K

Mike(ATL):

But you haven't said what the extenuating circumstances were and where you found the evidence to support your claims.

Picture someone on trial for murder. The defendant admits to killing the victim. He testifies that the killing was for money but that he is not a murderer. Should the jury find him innocent because there may have been extenuating circumstances, he's never murdered before, and he claims he is not a murderer? Of course not. While there MAY have been extenuating circumstances, it is ridiculous to assume so without evidence.

As others have pointed out, there are plenty of places where God acts unjustly. However, that is not the point for this discussion. Unless you think the Bible means that God is 'sometimes' just or 'usually' just, one instance of Him acting unjustly is an inconsistency.

Yahzi

Indeed. When you read scripture, you're so full of context one wonders why you even need the text. Especially since you'll ignore what it says in favor of your "context."

Nothing I write is ever wrong. Ever. You just read it in the wrong context. Even when I say black is white, the fact that you get confused just means you don't have the right context.

Wayne Delia

Absolutely not. That's ridiculous, somewhat like a murderer asking to be excused for his crime on the basis of his claim that he spent the rest of his entire lifetime doing things other than murdering people.Perhaps you don't understand why your analogy fails so spectacularly. God is allegedly omnipotent. He has unlimited ability to accomplish anything that is logically possible, if He so wishes. Humans, however, are not. The human woodsman is unable to communicate to the wounded animal. But if your analogy were correct, the human would have unlimited ability to not only communicate his intentions to the animal, but also to instantly heal and remove the pain. You say "We, like the animal, do not have the perspective of God," but God, unlike us, has the ability to communicate what we allegedly fail to understand. Since He chooses not to communicate, He ends up seeming quite undeserving of the characterization of "all-loving."
Your lack of expertise in apologetics is self-evident. A specific verse in contradiction with the "overall message of the Bible" is still a contradiction. "The verse is taken out of context" is a very common and ineffective apologetic, which would be much more persuasive if you could manage to explain what the proper context should be, and why you think it is necessarily the proper context. Here's a prime example: 1 Samuel 15:1-3 describes an incredibly unjust, barbaric atrocity ordered by God, who commands Samuel to tell King Saul to commit genocide on an entire nation of Amalekites, specifically targeting women, children, infants, and livestock - through no fault of their own, but rather because God was not finished holding a grudge against the already-punished offenses of the Amalekites' long-dead ancestors from 350 years earlier. There is no single-word translation or anything in the surrounding text that makes it any less abominable. However, simply pointing out that it does not follow with the overall general message of the Bible does nothing to remove the contradiction.

WMD

ReasonableDoubt

What I hear you saying, mike, is that God is playing by certain rules. These rules entail God being able to punish, and/or kill, people who are not toeing the line as far as their actions towards his chosen people - ie, Elisha. But what's your explanation for these rules in the first place? Saying that God is like a woodsman who has to put an animal through pain first before the animal can realize its freedom - this analogy just doesn't work. If indeed God is the all-powerful creator of the universe, he doesn't HAVE to do anything. He doesn't have to act according to certain rules. He makes the rules- he set up the game at the beginning. He can't say, "sorry, according to the rules I must have these bears kill these mocking kids, I don't really want to, but those are the rules..." That might work if God was as fallible as a human. But he's not, according to the Bible.
According to your analogy, God has to hurt these people in order for them to realize their freedom, to realize what, exactly? If the end result is death, and, of course, hell (or some variation thereof)- what lesson has been learned?

-DM-

--
DM:
Ezekiel 14:9 "If a prophet is deceived and speaks a word, I, the LORD, have deceived that prophet, and I will stretch out my hand against him, and will destroy him from the midst of my people Israel."(NRSV) [Emphasis added.]
--

You haven't yet proved either that I am misinterpreting or that you are not misinterpreting, thus the question is who is doing the better job of interpreting. Obviously, we differ on that. My opinion is that you are so wrapped up in trying hard NOT to see what should be obvious, that you seemingly cannot see the forest for the trees. In that, you are no different than the Muslim who does the same with regard to the Qur'an or the Mormon who does the same with The Book of Mormon.

Then you obviously agree that he is engaging in deceit, and that is that. It would seem that you would understand that we call a spade a spade regardless of the reason that it is a spade.

It is not at all unlikely, so far as I am concerned, that a perfect "God" would consider you and the authors of the Bible to be false prophets.

The question is whether "God" does or does not deceive people--for any reason whatsoever--not whether he lies. You have agreed that "He" does, in fact, deceive. He is therefore, by definition, a deceiver.

--
American Heritage Dictionary:

deceive verb
deceived, deceiving, deceives verb, transitive
1.To cause to believe what is not true; mislead.
2.Archaic. To catch by guile; ensnare.

verb, intransitive
To practice deceit.

--

The Bible in the context of the whole:

PR 30:5 Every word of God proves true.

