The Rebellion

[Pure Argent]

It has been a central tenet of the beliefs of many members of this site that God is not real. But let's turn the debate aside from whether God exists or not for a while. Instead, let's talk about what happens if he/she/it does exist. Should we worship him?
I think not.
The God in the Christian Bible is a very angry one. He demands sacrifice of Abraham, destroys the lands of the Egyptians, causes great destruction when Jesus finally gives up the ghost, and generally kills thousands of humans in the cosmic equivalent of a temper tantrum whenever he doesn't get his way. Yet, simply because he is the keeper of Heaven, he is worshiped by thousands.
Why?
God, as portrayed in many religions, is simply the biggest, meanest possible bully of all time. He wields the carrot-and-stick system to ensure that he is never challenged. If you do as he says for ever and ever, you get Heaven. Otherwise, he sets you on fire. So join me in creating the Anti-God Rebellion!
Why should anyone worship someone this mean? Here are the arguments I can foresee being used to convince me that God is worth worshiping:

1) HE IS ALL-LOVING

:notm

Read the Old Testament.

2) HE IS THE CREATOR

So? If I created a robot, would I be justified in commanding that robot to worship me? Or, more realistically, do parents command their children to worship them?

3) HE IS ALL-POWERFUL

So he has the deific equivalent on the atomic bomb. Should we worship someone because they have bigger weapons?

4) HE GAVE US JESUS TO FORGIVE OUR SINS

He CREATED sin in the first place. That's like getting someone addicted to crack and then putting them through rehab, then saying "Hey, look what a good guy I am!"

I'll debunk others as they turn up. But for now, just know that if God shows up, I for one will be buying a shotgun and preparing to make my stand on behalf of the wronged human race.

[Delvo]

2) HE IS THE CREATOR

So? If I created a robot, would I be justified in commanding that robot to worship me? Or, more realistically, do parents command their children to worship them?Maybe they do. I'm not certain that the definition of "worship" excludes what parents, or at least some significant fraction of them, expect and demand of their children.

(I recall wondering, in church and at a private Lutheran school when I was a kid, what the meaning of "worship" was. There were lines in the ceremonies saying things like "We worship him and praise him", but I couldn't tell what that was supposed to be talking about. Is it supposed to be somehow separate from saying you're worshipping, or is saying it doing it? Is it the whole ceremony from start to finish? Is it singing the songs? Is it saying how great he is? (...redundant to "praise", but redundancy was never really avoided in Bible Babble.) Is it just thinking some kind of religious thoughts? Is it feeling an emotion? If it's either of the latter two, how do you even KNOW whether what you're thinking/feeling qualifies? If worshipping is something separate from what goes on in the weekly ceremony where we SAY we're worshipping, then what is it and how are we supposed to do it, to actually BE worshipping?...)

[MG1962]

1) HE IS ALL-LOVING

:notm

Read the Old Testament.

I guess if you intend to debate flaws in Christian theology, it might be a good idea to get a better grasp of what they actually believe, otherwise you run the risk of looking like a troll

[Marduk]

I guess if you intend to debate flaws in Christian theology, it might be a good idea to get a better grasp of what they actually believe, otherwise you run the risk of looking like a troll

And so we know and can rely on the love God has for us. God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God and God in him” (1 John 4:16).

N.B. the hallmark of a troll is that they often accuse others of being what they themselves are

[godless dave]

In addition to the moral issues you brought up, there is also a practical question. If God really exists and really is all-powerful, wouldn't self-preservation, of the mortal but especially of the immortal self, compel one to worship him? Maybe not. Maybe some would rather risk hell than bow down in submission.

But maybe God isn't as all-powerful as he claims. He sure seems touchy about people worshiping other gods, and about unapproved occult practices. Would he really be gearing up for the fight in Revelation if his victory were assured?

[godless dave]

I guess if you intend to debate flaws in Christian theology, it might be a good idea to get a better grasp of what they actually believe, otherwise you run the risk of looking like a troll

As long as Christians bundle the Old Testament with the New, I think we can reasonably assume they think the God of the Old Testament is the same God they worship.

[gnome]

I find that most Christians are somewhat selective in how they interpret the Bible/Christianity/God. Some pretend they don't and denounce others for it.

