the latest pile of dog

[joobz]

From a theological standpoint, the real question is whether such beliefs are misunderstandings of scripture or even non-biblically derived additions. If indeed they are unjustifiable additions, then they constitute mere misguided human opinion and cannot legitimately be used to for biblical evaluation purposes.

It is a sincere, unbiased, skeptic's responsibility to determine this before passing judgement. Otherwise he is as gullible as any other unprincipled person.

By this standpoint, one could also claim your interpretation of Zeus and astec religions is merely unjustified, missguided interpretations.

Familiarity with that particular God's personality. If you told me that Zeus was vehemently against rape and adultery I would reply that he is depicted as raping human women while he was married. So that would be false in reference to Zeus.

Or if you told me that that Mars or the Aztec gods were peace loving I'd have to consider that statement false.

In the same manner, if I am told that the biblical God respects rapists-I would have to say that is false because of my familiarity with how the biblical God is described.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

From a Christian standpoint God doesn't view all humans in an equally benign way. That's because human behavior varies and some of that behavior is scrpturally described as offensive to him.

What happened to being saved by grace ?
A dogma that certainly does not take past behavior into account..

Or, are you talking about some other version of Christianity ?

 

[joobz]

There is a lot of logical jumps that must be made to explain why a loving/caring god allows horrible things to be done to children. The worst of it comes in the form of child hood terminal illness.

I think it belittles the pain and horror inflicted on these kids to perform a post hoc rationalization to make god seem like the good guy in all of it. It's best to simply say, "I do not know why god allows these things. We must have faith that all will be best in the end...." Or something similar to that. I can respect the christians who chaulk it up to the Mysteries of god more than those who claim to know why/why not god does these things.

Of course, to me, the simplest explanation is that nature is what it is and god doesn't even enter into it. People do bad things, because there are bad people. It is our responsibility as humans to protect our children from these bad people. Morality comes from this responsibility and not from assuming there is some grand mystical plan for the horror.

 

[Radrook]

By this standpoint, one could also claim your interpretation of Zeus and astec religions is merely unjustified, missguided interpretations.

I don't accuse Zues of raping or being an adulterer. The writings of his worshippers describe him that way.

According to legend, Metis, the goddess of prudence, was the first love of Zeus. At first she tried in vain to escape his advances, but in the end succumbed to his endeavor, and from their union Athena was conceived. Gaia warned Zeus that Metis would bear a daughter, whose son would overthrow him. On hearing this Zeus swallowed Metis, the reason for this was to continue to carry the child through to the birth himself. Hera (his wife and sister) was outraged and very jealous of her husband's affair, ....


....Zeus had many offspring; his wife Hera bore him Ares, Hephaestus, Hebe and Eileithyia, but Zeus had numerous liaisons with both goddesses and mortals. He either raped them, or used devious means to seduce the unsuspecting maidens.

http://av.rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0geum...*http://www.pantheon.org/articles/z/zeus.html

bolding mine
=============================================================

Since they do-then how does one avoid reaching the conclusion that he raped and commited adultery when it is clearly stated that he did?

Care to explain?

 

[NobbyNobbs]

Familiarity with that particular God's personality. If you told me that Zeus was vehemently against rape and adultery I would reply that he is depicted as raping human women while he was married. So that would be false in reference to Zeus.

Or if you told me that that Mars or the Aztec gods were peace loving I'd have to consider that statement false.

In the same manner, if I am told that the biblical God respects rapists-I would have to say that is false because of my familiarity with how the biblical God is described.

So I suppose you would agree with me if I said the Judeo-Christian god is accepting of genocidal murder? There's plenty of biblical description to support that viewpoint.....

 

[Radrook]

What happened to being saved by grace ?
A dogma that certainly does not take past behavior into account..

God is described as always vieing sinful behavior either past or present as repugnant. It is described as an essential part of his personality. Thast he is willing to forgive based on the Ransom Sacrifice merely means that he can view such persons as blameless based on that Ransom Sacrifice. It does not mean that he respects unrepentant sinnerrs or condones the sin itself. There is no scriptural basis to say that he respects a rapist. Respect entails admiration and approval of behavior and a desire that all should behave the same way because it is commendable. So by definition and by knowing how God is described we can't make that statement and expect to convince.