1KI 22:23, 2CH 18:22, JE 4:10, JE 20:7, EZ 14:9 God deceives
some of the prophets.

EZ 20:25 God says that he intentionally gave out bad laws.

2TH 2:11-12 God deceives the wicked (to be able to condemn
them).


Problem:

Not every word of "God" can prove true if "God" deceives anyone for any reason at all. On that basis alone, if the Bible is the "word of God," it cannot be trusted. If the Bible is not the "word of God," it cannot be trusted. Thus the Bible cannot be trusted.

It is really that simple, Mike, and no amount of "explaining" how "God" is allegedly justified in using deception negates the fact of deception.

No amount of explaining why can explain how every word of "God" can possibly prove true if he ever deceives anyone, no matter the reason.

Further, an omnipotent "God" would not need to use such tactics; an all-good "God" would not use such tactics. A perfect "God" could not use such tactics.

--

The Bible:

1SA 16:14-23 Evil spirits can come from God (and be exorcised
with God's help).

PR 16:4 God made the wicked for the "day of evil."

IS 45:6-7, LA 3:8, AM 3:6 God is responsible for evil.

Problem:

This is inconsistent with a good "God."

--

DM: If "God" deceives people--for any reason--then neither "He" nor "his word" can be trusted.

Of course, I did not say that he "outright" deceived anyone. Does the Bible say that he deceived? Yes, it does. Either you believe the Bible or you don't. If you believe the Bible, "He" deceived.

I did read the context, but it is about time that you read the words. Whether he was influencing false prophets to mess up their plans, deceiving the wicked so as to be able to condemn them, or intentionally giving out bad laws--although you may think he has a justifiable reason for doing so--that does not change the fact that "He" did so.

DM: One of the basic principles of Bible exegesis is that we are not to add to the words what is not there or take away from the words what is there. The Bible says that the author of Ezekiel says that "the Lord" says: I, the LORD, have deceived that prophet." It matters not whom "He" is against or why. Take the words at their face value; the Lord deceives. If "God" deceives anyone, for any reason, "He" cannot be trusted.

Please reread what I said. I did not say it was a basic principle of the Bible, I said that it was a basic principle of Bible exegesis, and it is.

No, I am referring to the basic principles of Bible exegesis such as are taught in Bible studies in Bible churches.

The principle that I am using is the principle as I stated it.

Irrelevant to the principle that I stated.

Yes, I was a born-again, Bible-believing, evangelical Christian. I was on the Board of Elders of two different churches (not at the same time), the latter a daughter church of a very large and very well-known Bible church. I attended dozens of Bible studies, was personally discipled by my pastor, and for a time was Chairman of the Christian Education Committee. It is not as if I don't have a handle on the principles of Bible exegesis or an understanding of the Bible. I was once more or less where you are at today, except that I was never quite so enamored with obviously inadequate explanations. And although the Bible itself was involved in my decision to reject Christianity as untrue and unworthy of my time and effort, there were other factors: one example, the fact that devout, sincere Christians praying to "God" the Father through Jesus for the guidance of the "Holy Spirit" too often ended up with inconsistent and mutually exclusive "answers."

Inasmuch as I have never said to "take each word at face value," you are now engaged in a straw man "argument."

No, that's called a straw man inasmuch as you misrepresented my position.

It is exactly when you take the Bible in the context of the whole that the problems really begin to stand out.

-Don-

Doctor X

What the hell . . . let us review the "context" of YHWH's Demand for Child Sacrifice [Cue Give me that Ol' Time Religion--Ed.]

We begin with Exod 22:29:

pretty clear demand there. As Prof. John Collins, former president of the Society of Biblical Literature, noted in his wonderful address to the society, scholars have come to accept that child sacrifice was a part of the YHWH cult at some point.

Later it would be supressed or stopped. Ezekiel 20:25-26 serves as an "explanation" of the tradition:

as well as the more modern translations:

just to show this is not "context" or "translation dependent."

The author of the passage has YHWH admit he forced his people to follow evil laws so he could punish them.

Call me a traditionalist, but that strikes me as rather Unjust.

As far as I know, no textual tradition exists that supports the interpretation that the first-born immolated represented a wandering gang of youths who frequently commented on the relative hirsuitness of prophets. . . .

--J.D.

-DM-

Yes, and look at the context. This allegedly "all-good, omnipotent God" did so for what reason? "In order that they might know that I am the LORD."

I say: A perfect, omnipotent "God" would have no need to behave in such a fashion. A perfect, omnibenovolent "God" could not possibly behave in such a fashion.

-DM-

God: The omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, all-wise,
infinite mind who--for strictly personal reasons--makes a
point of seeming to be an impotent, know-nothing, nowhere,
bumbling oaf.

Nooley

ROTFLMAO...this place amazes me