[godless dave]

I find that most Christians are somewhat selective in how they interpret the Bible/Christianity/God. Some pretend they don't and denounce others for it.

If they don't want me to assume right off the bat that they consider the Old Testament a reasonably accurate depiction of their God, then they should stop carrying it around.

[Ron_Tomkins]

I guess if you intend to debate flaws in Christian theology, it might be a good idea to get a better grasp of what they actually believe, otherwise you run the risk of looking like a troll

But God created Trolls!

[MG1962]

As long as Christians bundle the Old Testament with the New, I think we can reasonably assume they think the God of the Old Testament is the same God they worship.

Do you apply the same logic to the US Constitution?

[Cavemonster]

Think of it as a modified version of Pascal's wager. If you had absolute certainty that the god described in the bible exists, then worship would be rewarded with eternal paradise and failure to do so would be punished by eternal suffering. If this god actually existed, refusal to worship would be choosing eternal suffering, not a smart move if you ask me.

Where Pascal's wager falls down in reality is that there are an infinite number of described and describable dieties all with equal (none) evidence for them. Worship of any one would piss off at least one other one, and all the infinite values of suffering/bliss cancel each other out. If you know for certain of the existence of a particular god, that makes it a no brainer.

[Doc Daneeka]

If you know for certain of the existence of a particular god, that makes it a no brainer.

A no brainer, indeed:)

[Fnord]

Gach ... same old claims ... same old arguments ...

Can't we discuss something more important, like ... should the bog roll be mounted so that the paper drapes over the front or hangs close to the wall?

I mean, entire families have suffered over important questions like this!

[Aepervius]

Gach ... same old claims ... same old arguments ...

Can't we discuss something more important, like ... should the bog roll be mounted so that the paper drapes over the front or hangs close to the wall?

I mean, entire families have suffered over important questions like this!

The alternative we used was accordeon-type paper "sticking" out vertically from teh distributor in the middle.

[quadraginta]

Gach ... same old claims ... same old arguments ...

Can't we discuss something more important, like ... should the bog roll be mounted so that the paper drapes over the front or hangs close to the wall?

I mean, entire families have suffered over important questions like this!
Are there kittens in the household?

Yes. This does make a difference.

[HansMustermann]

Do you apply the same logic to the US Constitution?

1. in the case of the constitution it's clear what amendment replaces or modifies what. The Bible is not so clear, and people cherry-pick from the OT all the time.

E.g., the Sodom and Gommorah incident is still waved on the banner against gays. E.g., the Onan incident is still used to tell teenagers to not masturbate.

I'm sorry, but I'll take the whole "but the OT has been superseeded" (sorry, "fulfilled") as more than a piss-poor excuse when it stops being just a piss-poor excuse to retreat into.

2. In the case the OP is making, it seems to me like that's irrelevant anyway. It's the same God who's been doing and commanding all that evil in the OT anyway.

The NT changes what he commands, but not who he is or what he's already done. And he's never apologized for it anyway. He just pulled a "well, ok, here's my new conditions so I don't torture you", which hardly makes him suddenly good.

I'm sorry, but once someone commands a complete genocide, it's hard to take him as a loving and nice person ever again.

E.g. if Yezhov, head of the NKVD during Stalin and the butcher of all those officers in the great purge, were still alive today, I'm betting not many people would go, "hey, that was in the 30's, he's a good guy now." Doubly so if he were as unapologetic as God still is, and his new and loving deal was just a relaxed set of rules of how to avoid getting the NKVD sicked on you.

[HansMustermann]

He CREATED sin in the first place. That's like getting someone addicted to crack and then putting them through rehab, then saying "Hey, look what a good guy I am!"

While generally I'll agree with you, this particular paragraph I feel is inexact, and best debunked on another level.

"Sin" is not a physical substance, it's an abstract concept like, "crime", "transgression", "insubordination" and the like. I think this is a very important thing to keep in mind.

"Sin" is just doing something which displeases the Lord. I.e., basically whether it's a sin or not is just in his head.

For that reason, the whole "he gave his only son for our sins" is plain old surrealistic. Sin isn't some chemical spill, that you have to follow certain physical procedures to remove, but merely a moral judgment by the guy who's judge, jurry and executioner.

