charles or you will be crushed like powder on judgement day for your wickedness and pride.

Sounds like pride talking, to me. Aren't wrath, pride, and lust all sins? And yet here you demonstrate a prideful lust for wrath. If you were standing on a cloud watching all the sinners burning on earth, would it thrill you? Would you take pleasure from that sight?

WarminIndy
The other day another Christian jumped on me, telling me and FlyersFan that we aren't Christians either...

Self righteous, judgmental, sick people. Totally missing the message Jesus gave.


As to your comment about Catholics and confession ....
Catholics confess to God on their own, but also with a priest at 'confession'.
Confession is still confessing to God ... but there is someone there to help.
And frankly, I"ve found going to confession to be VERY helpful.
In a good confession, the priest will go through the 10 commandments and
the two 'jesus commandments' (love god and neighbor) ... and talk about
WHY the person might have slipped up and sinned ...
The confession is still to God, but it's like getting a Christian psychologist
to help figure things out and to find ways to deal with situations so as
not to sin. I give a GOOD Confession a double thumbs up. And I'm sure
it makes God happy to see people confessing their sins to him AND trying
to do better by talking things over with the priest so that they can try
different ways to stop sinning.

AfterInfinity
reply to post by RevelationGeneration

 

Repent of your blasphemy Charles or you will be crushed like powder on judgement day for your wickedness and pride.

Sounds like pride talking, to me. Aren't wrath, pride, and lust all sins? And yet here you demonstrate a prideful lust for wrath. If you were standing on a cloud watching all the sinners burning on earth, would it thrill you? Would you take pleasure from that sight?

edit on 21-11-2013 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)

Well, the seven deadly sins aren't preached to protestants.....

Only Catholics get the seven deadly sins sermons. LOL.

Some Protestants are predestined, so that means all the other Protestants are not predestined.

Which I am protesting...I protest that some people are predestined. I am Protestant, so I am allowed to protest...lol.

WarminIndy

AfterInfinity
reply to post by RevelationGeneration

 

Repent of your blasphemy Charles or you will be crushed like powder on judgement day for your wickedness and pride.

Sounds like pride talking, to me. Aren't wrath, pride, and lust all sins? And yet here you demonstrate a prideful lust for wrath. If you were standing on a cloud watching all the sinners burning on earth, would it thrill you? Would you take pleasure from that sight?

edit on 21-11-2013 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)

Well, the seven deadly sins aren't preached to protestants.....

Only Catholics get the seven deadly sins sermons. LOL.

Some Protestants are predestined, so that means all the other Protestants are not predestined.

Which I am protesting...I protest that some people are predestined. I am Protestant, so I am allowed to protest...lol.

...and that, is beautiful piece of origami!

Excellent...

Å99

reply to post by RevelationGeneration

Dear RevelationGeneration,

I must apologize for causing scandal in your mind. (Under some circumstances, causing scandal is a sin.) I assume you are a Christian. Given that, I would have hoped that you would have confronted me privately with my offense. But perhaps there is some educational value to discussing it in public.

On reading your complaint, I thought you were reacting to my title, but:

I bet you haven't even read the Old Testament. Cherry picking verses does nothing but prove your ignorance.

seems to indicate it was something else that concerned you. May I ask what it was?

Oh, by the way, there is no need for me to prove my ignorance, I freely admit it. I'm ashamed that I know as little as I do.

I'm curious, can one blaspheme unintentionally? I didn't think that a sin could be committed without intent, and I certainly have no intention of ever speaking against God, Jesus, or the Holy Spirit.

Repent of your blasphemy Charles

Can one honestly repent of a sin which he doesn't believe he has committed? I wouldn't think so.

or you will be crushed like powder on judgement day for your wickedness and pride.

That, of course, is what I deserve, but I have faith In Jesus and his Resurrection, and the love and mercy of the Father.

I will discuss this with you further if you wish, either publicly or privately. It's important that we know our faults and weaknesses. Some people in this thread have suggested that you might have a flaw in your makeup. Please, at least consider the possibility that they are seeing something which you are not able to.

With respect,
Charles1952

superman2012
reply to post by charles1952

superman
Wouldn't it make more sense to convert them? I wonder what the "other practices" are and if any of them are practiced today? Should we still destroy these people or their descendants? If He didn't want His people to be influenced by the others, what does that say about His creation? Imperfect or He wasn't sure what they would do. Finally, the biggest flaw I see in organized Religion is, why would God make people with souls? Why have those souls inhabit bodies only to die later and join him in Heaven? Why not just keep them in Heaven? There is no point to it unless we are just bags of meat.

God particalized/divided itself in to soul groups individual (sparks) to experience gross matter in as many human forms, (I hear 3 trillion individualized) as possible without loosing 51 percent ownership of its own energetic content. Not to disinfranchise the animals as well just a lower or smaller piece of energy; and then animated it with radiation. God did not make people with souls, the soul spark enters the body at birth (that soul maybe thousands of years old waiting to occupy that particular human meatsack again) depends on the genetics or its goal; an individual souls progress/to starve to death in somalia for some). Have you ever been to the non-physical world of nothingness existing other than eternal bliss and LOVE? ITS BORING after a time and you will want change (the excitement of knowing you are going to die after a certain point of being born). Knowing you are going to have adrenal glands helps, EMOTION! (not available in the other bliss).

reply to post by charles1952

Oh, by the way, there is no need for me to prove my ignorance, I freely admit it. I'm ashamed that I know as little as I do.

Charles.

We all know better than that.
Charles...please stop selling yourself short.

EDIT:
Make no mistake, I really admire your style.

charles1952

charles1952
This thread is dedicated, with thanks, to Cogito, Ergo Sum, and his post claiming that the God of the Old Testament is a bumbling, primitive, idiot who cannot be worshiped by any sane human.

Obviously the formulators, (infinate wisdomers for future generations SELECTION COMMITEE) scribes, and those having to disemenate this sacred text info neglected to realise this. Times change. The Bible was supposed to address two things that human nature could respond to or understand.

THE BLATENTLY LITERAL TRANSLATION OF; and if so the ability by those in power (THAT COULD ACTUALLY READ and had access to the texts via their scribes (monks) to use it as a sword of Gods judicial punishment for/toward the illiterate or the percieved lawless. I guess Roman occupation wasnt cutting it.

OR THIS:
THE ALLOWANCE OF A MORE REASONABLE ABSTRACT TRANSLATION OF; as in "a reasonable interpretation", individualized to the educated or spiritual reader; poetic and maluable: in order to let it answer questions for you as you see fit, AN ORACLE of sorts; and if someone in the village actually had one of these "town hall meetings filled with incitefull discussion".

I wonder what Jesus or John the Babtist would think about this missive and how it has reshaped or blasphemised the 'kingdom' they thought were creating (one of God not Mans usership of). Not much probably, I know what Jesus would say, "WHERE ARE THE GNOSTIC TEXTS". John would say "where is Herod and his bitch of a wife Salome where is my head and I need a pro-bono lawyer". Two thousand years later in this time frame? its a miracle these texts are still being discussed of as if at all relevant. I know, you are going to say this "because they are important lies we must continue to heed, believe or discount".
For me its all a great waste of time and energy; to keep you from discovering your inner truth. Machievelian.

wildtimes
reply to post by charles1952

 

Oh, by the way, there is no need for me to prove my ignorance, I freely admit it. I'm ashamed that I know as little as I do.

Charles.

We all know better than that.
Charles...please stop selling yourself short.

EDIT:
Make no mistake, I really admire your style.

edit on 11/21/13 by wildtimes because: (no reason given)

Self-deprecation is attractive...

Å99

reply to post by charles1952


Gonna have to agree with Wild here...

Don't let that dude bother ya... Everyone is a sinner and condemned to burn in the deepest pits of hell in his little mind... except him of course

IF theres people like him in heaven... Give me a one way ticket to hell

reply to post by vethumanbeing

Dear vethumanbeing,

I may be misunderstanding some of your writing. May I tell you what I think you're saying, then you can correct me as necessary?

1.) The Bible was designed to control the behavior of people.

Isn't there always something that is used to control the behavior of the people? Laws, social pressures, traditions? And I don't think it was designed to do that. The Jews could read the Old Testament, but it certainly wasn't part of a plan to control large groups of people, just one, insignificant tribe.

The New Testament is a collection of books and letters written by various people and circulated around the Christian community for quite some time. Eventually, some of those books were declared authentic, but no one wrote any at the last minute to impose government control.

Indeed, the Roman government was persecuting Christians as early as 100-120 A.D. The idea that the Romans wrote the Bible to control people, then punished those who believed in it, makes no sense to me.

2.) The Bible is reaaly a collection of words, like tarot cards, and one should read into the words the answers to questions as you see fit.

This notion of using the Bible as an "Oracle" would not have been considered possible by the Jews of that period. Besides, it makes little logical sense. If the Bible is poetic and malleable, and the interpretation is individualized as one sees fit, it's really pretty worthless.

The Bible says something definite, whether it fits with our beliefs or not. Perhaps some cultural or linguistic interpretation is possible, but not, "It means what you want it to mean."

Two thousand years later in this time frame? its a miracle these texts are still being discussed of as if at all relevant.

Exactly, that's just one of the miracles associated with God.

You think that Jesus believes we have reshaped and blasphemed His religion? How could you know unless you relied on the Bible to see what kind of religion he had in mind? Besides, if anything's gone wrong, talk to Jesus about it. It's His own fault, He gave Peter the Keys of the Kingdom and told him "Feed My Sheep."

For me its all a great waste of time and energy; to keep you from discovering your inner truth.

And what in the world is my personal, inner truth? Truth is truth. Inner truth is truth, outer truth is truth. Does inner truth contradict outer truth? If so, one of them isn't truth. (And I know where I'm placing my bet.)

With respect,
Charles1952

charles1952
It seems to be that none of these have been shown to be valid objections to the argument that God, Jesus' Father, was the God of the Old Testament. Further the charges of idiocy, bumbling, bloodthirstiness, and nonexistence have been met with plausible answers and can not be declared to be proven.

While the arguments may not change opinions. It is certainly possible for a Christian to hold to the traditional understanding of the Father without resorting to fantasy, lies, or flawed logic. While I might not be the most unbiased judge, I dismiss Cogito, Ergo Sum's charges as unproven.

That's the thing I suppose ...

Over time its gone from God being the only possible and logical answer, to being a likely answer, to now we're saying that you're not flawed or crazy for entertaining the possibility.

Is not really something I need to restate too strongly, because am fairly certain we both remember our positions, but it still seems to me that religion is excess to the explanations required for what happens on a day to day basis.

reply to post by Pinke

Dear Pinke,

Wonderful post! Brava! Author!

You had a point to make, you made it quickly and cleanly (something I wish I could do), without insult or rancor, and it's provable in some cases. Nicely done.

I'm not quite sure I agree with what I think your conclusion is, but I'd certainly like to explore with you for a while.

First, my approach. I started faced with Cogito, Ergo Sum's claim about the Old Testament God, which included the charge that no sane person could believe in Him. My purpose was to challenge that claim, it's one I've heard before. In a sense then, you're noting that I didn't prove that God is the only possible answer, or even a likely answer. You're quite right, I didn't. Then again, I wasn't trying to.

But look at the things I'm supposed to be defending. Is God the only possible and logical answer? Well, Science has been trying to find the answers for a long time, and they haven't come up with any natural explanation. Various ideas and possibilities have been suggested, but for reasons I've mentioned before, Science is unable to make a determination of the issue.

Certainly, scientists can say, "Well, what if such and such happened? That may be a way the universe could have been created." But no experiment can ever say, "That is the way it was created." So Science gives us no natural explanation, and can never prove any of their possibilities. It shouldn't be surprising that the answer is found outside of nature. Since whatever it is created Nature, it really does deserve to be called "supernatural." And from here we start getting into a discussion of what the characteristics of this supernatural force are.

This could get very lengthy, so I'll just say that I don't think the theological position has changed, but whether individuals accept that or not is yet another question.

but it still seems to me that religion is excess to the explanations required for what happens on a day to day basis.

That's a position that intrigues me as well. Assume for a moment, that all there is, is nature. Things happen on a day to day basis, but why? The laws of nature can't cause anything to happen. If you drop a rock, the laws of nature say it will fall, but the laws of nature will not tell you how you came to pick up the rock and decided to let it fall. Nature can only say, "If such and so happens this is the result." But it won't pick up the rock and drop it. What then is the cause of the first event? It couldn't have been nature. All of today's happenings have an earlier cause.

