FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Religion (Closed) > Biblical Criticism & History
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Yesterday at 03:12 PM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 11-08-2005, 07:05 AM   #41
Contributor
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Hudson Valley, NY
Posts: 10,056
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rhutchin
That's an interesting observation because God punishes people who are deceived by Satan and could be described as innocent if they did not willfully participate in the evil that Satan tempted them to do and they did not enjoy that evil. It kinda makes people pawns in the hands of God and Satan.
And God does not come out in a particularly good light as a result. The entire book of Job is a testament to the main character's despondency and lamentations from the "pawn's" point of view. God ends up as the bad guy in the Book of Job, not even offering an explanation of why Job had to play the pawn role.

WMD
Wayne Delia is offline  
Old 11-08-2005, 07:05 AM   #42
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Orlando Florida MCAS Yuma Arizona
Posts: 47
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Book of Moses Chapter 4
5 And now the serpent was more subtle than any beast of the field which I, the Lord God, had made.

6 And Satan put it into the heart of the serpent, (for he had drawn away many after him,) and he sought also to beguile Eve, for he knew not the mind of God, wherefore he sought to destroy the world.

7 And he said unto the woman: Yea, hath God said—Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden? (And he spake by the mouth of the serpent.)
This debate was amusing so I was curious on the Mormon stance here. It seems Jo Smith was also a fan of the ventriloquist Satan. I wonder if he threw God off by drinking a glass of water while he was causing mankind to fall from grace. ^_^
Rowantree is offline  
Old 11-08-2005, 07:14 AM   #43
Contributor
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Hudson Valley, NY
Posts: 10,056
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rhutchin
In Jude we read,
...
7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.
The story of Sodom and Gomorrah is a very bad story to use as an example. God allowed Lot, his wife, and his two daughters to escape the shitstorming of the two cities, even though Lot offered his two daughters to be raped by a group of strangers in order to protect his houseguests, and following the firestorm, Lot's daughters got him drunk and had sex with their father, each producing male offspring, a kind of hybrid son/brother. Lot's unnamed wife was killed for simply looking back at her hometown being destroyed by a conflagration literally of Biblical proportions. And Lot was described in Genesis 6:9 as being righteous and blameless.

Bottom line, that story is all fucked up.

WMD
Wayne Delia is offline  
Old 11-08-2005, 07:21 AM   #44
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Orlando Florida MCAS Yuma Arizona
Posts: 47
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by post tenebras lux
But why does god allow the 'god of this world' to do this? I've asked this of you before, but I don't think you've given an answer (maybe there was a 'I dunno' somewhere).
How come everyone assumes God and Satan are either at odds or some other conspiracy? We know the Biblical Hebrew "hasatan" translates to "the adversary." This does suggest a contest or some kind; but could it not be that God, omnicient and omnipotent, created the hasatan to test his creations man and woman to see if they were worthy of him?

And though there is no definative correlation between Lucifer and the hasatan, would that not make even more sence since most traditions (other than LDS) say Lucifer was one of God's most trusted angel before the fall. And then would not that make even more sence why a third of heaven's angels, creatures supposedly created without free will, would "rebel" and leave heaven when God didn't give them the will to make that choice?
Rowantree is offline  
Old 11-08-2005, 07:36 AM   #45
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Hawaii
Posts: 6,629
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rhutchin
To clarify, I agreed with the statement, “The Christian god has done, is doing and will do as [He] pleases.� I also agree that human concepts of morality don't apply to God given that human concepts of morality derive from the selfish desires of people.

I disagree that God tortures people, kills babies and encourages soldiers to rape virgin girls, so this is not part of His nature.
So you are saying that what the bible reports may simply be lies.

Am I reading you correctly?
John A. Broussard is offline  
Old 11-08-2005, 07:38 AM   #46
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Hawaii
Posts: 6,629
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rhutchin
That's an interesting observation because God punishes people who are deceived by Satan and could be described as innocent if they did not willfully participate in the evil that Satan tempted them to do and they did not enjoy that evil. It kinda makes people pawns in the hands of God and Satan.
But the descendants of Adam include the unborn and babies. How can you say that they are tempted by Satan, and then do and enjoy evil?

Please explain.
John A. Broussard is offline  
Old 11-08-2005, 07:43 AM   #47
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Hawaii
Posts: 6,629
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wayne Delia
leaving virgin girls for soldiers to do with as they please, presuming no rape, would be incredibly naive on God's part.)
I've occasionally wondered how the soldiers determined which of the girls were virgins.

Though the bible is silent regarding that matter, rhutchin may be able to explain how it was done.
John A. Broussard is offline  
Old 11-08-2005, 07:44 AM   #48
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Silver Spring, MD
Posts: 9,059
Default

Quote:
rhutchin
The decision to use the serpent would seem to be made on a variety of factors in addition to the ease of doing so. It could have been based on the serpent being “more subtil than any beast of the field.�

David Vestal
Sorry, the bible depicts the serpent as acting alone. Your explanation doesn't wash.

However, even if Satan was pulling the strings, you've no idea why he'd have decided whether to use a serpent, or even why he'd use an animal to begin with (since the bible says Satan could have just as easily appeared as an angel of light, which would certainly have been a better guise). You also have the problem that the word "subtil" makes no sense unless it describes an animal acting autonomously. You also have the problem that the bible does not say what you're suggesting happened. Your position is riddled with flaws.
The problem we have is that little information is given to us concerning this event and that leaves many questions unanswered. Extrapolations beyond the text are always flawed given their nature as extrapolations.

However, people can still speculate and do so consistent with the information that is available.
rhutchin is offline  
Old 11-08-2005, 07:49 AM   #49
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Hawaii
Posts: 6,629
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rhutchin
The problem we have is that little information is given to us concerning this event and that leaves many questions unanswered. Extrapolations beyond the text are always flawed given their nature as extrapolations.

However, people can still speculate and do so consistent with the information that is available.
That's a good point.

So one interpretation is just as good, or as bad, as any other.

How about deciding that the story is a myth with Adam and Eve just symbols about how god doesn't like anyone who disobeys his orders---whatever they may be?

Isn't that just as acceptable as believing there's a Satan who's a ventriloquist?
John A. Broussard is offline  
Old 11-08-2005, 07:51 AM   #50
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Silver Spring, MD
Posts: 9,059
Default

Quote:
rhutchin
To clarify, I agreed with the statement, “The Christian god has done, is doing and will do as [He] pleases.� I also agree that human concepts of morality don't apply to God given that human concepts of morality derive from the selfish desires of people.

I disagree that God tortures people, kills babies and encourages soldiers to rape virgin girls, so this is not part of His nature.

Jack the Bodiless
Does the direct contradiction between these two consecutive paragraphs not bother you a little?

Who are YOU to override the Bible and arbitrarily decide that such acts are "not a part of God's nature", when human concepts of morality don't apply to God?

Of course, there's also another contradiction here, because Genesis 3:22 declares that we DO have the ability to distinguish between good and evil.
I do not see the contradiction (and you did not go into great detail about an alleged contradiction).

People do have the ability to distinguish between good and evil, but like many things, that ability can be corrupted by one’s desires. Hitler and Stalin do not seem to have seen their actions as evil while others would see only evil in their actions.
rhutchin is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 05:29 AM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.