Zone1 Humanity and Jesus

[irosie91]

Nobody accused Essenes of murder, for one, and Jews loved putting heretics to death or another, and of course other crimes were death penalty cases, like being Greek, for example, at some periods. 'Hellenism' was a serious offense. You should actually read a book once in a while, instead of relying on street begging rabbis on corners in NYC.

you got citations of Judicial death penalties for "being greek" or "heresy"
unrelated to those imposed by THE CHURCH? Well---Socrates was
executed for being "GREEK"----but that was not a jewish thing. There are rabbis begging for streets somewhere? I never met one. PS--manslaughter
is not murder. A very interesting topic that touches on the USA legal system.

 

[irosie91]

Hey, my bad! I didn't know they were Roamins! Have you alerted the schools at Hebrew University yet? lol you can't even remember your own posts.

your post makes no sense. What are ROAMINS? Syrian elites had greek
background. They tried to impose HELLENISM----Romans virtually worshipped all things GREEK so that their impositions were also considered HELLENISTIC

 

[DudleySmith]

you got citations of Judicial death penalties for "being greek" or "heresy"
unrelated to those imposed by THE CHURCH? Well---Socrates was
executed for being "GREEK"----but that was not a jewish thing. There are rabbis begging for streets somewhere? I never met one. PS--manslaughter
is not murder. A very interesting topic that touches on the USA legal system.

You really are oblivious to your own history. Your heroes conducted a civil war against 'da evul Hellenists' as well as invaded the Greek cities around them.

Anybody can find that out for themselves, so you have no real excuse for your errors.

 

[DudleySmith]

your post makes no sense. What are ROAMINS? Syrian elites had greek
background. They tried to impose HELLENISM----Romans virtually worshipped all things GREEK so that their impositions were also considered HELLENISTIC

Nobody had to 'impose Hellenism'; Jewish scholars embraced Greek culture and language all on their own. The Babylonian master race fans resented it and decided to purge it, via massacres and war.

 

[frigidweirdo]

It's not interpretation of the Bible, it's taking the time researching the "Everybody knows". Today, if someone included spats or chopines or even slide rulers in a story for teens, they would have to be explained, yet at one time no explanation necessary because "everybody knows" is in play. How about women having the vapors? How many know today what everybody knew at one time?

What did Everybody Know about God in Biblical times that did not have to be explained? It's noted in the Bible: God is good; God is loving; God is not like us; doesn't have our emotions. It was known people could only (and then barely) understand God through their own reality. Remain in God's ways, and God protected. Go outside his ways, and protection didn't cover those situations.

The Great Flood describes how people had begun to live outside the ways of God and what happened as a result. The Great Flood story starts with the people were wicked. A good family was saved to start over...but what happened and why?

People understood these things because of the Everybody Knows...that was in play. This is why the Book of Job is so fascinating. While everybody knew that God protected those who walked in his ways...what about the bad things that still happened to righteous people? Great Flood? Easy to understand, people had brought wickedness upon the earth and Good (God) could not allow this wickedness to prevail. Job? That wrestles with a question that could not be answered.

Your argument seems to be that: what is there needs to be explained, once it is explained it makes sense.

Who explains? People who have spend a lifetime studying how to remove the inconveniences from the Bible? People who have spent a lifetime studying how to remove the inconveniences from the Bible?

Why is someone else's explanation better than mine?

"Everyone knows" is because that's what the church taught. Most people couldn't read. So the priests come across "God is a genocidal maniac" they'd be like "hmm... let's ignore that part, shall we?"

 

[Meriweather]

Why is someone else's explanation better than mine?

Do you truly believe the original author's intent was to announce to his original audience--and later to you--that God is a homicidal maniac? That was his only purpose?

 

[Carl in Michigan]

Jesus's "father" was a genocidal manic. It'd be like worshiping Pol Pot's son.

The one you think was the "father" was actually Jesus.

He said He CAME TO REVEAL THE FATHER. That means no one knew of the Father until Jesus REVEALED Him.

The "genocidal maniac" you curse was Jesus. You just don't know the real Jesus

 

[frigidweirdo]

Do you truly believe the original author's intent was to announce to his original audience--and later to you--that God is a homicidal maniac? That was his only purpose?

Does the author's original intent matter?

We don't know what their original intent was. So, we can only guess, and the guessing is going to be pointless as it's going to be tinged with modern desires to get something out of the Bible.

Or we might as well write a modern book of morals rather than a book which many religious people seem to think says "treat thy neighbor like thyself, except those you don't like, in which case, burn the fuckers"

The other problem is, if the original intent was to tell us about God, they made a pretty good attempt at making God like like a bad ass genocidal fucker.

 

[DudleySmith]

Or we might as well write a modern book of morals rather than a book which many religious people seem to think says "treat thy neighbor like thyself, except those you don't like, in which case, burn the fuckers"

'Neighbors' in the biblical sense means other Jews, not everybody on the planet. They weren't much interested in others than themselves. People also keep babbling about 'Romans', especially in Revelations, when in fact 'the whore of Babylon' and 'they city on seven hills' was about Jerusalem and the Babylonian cultists the Persians set up as rulers on tier 'Return' from exile. You wouldn't know this, because you've never studied anything and keep thinking bot he NT and OT are just collections of random verses that can be cited for whatever idiot claim you want to make. They are not, they are sophisticated works of literature an philosophy and intricately connected in a number of ways you're oblivious to, including using many 'voices' and contexts.

There are also several ways scholars knows which scrolls were legit 'canon' and which ones aren't, which is how many know the orthodoxy were the originals and not any idiot gnostic rubbish written later.

 

[Meriweather]

Does the author's original intent matter?

I believe it matters and it matters a lot. That's the purpose for study and research, instead of jumping to conclusions based on modern Western culture and the subjective English in place of the objective Hebrew.

We don't know what their original intent was. So, we can only guess, and the guessing is going to be pointless as it's going to be tinged with modern desires to get something out of the Bible.

Is it your modern desire to see God as a "genocidal maniac"? Is it your desire to convince others of a genocidal maniac perspective of God? What is the purpose for that?

 

[frigidweirdo]

I believe it matters and it matters a lot. That's the purpose for study and research, instead of jumping to conclusions based on modern Western culture and the subjective English in place of the objective Hebrew.

Is it your modern desire to see God as a "genocidal maniac"? Is it your desire to convince others of a genocidal maniac perspective of God? What is the purpose for that?

So are you telling me that the original versions of the old testament don't have God as a genocidal maniac?

The reality was that in the past such events as floods came from the gods or a God. Gods got angry and did things and humans had to appease the gods.

We don't think like this, except some really extreme religious people who will claim this, that and the other.

Should we continue to look at the Bible in that way? But it still has God as a genocidal maniac.

I like to discuss things. That's the reason why I'm talking about God being a genocidal maniac. It's something that's pretty clear to me, from what the Bible says, there are plenty of examples of God being violent.

And yet I see Christians telling me God is good. I don't see that. What I see is religious people making things up to fit whatever they want. So I talk to people because it makes for a good debate (when people can be bothered to actually have that conversation, usually it just peters out because they couldn't convert me to their way of thinking).

 

[Meriweather]

So are you telling me that the original versions of the old testament don't have God as a genocidal maniac?

The reality was that in the past such events as floods came from the gods or a God. Gods got angry and did things and humans had to appease the gods.

We don't think like this, except some really extreme religious people who will claim this, that and the other.

Should we continue to look at the Bible in that way? But it still has God as a genocidal maniac.

Read the introduction. It flat out begins with the intolerable wickedness of mankind that could no longer be tolerated. That's what the author and his audience understood--intolerable wickedness.

 

[Meriweather]

And yet I see Christians telling me God is good. I don't see that. What I see is religious people making things up to fit whatever they want. So I talk to people because it makes for a good debate (when people can be bothered to actually have that conversation, usually it just peters out because they couldn't convert me to their way of thinking).