Or, are you talking about some other version of Christianity ?

There is only one version. All differences are essentially misundersatanbdings of non-salvational specifics. Remnants of the predicted apostasy that set in after the death of the Apostles. Please note that on an official level, Catholicism and Protestantism consider each other Christian organizations despite their differences in matters apart from the salvational Ransom Sacrifice of Jesus. That's the identifying and unifying theme.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

You said:

From a Christian standpoint God doesn't view all humans in an equally benign way.

That implies a problem with " saved by grace " ...

If God does not consider past behavior of those who accept Christ, then he is viewing them all in a benign way....

Particularly when good behavior doesn't trump bad behavior ...


Now it's time to just leave with the " we cannot understand the mind of god " shuffle ...

 

[bokonon]

The biblical accounts I've read don't indicate that Mary was given the opportunity to say "no" before god spilled his holy seed into her, so I'd say he's just as guilty of rape as Zeus. Even if he gave her the "roofies of righteousness" first and his manhood is so unimposing that she never felt a thing, it's date rape without the dinner of another man's wife. Oops, looks like the biblical god's an adulterer too. I guess his highly developed moral sense boils down to "do as I say, not as I do." The only thing that seems to distinguish him from Zeus is that he didn't take the form of a swan (that was Zeus, wasn't it?).

 

[joobz]

I don't accuse Zues of raping or being an adulterer. The writings of his worshippers describe him that way.



bolding mine
=============================================================

Since they do-then how does one avoid reaching the conclusion that he raped and commited adultery when it is clearly stated that he did?

Care to explain?

Your only source said he "may" have raped. Most stories regarding Zeus' liasons were of willing partners. I'd say that the ones which claim rape are simply "misunderstandings of scripturemythos or even non-biblicallyunofficial derived additions".

Secondly, you've added now adultery to the mix, which wasn't a point being discussed. We were referring to the rape. In any regard, Was god married to Mary when he inpregnated her?

The point here is that you are applying strict interpretation of other faiths as proof against them, yet allow only your interpretation to be considered acceptable for the bible.

If we use your same method of analysis leveed against the Aztecs and greek mythology, we must also do the same for the bible. In which case, it becomes clear that god is rather indifferent toward the murder and slaughter of children. And that he will use the murder of children as punishment toward the parents.

 

[Radrook]

You said:
That implies a problem with " saved by grace " ...

Only if we ignore scriptures and fail to see how they complement one another and form a harmonious whole as a consequence.

If God does not consider past behavior of those who accept Christ, then he is viewing them all in a benign way....Particularly when good behavior doesn't trump bad behavior ...

Absolutely not! That is NOT a biblical concept. That is YOUR concept.

Now it's time to just leave with the " we cannot understand the mind of god " shuffle ...

A perfectly understandable conclusion in view of the defective methodology used and the correct methodology being ignored.

BTW
That conclusion would necessitates that we ignore all the scriptures which tell us otherwise. Are you familiar with the scriptures that tell us otherwise? Or are you choosing to simply ignore them by classifying them as contradictions to your preferred viewpoint?

 

[Radrook]

Your only source said he "may" have raped.

And the numerical number of sources would sway you? I don't think so, You would deftly find some other way to say that they are either irelevant-unconvincing, unrepresentative, biased, ad infinitum. That's why I don't waste my time.

Most stories regarding Zeus' liasons were of willing partners. I'd say that the ones which claim rape are simply "misunderstandings of scripturemythos or even non-biblicallyunofficial derived additions".

Oh. You mean the seductions after he abducts them. Well, OK! I guess those can absolve him of previously raping oothers.

Secondly, you've added now adultery to the mix, which wasn't a point being discussed. We were referring to the rape. In any regard, Was god married to Mary when he inpregnated her?

Sigh! Is in vitrio fertilization rape? Or the placing of a sperm with the consent of the mother rape. Are you familiar with what Mary said when told that she was to bear a child due to the operation of God's active force upon her? Or are you choosing to totally ignore her willingness to participate by saying it was an honor and a blessing? Better yet, have you read the account at all. The reason I ask is based on your description which shows a total lack of knowledge concerning Mary's willingness to do as God wished. Rest assured that if unwilling then she would NOT have been used.
So a prior reading of her heart was involved

The point here is that you are applying strict interpretation of other faiths as proof against them, yet allow only your interpretation to be considered acceptable for the bible.

No, you are quite free to believe as you choose. So I am neither attemping to allow nor disallow anything. However, that doesn't mean that I will acknowledge interpretations which are unjustified as being viable when they aren't. Nor will I place my mind on hold and purposefully choose not to see discrepancies and contradictions based on unfamiliarity with the subject. To expect such a mindless acquiescing mindset is to expect the unreasonable.

If we use your same method of analysis leveed against the Aztecs and greek mythology, we must also do the same for the bible. In which case, it becomes clear that god is rather indifferent toward the murder and slaughter of children. And that he will use the murder of children as punishment toward the parents.

Here is the Christian viewpoint:

It would be murder if those involved didn't deserve the death sentence However, from Adam forward all humans are born under a death sentence. That's why we grow old sicken and die. So from a Christian standpoint, God hasn't murdered anyone but merely executed the already condemned.

Now come the heckles, jeckles, and diatribes!

 

[joobz]

And the numerical number of sources would sway you? I don't think so, You would deftly find some other way to say that they are either irelevant-unconvincing, unrepresentative, biased, ad infinitum. That's why I don't waste my time.

I thank you for your attempts at explaining your position. I simply wish you would see the rather double standard approach you place on things. I simply wish to highlight the inconsistencies you present.

Oh. You mean the seductions after he abducts them. Well, OK! I guess those can absolve him of previously raping oothers.

You confuse rape with sexual encounters. Why is it rape if it is with willing partners? Also, I simply present the example of how you allow selective interpretation of your faith by deny other religions the same right. That's hypocritical.

Sigh! Is in vitrio fertilization rape? Or the placing of a sperm with the consent of the mother rape. Are you familiar with what Mary said when told that she was to bear a child due to the operation of God's active force upon her? Or are you choosing to totally ignore her willingness to participate by saying it was an honor and a blessing?

I'm saying she committed adultry. Rape isn't adultry. She is having another man's child out of wedlock. You tell me what that is.

Better yet, have you read the account at all. The reason I ask is based on your description which shows a total lack of knowledge concerning Mary's willingness to do as God wished. Rest assured that if unwilling then she would NOT have been used.[/qutoe]
I suggest you re-read my post. I never once said god raped Mary. I said they committed adultry. This is not the same thing. I find it interesting that you equate rape with adultry.

No, you are quite free to believe as you choose. So I am neither attemping to allow nor disallow anything. However, that doesn't mean that I will acknowledge interpretations which are unjustified as being viable when they aren't. Nor will I place my mind on hold and purposefully choose not to see discrepancies and contradictions based on unfamiliarity with the subject. To expect such a mindless acquiescing mindset is to expect the unreasonable.

You scream that I am unfamilar with the source material, but it is clear that this isn't the case. If you wish for me to quote scripture, I'd be happy to. You are simply asserting you know the True (TM) interpretation of the bible, and that's simply nonsense. There isn't one and only one interpretation.

Here is the Christian viewpoint:

It would be murder if those involved didn't deserve the death sentence However, from Adam forward all humans are born under a death sentence. That's why we grow old sicken and die. So from a Christian standpoint, God hasn't murdered anyone but merely executed the already condemned.

So you are telling me that the first born children in Egypt, those infants in thier cribs, were justifiably killed because the pharoah would not let the jews free?

The mewling infants, whose only awareness of the world was the need for thier mother's milk and the love and care that their parents could bring. Those children that couldn't even speak for themselves, to be given an opportunity to know right from wrong, to know god. You are telling me that THOSE BABIES. Those little ones, who had no opportunity to repent for thier sins, were justifiably killed? That god was rightous and good in making an example of them?

Now come the heckles, jeckles, and diatribes!

No heckles or jeckles. Only sadness and fear at the callousness and evil that your god represents.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Diogenes:

If God does not consider past behavior of those who accept Christ, then he is viewing them all in a benign way....Particularly when good behavior doesn't trump bad behavior ...

Radrook:

Absolutely not! That is NOT a biblical concept. That is YOUR concept.

It is a Christian ( which you claim to be ) concept, so it is hardly mine ..

Point me to the literature of a main-stream Christian denomination, that proclaims good behavior will get you into heaven while bad behavior will keep you out...

If you are teaching something else, then right or wrong, you are obviously not speaking for many other Christians..

 

[joobz]

Diogenes:


Radrook:
It is a Christian ( which you claim to be ) concept, so it is hardly mine ..

Point me to the literature of a main-stream Christian denomination, that proclaims good behavior will get you into heaven while bad behavior will keep you out...

If you are teaching something else, then right or wrong, you are obviously not speaking for many other Christians..

In the strictest sense, good behavior will not get you into heaven. In this case, Radrook is right. You must live a good life and be good, but to get into heaven you must also accept christ as your savior and realize that only through him and his love that you can enter heaven.

Being good isn't enough. Indeed, being bad won't keep you out either. In truth, if you have a death bed conversion and truly accept christ as your savior and are fully repentant for the wrongs you've done, you can enter heaven.

 

[NobbyNobbs]

It would be murder if those involved didn't deserve the death sentence However, from Adam forward all humans are born under a death sentence. That's why we grow old sicken and die. So from a Christian standpoint, God hasn't murdered anyone but merely executed the already condemned.

Wow. Just wow.

So, by this reasoning, every man, woman and child on the planet, from the beginning right up to the present, is born under a death sentence, and that since executing the already condemned isn't a sin, it's ok for people to be murdered.

Are you suggesting that if I were to go out and murder people, I'd be doing God's will?

What a scary thought.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

In the strictest sense, good behavior will not get you into heaven. In this case, Radrook is right. You must live a good life and be good, but to get into heaven you must also accept christ as your savior and realize that only through him and his love that you can enter heaven.

" only' Is the key word here .. The good behavior becomes moot..

Being good isn't enough. Indeed, being bad won't keep you out either. In truth, if you have a death bed conversion and truly accept christ as your savior and are fully repentant for the wrongs you've done, you can enter heaven.

Once again, the bad behavior is inconsequential if you accept Christ ..

Radrook is arguing that God does judge your behavior, and treats you accordingly..

This not a mainstream Christian concept, when it comes to salvation ..

 

[Radrook]

I thank you for your attempts at explaining your position. I simply wish you would see the rather double standard approach you place on things. I simply wish to highlight the inconsistencies you present.

Go ahead.

You confuse rape with sexual encounters. Why is it rape if it is with willing partners?

I never said that it's rape when both are willing. Of course I am aware of other factors bewside mutial consent that might tilt it into the rapoe category, But that's going beyond the thread.

Also, I simply present the example of how you allow selective interpretation of your faith by deny other religions the same right. That's hypocritical.

Not attempting to deny anyone of anything. Also, it would be hipocritical of me if indeed I were doing as you say I am.

I'm saying she committed adultry. Rape isn't adultry. She is having another man's child out of wedlock. You tell me what that is.

Fornication on her part if unmarried. Adultery on his if he is married.

I suggest you re-read my post. I never once said god raped Mary. I said they committed adultry. This is not the same thing. I find it interesting that you equate rape with adultry.

Sorry if IU misundersatood you. I do not equate rape with adultery. They aren't mutually exclusiuve though. A person can be guilty of both simultaneously.

You scream that I am unfamilar with the source material, but it is clear that this isn't the case. If you wish for me to quote scripture, I'd be happy to.

I am not screaming. Sorry if I gave you that impression. Not necessary to quote.

You are simply asserting you know the True (TM) interpretation of the bible,...

Amd what is it that you are a simply asserting to know?

That's simply nonsense. There isn't one and only one interpretation.

A very popular misguided view shared by many others.

