chatfsh Posted October 11, 2009 Share Posted October 11, 2009 I don't stand for God; even if He, She, or It exists, I imagine the supreme being to be a very unpleasant, perhaps even stalin-esque character, assuming that the Bible is a reliable source on the nature of god.Interesting. Upon what (specifically) do you base this characterization? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tehpevis Posted October 12, 2009 Share Posted October 12, 2009 Interesting. Upon what (specifically) do you base this characterization? The Old Testament of the Bible, mostly. A god that kills off the World's entire human population (save one family) for putting their Free Will to work is obviously very genocidal, irritable, maybe even a bit senile. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dunenewt Posted October 12, 2009 Share Posted October 12, 2009 I must agree, the God of the OT didn't come across as the nicest of deities. Surely, in a religion which is supposed to be full of love and compassion, the boss should be a little benevolent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dante Posted October 12, 2009 Share Posted October 12, 2009 "While the Israelites were in the desert, a man was discovered gathering wood on the Sabbath day. Those who caught him at it brought him to Moses and Aaron and the whole assembly. But they kept him in custody, for there was no clear decision as to what should be done with him. Then the Lord said to Moses, "This man shall be put to death; let the whole community stone him outside the camp." So the whole community led him outside the camp and stoned him to death as the Lord had commanded Moses." Numbers 15:32-36 NABAnd that's not even the funniest one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dunenewt Posted October 12, 2009 Share Posted October 12, 2009 I'm surprised noones tried to make a horror film out of the OT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dante Posted October 12, 2009 Share Posted October 12, 2009 It would never sell as a horror movie. Too much preaching for the blood crowd, too much blood for the preaching crowd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chatfsh Posted October 12, 2009 Share Posted October 12, 2009 The Old Testament of the Bible, mostly. A god that kills off the World's entire human population (save one family) for putting their Free Will to work is obviously very genocidal, irritable, maybe even a bit senile.Ah, I see. What most people fail to recognize in this situation is that God gave the people of that day ample warning of the calamity that was about to befall mankind. We are told that Noah was a preacher of righteousness and that it took several decades to build this ark. Therefore we can conclude that not only did God see fit to warn people through Noah Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dante Posted October 12, 2009 Share Posted October 12, 2009 In what court of law is "I warned them first" an acceptable excuse? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chatfsh Posted October 12, 2009 Share Posted October 12, 2009 Excuse? The explanation was not an excuse, it was the reason. These people were judged to be exceedingly wicked and deserving of death. But in His love and wisdom, God decided to give them the opportunity to change their ways and continue living. They chose to ignore the warning.Whenever a natural disaster is about to strike, the government will often warn people to evacuate the area but many people foolishly choose to ignore the warnings and therefore suffer a horrible fate. But it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dante Posted October 12, 2009 Share Posted October 12, 2009 Natural disasters are a different kettle of fish from pointing a gun at someone and saying "Keep doing what you're doing and I'll shoot you." The allegory is a little twisted in that the weapon used was a natural disaster, but whatever. Terrorists who send warnings first are terrorists all the same. "I warned them first" is not an excuse, except perhaps in whacko dictator land. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chatfsh Posted October 12, 2009 Share Posted October 12, 2009 If at this particular time, the world was filled with murder, rape, thievery and every sort of horrible violence that you could imagine, many would view it as a service to rid the world of such persons. Usually we just put these types of criminals in prison for a very long time. In this case, God determined that when these people failed to repent after decades of begging them to, He felt that there was little other choice but to execute his judgment upon them. Again, in the face of such extreme violence and decadence, it was doing the world a service.The important point to remember is that God gave them the choice to stop murdering and raping. They said, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dante Posted October 12, 2009 Share Posted October 12, 2009 And we call it dictatorship. After all, the winners write the histories. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sneakgab Posted October 12, 2009 Share Posted October 12, 2009 ''it was doing the world a service.''This ''practical aspect'' is not important. God could instantly and effortlessly rid the world of the murders without killing them.Of course, one could speak of other reasons like justice.I wonder about the sense in such justice. Why do harm to the evil if it does no good to anyone? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dante Posted October 12, 2009 Share Posted October 12, 2009 That's a point, god wiped away not only the rapists and thieves, but the raped and the... thieved from. So if the victims were as bad as the perpetrators (the only logical assumption, because the other one is that god killed innocent people), why not just leave the world to its own devices? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chatfsh Posted October 12, 2009 Share Posted October 12, 2009 And we call it dictatorship. After all, the winners write the histories. I wasn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dante Posted October 12, 2009 Share Posted October 12, 2009 They don't beg and plead, they order and dictate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chatfsh Posted October 12, 2009 Share Posted October 12, 2009 That's a point, god wiped away not only the rapists and thieves, but the raped and the... thieved from. So if the victims were as bad as the perpetrators (the only logical assumption, because the other one is that god killed innocent people), why not just leave the world to its own devices? I tend to view it as the earth having become infested with wickedness, the likes of which we haven Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sneakgab Posted October 12, 2009 Share Posted October 12, 2009 ''God wanted to rid the world of the infestation so that mankind could prosper once more in a less violent world. ''Look my point was that God is omnipotent. He could teleport them all to another planet if he wanted. Then he could deliver whatever punishment he wants.I will say though, that the thought of a world of rapists and thieves getting punished by rape and thievery is very amusing. Depending on the motive of the rapist that might be no punishment at all though :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chatfsh Posted October 12, 2009 Share Posted October 12, 2009 Look my point was that God is omnipotent. He could teleport them all to another planet if he wanted. Then he could deliver whatever punishment he wants.Yes, I suppose an omnipotent God could have done a great many things, but what He chose to use was a natural disaster (literally an act of God). Your point? :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dante Posted October 12, 2009 Share Posted October 12, 2009 That god is needlessly malicious? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sneakgab Posted October 12, 2009 Share Posted October 12, 2009 Come on now. I'll just re-quote my point:"This ''practical aspect'' is not important"(edit: in reference to Hwi mostly, posted while Dante did... Mentioning this because I wouldn't want to imply that I necessarily disagree with Dante [to make it absolutely clear, I don't necessarily agree either]) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chatfsh Posted October 12, 2009 Share Posted October 12, 2009 To serve justice, God chose to meet malicious crimes with a malicious punishment. Once again, He gave them the choice to avoid all of this. They chose to ignore Him, therefore, they chose to die in the flood. It all could have been avoided. God is no more the bad guy here than a judge handing down a sentence to a violent criminal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dante Posted October 12, 2009 Share Posted October 12, 2009 Everything god is and does is a circular argument. God does X because it's good, and X is good because god does it. Similarly, anyone condemned by god must have done something bad, because if they hadn't then god would not have condemned them. And those various biblical figures who stoned, sexed, invaded and tortured their way through the bible without being condmned, they were doing good because god didn't smite them.It's a ridiculous circle. Judges have an external law that they themselves only represent. They neither exemplify the law nor dictate it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SandChigger Posted October 12, 2009 Share Posted October 12, 2009 Good gods and forest nymphs in various states of undress, what the pink hell is all this then? :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sneakgab Posted October 12, 2009 Share Posted October 12, 2009 Though, in this case the argument is that these people were evil.Then again, it's funny that we are speaking about something of which we have no proof ever occurred.The proof of the occurrence would almost certainly rely on such circular logic. Thus, the entire discussion seems moot.(edit)Relying on actual proven events, it would seem that God is... completely indifferent and inactive.Some would argue that inactivity in this case equates to villainy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts