Is God A Moral Monster?

[posthuman]

you say here some bits are 'more enlightened'
clear implication: some are 'unenlightened'



similarly you say there's an 'evolution in the understanding' of the people who wrote the things in the Bible.
clear implication: looking back, the earlier writers are devolved



here you unambiguously say that not only does Moses ((who wrote down Genesis)) lack understanding, but that you have greater understanding.



this statement is factually incorrect, but more importantly for the purposes of the reply you wanted, you point out here that you do not believe the Bible is inerrant.
clear implication: you believe some of it is wrong.
clear implication: you consider yourself able to identify at least some of the wrong parts as wrong.


put all these things together:
Moses wrote down the first five books.
you in particular believe the first 5 books are written by a devolved, unenlightened man who lacked understanding and included much erroneous information.
you believe you know better, are more enlightened, have better understanding, and are more evolved.

you are saying Moses was an unevolved, unenlightened, confused & intellectually dim man who believed a pack of lies.
you're calling Moses an idiot because he wrote the first 5 books of the Bible, which you consider largely idiotic in content.
you believe the Bible was written by idiots.

* in re:

Hmmm I don't remember saying that. Perhaps you could quote me?

 

[Whispered]

study Genesis 3.

I have. And I don't add to the scripture what is not actually there. Book of Genesis chapter 3

 

[posthuman]

Remember God is unchanging, so why the different personalties?

because you don't understand what you're reading.
Jesus withered the fig tree and the demons begged Him not to punish them before the appointed time.

 

[posthuman]

Your also imagining and caricaturing my position.

i do suspect that you haven't created this imaginary god on your own, but were taught it. it's not a new or novel idol; it's worn & rampant.

 

[posthuman]

I admit I am fallible, flawed, subject to error and constantly need to learn.

but what value is such an admission if one won't accept correction when it comes to them?

 

[Dibby53]

you say here some bits are 'more enlightened'
clear implication: some are 'unenlightened'



similarly you say there's an 'evolution in the understanding' of the people who wrote the things in the Bible.
clear implication: looking back, the earlier writers are devolved



here you unambiguously say that not only does Moses ((who wrote down Genesis)) lack understanding, but that you have greater understanding.



this statement is factually incorrect, but more importantly for the purposes of the reply you wanted, you point out here that you do not believe the Bible is inerrant.
clear implication: you believe some of it is wrong.
clear implication: you consider yourself able to identify at least some of the wrong parts as wrong.


put all these things together:
Moses wrote down the first five books.
you in particular believe the first 5 books are written by a devolved, unenlightened man who lacked understanding and included much erroneous information.
you believe you know better, are more enlightened, have better understanding, and are more evolved.

you are saying Moses was an unevolved, unenlightened, confused & intellectually dim man who believed a pack of lies.
you're calling Moses an idiot because he wrote the first 5 books of the Bible, which you consider largely idiotic writing.
you believe the Bible was written by idiots.

Believe this if you want.

 

[Dibby53]

but what value is such an admission if one won't accept correction when it comes to them?

What corrections? I have received nothing coherent, rational or any answers that treat me with respect. Just rants and assumptions about my motivations and insinuations that I,m on my way to hell.

 

[posthuman]

You might want to take the time to research how the Bible came to exist. And particularly the Canonization process that spanned over 1500 years.

what exactly do you expect me to glean?

some good reasons for not believing the scripture?

 

[posthuman]

Believe this if you want.

i don't want to. i'd rather believe you're OK.

but i can't deny the truth; i don't have that faculty anymore. that was something belonging to the old, unbelieving post.

 

[posthuman]

What corrections? I have received nothing coherent, rational or any answers that treat me with respect. Just rants and assumptions about my motivations and insinuations that I,m on my way to hell.

that's not an accurate assessment. go back and read what i've written to you from our first speaking, without conflating it with what others with less patience have said. if i had no respect for you i wouldn't tell you the truth in the first place and i certainly wouldn't keep on doing it for days.

 

[posthuman]

What corrections? I have received nothing coherent, rational or any answers that treat me with respect. Just rants and assumptions about my motivations and insinuations that I,m on my way to hell.

you know what i do actually respect?

the fact that you had the decency to renounce Christianity when it became clear that the jesus you believe in is not the Jesus the scriptures testify of, that the god you believe in is not the God of either Abraham or of the apostles.

you might be surprised how many people keep pretending they're Christian even when they know full well they hate Christ. you were honest enough with the facts to drop the pretense, and i admire that

that makes me think, you are worth trying to persuade of the truth

 

[Dino246]

What corrections? I have received nothing coherent, rational or any answers that treat me with respect. Just rants and assumptions about my motivations and insinuations that I,m on my way to hell.

Your concept of "coherent" and "rational" must include "agrees with me". I have given you coherent and rational answers. You just don't like them.