So you are telling me that the first born children in Egypt, those infants in thier cribs, were justifiably killed because the pharoah would not let the jews free? The mewling infants, whose only awareness of the world was the need for thier mother's milk and the love and care that their parents could bring. Those children that couldn't even speak for themselves, to be given an opportunity to know right from wrong, to know god. You are telling me that THOSE BABIES. Those little ones, who had no opportunity to repent for thier sins, were justifiably killed? That god was rightous and good in making an example of them?

All I'm saying is it cannot be legally classified as murder. Which was your original accusation.

BTW

Biblically those children were merely temporarily put to sleep until the ressurection. Not that I expect that to change anyone's viewpoint. But just adding it for informational purposes.

No heckles or jeckles. Only sadness and fear at the callousness and evil that your god represents.

And you are entitled to your opinion.

 

[Frozenwolf150]

It would be murder if those involved didn't deserve the death sentence However, from Adam forward all humans are born under a death sentence. That's why we grow old sicken and die. So from a Christian standpoint, God hasn't murdered anyone but merely executed the already condemned.

Way to let all the murderers, warmongers, and genocidal dictators who have ever claimed to be acting in the name of God off the hook. But I guess it's no surprise, coming from a belief that says that executions are no worse than suspended animation because of the promise of resurrection.

As for evidence or proof that things really work this way, like in real life, well that's probably asking for too much.

In the strictest sense, good behavior will not get you into heaven. In this case, Radrook is right. You must live a good life and be good, but to get into heaven you must also accept christ as your savior and realize that only through him and his love that you can enter heaven.

Being good isn't enough. Indeed, being bad won't keep you out either. In truth, if you have a death bed conversion and truly accept christ as your savior and are fully repentant for the wrongs you've done, you can enter heaven.

Yup. An atheist who lives a decent moral life will burn in hell, but a serial killer and rapist who repents on his death bed (y'know, as long as he REALLY means it) will get into heaven.

Is this the same Bible we're talking about? You know, the ones with rules for how long you can keep slaves, when you should sacrifice your children, and that if you're going to rape a woman you have to marry her afterwards?

Now, now, let's be fair. The bible says that if a woman is raped, she is the one who has to marry her rapist. After all, the woman is chattel and has no say in the matter. Also, when they talk about selling your daughter, they're talking about selling her as a female sex slave. The man is allowed to keep her as long as he remembers to fulfill the requirements: feed her, clothe her, and have sex with her.

 

[joobz]

I nevere said that it's rape when both are willing.

Then I missinterpreted your statement. My apologies.

Not attempting to deny anyone of anything. Also, it would be hipocritical of me if indeed I were doing as you say I am.

Then you can not claim that Zeus was a rapist.

Fornication on her part if unmarried. Adultery on his if he is married.

understood. So Mary fornicated with god.

Sorry if IU misundersatood you. I do not equate rape with adultery. They aren't mutually exclusiuve though. A person can be guilty of both simultaneously.

agreed.

Amd what is it that you are a simply asserting to know?

this doesn't follow logically with my statement. You have asserted to know the true bible interpretation. you have not demonstrated any proof that there is only one right view and that you happen to know it.

A very popular misguided view shared by many others.

Same as above.

It wasn't murder.

All I'm saying is it cannot be legally classified as murder. Which was your original accusation.

Do you believe stating that it wasn't murder makes the act any better? Would you prefer the term infantide? Or are you saying that the slaughter of those children was acceptable and therefore not murder?

Do you not see how an outside observer could view such rationalizations as equivlent to the excuses given by muslim terrorist for thier execution of infidels?

And you are entitled to your opinion.

Likewise.

 

[bokonon]

Are you suggesting that if I were to go out and murder people, I'd be doing God's will?

Only if he asks you to, according to the Bible. And he asked a lot of people to, but he also enjoys doing it himself (a lot!), so if you kill people without hearing voices the voice of god, that's bad. Even though you're not really capable of killing anybody, just temporarily stunning them until everybody's resurrected and divvied up for all eternity. Since there's nothing in the ten commandments saying "thou shalt not stun," maybe it's okay.