Again, Pinke, thank you very much. But be careful, many more of those posts and I'll be adding you to the group which contains wildtimes, windword, 1yearning2bfree, and Littled16.

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by FlyersFan

The confession is still to God, but it's like getting a Christian psychologist
to help figure things out and to find ways to deal with situations so as
not to sin. I give a GOOD Confession a double thumbs up.

I'm very glad to hear there are competent confessors for parishioners to access. As you know, the process you described is very much psychotherapy; it's the same thing we do in clinical practice, we just don't include "God" in the formula UNLESS THE CLIENT WANTS TO.

The point is to understand WHY we behave the way we do, and to learn better ways of coping with life than those that seem to be self-defeating.

(This for the benefit of others, FF, I know you are aware of the process).

That said,
I would not recommend a 12-step program for everyone. It works for some people, and not for others. One has to begin where the client IS, after all, and try to help them figure out a manner of decision/choice-making that fits how they WANT TO BE. Which is UP TO THEM.

reply to post by wildtimes


I don't exactly appreciate the 12-step system for one very simple reason: it teaches adherents that they, by themselves, have no power and no hope. They have to have a higher power in order to have any chance of recovery or whatever they're trying to achieve. I don't agree with that.

AfterInfinity
reply to post by wildtimes

 

I don't exactly appreciate the 12-step system for one very simple reason: it teaches adherents that they, by themselves, have no power and no hope. They have to have a higher power in order to have any chance of recovery or whatever they're trying to achieve. I don't agree with that.

Well AfterInfinity, didn't they have the power to pick up the alcohol in the first place?

Cause and effect, AfterInfinity, cause and effect. Take responsibility for actions, and that's what AA also teaches.

reply to post by WarminIndy

Well AfterInfinity, didn't they have the power to pick up the alcohol in the first place?

Cause and effect, AfterInfinity, cause and effect. Take responsibility for actions, and that's what AA also teaches.

You missed my point yet again. The 12-step system teaches that you can't do it yourself, that ultimately, you are the weakest link in the equation. Personally, I feel the person doing the recovering or whatever is the most powerful player in the game, given that they alone have the power to make it or break it. And this doesn't just apply to recovery or rehabilitation. In each of our lives, we alone have the power to make it or break it.

reply to post by charles1952


Charles1952 I made a mistake. I reacted to the title without reading the first post.

May God richly bless you and sorry if I caused offense.

~RG~

I raised this point in another thread:

Member: "And your argument against the concept of 'anthropomorphic deity as an 'intelligent designer' and all-powerful, being of the universe' is?"

Me: "Oh, that's easy. If everyone in the world who currently believes in your god suddenly and inexplicably died, would your god continue to exist? Or would he/she/it die with you?

The theory being that if your god exists independently of its believers, the loss of its believers wouldn't destroy it. In fact, the loss of all of its believers would provide ample reason to reinstate its presence on earth, thereby forcing it to either forfeit the world or reveal its hand. But if your god is an invention of those who believe in it, then removing the believers removes the god.

See? Logic."

I thought it was worth mentioning.

AfterInfinity
I raised this point in another thread:

Member: "And your argument against the concept of 'anthropomorphic deity as an 'intelligent designer' and all-powerful, being of the universe' is?"

Me: "Oh, that's easy. If everyone in the world who currently believes in your god suddenly and inexplicably died, would your god continue to exist? Or would he/she/it die with you?

The theory being that if your god exists independently of its believers, the loss of its believers wouldn't destroy it. In fact, the loss of all of its believers would provide ample reason to reinstate its presence on earth, thereby forcing it to either forfeit the world or reveal its hand. But if your god is an invention of those who believe in it, then removing the believers removes the god.

See? Logic."

I thought it was worth mentioning.

Wasn't that part of my reply to you in another thread?

Do you believe the planet earth existed before you were born and will it be here after you die? Your believing in planet earth has no bearing on its existence either. It was here before you, it is here presently and it will be here after you die. Logic then dictates that your belief in planet earth makes no difference to its existence.