• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Is God evil?

stilicho said:
From your quotes: Hosea
# If you misbehave, God will make your daughters "commit whoredom" and your wife "commit adultery." 4:13
# God will induce miscarriages and kill the children of Ephraim. 9:11-12
# "O Lord: what wilt thou give? give them a miscarrying womb and dry breasts." 9:14
# "I will slay even the beloved fruit of their womb." 9:16
# God will punish Israel by "dashing" together mothers and their children. 10:14
# Because the Samaritans chose to worship another deity, God will dash their infants to pieces and their "women with child shall be ripped up." 13:16

### ### ###

This is classic cherry-picking and something that JREF generally frowns upon. The book of Hosea (just as an example) is a stern admonition by a "prophet" against allowing relative prosperity to corrupt the traditions of the nation. The argument presented is essentially that both the "covenant with God" and the traditional fairness of commercial practices (such as they were) had been ignored.

There is a lyrical and not very easily translated comparison presented where "God" orders Hosea to marry a "harlot" while the Northern Kingdom abandons its covenant to return to the worship of Ba'al and other available fertility/agriculture deities.

Although it is thought that the "prophet" Hosea lived in the eighth century BC in some circles, there is no doubt that the book was included in the Bible because of the eventual destruction of the Northern Kingdom by Assyria some time after his "prophecies".

Sometimes critics of the Old Testament ought to try to understand why certain passages were kept instead of assuming that they are attributable to "God".
Click to expand...

Cherry picking? Excuse me? You take one chapter out of a text that had what, 6 of the 69 verses I noted and you claim I am the one cherry picking? :rolleyes:

So according to you the fact God berates evil women throughout the entire Bible is OK because the volume this occurs is small? Gee, God only told the men to make sax slaves of conquered women a couple of times. How can I say that is evil and disgusting?

Give me a break. The Bible is full of God's evil. Overflowing. Spilling over. I dare you to count the verses of love compared to the verses of hate. See for yourself.

Cruelty and Violence in the Bible (54 page down clicks)

Good stuff (17 page down clicks)

I rest my case.
 
stilicho said:
Which version are you using? I was unaware that Hosea was expunged from the canonical Old Testament.

Skeptigirl cherry-picked deliberately from Hosea (among others) to provide "proof" that "God" was "evil". (Wow, that was a lot of quotation marks!)

You're saying that Hosea isn't even canonical Old Testament. I wonder if you guys are all reading the same things.
Click to expand...
Of course I picked the crap out. What should I pick out, your self deception version?

I read the Bible. That's something a lot of Christians haven't really done. What have they done? They have listened to someone else tell them what was in it.

How do you excuse the crap I posted? By claiming it unfairly represents what is in the Bible? Really? Why don't you read it and try again? Tell us about your loving God. It is a lie and you bought it.
 
skeptigirl said:
Cherry picking? Excuse me? You take one chapter out of a text that had what, 6 of the 69 verses I noted and you claim I am the one cherry picking? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
You suffer from an affliction common among "modern" critics.

I picked one example of this affliction and question whether you understand the zietgiest--to employ a modern term--surrounding the "prophecies" of Hosea. Hosea is a message against the "comfortable life" and particularly deplores the casual attitudes towards the covenant that came with prosperity.

Just think A Modest Proposal coined in a different era and without any of the benefits of the Renaissance that Swift had. Samaria was brutally destroyed after the "prophecies" of Hosea. (Most scholars would agree it was only included either because the siege happened or because the book was penned after the event.)

If you applied the same methodology you use on Hosea to the work of Swift, you would conclude that he was dead serious about the edibility of the children of the Emerald Isle.
 
stilicho said:
Do you even know why Samaria is singled out in the verse you cherry-picked from Hosea?
Click to expand...
I can guess.

Do you know why women are rarely named in the Bible? Why are son's important but daughters are not? Did you read what I posted? Care to explain the misogyny? Do you expect me to worship some god that thinks women are merely possessions of men?

Sorry, dude. I have a brain. I have intelligence. I am not the possession of anyone. I am a human being! That is disgusting and it is about time women took notice of just how bad the Biblical version of history is.
 
stilicho said:
I don't believe in God. I thought I made that clear.
Click to expand...
Right. You just think the treatment of women in the Bible is peachy. That's worse. It suggests you are evil. You are defending it claiming I cherry picked a theme that literally permeates the Bible.

You sound like those Muslim men who claim their abuse of women is really protecting and honoring them. Care to explain your distorted position?
 
Last edited:
skeptigirl said:
Sorry, dude. I have a brain. I have intelligence. I am not the possession of anyone. I am a human being! That is disgusting and it is about time women took notice of just how bad the Biblical version of history is.
Click to expand...

What exactly is the "Biblical version of history"? This is a new one to me. What universities is this approach to history used?
 
skeptigirl said:
Right. You just think the treatment of women in the Bible is peachy. That's worse. It suggests you are evil. You are defending it claiming I cherry picked a theme that literally permeates the Bible.

