In one of the other threads this statement about the God of Abraham Isaac and Jacob was posted by Bbarr:
"1) the entity referred to in the OT was a bloodthirsty killer, guilty of genocide, and 2) there is no reason to think that any such entity actually exists, and 3) even if such an entity did exist, there is no reason to think that this entity has anything to do with morality."
He was willing to discuss further, and prove of course I hope, these remarks. I promised to open a thread about these issues.
The floor is yours BBarr ..... and everybody can give his or her comments of course.
Originally posted by ivanhoeI agree with the first point. The god is often violent, fickle and contradictory.
In one of the other threads this statement about the God of Abraham Isaac and Jacob was posted by Bbarr:
"1) the entity referred to in the OT was a bloodthirsty killer, guilty of genocide, and 2) there is no reason to think that any such entity actually exists, and 3) even if such an entity did exist, there is no reason to think that this entity has an ...[text shortened]... issues.
The floor is yours BBarr ..... and everybody can give his or her comments of course.
Point two has been discussed ad nauseum here.
If point one is true, then point three is valid - why should we worship such a god?
1) Of course, you only have to read the OT to realise that people were dispatched left right and centre.
2) There is no proof of his existence. This has been debated incessantly since way before RHP began and always will be, but the fact remains, in reason, there is no god.
3) If god did exist, there is no reason it should be the source of all morality. I am an atheist, I am a fairly moral person I see no conflict between these two things. I see no reason to worship a supernatural being who has had nothing to say or do to me, even if it's existence were to be proved.
Originally posted by ivanhoe
3) even if such an entity did exist, there is no reason to think that this entity has anything to do with morality.
Uhm . . . at least it wouldn't be what most decent humans consider "moral."
Originally posted by ivanhoe
He was willing to discuss further, and prove of course I hope, these remarks. I promised to open a thread about these issues.
I wonder what sort of proof you require. Perhaps you would accept some persuasive evidence?
I am willing to tackle points 1) and 3) if we weakened 3) a bit to read "the entity would be a destructive example of how mankind should behave." Of course, I agree with 2), but I am weary right now of it, and I think 1) and 3) can stand alone.
I believe we can judge the Hebrew god immoral from evidence in the Old Testament. I have written a a post on a very similar subject in the thread entitled "Are there any really HONEST unbelievers here REALL." It is too long to repost here, but it contains four examples (one from each of the following books: Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy) of cruel commands given to the Hebrews by God.
http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=18751&page=6
This post however should only be a primer. In fact, I would be willing to build my case for point 1) from only the book of Deuteronomy. This is not to suggest that many other examples cannot be found in other books of the OT, as my post above demonstrates, but I think it will prove sufficient. Naturally, I encourage others to research other areas of the Bible and post their own examples as well, but I will restrict myself to Deuteronomy.
Fair enough, ivanhoe? Again please see above link. I will post again with specific examples from Deut. later.
Originally posted by VargWhat I find is obvious about the OT, and the NT for that matter, is that there seems to be several completely different takes on the image of God that don't appear to have any relationship to each other. Now, this either means that there are several different "gods" as work here, or some if not all of them are made up to demonstrate the human condition and the different reasons humans feel necessitate a God image. This multi-faceted view of God only demonstrates that the Bible documents the relationship of the human race toward God (the Word of Man) rather than God's relationship toward humanity (the Word of God) . This does not negate the Bible as a religious document; in fact, it probably strengthens it as one, for it ceases to be a rule book and becomes more of a study guide.
I agree with the first point. The god is often violent, fickle and contradictory.
Point two has been discussed ad nauseum here.
If point one is true, then point three is valid - why should we worship such a god?
... --- ...
Originally posted by thesonofsaulI once read a book which looked at the origins of judaism (i.e. the origins of christianity). t claimed that there was a pantheistic religion which evolved (how apt!) into two dominant gods - one essentially malevolent, one benevolent. The old Testament includes the actions of both these gods but by this time the religion has evolved into monotheism. This explains the dual morality of god.
What I find is obvious about the OT, and the NT for that matter, is that there seems to be several completely different takes on the image of God that don't appear to have any relationship to each other. Now, this either means that there are several different "gods" as work here, or some if not all of them are made up to demonstrate the human condit ...[text shortened]... s it as one, for it ceases to be a rule book and becomes more of a study guide.
... --- ...
Originally posted by ivanhoeI agree with it all...end of discussion!😛
In one of the other threads this statement about the God of Abraham Isaac and Jacob was posted by Bbarr:
"1) the entity referred to in the OT was a bloodthirsty killer, guilty of genocide, and 2) there is no reason to think that any such entity actually exists, and 3) even if such an entity did exist, there is no reason to think that this entity has an ...[text shortened]... issues.
The floor is yours BBarr ..... and everybody can give his or her comments of course.
Originally posted by telerion
Originally posted by ivanhoe
[b]3) even if such an entity did exist, there is no reason to think that this entity has anything to do with morality.
Uhm . . . at least it wouldn't be what most decent humans consider "moral."
Originally posted by ivanhoe
He was willing to discuss further, and prove of course I hope, these remar ...[text shortened]... e? Again please see above link. I will post again with specific examples from Deut. later.
All right with me Telerion. A good discussion is all this thread is longing for. Every serious contribution is welcome.
Originally posted by KneverKnight1 clearly states "the entity referred to in the OT". If there was an entity referred to in the OT then 1 can be true. 2 then talks about that entity existing in reality, a completely different thing.
That would be 3 no? If 2, then how 1?
Once again:
1 talks about the OT
2 talks about reality.
These two are not the same thing. Something can exist in a book and not exist in reality. And considering all the fire-breathing dragon fantasies out there, this is something we can be thankful for.
... --- ...