If he wanted to forgive the original sin, he could just go "ok, guys, that old feud is getting old and I have better things to do than keep a 4000 year old grudge. You're forgiven. From now on, here's the new rules. Enjoy."

The whole idea that someone had to die on the cross for that sin to be removed, is just surrealistically _stupid_. It smacks of the primitive magical thinking where for everything there had to be a proper sacrifice and ritual, taken to an illogical extreme.

Jesus died a horrible death just because God wanted him to die a horrible death. That's really all there is to it. It was utterly unnecessary to the end of removing original sin, since that's just a judgment which God can just stop making.

Even if he wanted something to remember it by, since he's the one demanding and receiving that ritual, it could have been anything else. It could have just as well been a jolly good party, or just "OK, YOU'RE FORGIVEN!" written in the sky, or whatever else. That he choose an exceedingly cruel human sacrifice to commemorate his own decision, says that he's still just as big an a**hole as he was in the OT.

[Georg]

Do you apply the same logic to the US Constitution?


The by far largest christian sect is the catholic church. Let´s see what they have to say on that topic:

The Old Testament

121 The Old Testament is an indispensable part of Sacred Scripture. Its books are divinely inspired and retain a permanent value,92 for the Old Covenant has never been revoked.

122 Indeed, "the economy of the Old Testament was deliberately so oriented that it should prepare for and declare in prophecy the coming of Christ, redeemer of all men."93 "Even though they contain matters imperfect and provisional,"94 the books of the Old Testament bear witness to the whole divine pedagogy of God's saving love: these writings "are a storehouse of sublime teaching on God and of sound wisdom on human life, as well as a wonderful treasury of prayers; in them, too, the mystery of our salvation is present in a hidden way."95

123 Christians venerate the Old Testament as true Word of God. The Church has always vigorously opposed the idea of rejecting the Old Testament under the pretext that the New has rendered it void (Marcionism).


from the vatican (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s1c2a3.htm).

Am I missing something?

[Marduk]

Jesus died a horrible death just because God wanted him to die a horrible death.

6 hours on the cross is hardly horrible, at least it gets you out in the open, it could be much worse, you could get stabbed
:p

[godless dave]

Do you apply the same logic to the US Constitution?

Yes. Although the Constitution doesn't posit any supreme being that must be worshiped.

[MG1962]

The by far largest christian sect is the catholic church. Let´s see what they have to say on that topic:




from the vatican (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s1c2a3.htm).

Am I missing something?

Yes you are - it is called the New Covenent. This is the reason I mentioned the US Constitution - The text of the document can not be changed, only ammended in a seperate section. Hence if you apply the same logic to Christian belief as to the Constitution, then the US still considers a black man only worth 3/5 of a white man.

[Pure Argent]

6 hours on the cross is hardly horrible, at least it gets you out in the open, it could be much worse, you could get stabbed

Uh, didn't he? I mean, the whole "spear pierced his side" thing, right?

"Sin" is not a physical substance, it's an abstract concept like, "crime", "transgression", "insubordination" and the like. I think this is a very important thing to keep in mind.

"Sin" is just doing something which displeases the Lord. I.e., basically whether it's a sin or not is just in his head.

For that reason, the whole "he gave his only son for our sins" is plain old surrealistic. Sin isn't some chemical spill, that you have to follow certain physical procedures to remove, but merely a moral judgment by the guy who's judge, jurry and executioner.

On the contrary. As a former Catholic myself, I know what the Church teaches on sin. And sin is very much like a physical disease in the Church, requiring penance to remove. But either way the argument applies. Whether sin is real or not, God said that it was there and had to be removed, so Jesus got up on the cross. And since he's all-powerful, it was done, and sin became an irreplaceable part of religion.

Think of it as a modified version of Pascal's wager. If you had absolute certainty that the god described in the bible exists, then worship would be rewarded with eternal paradise and failure to do so would be punished by eternal suffering. If this god actually existed, refusal to worship would be choosing eternal suffering, not a smart move if you ask me.

Where Pascal's wager falls down in reality is that there are an infinite number of described and describable dieties all with equal (none) evidence for them. Worship of any one would piss off at least one other one, and all the infinite values of suffering/bliss cancel each other out. If you know for certain of the existence of a particular god, that makes it a no brainer.