You sound like those Muslim men who claim their abuse of women is really protecting and honoring them. Care to explain your ignorant position?
Click to expand...
I wouldn't deny any suggestion that I was capable of doing evil. I might even welcome a suggestion that I was capable of doing good.

But that's not the point.

You cherry-picked deliberately from Hosea (and I only picked that as an example of what you did) on the assumption that nobody knew what the book was about or why it was included in the canonical Old Testament. You seem caught by surprise that Hosea's own wife was ordered by "God" from among "harlots".

Most of all, you are caught completely by surprise to discover that the "prophecy" preceded a prolonged and terrifying besiegement of Samaria by the Assyrians.

I am here only to temper your astonishment and outrage.
 
I didn't cherry pick anything and I certainly didn't do anything "deliberately". What is your problem and how do you know what motivated me to post what I posted? Are you claiming psychic powers?

Stop accusing people of things you know nothing about.

I took my quotes from the source I cited, The Skeptics Annotated Bible, What the Bible has to say about women. Take your complaints to them and next time take a minute to check a posted source before accusing people of crap you imagine they have done.

You're attitude is ignorant.
 
Last edited:
And as far as sharing your wisdom of "temper[ing my] astonishment and outrage", that is an arrogant point of view you certainly have not supported. You haven't posted anything other than whining that within the book of Hosea there is some legitimate reason for the insulting text, according to you. :rolleyes:

The Bible is full of verse after verse that is derogatory to women and you are whining about the meaning in a single chapter you think was misinterpreted? You have no case.
 
stilicho said:
Which version are you using? I was unaware that Hosea was expunged from the canonical Old Testament.

Skeptigirl cherry-picked deliberately from Hosea (among others) to provide "proof" that "God" was "evil". (Wow, that was a lot of quotation marks!)

You're saying that Hosea isn't even canonical Old Testament. I wonder if you guys are all reading the same things.
Click to expand...
.
There's 10,000 different versions of this "inerrant" text.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Books_of_the_Bible
Hosea isn't in the Catholic version,
 
skeptigirl said:
Since when does a version of history have to be accurate to be "a version of history"?
Click to expand...
I am unaware that the Bible is considered to be history. If you approach it as a narrative rather than as a history you will find it more understandable.

You also explain that your approach to the Bible isn't really your own but borrowed from someone else. That's fair enough. Certainly my understanding of Hosea isn't merely from having read it. There are numerous on-line and published resources offering commentaries on it. Frankly, I haven't encountered one that presumes that the treatment of women is anything other than allegorical. You might wonder why there are so many references to women contained there if it isn't actually about the treatment of women. I have tried to explain that to you as well. The reigning interpretation is that the allegory of fertility is present in the worship of the domestic Canaanite deities such as Ba'al and Ashtoreth, that the prosperity of the Northern Kingdom was directly attributable to the spread of agriculture, and that women symbolise fertility in just about every culture world-wide.

The story of Hosea is that "God" is going to take all that away, not because he "hates women", but because the Hebrews had shunned "him" in favour of Ba'al and Ashtoreth. How better to lyrically portray the symbol of fertility than by emphasising women? How better to portray the "impending" annihilation of Samaria by the Assyrians by singling that place out?

Again, I didn't realise that concentrating on your quotes plucked from Hosea were going to be this contentious. I merely figured that providing the context from which you had plucked them would broaden your understanding of the book.

Would you rather we try Ezekiel instead?
 
stilicho said:
I am unaware that the Bible is considered to be history. If you approach it as a narrative rather than as a history you will find it more understandable.
Click to expand...
:dl:

stilicho said:
You also explain that your approach to the Bible isn't really your own but borrowed from someone else. That's fair enough. Certainly my understanding of Hosea isn't merely from having read it. There are numerous on-line and published resources offering commentaries on it. Frankly, I haven't encountered one that presumes that the treatment of women is anything other than allegorical. You might wonder why there are so many references to women contained there if it isn't actually about the treatment of women. I have tried to explain that to you as well.... :words:...
Click to expand...
Here's the deal. You took a couple verses out of the many I noted and apologized for the misogyny that permeates the Bible as if there were logical explanations in some esoteric meaning.

Nonsense! The Bible writers were just spewing their cultural ignorance. The Bible merely reflects the men of that time and their view of the women they believed they had the right to mistreat.


stilicho said:
Again, I didn't realise that concentrating on your quotes plucked from Hosea were going to be this contentious. I merely figured that providing the context from which you had plucked them would broaden your understanding of the book.

Would you rather we try Ezekiel instead?
Click to expand...
The problem here is your incorrect conclusion that I don't understand the Bible. I beg to differ. It is you who have adopted the false conclusion that there is actual 'meaning' and 'lessons' in the ramblings that were adopted by the church and heralded as 'the word'.

