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
4 months ago#41
dhalsimrocks posted...
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.


Here is some that include most other ancient religions, and thanks to all the contradictions in scriptures, you should recognize that the myths were written just to enhance what they say as the search for God. God defined as the best rules and laws to live by.

I have that link in with other information that bolsters my position. You will have to suffer through it.

I hope you can see how intelligent the ancients were as compared to the mental trash that modern preachers and theists are using with the literal reading of myths.

https://bigthink.com/videos/what-is-god-2-2

Further.
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/03132009/watch.html

Rabbi Hillel, the older contemporary of Jesus, said that when asked to sum up the whole of Jewish teaching, while he stood on one leg, said, "The Golden Rule. That which is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor. That is the Torah. And everything else is only commentary. Now, go and study it."

Please listen as to what is said about the literal reading of myths.

"Origen, the great second or third century Greek commentator on the Bible said that it is absolutely impossible to take these texts literally. You simply cannot do so. And he said, "God has put these sort of conundrums and paradoxes in so that we are forced to seek a deeper meaning."

Matt 7;12 So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.

This is how early Gnostic Christians view the transition from reading myths properly to destructive literal reading and idol worship.

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

Regards
DL

User Info: GnosticBishop

GnosticBishop
4 months ago#42
TurtleInFreedom posted...
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?


How can you think a genocidal son murdering God, --- who admits to being a sinner, --- is not a sinner?

Are we talking about the same Yahweh. This one?

https://vimeo.com/7038401

Regards
DL

User Info: keybladesrus

keybladesrus
4 months ago#43
dhalsimrocks posted...
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.

Couldn't have said it better myself.
The Most Astounding Fact - Neil deGrasse Tyson:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9D05ej8u-gU

User Info: PokemonExpert44

PokemonExpert44
4 months ago#44
keybladesrus posted...
dhalsimrocks posted...
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.

Couldn't have said it better myself.


0/10 for both posts here
I might just 6-0 you in Pokemon. Watch out for my teams.

User Info: OrangeWizard

OrangeWizard
4 months ago#45
dhalsimrocks posted...

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


The source says that Jephthah worshiped Jehovah, and part of worshipping Jehovah is to follow the Law, and the Law forbids human sacrifice, so I think it's pretty reasonable to conclude that he did know that.

But by all means, the source does not explicitly say "Jephthah knew that".


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.


I'm just going by what the bible says.

I find it hypocritical of you to accuse me of "assuming what you want to be true and working your way backwards, making things fit by proof-texting from other sources.", while you bring up the documentary hypothesis and make claims what certain verses were shoved in from the future.


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


Then I will say that it is not only "probable", but that it is the correct translation of the word. Excuse me for using passive language.


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.


And she doesn't say that she will *die* a virgin. "You're inserting something into the text that isn't there". Again, hypocritical.

User Info: dhalsimrocks

dhalsimrocks
4 months ago#46
OrangeWizard posted...
I'm just going by what the bible says.

What the bible says is exactly what is up for question here. The problem is a huge difference in starting assumptions and methodology. For example...

I find it hypocritical of you to accuse me of "assuming what you want to be true and working your way backwards, making things fit by proof-texting from other sources.", while you bring up the documentary hypothesis and make claims what certain verses were shoved in from the future.

This isn't some fringe theory or even working backwards. This is a widely accepted text-critical hypothesis that makes a lot more sense of the text as we have it than assuming that it is a unified writing by people who all had the same beliefs. There are many indicators that author or authors of Deuteronomy through 2 Kings were writing much later than the authors of parts of Genesis, Exodus and Numbers. Anachronism, linguistic differences, common phrase and contradictions and references to known events or awareness of other sources.

The simplest of all is the one that probably has the most resistance from believers. There are parts of these texts that are obvious nods to later events or even outright predictions. What is more likely? Supernatural foreknowledge or that whoever wrote it already knew what happened?

Given the fact that we know that people for thousands of years have authored works in which descriptions of current or past events are placed in the mouths of earlier people as prophecy or cautionary tales, the claimant of genuine prophecy and foreknowledge has a much more difficult burden of proof.

This is how history works. Rather than asking if a document is true, or how the document could be interpreted to make it true, historians attempt to find the most likely explanation for the existence of the document. To develop the hypotheses, a large number of factors have to be considered, including independent, external corroborating evidence, common types of writings, themes, literary devices, genres, the writings of surrounding cultures or previous cultures, language and a variety of textual criticism techniques.

So when a prophecy shows up in an ancient text, no matter where it came from, given the known tendency for ancient (and not-so-ancient) authors to create these sorts of writings, this has to be considered a plausible if not likely explanation for the existence of any prophetic writing in the Bible, including the passages that indicate Deuteronomy was written a lot later.

And she doesn't say that she will *die* a virgin. "You're inserting something into the text that isn't there". Again, hypocritical.

Burnt offerings generally die. Jephthah promised to do that. But I don't think any of it actually happened, and that it is an etiological tale that serves to explain the origin of a tradition. These were pretty common in the Ancient Near East and Mediterranean.

This is not hypocrisy. It is a very large gulf in methodology.
May all your disgraces be private

User Info: OrangeWizard

OrangeWizard
4 months ago#47
Your methodology may be fine in a history class, but not when we're arguing under the assumption that God exists, and that the bible is "God's Word".

TC seems, to me, to be saying "Assuming God exists, and does X, Y, and Z, isn't that evil?"
I don't see how bringing up the documentary hypothesis helps to answer that question.

That would be like someone saying "Isn't this a cruel thing for Wolverine to do? How can the other X-Men stand to associate with him after that?" And then someone else comes in and says "Psh, the author just didn't understand the character and the world enough to write a story that wasn't filled with holes", without attempting to give an in-universe explanation. This critic would be missing the point of the question asked.

User Info: Janitor

Janitor
4 months ago#48
dhalsimrocks posted...
There are parts of these texts that are obvious nods to later events or even outright predictions. What is more likely? Supernatural foreknowledge or that whoever wrote it already knew what happened

I agree with you on the documentary hypothesis, but I'm with OrangeWizard on this one: in a conversation where at least one participant believes in the existence of an all-powerful, all-knowing deity, you can't argue that prophecy is unlikely.
Member of SEM
  1. Boards
  2. Religion
  3. Isn't God the villain of the bible?
  • Topic Archived