I haven't the slightest desire to convert you to a religion or to any other way of thinking. It would be nice for you to understand why (and what) so many people see more than what you see in Bible stories.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Read the introduction. It flat out begins with the intolerable wickedness of mankind that could no longer be tolerated. That's what the author and his audience understood--intolerable wickedness.

It's not what I understand.

What I understand is there's a God, who made everything. He made humans. And he fucked up the humans bit. He then tested the humans to see if they'd do what he wanted and the humans were like "no". So he got angry and threw a hissy fit. Then years later he came back and was like "you're violent" even though he created humans TO BE VIOLENT, we're omnivores for dogs' sake. We literally kill animals.

That's what I see.

You see something else.

But I don't get it, because you say God saw the "intolerable wickedness of mankind", so he killed them. That's hypocritical. You don't teach a child to be caring by KILLING THEM, BEATING THEM or using any kind of VIOLENCE.

So God is literally that angry dad who doesn't know what he's doing, but when something angers him, he lashes out with violence.

And to me, that probably mirrored what men were like in the past, 5,000 years ago or whenever the old Testament was written.

It was written by people, for people. Only they couldn't see past their own issues. They saw this stuff as normal.

You're saying this is what the "audience" understood. But it would seem to me that it's not true. I'm part of the audience now, and it's not what I see.

And just because some people might not have seen certain things, doesn't mean they're not there. The whole religious crowd has been pounding on gay people because "the Bible says so", and yet I'm sure in the past they didn't go round pounding on gay people.

So, how it's interpreted in the modern era is MORE IMPORTANT seeing how we have to deal with the consequences of all these religious people reading the Bible and being bad people afterwards and using the Bible or whatever book they're reading to justify their badness.

 

[frigidweirdo]

I haven't the slightest desire to convert you to a religion or to any other way of thinking. It would be nice for you to understand why (and what) so many people see more than what you see in Bible stories.

Or maybe I see more than they see from the Bible stories.

Or maybe I'm having a conversation with you, who want to look at the Bible as a work of morality fiction, and then I have conversations with those who look upon it as "the truth".

It's not easy.

 

[Meriweather]

But I don't get it, because you say God saw the "intolerable wickedness of mankind", so he killed them. That's hypocritical. You don't teach a child to be caring by KILLING THEM, BEATING THEM or using any kind of VIOLENCE.

There is another element here. I also look at what was known about natural disasters in Biblical times--and what is known about natural disasters today. Humans look for explanations. Not understanding science, plate tectonics, weather patterns, the explanation was God. Therefore the question was, Why would God do this? Their conclusion was to look at themselves and they saw wickedness to such an extent God had no choice. It's ironic, is it not, 'wicked' is not how God saw them, but it was how they saw themselves.

Or maybe I'm having a conversation with you, who want to look at the Bible as a work of morality fiction, and then I have conversations with those who look upon it as "the truth".

In fact, I do not look at the Bible as a work of "morality fiction". First, morality it not fiction, but great truth. The story of Noah and the great flood, hits on one of the greatest wickedness that springs from mankind and is always causing disaster amidst the population. Even today.

 

[frigidweirdo]

There is another element here. I also look at what was known about natural disasters in Biblical times--and what is known about natural disasters today. Humans look for explanations. Not understanding science, plate tectonics, weather patterns, the explanation was God. Therefore the question was, Why would God do this? Their conclusion was to look at themselves and they saw wickedness to such an extent God had no choice. It's ironic, is it not, 'wicked' is not how God saw them, but it was how they saw themselves.

In fact, I do not look at the Bible as a work of "morality fiction". First, morality it not fiction, but great truth. The story of Noah and the great flood, hits on one of the greatest wickedness that springs from mankind and is always causing disaster amidst the population. Even today.

So what does that make God now?

We know that people used God as a filler for things they didn't understand. A flood comes, it must be because God is angry with us. But we now know it's because that's how the world works.

So, does God exist?

The God of the old testament doesn't exist any more because humans have changed, we don't need that God any more.

We have a new God.

We have a God that doesn't live just above the Earth, we know because we've been there and he's not sitting there watching down on us. We have a God who knows a lot more physics and other sciences.