From my perspective, those 'meanings' have been applied by what ever culture is interpreting the Bible of the day. Taking into account the culture that existed when that crap was written, I see no evidence it means anything other than just what it implies, women were second class citizens. To support my assessment over yours I cite the fact you are trying to apply current day culture and morals to something that was written thousands of years ago. You are neglecting to consider the culture of the day those insults were written. That is what the Bible reflects, not your current injected interpretation.

There are no special lessons in the Bible. It is a reflection of the people who wrote it. They did not have inspiration which led them to write in secret parables that would stand the test of time and remain meaningful thousands of years later. You are simply reading tea leaves.

The Bible has no special knowledge or moral lessons and the fools who attempt to find the morals and meaning are simply projecting their interpretations on malleable text. Take a look at how many fools are out there right now spewing their personal insight into just what the Bible is supposed to mean. There are dozens of them giving their interpretations on infomercials every night.

Biblical scholars? A dime a dozen. What makes your version so special? Mine is based in logic and the real world. Interpret the Bible for what it is: The beliefs of a small segment of the human population a couple thousand years ago. They didn't even have the mind of an Aristotle or a Plato. In fact, they remain nameless. Instead, they happen to have written something the leaders in the church simply latched on to as a basis of their personal power.

There is indeed history in the Bible. But it isn't history like Josephus wrote. Instead, it is an archaeological relic, one that can be used to infer the culture of the day. The Bible is not full of secret meaning. You have been fooled by those that wish there was actually something fantastic there. They see what they want to see. They see without the context of an unbiased review.
 
Last edited:
Blue_Sargasso said:
Since it says in the Bible that "God" created the earth then "God" must be Satan.
Click to expand...

And the only ones who would believe that statement to be true are those who blindly accept anything anti-biblical without checking to see if it's accurate or not. Anyone having a basic knowledge of scripture knows that this world wasn't created as is by God but is the inevitable result of an angelic[Satanic, Demonic] and a human rebellion against God.

True, you can believe otherwise. But not with the Bible too support you in the way you are attempting it. On the other hand, you might want to write your own version. Skeptics are good at doing that.
 
Last edited:
skeptigirl said:
Biblical scholars? A dime a dozen. What makes your version so special? Mine is based in logic and the real world. Interpret the Bible for what it is: The beliefs of a small segment of the human population a couple thousand years ago. They didn't even have the mind of an Aristotle or a Plato. In fact, they remain nameless. Instead, they happen to have written something the leaders in the church simply latched on to as a basis of their personal power.
Click to expand...
I decided to return to your original source, SG. What we find there is a literal and fundamentalist interpretation of a version of Hosea. Remember, you picked several quotes from that source to bolster a claim that the Bible is misogynistic (which it may very well be).

My counterclaim is that plucking quotes in a literal way out of a centuries old book to prove that misogyny existed isn't very helpful. Not only has this been done long ago and simply repeated as an exercise in SAB, but your source's cherry-picking falls into the same traps that fundamentalists do by misunderstanding the meaning of (just for one) the Book of Hosea.

I provided you with a context for understanding those quotes. The SAB, to its discredit, does not. There is no mention of the fall of the Northern Kingdom, nor of the siege of Samaria by the Assyrians, nor of the lyrical methods of "prophecies" in ancient writings, nor much of anything you wouldn't find in a fundamentalist Christian pamphlet.

As much as you, I dislike the deployment of Biblical literature to bolster absurd claims about the status of women. More than you, obviously, I deplore the literal interpretation of any "sacred text" as is done both by religious fundamentalists and the SAB.
 
stilicho said:
I decided to return to your original source, SG. What we find there is a literal and fundamentalist interpretation of a version of Hosea. Remember, you picked several quotes from that source to bolster a claim that the Bible is misogynistic (which it may very well be).

My counterclaim is that plucking quotes in a literal way out of a centuries old book to prove that misogyny existed isn't very helpful. Not only has this been done long ago and simply repeated as an exercise in SAB, but your source's cherry-picking falls into the same traps that fundamentalists do by misunderstanding the meaning of (just for one) the Book of Hosea.

I provided you with a context for understanding those quotes. The SAB, to its discredit, does not. There is no mention of the fall of the Northern Kingdom, nor of the siege of Samaria by the Assyrians, nor of the lyrical methods of "prophecies" in ancient writings, nor much of anything you wouldn't find in a fundamentalist Christian pamphlet.

As much as you, I dislike the deployment of Biblical literature to bolster absurd claims about the status of women. More than you, obviously, I deplore the literal interpretation of any "sacred text" as is done both by religious fundamentalists and the SAB.
Click to expand...

Wow...

you actually typed all that out?

Non-Sense.

Fresh Tomatoes really are 'GOOD' on omelettes, and of course grated parm cheese, with copius amounts of fresh ground Black pepper. Oh, I praise the egg.

Life is just that simple.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom