Zone1 Why do you need gods?

[Cardinal Carminative]

.

And not to mention all the people of other religions are wrong.

That's a very important key point. One cannot simply claim that everyone who disagrees with your faith is "doing it wrong". Perhaps the Christians on here are reading the Quran incorrectly? Or the Bahgavad Gita.

It amuses me that the people of the three major Abrahamic religions think they all worship the same god when it seems pretty obvious they don't.

Agreed.

After all if there is only one god then only one religion can be correct.

Correct.

 

[Road Runner]

Lost in what sense?

In comfort and strength.

 

[BothWings]

Do you believe Karma is logical?

It simply connects us illogical beings to the logical universe....whether we like it or not.

 

[Red Front]

Gods and religions provide strength, comfort, guidance and answers. So man has maintained about 2,500 of them over time.

Unfortunately, a lot of bad comes from (a) organized religions and (b) people who pervert the religion to match their own agenda.

Religion ends up being warped and wrecked by politics, ego, hate, lust and greed. As we see on a pretty freakin' regular basis.

The opiate of the people, due to the hardships of life.

 

[Mac1958]

The opiate of the people, due to the hardships of life.

And understandable. I can see the attraction.

It's when it's weaponized that I draw the line.

 

[BreezeWood]

Just telling you what the science says. The presence of matter and energy creates its own space time.

and for the transfer from one to the other ...

- the moment of singularity, the cyclical bb is for that outcome a new time frame - for what exists, eternally.

 

[BreezeWood]

You should watch both videos.

howabout write your own desert religion ... oh, you've already done that the 4th century c bible - sorry.

bing, is there anything else to watch, the true events of the 1st century - liberation theology, self determination what jesus really said. thx.

 

[Synthaholic]

Socialism, YOUR GOD, has murdered more people in 100 years, than all of the people killed by ALL religions in 2,000 years.

DURRRR

When has Socialism ever killed anyone? Not that I know of. And if you're stupid enough to cite the Nazis because they had Socialist in their name but practiced none of it, then you're much too stupid for me to respond to.

You find an example of a true Socialist government causing the most murders. Sweden? Finland? Norway? Who is left? Who, over the past 100 years?

 

[westwall]

When has Socialism ever killed anyone? Not that I know of. And if you're stupid enough to cite the Nazis because they had Socialist in their name but practiced none of it, then you're much too stupid for me to respond to.

You find an example of a true Socialist government causing the most murders. Sweden? Finland? Norway? Who is left? Who, over the past 100 years?

DURRRRRR. History is filled with socialist mass murder.

 

[Synthaholic]

DURRRRRR. History is filled with socialist mass murder.

Yet, when I ask you for an example you have nothing.

 

[BreezeWood]

Yet, when I ask you for an example you have nothing.

oh, DURRRRRR ...

 

[Meriweather]

NO! Not at all. I love the metaphor in the Bible. But ironically every time I, an atheist, read the Bible I'm told by people of faith that I'm doing it wrong.

I am not saying you are doing it wrong. I am saying by only going along with your understanding of English and modern culture, you may be missing a lot.

 

[Meriweather]

The Israelites taking over Caanan was not a metaphor in the Bible. I know you would LIKE it if it were, but it isn't.

Why would I like it to be a metaphor? Historical accounts should be as accurate as possible, although I am well aware the authors in those days seem to bend more towards interesting than pure accuracy. That is why I value studying other historical accounts along with Biblical accounts. The study may take longer, but to me, it is worth it.

 

[Meriweather]

If the stories of God handing over people to the hands of the Israelites to be slaughtered is "metaphor" what is the meaning behind it? Because it shows a God who is so fiercely partisan that countless people are slaughtered in His name.

Remember, Middle Eastern religions--to this day--credit God with everything. For example, Islam holds the belief that one cannot lift even the little finger without it being the will of God. No breath is taken without it being the will of God.

The Twin Towers could not have fallen had it not been the will of God, nor the third plane crash without reaching its target if not for the will of God.

Therefore, the Israelites to be in the position to slaughter their enemies, it was the will of God. If the Israelites were defeated, will of God.

This is what I mean when I say they have an entirely different way of thinking. All is the will of God, no matter what happens, good or bad.

 

[Meriweather]

Seems like you want it both ways. That the Bible be about a real God but written by people who continually put bad, non-God stuff in there about God.

See my previous post. Their thought process is simply different. In many cases, their personification of God leans more towards what we might, with our modern thought process, consider it as the story's setting.

 

[Meriweather]

Are some genocides OK in this way of thinking?

Hard for me to say, because even after all these years of studying, I still think from the perspective of Western Culture--and a Western journalist at that. With that background, here is what I think could be in play:

• Pure miracle where God does tell a prophet genocide must occur to bring justice into the world and prevent further injustice. As someone who has experienced miracles, to me this seems unlikely because of God's pure love and goodness. On the other hand, I will not say to anyone, "I believe my miracle, but not yours." Many Jews firmly believe the purpose of genocide was to insure justice was brought into the world and would prevent worse injustices.
• The Jews are fully aware of God's love, goodness and commandments. Their accounts were written well after the event. They must face the fact they committed genocide. Did the author whitewash this atrocity of man by calling it an act of God? This would have told his present day audience that no one should commit genocide without the direction coming straight from God, no one else. (Admitting our mistakes as a society, has never come easy for any nation.)

 

[Meriweather]

Unless you are an Amalekite infant or old woman.

Keep in mind we later read that some of the Amalekites (Saul's doing) did live on. If Saul did not think genocide was needed, I imagine some of his soldiers were of the same opinion. Remember, this is pure speculation on my part, but it is based on Saul's actions and later mention of the Amalekites.

 

[Meriweather]

So God is a concept that often demands genocide?

That is not my experience. Further, there is much in the Bible (and that includes the Old Testament) that seems to override this view of God. Again, Jews are firm in the belief this was an act of justice. They also point out that what happened to any enemy was always a great deal less than what had occurred to them. The insist the lesser amount of retribution to their enemies are examples of God's mercy.

Earlier, you mentioned old Amalekite women and also Amalekite infants. Remember, there were a great number of Hebrew elderly and infants that the Amalekites had been picking off and killing over several past decades. Jews say that compared to the number of elderly Hebrews killed and infants slaughtered, the number of Amalekites in the same situation was much less. (Justice to the society, but also mercy.)

 

[Meriweather]

Then explain 1 Sam 15:3 to me. Was it Samuel making stuff up and putting words in God's mouth? Was Samuel, a prophet of God, also a vicious liar and murderer?

Keep in mind, Samuel did not write the Book of Samuel. Nor did he keep a journal. This book was written many years later, giving us a summary of what took place.

My take on Samuel: He was a great prophet, a man of God, a man of prayer. His main purpose was to keep the people of God a nation set apart and away from the influence of other nations and their ways. Samuel might have had a vision from God. Or, in prayer, he might have been sure that eradicating the Amalekites was the right thing to do to protect the Israelites. It had developed into a situation of them or us. If the situation between the Israelites and the Amalekites had devolved into one or the other, would you have been happier if it had been the Israelites who had been slaughtered by the Amalekites?

 

[Meriweather]

No, the Bible is. I merely read the Bible.

But you read the English translation from the perspective of modern Western culture. Your conclusion is that God is vicious. This is not view of any Biblical author. Their words and cultures never presented God in this light.