- Joined
- Dec 20, 2012
- Messages
- 7,302
- Reaction score
- 3,402
- Location
- Northern Virginia
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Centrist
Ok. Before eating the fruit, they did not have the concept of good and evil or right and wrong. They knew they were not to eat of the fruit, but that’s not the same as understanding it was morally wrong.To begin with your statement that Adam and Eve didn’t know it was wrong to disobey….
Rethink that statement.
How did you come to that conclusion? Nothing in Genesis supports that claim and I’m not aware of anywhere else in the Bible that supports it.Your second statement is that Adam and Eve didn’t die. They died as far as God was concerned. God is a Spirit. They died spiritually.
Nowhere does it say that the serpent was the devil. Revelation 12:9 and 20:2 do refer to the devil as a serpent, but nowhere is it even implied that the devil was the serpent in the garden, who is specifically referred to as a beast.The serpent, the devil is a liar, and he lied to Eve. Because they disobeyed God He evicted them from the garden, that is from His presence. That is spiritual death.
I agree.
Understanding is not the same thing as interpretation?
I say it is
Your 'understanding' of the bible as a Baptist, for example, is certainly different than the 'understanding' of the bible of a Jehovah Witness?
How did you come to that conclusion? Nothing in Genesis supports that claim and I’m not aware of anywhere else in the Bible that supports it.
But sticking to the Christian Bible, Adam and Eve didn’t know it was wrong to disobey God. God told them they’d die that day if they ate the fruit, the serpent said they wouldn’t. They ate the fruit and the serpent was right. In order to punish them for doing wrong when He didn’t want them to know it was wrong, He chooses to punish billions of people in the future.
Then God gets upset that people are breaking rules He never explained so he kills everyone including most animals, except for one family, who break the rules as soon as the flood is over.
After that, God decided not to be God of everyone, just the descendants of Abraham. But he still doesn’t explain any rules until Moses.
But that’s not really an interpretation. The verse is clear requiring no explanation of the words used. Therefore, it requires the second point in my “keys” — Context. Either immediate or remote. Here it requires a remote context or what I refer to as an overall understanding of both the Bible and culture of the times addressed. You’ve simply condemned the biblical god as being evil based on your own perspective.It has to do with the bizarre interpretation of the jealous, vindictive god being the heroic protagonist and the plucky band of rebels who go up against hopeless odds, fighting an army literally twice their size, and an omnipotent, omniscient tyrant as the villains. And, of course, with how my own interpretation differs from the mainstream.
But that’s not really an interpretation. The verse is clear requiring no explanation of the words used. Therefore, it requires the second point in my “keys” — Context. Either immediate or remote. Here it requires a remote context or what I refer to as an overall understanding of both the Bible and culture of the times addressed. You’ve simply condemned the biblical god as being evil based on your own perspective.
If I build you a wall, for your protection and you choose to bang your head against it whose fault is it if you get hurt? You seem to want to blame God for building the wall.
Again, you're only demonstrating your fixation on what you've deemed to be an evil biblical god without considering the culture of the time. It was not entirely a rare action that the Israelis took. Remove a God from the equation and then what would you have? A cultural decision. One to insure the ongoing survival of the "tribe". For example:Right, the abused are always forcing the abuser's hand, making him do it. It's a pretty common refrain among abusers. God clearly had no choice but to order the genocide of the Amalekites in revenge for something that happened hundreds of years before they were born. Those little infants were just 'banging their heads against the wall that God built.' It's their own fault that they ended up as babykabobs on the swords of his armies.
You might as well blame the Jews for the holocaust while you're at it.
As in the last example, there appears to have been a clear intention on the behalf of the Athenians to destroy the Melians as a group and a culture. This was meant as a warning to Athens' allies throughout Greece to remain loyal during the war with Sparta.
According to your interpretation (understanding).That's not difficult. Jehovah's Witnesses don't understand the Bible.
…of them that hate me.Because he is a jealous, spiteful, vengeful God who will visit iniquity upon your children, and your children's children, the children of your children's children, and so on.
"I, Jehovah, thy God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the third and upon the fourth generation of them that hate me;" -Deuteronomy 5:9
Just ask the Amalekites. Oh wait, you can't. Because genocide.
No point in commenting. You seem to think you know it all.Ok. Before eating the fruit, they did not have the concept of good and evil or right and wrong. They knew they were not to eat of the fruit, but that’s not the same as understanding it was morally wrong.