I still wouldn't worship him. Do what he says, yes, worship no.

Gach ... same old claims ... same old arguments ...

Can't we discuss something more important, like ... should the bog roll be mounted so that the paper drapes over the front or hangs close to the wall?

I mean, entire families have suffered over important questions like this!

I would comment, but I'm unsure of what a bog roll is.

[MG1962]

Yes. Although the Constitution doesn't posit any supreme being that must be worshiped.

But it does say a black man is worth less than a white man. Do the vast majority of Americans support this? No...other wise a black President would never have been elected

[Georg]

Yes you are - it is called the New Covenent. This is the reason I mentioned the US Constitution - The text of the document can not be changed, only ammended in a seperate section. Hence if you apply the same logic to Christian belief as to the Constitution, then the US still considers a black man only worth 3/5 of a white man.


Does the US still say that 3/5 thing? Or do they say now that it is wrong and has been a mistake? I´d think the latter is true, please correct me if I´m wrong.

Does the cc say that god was wrong in the past? I´d love to see that!

[godless dave]

Yes you are - it is called the New Covenent. This is the reason I mentioned the US Constitution - The text of the document can not be changed, only ammended in a seperate section. Hence if you apply the same logic to Christian belief as to the Constitution, then the US still considers a black man only worth 3/5 of a white man.

Where in the New Covenant does it say God is a different God than the one who ordered the massacre of the Midianites?

Nothing in the New Testament repudiates any of the actions of God in the Old Testament.

[godless dave]

But it does say a black man is worth less than a white man.

No, it says black men are counted differently than white men for purposes of apportioning representation. Then a later amendment explicitly repudiates this.

The difference is that the people who wrote the constitution are dead and different people amended it. With the Bible, the New Testament God is said to be the exact same God as the Old Testament God. He never admits that any of his actions in the Old Testament are wrong.

[Marduk]

Uh, didn't he? I mean, the whole "spear pierced his side" thing, right?.
does it really count as being stabbed to death if youre already dead ?
one for the theologians there
;):p

[MG1962]

Does the US still say that 3/5 thing? Or do they say now that it is wrong and has been a mistake? I´d think the latter is true, please correct me if I´m wrong.

Does the cc say that god was wrong in the past? I´d love to see that!

Yes it does still say that - The US is constitution is fairly unique in that there is no provision to change the original text. Hence why you have ammendments - most nations just insert the changed text into the actual constitution.

The foundation of the Catholic Church and all Christian faiths is the new covenent or new deal struck with God through Jesus - The concept is not a new thing either - In the OT God struck a new covenent with Noah, never to destroy the world again.

Without the existence of the new deal, all Christians and followers of Islam by default are Jewish

[chillzero]

On the contrary. As a former Catholic myself, I know what the Church teaches on sin. And sin is very much like a physical disease in the Church, requiring penance to remove. But either way the argument applies. Whether sin is real or not, God said that it was there and had to be removed, so Jesus got up on the cross. And since he's all-powerful, it was done, and sin became an irreplaceable part of religion.
That's what annoys me. We are told that Jesus died for the sins of man. So, what was the point in that, if man is still considered to be born with the original sin, and also if man still has to repent his own sins himself in order to reach heaven? I mean, you would think that sacrificing his son so that we may be saved would mean that we would actually be ... ya know .... saved ... without further requirements added to the contract.

God's a backpeddler.


I would comment, but I'm unsure of what a bog roll is.
(toilet paper)

[Marduk]

No, it says black men are counted differently than white men for purposes of apportioning representation. Then a later amendment explicitly repudiates this.

The difference is that the people who wrote the constitution are dead and different people amended it. With the Bible, the New Testament God is said to be the exact same God as the Old Testament God. He never admits that any of his actions in the Old Testament are wrong.

actually (dont you just love these)
I reckon if it ever came to court that I could get YHWH off all charges
all of the things he claimed to have done were claimed to have been done by an earlier God and are substantiated as such in existing texts many of which predate both Judaism and Hebrew

Flood - Enlil 2400bce
barbecuing your kids - Bel 1200bce
confusticating languages - Enki 2100bce
etc etc etc

as they all have precedence it would soon become apparent that this YHWH fellow is a made up imposter created to hide the shameful acts of a quorum of deities, a scapegoat if you like.

:p

[godless dave]

Yes it does still say that - The US is constitution is fairly unique in that there is no provision to change the original text. Hence why you have ammendments - most nations just insert the changed text into the actual constitution.

The foundation of the Catholic Church and all Christian faiths is the new covenent or new deal struck with God through Jesus - The concept is not a new thing either - In the OT God struck a new covenent with Noah, never to destroy the world again.

That's irrelevant to this discussion. We're not talking about God's laws and standards for our behavior, we're talking about his behavior and his character.

I would no more accept a "New Covenant" from Yahweh than I would believe an abusive spouse when she assures me she's changed and won't hit me again.

[MG1962]

No, it says black men are counted differently than white men for purposes of apportioning representation. Then a later amendment explicitly repudiates this.

Until the 15th ammendment, black folk had no voting rights


The difference is that the people who wrote the constitution are dead and different people amended it. With the Bible, the New Testament God is said to be the exact same God as the Old Testament God. He never admits that any of his actions in the Old Testament are wrong.

Where in ammendment XV does it say the founding fathers were wrong about not franchising black people. Same for the Bible. Is there anything that says God can not change his attitude?

[godless dave]

Until the 15th ammendment, black folk had no voting rights

Yes, I knew that. They were still counted as "population" for purposes of determining how many representatives a state had in the House of Representatives. Non-property-owning white men were also counted even when they couldn't vote.


Where in ammendment XV does it say the founding fathers were wrong about not franchising black people. Same for the Bible. Is there anything that says God can not change his attitude?

Being an American does not require one to worship the founding fathers (despite what some on Fox News might say). The US Constitution is not a document about right and wrong or moral behavior.

The founding fathers are different people from the people who amended the constitution. The God in the New Testament is the same God as in the Old Testament. Even if the New Testament said God had changed his character - which it doesn't - why would you believe it? Abusive pricks often claim to have changed.

[MG1962]

That's irrelevant to this discussion. We're not talking about God's laws and standards for our behavior, we're talking about his behavior and his character.

Sorry I disagree, As parents do we interact with our three year old child the same way we interact with our adult child.

[MG1962]

The founding fathers are different people from the people who amended the constitution. The God in the New Testament is the same God as in the Old Testament. Even if the New Testament said God had changed his character - which it doesn't - why would you believe it? Abusive pricks often claim to have changed.

But wouldn't the proof be in actions. God has not destroyed the world again after striking a deal with Noah, I dont recall any calls for Christians to sacrifice their children.

And what makes you think I or the majority of Christians would do that (Sure some might sadly) But if God changed the game and the Pope sends out a news flash that we have to sacrifce our children.

I would flip God off and suffer the consequences, because frankly thats not the God I signed on to believe in

[godless dave]

Sorry I disagree, As parents do we interact with our three year old child the same way we interact with our adult child.

But if a parent is abusive to a three-year-old child, we don't expect that child to maintain a relationship with that parent after the child grows up.

But wouldn't the proof be in actions. God has not destroyed the world again after striking a deal with Noah, I dont recall any calls for Christians to sacrifice their children.

Not yet. But he hasn't repudiated his past behavior.


And what makes you think I or the majority of Christians would do that (Sure some might sadly) But if God changed the game and the Pope sends out a news flash that we have to sacrifce our children.

I would flip God off and suffer the consequences, because frankly thats not the God I signed on to believe in.

You should always read the fine print before signing something.

[Cayvmann]

But wouldn't the proof be in actions. God has not destroyed the world again after striking a deal with Noah, I dont recall any calls for Christians to sacrifice their children.


So, supposing that god had destroyed the world with a flood in the first place....... Weren't these stories written way after the fact? The fact that something that never happened hasn't happened again is very uninteresting.

[Ryan O'Dine]

Is there anything that says God can not change his attitude?

Psalm 119:160 (New International Version)

160 All your words are true;
all your righteous laws are eternal.


Deuteronomy 29:29 (New International Version)

29 The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may follow all the words of this law.



I'm curious how you interpret those.

[HansMustermann]

Yes you are - it is called the New Covenent. This is the reason I mentioned the US Constitution - The text of the document can not be changed, only ammended in a seperate section. Hence if you apply the same logic to Christian belief as to the Constitution, then the US still considers a black man only worth 3/5 of a white man.

And again, since you seem to ignore my objections:

1. I'll treat that as more than a p**s-poor escape clause, when I see any sect actually treating _everything_ in there as null and void. Otherwise it's just a lame way to cherry pick what you like, and back out into "yeah, but it's been superseded" when it's bad for PR.

2. The US constitution has been written by different people than those who introduced those ammendments, or than those who apply them now. So, yes, I won't hold the racism of some 18'th century guy against a 21'st century senator.

But there is no new God. Capisce? Do you understand that one crucial point? The same God who ordered the total genocde of the Midianites, the same God who killed Egyptian babies, etc, he's still the same God as in the NT. Making a new covenant doesn't absolve him of his past crimes and generally of being a psychopathic a**hole.

You can make a new covenant, but you can't erase past deeds. When Stalin stopped his own great purge, it didn't automatically absolve him of the blood of the officers he had already tortured and killed.

But wouldn't the proof be in actions. God has not destroyed the world again after striking a deal with Noah, I dont recall any calls for Christians to sacrifice their children.

So let me get this straight... If I went and murdered a bunch of babies (e.g., like God did with the Egyptians), if I nuked a couple of whole civilizations (yes, see that flood), etc... then suddenly came and said, "ok, let's make a new deal, I'm not murdering anyone any more", you'd instantly think I'm a good and loving guy? You'd think all that is suddenly wiped away and doesn't reflect on my character in any way?

Sorry I disagree, As parents do we interact with our three year old child the same way we interact with our adult child.

Come on, MG, you can do better. I've read your posts in other threads. You'd have to be completely retarded to actually believe that the above quote excuses the OT god, and I think you aren't.

1. Neither the church nor scientific data suggests that the human species evolved so much in a couple thousand years as to be the difference between 3 year olds and adults. Except maybe Adam and Eve, it was _adults_ he was dealing with all along.

2. Injustice and brutality against a 3 year old isn't any more excusable. In fact, it's just _more_ abject, if anything.

We're talking a God who outright kills innocents without even asking their side of the story. A God who punishes (very harshly) people who never been told what to do but were apparently supposed to just guess what the "father" wants. A God who punishes the innocents instead of the guilty, just to make some point. Etc.

If you're telling me that's the way a "father" is ok to interact with his 3 year olds... I don't know, man...

I'm sorry, but that's not a good and loving father. That's the kind of abusive father who'll come drunk at midnight and will beat up a kid just to vent frustration for something else.

And that kid being 3 years old doesn't make it right.

ETA: pretty much if I came and said "you know, let's murder my toddlers and then make new ones", you probably wouldn't think it's right. But somehow think it's OK when God does the same with the flood.

[godless dave]

So, supposing that god had destroyed the world with a flood in the first place....... Weren't these stories written way after the fact? The fact that something that never happened hasn't happened again is very uninteresting.

The premise of this thread is how we would react to the Christian god if he actually existed, so in that context it is relevant.

[Beerina]

Does the US still say that 3/5 thing? Or do they say now that it is wrong and has been a mistake? I´d think the latter is true, please correct me if I´m wrong.


It's still there, but has been overridden by later amendments. Most Constitution references will have those lines with a strikeout through them and a note that it was superseded by Amendment XYZ.

[MG1962]

But there is no new God. Capisce? Do you understand that one crucial point? The same God who ordered the total genocde of the Midianites, the same God who killed Egyptian babies, etc, he's still the same God as in the NT. Making a new covenant doesn't absolve him of his past crimes and generally of being a psychopathic a**hole.

Then why are you not starting threads that say the God of the Jews is an *******?

[MG1962]

You can make a new covenant, but you can't erase past deeds. When Stalin stopped his own great purge, it didn't automatically absolve him of the blood of the officers he had already tortured and killed.


Tell that to the relatives of the Jews who died at Peenemunde and Mittlewerk

[HansMustermann]

Then why are you not starting threads that say the God of the Jews is an *******?

So your God is a different one?

[HansMustermann]

Tell that to the relatives of the Jews who died at Peenemunde and Mittlewerk

And I think you'll find that a lot of people didn't buy Von Braun's excuses and did think that he was an a**hole.

