Evil or Not? Episode 1

Originally posted by RJHinds
You must remember that Suzianne is for a woman's right to choose. 😏

You are THIS close to crossing a line with me, Mr. Hinds.

I'd take a big step back if I were you.

Originally posted by josephw
I'd rather be counted among the dumb than to be spiritually bereft of the knowledge of God.

Why can't you fathom the idea of an infallible God Zahlanzi? Is your intellect that shallow? Or is it you just can't stand the idea of losing autonomy? Try that one on as a "thought experiment"!

This is why I call him a "closet atheist".

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
forget the OP. odin obviously doesn't exist. there is no frank either.

two men from the human race are walking down the street. one child mocks man no1 for being bald. man no1 turns to man no2 and asks "what punishment does this child deserve?"

man no2 shoots the kid until he is dead. one kid died, not 42.


evil or not? will you finally answer now?

These are men. Just men. Clearly, this doesn't fulfill your purpose of mocking God, so why ask the question? What is to be gained from your asking this question?

Originally posted by Suzianne
God does not 'murder' children.

"Now go and attack Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and do not spare them. But kill both man and woman, infant and nursing child, ox and sheep, camel and donkey. "(1 Samuel 15:3)

It's amazing how much you don't realize is in your religion.

Originally posted by Suzianne
God does not 'murder' children.

Murder is a sin, like genocide. Clearly, neither is the work of God.

oh yes i forgot, you define murder so that only humans can commit it.

then indeed god does not murder children, he just deliberately kills them.

Originally posted by Suzianne
These are men. Just men. Clearly, this doesn't fulfill your purpose of mocking God, so why ask the question? What is to be gained from your asking this question?

so your answer is?

i just want to hear you say how you would view the act of killing children over an insult.

Originally posted by Suzianne
This is why I call him a "closet atheist".

and this is why we call you "crazy lady who doesn't grasp the meaning of words"

Zahlanzi, don't miss my post on page five. Thought you'd like to know.

Originally posted by josephw
You don't know me. If you did you wouldn't judge me so. In one way this debate can be said to be quite serious. A matter of life and death. Depending on who one is talking to.

In another way I'm ready to laugh at myself for the way I behave myself at times, and at some of the things I say. And in another way I cringe.

But rest assured Zahlanzi, I haven ...[text shortened]... hat may come of it!

Sorry for giving you so much grief. I really hope to see you in eternity.

"Try to understand my position about this contentious issue."
i do understand your position. you are scared that the version you have of god might take offense that you think the act i described is evil.
an act considered evil by mostly everyone. an act so easy to judge.

imagine for a second (and be honest with yourself) you didn't know about the elisha passage and this scenario was told on evening news. "man kills 4 children for mocking his bald spot, police have him in custody". would it take you more than 1 second to label that man evil? or at least insane.

if you hear "man kills 4 children" you don't even need to know details.

so why does this act become justified when god does it?

Originally posted by josephw
You don't know me. If you did you wouldn't judge me so. In one way this debate can be said to be quite serious. A matter of life and death. Depending on who one is talking to.

In another way I'm ready to laugh at myself for the way I behave myself at times, and at some of the things I say. And in another way I cringe.

But rest assured Zahlanzi, I haven ...[text shortened]... hat may come of it!

Sorry for giving you so much grief. I really hope to see you in eternity.

"I know God is perfect and omniscient"
this should be a separate thread. you don't allow yourself to think but what you fear is not that God might not be perfect and omniscient, but that the Bible might not be.

the bible says everything in the bible is 100% correct, 100% the word of God, that God absolutely approved every letter in it.

think about this for a second.
first, the bible is translated and retranslated. scholars are often reviewing and re-reviewing translations where a word might change a whole chapter's meaning

second, the bible is a collection of writings and even though we consider them to be divinely inspired, there were many authors. why would god need 4 people to tell the same story ? why would god give a set of laws and change them a mere thousand years later by sending his son? some old men decided which book must be in the bible and which not, why do you put so much stock in their decisions?


jesus comes to earth and tells us to love our enemies, to be full of love and compassion. what is of more comfort to you? that god really killed all those people in the OT and relaxed a bit and sent jesus? or that god send jesus specifically because the OT is wrong and to correct it?

in one case god is a homicidal maniac, in the other case god allowed some people to write lies about him and corrected them later. which one of these brings you more comfort? which one of these makes you happier? which one of these gods would you be more proud to follow?