This God fills in the biggest area for humans in the modern world, "love", this God loves everyone, this God wouldn't go around killing everyone in a hissy fit at our violence. We've been VERY, VERY VIOLENT. We had Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot among a whole host of evil dictators in the 20th century, we had the US invading Iraq and Afghanistan, the rise of militant Islam, Russia invading the Ukraine and playing with all its neighbors, we've got all the other little problems, like the DRC, Sudan breaking up from civil war and South Sudan going into a new civil war, Yemen, Pakistan going mental all the time, we've got high murder rates in poorer Christian countries and the USA.

And this God doesn't give a damn. This God says "they're violent, as long as they come back to church, I'll forgive them and I'll love them"

Proves God doesn't exist. God is just a fictional character who meets the needs of the people. We want love? God gives us love. We need someone to give us control over natural disasters? God will give us that instead. How convenient.

If I write a novel, totally fiction, about some sword wielding guy who lives in a world with magical beings and whatever, and there is morality in that book, does it stop it being fiction because it contains truth in it?

Most books do contain truth, because that's how we, as humans, connect to those books. I think a book that didn't contain truth would be very difficult for people to read.

But what does the Bible do? The old Testament has been around a LONG TIME. And it's been telling Christians not to be violent. When the US went to war in 2003 against Iraq, the population cheered. The Christians, the people who read the Bible, who get told what is moral and what is not moral, cheered, the soldiers took their Bibles to war.

It didn't work. People didn't read the Bible and learn from it. They used their Bibles to justify their war.

 

[Meriweather]

So what does that make God now?

We know that people used God as a filler for things they didn't understand. A flood comes, it must be because God is angry with us. But we now know it's because that's how the world works.

So, does God exist?

The God of the old testament doesn't exist any more because humans have changed, we don't need that God any more.

We have a new God.

We have a God that doesn't live just above the Earth, we know because we've been there and he's not sitting there watching down on us. We have a God who knows a lot more physics and other sciences.

Yes, God exists. God is. Consider how mankind now has a better understanding of science. In many ways, this has also brought about a better understanding of God. It is not a new God, but a new understanding of God--just as we have a new understanding of science.

 

[Meriweather]

This God fills in the biggest area for humans in the modern world, "love", this God loves everyone, this God wouldn't go around killing everyone in a hissy fit at our violence. We've been VERY, VERY VIOLENT. We had Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot among a whole host of evil dictators in the 20th century, we had the US invading Iraq and Afghanistan, the rise of militant Islam, Russia invading the Ukraine and playing with all its neighbors, we've got all the other little problems, like the DRC, Sudan breaking up from civil war and South Sudan going into a new civil war, Yemen, Pakistan going mental all the time, we've got high murder rates in poorer Christian countries and the USA.

We have Quakers who do not pick up arms against anyone. There is also a religion that will not til the soil because it might disturb worms and insect life that exist in the soil. In this life, we see both ends of the spectrum of physical life.

 

[Meriweather]

And this God doesn't give a damn. This God says "they're violent, as long as they come back to church, I'll forgive them and I'll love them"

Proves God doesn't exist. God is just a fictional character who meets the needs of the people. We want love? God gives us love. We need someone to give us control over natural disasters? God will give us that instead. How convenient.

If I write a novel, totally fiction, about some sword wielding guy who lives in a world with magical beings and whatever, and there is morality in that book, does it stop it being fiction because it contains truth in it?

Most books do contain truth, because that's how we, as humans, connect to those books. I think a book that didn't contain truth would be very difficult for people to read.

But what does the Bible do? The old Testament has been around a LONG TIME. And it's been telling Christians not to be violent. When the US went to war in 2003 against Iraq, the population cheered. The Christians, the people who read the Bible, who get told what is moral and what is not moral, cheered, the soldiers took their Bibles to war.

It didn't work. People didn't read the Bible and learn from it. They used their Bibles to justify their war.

Consider we are a people in training, a people being taught. When a student fails, teachers begin again with that student until he learns. Was the first failure forgiven or was it a matter of starting over with a new beginning? Each day God greets the world with, "Today we begin." Let's not fail.