[godless dave]

It's still there, but has been overridden by later amendments. Most Constitution references will have those lines with a strikeout through them and a note that it was superseded by Amendment XYZ.

In my high school history textbook they used italics to indicate parts that were superseded.

[godless dave]

Then why are you not starting threads that say the God of the Jews is an *******?

Jews generally don't go around urging non-Jews to convert to Judaism and telling people how great, just, and loving their god is.

[Pure Argent]

Then why are you not starting threads that say the God of the Jews is an *******?

Because that's my job.

[MG1962]

So your God is a different one?

In a sense yes - If this thread begins with the presumption of the existence of God, and the existence of Christianity, then one has to accept the existence of the new covenent. That covenent is the foundation of Christianity

The God of the old testement was a lot more interactive than of the new. He ran around flooding the world, beating on the Egytians, destroying towns etc etc.

That was why I used the example of the small child. At that age a parent has to be a lot more authoritive. At times a child needs to be punished to correct a tendency towards poor choices. As the child grows, the role of the parent evolves till the point where the child is responsible for its own choices and out comes

Humanity has evolved in a lot of ways socially, technology, and in my opinion spiritually. So as we grow, become more complex in our thought processes, our relationship must change with God

[MG1962]

And I think you'll find that a lot of people didn't buy Von Braun's excuses and did think that he was an a**hole.

But in three weeks we will all celebrate 40 years since we did the Canaveral moon stomp

[MG1962]

Jews generally don't go around urging non-Jews to convert to Judaism and telling people how great, just, and loving their god is.

But what does that change - God is still an *******. This thread was started by an athiest not by a Christian claiming any special knowledge or treatment by God.

[HansMustermann]

In a sense yes - If this thread begins with the presumption of the existence of God, and the existence of Christianity, then one has to accept the existence of the new covenent. That covenent is the foundation of Christianity

That doesn't make him a different guy. If Stalin came back with a new covenant, it would still be the same mass murderer.

The God of the old testement was a lot more interactive than of the new. He ran around flooding the world, beating on the Egytians, destroying towns etc etc.

But that guy didn't die and get replaced by a new one.

And he doesn't even say he's sorry or anything. It's like Stalin coming back and saying, "ok, ok, I'll cut it down with the random mass killings. Now I'll just sick the NKVD on you if you don't take part in my cult of personality."

That was why I used the example of the small child. At that age a parent has to be a lot more authoritive. At times a child needs to be punished to correct a tendency towards poor choices. As the child grows, the role of the parent evolves till the point where the child is responsible for its own choices and out comes

Humanity has evolved in a lot of ways socially, technology, and in my opinion spiritually. So as we grow, become more complex in our thought processes, our relationship must change with God

Even pretending to accept that idea, it still doesn't make it right.

Actually, that's an age where you just have to be a good example. A 3 year old child is still wired like any animal infant: to follow mommy or daddy around and do what he sees them doing.

What example does the "Father" in the bible give his "3 year olds"? That he's capricious, arbitrary, inconsistent, unjust, quick to blame others for his own faults, and generally a complete psychopath.

If I pretend that humanity was actually like 3 year olds, it just makes the whole thing more odious. He's cruel, he punishes the wrong ones, he punishes them for stuff he never told them not to do, he punishes them for stuff he actually made them do (e.g., _he_ made the Pharaoh not let the Jews go), etc. It's like a recipe to produce a traumatized bunch of kids, and, if recent psychological research is any indication, how to make sure a bunch of them will become psychopaths.

If I pretend that Abel and Caine were like 3 year olds, the whole episode becomes _abominable_. Two toddlers bring him gifts, and he arbitrarily berates one of them for no obvious reason other than not guessing what he wants? Geez. That's being an a**hole even if you were to do it with your grown up sons, but doing it with 3 year olds is just repulsive.

Etc.

[HansMustermann]

But what does that change - God is still an *******. This thread was started by an athiest not by a Christian claiming any special knowledge or treatment by God.

Yes, the God of all 3 Abrahamic religions, Jews, Christians _and_ Muslims is the same one, and is a sociopathic a**hole. I'm not just picking on Christians there. Happy now? :p

[MG1962]

Honestly HansMustermann I am going to leave you with it. It is hard to have a debate when one side is arbitrarily deciding any point raised by the other is irrelevant.