Originally posted by josephw
I'd rather be counted among the dumb than to be spiritually bereft of the knowledge of God.

Why can't you fathom the idea of an infallible God Zahlanzi? Is your intellect that shallow? Or is it you just can't stand the idea of losing autonomy? Try that one on as a "thought experiment"!

"Why can't you fathom the idea of an infallible God Zahlanzi?"
why don't think about it very much. this aspect is simply not that important to me. no matter if he is infallible or not, he is still a benevolent god and he IS god. that is not the point though.

this discussion is not about me wanting god to have failed. in my view, he didn't. in my view, all those horrible acts described in the OT are lies. for all intents and purposes, MY god is in fact infallible.

this discussion is about you needing the bible to be 100% correct more than you need god to not have killed those people.

is it so scary to discover that the bible is not correct? it was proven beyond a doubt that the world wide flood did not happen, does not this fact actually improve the image of god instead of diminish it?

As far as I can see, all Christians on this forum accept that the story is true, but although it seems abhorrent, and, yes, evil to kill 42 children over an insult, somehow we need to explain that God cannot possibly be evil. But how to explain it away? With great difficulty, indeed!

Zahlanzi, a very simple answer : yes, it is totally evil and a disproportionate punishment for the alleged crime.

Did God really do this? I would suggest no, on the basis of many other scriptures. Just imagine this happening to Jesus. Would he have killed the children had they mocked him for having a scraggy beard? I think you know the answer to that. When the disciples wanted to call down fire from heaven on their opponents, Jesus' reply was: You don't realise whose children you are! And Jesus showed us what God is really like. Elijah, a type of Christ, indeed! (Not!)

No, the story of Elijah and the bear is another story of the Jewish mythology that was written down during the Babylonian captivity. I am pretty sure that Jesus himself would have been embarrassed if confronted with it, and had some suitable reply, "It was written of old by people who wanted to tell a story, but, no, this isn't what your Father is like at all!"

Originally posted by CalJust
As far as I can see, all Christians on this forum accept that the story is true, but although it seems abhorrent, and, yes, evil to kill 42 children over an insult, somehow we need to explain that God cannot possibly be evil. But how to explain it away? With great difficulty, indeed!

Zahlanzi, a very simple answer : yes, it is totally evil and a dispropor ...[text shortened]... old by people who wanted to tell a story, but, no, this isn't what your Father is like at all!"

The question then, is which Scriptures are true, if some are fake? Are there any that Jesus didn't believe in? If there are, then that's yet another reason to not trust the Bible.

Originally posted by vivify
The question then, is which Scriptures are true, if some are fake? Are there any that Jesus didn't believe in? If there are, then that's yet another reason to not trust the Bible.

No scripture is "fake".

Even though some passages are clearly mythology (creation, Noah, Babel, etc.) no mythology is meaningless. All mythology, no matter whose (e.g. Odin and Thor in German) tells something significant about that nation's beliefs and history. And Jewish folklore and myths tell about their search for God, and how this developed.

Yes, Jesus clearly did not take all of the ancient writings equally seriously. Although he quoted extensively from the Talmud and the Torah, he never, ever, quoted those passages which depicted God as cruel, vindictive and merciless (of which there are many, and the OP of this thread refers to one such passage) he regularly flouted their (highly important) Sabbath laws, and also their cruel laws concerning adultery, just to mention two examples. In fact, it was his opposition to some of these "orthodox" practices, which got him killed by the establishment.

To answer your question concerning what parts then of the Bible can be trusted and ARE literally true? I would say that that takes real discernment, but anybody going to the Bible with an open mind and listens with a willing heart ready for instruction, will know the answer to this question.

In fact, one should NOT go to the Bible for a list of do'es and don'ts, and for rules and regulations to hit other people over the head with, but for an insight into Spiritual Space. The external observation of rules and regulations are the antithesis of true Spirituality, and this is what Jesus tried to get his disciples to see, when he spoke about the "yeast of the pharisees" that leavens the whole bread.

Originally posted by CalJust
No scripture is "fake".

Even though some passages are clearly mythology (creation, Noah, Babel, etc.) no mythology is meaningless.

That's the problem; these scriptures weren't believed to be "clearly mythology" In Jesus' day, or by Jesus himself. The "scripture as mythology" movement only appeared in the wake of science discrediting the Bible. It's only recently that Christians started opting for "the Bible is only an allegory" or "it's not literal" arguments. The Scopes Monkey Trials are evidence of this.