Was God a hypocrite or what?

I de facto don't beleive in that "god" just as I don't beleive in Mother Goose🙂. Whatever one attributes to "god" -Moses, in our case- is a reflection of Moses' thoughts;

Originally posted by black beetle
I de facto don't beleive in that "god" just as I don't beleive in Mother Goose🙂. Whatever one attributes to "god" -Moses, in our case- is a reflection of Moses' thoughts;

But your belief as to whether or not God is a real entity have nothing to do with whether or not God is a hypocrite. Or do you just enjoy going around telling everyone you don't believe in God?
I rather doubt that Moses invented the Jewish God, or in fact wrote anything about him. It is in fact quite possible that Moses did not even exist.
So, you have told us that the God of the Bible is cruel, unjust, surly and revengeful. And many people would agree with you.
But the question remains, is the God of the Bible a hypocrite?

That exact "god" of the Old Testament is resourceful to the hilt; every information about this invented entity derives from that barbaric manuscript. I don't know whether he is hypocrite or not but he definately looks seriously derailed;

Originally posted by twhitehead
And where does it say "thou shalt not kill except when the victim is innocent"?
And since we are all born into sin, does this not mean that we too can kill anyone we like because we know that they are guaranteed to be guilty.

I don't think we have that authority. God however...

Originally posted by PinkFloyd
I don't think we have that authority. God however...

What exactly do you mean by authority? In the USA, people get authority by adhering to man-made rules; the citizens give people authority over them for a reason.

Does God have authority because he's obeying man-made rules?

Originally posted by black beetle
That exact "god" of the Old Testament is resourceful to the hilt; every information about this invented entity derives from that barbaric manuscript.

And the barbaric manuscript is derived from ... ?

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
And the barbaric manuscript is derived from ... ?

Monks who took hallucinogens.

Originally posted by PinkFloyd
I don't think we have that authority. God however...

So it comes back to my initial point: that since God is supposedly different from us, the rules don't apply to him. ie there is an implicit clause in the Ten commandments which says "All Human beings not including God must ...."
In fact, if you think about it, the popular version of the Ten commandments starts with "Thou shalt not ...". It doesn't say "We shall not ...." or "No one will ...". It is a direct order from God to the Jews. I dont even know if it says anywhere in the Bible that following those commandments are required of non-Jews, or if following them makes a person better in Gods eyes.

Originally posted by scherzo
Monks who took hallucinogens.

If by 'Monks' you mean Christians then I find it hard to believe that members of a religion that is based on a book could have made up the book after joining the religion.
If you meant celibate, I find that too hard to believe, it is quite likely that at least some of the writers were polygamous.
But I do realise that 'Monk' is a very flexible word.

Originally posted by twhitehead
If by 'Monks' you mean Christians then I find it hard to believe that members of a religion that is based on a book could have made up the book after joining the religion.
If you meant celibate, I find that too hard to believe, it is quite likely that at least some of the writers were polygamous.
But I do realise that 'Monk' is a very flexible word.

And monks can be very flexible! Watch those Shaolin madcaps go.

The oldest 'monk' lineage I know of would be Buddhism. Before that, there were priests -- Egypt, China ... Before them, shamen. Before them --

Anyhow -- the sacred texts arose from tradition, not the other way around.

Originally posted by scherzo
Monks who took hallucinogens.

Genesis, that Noahs' story included, derives from the Babylonian myth of Utanapistim, which one may find at the Epic of Gilgames and suerely in other mythologies, i.e. in the Ancient Greek mythology(Defkalion and Pyrra). From the first page Genesis is hair-raising: it's nice to see how the paired animals were saved, but it's disgusting to see how "God" killed every other, probably innocent animal, and every human being but Noah's family;

Originally posted by black beetle
Genesis, that Noahs' story included, derives from the Babylonian myth of Utanapistim, which one may find at the Epic of Gilgames and suerely in other mythologies, i.e. in the Ancient Greek mythology(Defkalion and Pyrra). From the first page Genesis is hair-raising: it's nice to see how the paired animals were saved, but it's disgusting to see how "God" killed every other, probably innocent animal, and every human being but Noah's family;

"And Jehovah saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually." (Gen. 6:5)

Maybe old black beetle would have said "Hey, the party's just getting started!"

"And the earth was currupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence." (Gen. 5:11)

Maybe black beetle would have said "But this is just the way we like it. Latter we can always blame 'God' ".

How bad does it have to get for you before God attempts to save a remnant so the entire human race doesn't rot?

Originally posted by jaywill
[b]"And Jehovah saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually." (Gen. 6:5)

Maybe old black beetle would have said "Hey, the party's just getting started!"

"And the earth was currupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence." (Gen. ...[text shortened]... for you before God attempts to save a remnant so the entire human race doesn't rot?

Hi jaywill;

I said that OT begins with a myth well spread worldwide, and as far I am concerned this is a fact.

Surely you are free to enjoy OT, but it seems not so ethical for a "god" to exterminate every innocent creature (all the poor animals and all the poor children) of the planet in order just to save the human race;

You may know that if you enter a room filled with people eating garlic there is likely to be a stink in the air. If you stay there long enough you get use to it. You are no longer so conscious of the stench.

Have you considered that you have just gotten so use to the state of man that it doesn't bother you?

As for the myth matter, you probably know that many ancient cultures have a myth about a world wide flood. The question I would ask is this: Are these accounts all based on a myth or are they myths based on something that actually happened?

It is reasonable to me that the 8 people who came off of the ark descibed to their descendents what happened. As people spread across the globe they took this account. It underwent embellishments according to the local needs of various cultures. So today there is this collective memory in myth form about a flood.

Now you could say that everyone just imagined the same kind of story which I think is unlikely. The alternative could be that the many embellishments and versions are of something that really happened.

I believe what happened in actuality is in Genesis. The many cultural modified versions of a universal flood are the many versions that developed by the descendents of the surviving 8 in the ark.

Originally posted by jaywill
You may know that if you enter a room filled with people eating garlic there is likely to be a stink in the air. If you stay there long enough you get use to it. You are no longer so conscious of the stench.

Have you considered that you have just gotten so use to the state of man that it doesn't bother you?

As for the myth matter, you probably k ...[text shortened]... al flood are the many versions that developed by the descendents of the surviving 8 in the ark.

The case regarding the existence of "god" follows an evolutional process and is based on many versions because it is associated with local apocalyptical traditions instead of facts.This evolution is a string that begins with the Animism and then with the polytheistic religions, and finally with the monotheist religions like Judaism and its derived branches (Christianism and Islam).
I am not yet ready to accept that the natural phenomena are acts of "god", and I am sure that nobody is sinful from the very first second of his birth. "Sins" are caused by specific actions, and a just born baby is incapable of such an attitude. "Sins" is the machinery of these three monotheistic religions and this machinery is used constantly for social manipulation;