I particualrly disagree with you about parenting styles - I know my credentials in the matter and I know what strengths and weaknesses I have. I can not think of any way to debate this without becoming personal, so I will simply leave you to whatever thoughts and opinions you may decide to hold

[gnome]

I think you need a little more clarity--on the one hand you seem to offer the New Covenant as a way to resolve claims of the Christian God's atrocities as reported in the bible, and then on the other hand you seek to justify it as "parenting" immature humans.

Were they justifiable actions or not?

[HansMustermann]

Honestly HansMustermann I am going to leave you with it. It is hard to have a debate when one side is arbitrarily deciding any point raised by the other is irrelevant.

I'm not saying it's irrelevant, I'm saying it's _absurd_ to pretend that proclaiming a "new covenant" makes one a completely new guy and erases all the history before it.

[Georg]

Yes it does still say that - The US is constitution is fairly unique in that there is no provision to change the original text. Hence why you have ammendments - most nations just insert the changed text into the actual constitution.

The foundation of the Catholic Church and all Christian faiths is the new covenent or new deal struck with God through Jesus - The concept is not a new thing either - In the OT God struck a new covenent with Noah, never to destroy the world again.

Without the existence of the new deal, all Christians and followers of Islam by default are Jewish

It's still there, but has been overridden by later amendments. Most Constitution references will have those lines with a strikeout through them and a note that it was superseded by Amendment XYZ.


The question remains: were the actions of the old testament O.K, or were they mistakes?

If the O.T. actions were O.K., the analogy with the constitution fails, since as far as I grasp it now, the 3/5 is not seen as O.K., therefore the ammendments.
Or is it still said somewhere that the 3/5 part was O.K. in the past?

If the O.T. actions were not O.K., where is this stated?

If it is stated nowhere, why not?

[Seismosaurus]

I never really saw how the whole "new covenant" thing explains away the old testament.

The old testament god is essentially a mass murdering lunatic. Then at one point he essentially says "Hmmm... you know what, I'm not going to be like that any more. Peace and love from now on."

And so then that's just okay? Nothing he did before counts any more?

[Marduk]

well come on, like most men the birth of a son settled him down, he may also have been attending anger management counselling with St Peter
;)

[Delvo]

The old testament god is essentially a mass murdering lunatic. Then at one point he essentially says "Hmmm... you know what, I'm not going to be like that any more. Peace and love from now on."Maybe it's actually not the same individual; someone else took over the job.

Actually, now that I finally think of it, given that sometimes some mythologies do have gods replacing each other at times, I'm actually surprised that I've never heard of a Jewish/Christian/Islam spinoff religion using that explanation for real... :eek:

[HansMustermann]

The old testament god is essentially a mass murdering lunatic. Then at one point he essentially says "Hmmm... you know what, I'm not going to be like that any more. Peace and love from now on."

Except it's not even that.

It's just a "God" who had it finally sink in, "hey, why do I bother murdering them left and right in this life, when I can torture them for eternity afterwards?"

[Pure Argent]

well come on, like most men the birth of a son settled him down, he may also have been attending anger management counselling with St Peter

Circular logic. St. Peter wouldn't have been St. Peter if Jesus hadn't started the Christian Church.

Also, I have noticed that no Christians on this board (Kathy!) have shown up to defend their religion (except MG). What does this mean?

[Pure Argent]

well come on, like most men the birth of a son settled him down, he may also have been attending anger management counselling with St Peter

Circular logic. St. Peter wouldn't have been St. Peter if Jesus hadn't started the Christian Church.

Also, I have noticed that no Christians on this board (Kathy!) have shown up to defend their religion (except MG). What does this mean?

[godless dave]

Honestly HansMustermann I am going to leave you with it. It is hard to have a debate when one side is arbitrarily deciding any point raised by the other is irrelevant.

I particualrly disagree with you about parenting styles - I know my credentials in the matter and I know what strengths and weaknesses I have. I can not think of any way to debate this without becoming personal, so I will simply leave you to whatever thoughts and opinions you may decide to hold

So you think it's OK to abuse children when they are young as long as you're nicer to them when they're older?