This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

  • Topic Archived
You're browsing the GameFAQs Message Boards as a guest. Sign Up for free (or Log In if you already have an account) to be able to post messages, change how messages are displayed, and view media in posts.
  1. Boards
  2. Religion
  3. Isn't God the villain of the bible?

User Info: GnosticBishop

GnosticBishop
3 months ago#31
TurtleInFreedom posted...
The book of Job deals with this very question, and the lesson that Job learns is that there is no other higher moral authority that can judge God because He's the most righteous one there is. Job tries to bring God into 'court' for his suffering but realizes that no one can judge God, therefore in the process of clearing his name, Job technically sins but also repents because of his spiritual and moral oversight.


No higher moral authority than a God who admits to being a sinner and doing harm without a just cause. How droll.

Why would you think an admitted sinner to be our highest moral authority?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u2jqT9poLHw

Regards
DL

User Info: Janitor

Janitor
3 months ago#32
GnosticBishop posted...
Janitor posted...
I disagree with Satanism's view that revenge is a good thing,


I do not know the context you saw for that but if it was speaking against the turn the other cheek thing, then I would agree with them.

The main moral tenet people use is some kind of reciprocity or harm/care response.

If the notion that to reward good, is good, then reciprocity also says that when evil is done to you, you should return that harm in kind. To not do so is to reward evil and that is not what moral people should do as it encourages evil works.

The main reason I shun Satanism is that I see her as a fictitious biblical character and not religion should be based on some supernatural fantasy character.

Regards
DL


It's #5 of the Nine Satanic Statements at the very beginning of the Satanic Bible.

I don't think it's good to let someone walk all over you, but you can stand up for yourself and for others without it being vengeance. I'm with the Stoics on this: teach the person to be better rather than trying to inflict pain on them.
Member of SEM

User Info: dhalsimrocks

dhalsimrocks
3 months ago#33
GnosticBishop posted...

I repeat. There are no supernatural beliefs in Gnostic Christianity. Gnosis means knowledge, not supernatural garbage. Sure, we put tons of supernatural into our myths, but only fools read myths literally.

Here is what we think of Jesus.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oR02ciandvg&feature=BFa&list=PLCBF574D

I have more proof if required, but if you cannot believe what this Gnostic Christian tells you about his religion and beliefs, you may as well ignore mer.

Regards
DL


I don't doubt that this is true of you and modern Gnostics, but I think you have a burden of proof to show that ancient Gnostics were the same.
May all your disgraces be private

User Info: TurtleInFreedom

TurtleInFreedom
3 months ago#34
GnosticBishop posted...
TurtleInFreedom posted...
The book of Job deals with this very question, and the lesson that Job learns is that there is no other higher moral authority that can judge God because He's the most righteous one there is. Job tries to bring God into 'court' for his suffering but realizes that no one can judge God, therefore in the process of clearing his name, Job technically sins but also repents because of his spiritual and moral oversight.


No higher moral authority than a God who admits to being a sinner and doing harm without a just cause. How droll.

Why would you think an admitted sinner to be our highest moral authority?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u2jqT9poLHw

Regards
DL


Why do you think God is a sinner? Wasnt he crucified because hes the cleanest out of the all of us?

User Info: dhalsimrocks

dhalsimrocks
3 months ago#35
Do we have reasons for believing that this daughter was devoted to service in the temple? Yes. 1) This was explicitly condemned by the law, and Jephthah well knew that

The source doesn't say Jephthah knew that. You're inserting something into the text that isn't there.

2) There is a precedent of people being devoted to service this way in the case of Samuel

A source that was written much later during the Deuteronomic reform where this sort of condemnation is expected.

Do we have reasons for believing that she was literally burned to death, besides "I don't think a simile was used here"? Would taking this interpretation lead to contradictions with other verses?

That's not how textual criticism works. You're assuming what you want to be true and working your way backwards, making things fit by proof-texting from other sources.

This practice, under another name (or the same name in some translations), is also mentioned and condemned in Leviticus 20:2-5. and Leveiticus 18:21

Yet again, another later source (the Priestly author), possible even later than the Deuteronomic texts. It would be no surprise at all to find this practice condemned in Priestly sources, yet retrojected into the past to give the law an ancient origin and thus more authority.

The word for "lament" can also mean commend, celebrate: https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H8567&t=KJV

So it's possible that they didn't lament her, but visited her and commended her.

Possible does not mean probable, and this is another fallacious method used in apologetics, if not the one used more than any other.

Also, Jephthah was grief stricken because this was his only daughter. He had no sons. His bloodline would end with her. Note too, that, in verse 37, she wept for her virginity, not for her life.