How did you come to that conclusion? Nothing in Genesis supports that claim and I’m not aware of anywhere else in the Bible that supports it.
Nowhere does it say that the serpent was the devil. Revelation 12:9 and 20:2 do refer to the devil as a serpent, but nowhere is it even implied that the devil was the serpent in the garden, who is specifically referred to as a beast.
The problem here is that because the damsel was defiled no man would want her. That would be a shame not only to the damsel but the whole family. The money is what the father would have received had he given his daughter in matrimony. Thus the father and damsel was compensated. The alternative would not have been good. The context lays out the cultural expectations. Our culture is different.I wonder if the bible is at times inconsistent.
Like it treats stuff like tattoos,eating shrimp,eating pork,not working on the sabbath,crossdressing and such as a abomination against God.
But then it says a man can get away with rape by paying a girl's father some money.
Bible Gateway passage: Deuteronomy 22:29 - English Standard Version
then the man who lay with her shall give to the father of the young woman fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife, because he has violated her. He may not divorce her all his days.www.biblegateway.com
…of them that hate me.
Again, you're only demonstrating your fixation on what you've deemed to be an evil biblical god without considering the culture of the time. It was not entirely a rare action that the Israelis took. Remove a God from the equation and then what would you have? A cultural decision. One to insure the ongoing survival of the "tribe". For example:
Genocide in the Ancient World
Genocide is often viewed as a particular feature of our own current age. This perception largely stems from the terrible events which took place during World War Two in the 20th century CE in the parts...www.worldhistory.org
Israel wanted a King. God warned them that a King wouldn't be good for them. They insisted because the other nations all had one. They got what they wanted. The Israelites were a stubborn and proud nation. Their survival was important because it was through them that the Messiah would be born redeeming mankind. At their times of ignorance God looked away.If your argument is that God's values in the book are a reflection of Israeli culture at the time because they are formed from the imagination of authors immersed in that culture, I can see the sense in that. The iron age Israelites liked killing little children, so of course, their god liked it as well. As cultural values shift, the Jehovah character becomes progressively less bloodthirsty around the New Testament times.
In the context of the story though, the character of Darth Jehovah is meant to be immutable and timeless Until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from His Law until everything is accomplished. Going with the conceit that He is timeless and immutable, "It's ok cause that was just what all the kids were doing at the time" doesn't really fly as an excuse for his villainy. Even for the early Iron Age, the "see a baby, stab a baby" policy was particularly egregious.
Israel wanted a King. God warned them that a King wouldn't be good for them. They insisted because the other nations all had one. They got what they wanted. The Israelites were a stubborn and proud nation. Their survival was important because it was through them that the Messiah would be born redeeming mankind. At their times of ignorance God looked away.
That aside you started down this one track road by testing out my "keys" to interpretation. You haven't succeeded in calling them in question. You've barely even addressed the subject of the thread. Condemning a biblical god because of what it says about Israel slaughtering another nation has nothing to do with interpretation. It has everything to do with your moral perspective of right and wrong.
I saw Star Wars. I didn't see any understanding nor compassion.Right, because when someone harbors ill feelings toward you, the appropriate reaction is to visit the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the third and upon the fourth generation. Especially if the people who hate you are scared little nonthreatening children that have no possible way to hurt you. Then you should definitely respond to their professions of hatred with centuries of genocide.
The path of the Jedi is to respond to those who hate us with understanding, and compassion for their suffering. Jealousy and revenge are not virtues, though I expect it would be hard for those who follow Darth Jehovah to understand this.
I am still waiting for you to answer my question.I saw Star Wars. I didn't see any understanding nor compassion.
You're a cynic, and that's okay with me, but you know the answer to your question. It's not a question at all. It's just bait. I'm done playing your little games. Find some other form of entertainment.I am still waiting for you to answer my question.
"I deny the existence of God.
Will your God punish me for that?"
I saw Star Wars. I didn't see any understanding nor compassion.
I wonder if the bible is at times inconsistent.
Like it treats stuff like tattoos,eating shrimp,eating pork,not working on the sabbath,crossdressing and such as a abomination against God.
But then it says a man can get away with rape by paying a girl's father some money.
Bible Gateway passage: Deuteronomy 22:29 - English Standard Version
then the man who lay with her shall give to the father of the young woman fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife, because he has violated her. He may not divorce her all his days.www.biblegateway.com
I can truly feel God's love emanating off you.
No, one can interpret in the wrong way...as proven by the many denominations of Christendom
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?