 

[posthuman]

Non answer? Odd how you quoted my answer.

i asked if you do not believe the scriptures. that's a yes/no binary query.
you answered that i would probably be interested in the history of canon.

is it 1 or 0?
blue potatoes.

that's not an answer to my question; it's a non-committal deflection with a tacit implication that the canon isn't trustworthy.
if it ain't a non-answer it's an grudging acquiescence.

can you be as honest as PS & Dibby? they don't believe the Bible. if you don't, and you think you're right, you're doing yourself a disservice with doublespeak. be real.

 

[Whispered]

what exactly do you expect me to glean?

some good reasons for not believing the scripture?

You already do that when you add to the scripture that which is not actually written. Most Christians that I know, in fact all that I know, love to learn as much as they can about the Bible, as well as to learn what the Bible teaches. If you don't know the basics as to how the Bible came to be what we have today, you can't expect to criticize someone about the Bible's existence as they know it and not be challenged on what you do not know. And by your reply, have no interest in learning.

"Study to show yourselves approved unto God..." That may sound familiar as scripture.
It is only found in the King James Version today. In the 1611 edition,which included the Apocrypha, the word, "study", meant to be diligent, to strive. Today the American Standard Version has verse 15 to read thusly: 15 Give diligence to present thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, handling aright the word of truth.

This is to show you that the Bible has changed over the years. That fact, when, and why, are what some would think important information to round out any Christians studies. We study the word, why wouldn't we study from whence it came?

 

[posthuman]

I'd think the question would be, why didn't God show mercy and forgive them? Knowing they'd been led to disobey when they had not the capacity to reason against what was the wisest of all God's created angels, Lucifer? Who was Satan after God cast him out. The question there becomes, why did God let Lucifer live after leading a rebellion against Him in Heaven?

• God did show them both great mercy. study Genesis 3.
• Adam was not deceived - 1 Timothy 2:14 - not only did he have the capacity to match wits with Satan, but Satan didn't have the capacity to overcome him.
• why would God with great patience endure the objects of His wrath? study Romans 9.
  

 

[Whispered]

i asked if you do not believe the scriptures. that's a yes/no binary query.
you answered that i would probably be interested in the history of canon.

No, you intended to go off topic so as to challenge my faith using a transparent vehicle to do so.

And your ultimatum is absurd. You either care to learn the history of the canon or you do not. You demonstrate you do not, because you demonstrate firstly that you are not aware of the history of the canon.
If you would commit as much time to study of scripture and the history of the Book, while seeking to example the spirit of Christ in your comportment on this Christian forum, you would serve yourself well. However, you demonstrate you prefer to invest in sarcasm, derogatory remarks and evasiveness in order to not do that.
That's your cross.

 

[posthuman]

I have said this a few times with regard to the Exodus. The people escaped from Egypt without spilling a drop of blood

this comment is incredibly insensitive to frogs

 

[posthuman]

No, you intended to go off topic so as to challenge my faith using a transparent vehicle to do so.

And your ultimatum is absurd. You either care to learn the history of the canon or you do not. You demonstrate you do not, because you demonstrate firstly that you are not aware of the history of the canon.
If you would commit as much time to study of scripture and the history of the Book, while seeking to example the spirit of Christ in your comportment on this Christian forum, you would serve yourself well. However, you demonstrate you prefer to invest in sarcasm, derogatory remarks and evasiveness in order to not do that.
That's your cross.

i didn't give you any ultimatums.
i listed facts and their logical conclusions, and i gave you advice: to wit, that you should say what you really mean; be real.
there's no such thing as an ultimatum from me to you; do what you want. you already do, with your free will. i can't 'or else' anything to you. that's nonsense. i'm a mere worm passing through your life for you to step on.

this whole thread is derailed from the OP's intent already & has been for 10 pages at least.
i was shocked to read you implying that you don't believe the scripture - i knew you were poor at interpreting it, but i thought all this time you believed it. addressing that is far more important than some pretense of decorum, because i happen to care for you.

you're insulting my character without justification, ignoring the issue at hand.
i'm trying to draw out an honest response from you, which is for your own good.

 

[posthuman]

So when you tell him, "the Bible does", one could easily retort with, which one and from which century? The Bible we have today is not the one that was first available. In fact, the Apostles spread the word verbally. They did not have a new testament to distribute in their journey.

you go ahead and check if i quote some book that was never in any canonized text. if any of your apocraphya contradicts Genesis you let me know when i should tear Genesis out of my printed Bible and what book to replace it with, OK? THX ♥

 

[posthuman]

I would add as to your posts to PS, as they had said in their last posting, I believe they are now off-line , having retired for the evening.
Just so you don't think they are not responding for some other reason.

thanks but now that i've ((horus later)) finally caught up on the 4 or so pages i had missed, i wouldn't have time to respond to anything new anyhow until morning. so it didn't really matter if they are commenting in real-time; i'm not, today.