It's just as easy to argue the opposite here, that this description of his grief if far more probable on the hypothesis that he is obliged to offer her as a burned sacrifice (the exact words he uses), and that she is lamenting that she will *die* a virgin, not just that she is one. Again, possible does not mean probable.

I did a little more digging on this passage and think the best explanation for it is as an etiological myth explaining the origin of a yearly women's rite of passage tradition where they mourned the death of their virginity as they come of marriageable age.
May all your disgraces be private

User Info: keybladesrus

keybladesrus
3 months ago#36
This whole topic is an example of why I don't (and can't) trust religion. For such a "perfect" book, the Bible sure has a lot of incompatible interpretations. Its own followers can't even agree on it, so you end up with thousands of different denominations all claiming they're the right one. And that's not even taking into account all the other non-Christian religions.
The Most Astounding Fact - Neil deGrasse Tyson:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9D05ej8u-gU

User Info: TyVulpine

TyVulpine
3 months ago#37
keybladesrus posted...
This whole topic is an example of why I don't (and can't) trust religion. For such a "perfect" book, the Bible sure has a lot of incompatible interpretations. Its own followers can't even agree on it, so you end up with thousands of different denominations all claiming they're the right one. And that's not even taking into account all the other non-Christian religions.

Bingo. The odds of the religion/sect one just happened to born into of being the “right” one is virtually zero. If any god actually exists, that is. (And a book written centuries ago by sheepherders is not irrefutable proof)
Fall down, go boom...
Life is like a box of chocolates. Most of it is crap.

User Info: Hustle Kong

Hustle Kong
3 months ago#38
keybladesrus posted...
all claiming they're the right one.


Wouldn’t that be a better reason for not trusting people?
Shooting Game never die.
It prays that the clover of luck be always in your mind.

User Info: dhalsimrocks

dhalsimrocks
3 months ago#39
Hustle Kong posted...
keybladesrus posted...
all claiming they're the right one.


Wouldn’t that be a better reason for not trusting people?

I'm assuming that what you mean here is that it's a reason to not trust people, rather than not trusting religion. I get the sentiment there, but I'm not sure I agree.

I think such a situation (numerous variations making a claim to have the truth) is a symptom of a fundamental problem with the evidence used to establish the claims, and of the claims themselves.

I think the biggest problem of all is the unfalsifiability of almost all of the fundamental claims of religions, at least those of the Abrahamic lineage. The existence of an afterlife, a Heaven, a Hell, invisible and undetectable supernatural entities like angels and demons, souls and spirits, the efficacy of prayer, personal experiences, claims of future events, the invisibility of god(s) or his existence "outside space and time".

None of these things are falsifiable, which means anybody can make various claims about them and never be proven wrong.

Then there are the number of things that are unfalsifiable and entirely up to an interpretation of ancient text. The existence of the Trinity, how much of the Torah to follow, works vs faith, acceptable baptism, end times, speaking in tongues, holiness and purity doctrines, church authority, etc.

None of those are falsifiable either, other than pointing to the text and saying, "See, this supports my claim". But there's no way to weed out the wrong hypotheses, since every denomination can develop internally consistent frameworks that support their claims.

Even if one of them happens to be right, there's no way to know and the probability of any one of them being the right one is very low. As such, I think that makes religions of this nature inherently untrustworthy.
May all your disgraces be private

User Info: GnosticBishop

GnosticBishop
3 months ago#40
Janitor posted...
GnosticBishop posted...
Janitor posted...
I disagree with Satanism's view that revenge is a good thing,


I do not know the context you saw for that but if it was speaking against the turn the other cheek thing, then I would agree with them.

The main moral tenet people use is some kind of reciprocity or harm/care response.

If the notion that to reward good, is good, then reciprocity also says that when evil is done to you, you should return that harm in kind. To not do so is to reward evil and that is not what moral people should do as it encourages evil works.

The main reason I shun Satanism is that I see her as a fictitious biblical character and not religion should be based on some supernatural fantasy character.

Regards
DL


It's #5 of the Nine Satanic Statements at the very beginning of the Satanic Bible.

I don't think it's good to let someone walk all over you, but you can stand up for yourself and for others without it being vengeance. I'm with the Stoics on this: teach the person to be better rather than trying to inflict pain on them.


Correction is always painful. All you can do is try to reduce the level of the vengeance and pain.

Vengeance is often the loving thing to use if you think in terms of correcting poor behavior.

I do not think we are far apart on our thinking and just see us as defining word a bit differently.

Regards
DL
  1. Boards
  2. Religion
  3. Isn't God the villain of the bible?
  • Topic Archived