Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
So now you want to switch to Exodus? Ok. Also Jewish embellishment. No different than the embellishment of George Washington chopping down a cherry tree. The question you have to ask yourself, oh wise former deacon, was what was the purpose of the embellishment? You must have been a horrible deacon.So killing the first born was just an inconsequential event? Makes it much easier when you can just pick and choose the parts you like, doesn't it?
If you come away thinking the authors of the bible intended to make God come off as evil and petty and cruel, then you have misread the authors intent and come away with not even trying to find the author's intent. Read the poems. Read the songs.when God killed ALL babies in the great flood of Noah's Ark flood fame?
I write this not to anger people, if you're not interested in discussing it, then don't. Keep your religion to yourself and move on. I write this because I've had a conversation in another thread and thought it might be a good question to ask for those who want to test their religion against my lack of religion.
What switch? The subject is lives taken that are credited to your version of god. Go back to the children's table and consider what you want to say before you say it. You won't sound as goofy next time.So now you want to switch to Exodus? Ok. Also Jewish embellishment. No different than the embellishment of George Washington chopping down a cherry tree. The question you have to ask yourself, oh wise former deacon, was what was the purpose of the embellishment? You must have been a horrible deacon.
The OP started of with the flood. You switched to the Exodus. The answer to both is still the same... If you come away thinking the authors of the bible intended to make God come off as evil and petty and cruel, then you have misread the authors intent and come away with not even trying to find the author's intent. Read the poems. Read the songs.What switch? The subject is lives taken that are credited to your version of god. Go back to the children's table and consider what you want to say before you say it. You won't sound as goofy next time.
Biblical authors didn't want god to sound evil and petty. They just viewed evil and petty behavior as powerful. Much like trump's followers do today.If you come away thinking the authors of the bible intended to make God come off as evil and petty and cruel, then you have misread the authors intent and come away with not even trying to find the author's intent. Read the poems. Read the songs.
So now you want to switch to Trump? Biblical authors were making specific points. Points you have never bothered to consider because you were too busy trying to confirm your biases. So no, they did not view evil and petty behavior as powerful. And in fact, only someone who did view evil and petty behavior as powerful would come to that conclusion.Biblical authors didn't want god to sound evil and petty. They just viewed evil and petty behavior as powerful. Much like trump's followers do today.
No. That would be YOUR version of God. MY version of God is that God is transcendent. God is incorporeal. God is every extant attribute of reality. MY version of God is that God supplies reality to existence; at all times and at all places. YOUR version of God is that you blame God for every bad act of man while never giving God any credit for any good acts of man. Of which the good vastly outweighs and dwarfs the bad.The subject is lives taken that are credited to your version of god.
And we're back to questioning the morality of a god that chose death for countless innocent children.
The irony is that God already put himself on trial because he knew people like bulldog would.You, more so than most of us mortals, are in no position to judge God.
As soon as you can explain the criteria you use to determine which parts of the bible you think actually happened, and which parts are just made up stories to make a point, we might have a productive conversation. That isnt possible if every time a descrepency is pointed out, you say "that wasn't intended to be taken literally. It was just to illustrate a point. " Define which parts you think are real and mean what they say first.So now you want to switch to Trump? Biblical authors were making specific points. Points you have never bothered to consider because you were too busy trying to confirm your biases. So no, they did not view evil and petty behavior as powerful. And in fact, only someone who did view evil and petty behavior as powerful would come to that conclusion.
The good outweighs the bad? How can that be if you claim your god is incapable of bad?No. That would be YOUR version of God. MY version of God is that God is transcendent. God is incorporeal. God is every extant attribute of reality. MY version of God is that God supplies reality to existence; at all times and at all places. YOUR version of God is that you blame God for every bad act of man while never giving God any credit for any good acts of man. Of which the good vastly outweighs and dwarfs the bad.
It's not my job to teach you. As a former deacon you should already know this.As soon as you can explain the criteria you use to determine which parts of the bible you think actually happened, and which parts are just made up stories to make a point, we might have a productive conversation. That isnt possible if every time a descrepency is pointed out, you say "that wasn't intended to be taken literally. It was just to illustrate a point. " Define which parts you think are real and mean what they say first.
You really aren't equipped for this conversation because it seems like you are thinking this is polytheism or something. God's not turning any knobs or pushing buttons. A deacon would have known that.The good outweighs the bad? How can that be if you claim your god is incapable of bad?
No. The church taught me that the bible was an accurate record of historical events. and it contains no errors. It took common sense to teach me much was just made up stories. I don't have a problem discussing it on those terms, but first you need to identify which parts you believe are real, and which parts you believe were made up just to make a point, and what criteria you use to make that determination. It's unreasonable to try discussing biblical instruction otherwise.It's not my job to teach you. As a former deacon you should already know this.
You're the one saying to disregard certain scriptures as fact because they were just thrown in to illustrate a point.You really aren't equipped for this conversation because it seems like you are thinking this is polytheism or something. God's not turning any knobs or pushing buttons. A deacon would have known that.
And that is what you taught as a deacon?The church taught me that the bible was an accurate record of historical events. and it contains no errors.
Only because of the ridiculous limitation you imposed upon yourself to believe they were historical accounts.It took common sense to teach me much was just made up stories.
Among other things.And that is what you taught as a deacon?
Actually I don't need to do that. You already agree with me that they aren't all historical accounts. You ought to be able to figure it out on your own. After all you were a deacon, right?I don't have a problem discussing it on those terms, but first you need to identify which parts you believe are real, and which parts you believe were made up just to make a point, and what criteria you use to make that determination.
One that read the accounts of the bible literally and then discovered they weren't all historical accounts that should be read literally. Didn't they teach you in deacon school that the bible consists of different literary types?Among other things.
