God: Old Testament Vs. New Testament

Hivemind187

I am interested in the interpretation theists have regarding the changeover between the Yahweh of the Old Testament (Smite 'em all and I'll sort 'em out) and the Yahweh of the New Testament (Fluffy bunnys, love they neighbour and fish for all).

There seems to be a book missing "The Gospel According to St. Freud: Analyst to Deities" wherin Yahweh gets some serious therapy and a dose of God-zac to get him through his angry, angsty-teen phaze. Is their an angelic public relations department?


All joking aside, how does one reconcile the two? If you believe in the bible and its teachings (particularly those who believe every word is true) how do you explain the change in tactics?

Chardee MacDennis

this thread is not getting a good reception!!! a stat for you in the bible

killings
God 2,270,365+
Satan 10

from http://dwindlinginunbelief.blogspot.com/2006/08/who-has-killed-more-satan-or-god.html

sorry updated:

Here is a more complete table.
numbered killings estimated total killings
God 2,270,365+ 32.9 million
Satan 10 10

philologos

YHWH in the Old and the New is still the same. I don't find anything repulsive about the Old Testament.

Hivemind187

Jakkass wrote:

YHWH in the Old and the New is still the same. I don't find anything repulsive about the Old Testament.

I asked about hte disparity between their approaches, but yet again Jackass, you choose to interpret the question in such a way that you dont have to answer it.

So let me ask you this;

You dont find the slaughter of tens of thousands repulsive?
You dont find the condemnation of all mammals as wicked by extension of man's presumed guilt repulsive?
You dont find the treatment of women (notably the seemingly blaise manner in which rape, stoning and transubstantiation into sodium chloride is treated?)


... need I go on?

Hivemind187

Call_me_al wrote:

this thread is not getting a good reception!!! a stat for you in the bible

killings
God 2,270,365+
Satan 10

from http://dwindlinginunbelief.blogspot.com/2006/08/who-has-killed-more-satan-or-god.html

sorry updated:

Here is a more complete table.
numbered killings estimated total killings
God 2,270,365+ 32.9 million
Satan 10 10

Now thats interesting

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote:

I don't find anything repulsive about the Old Testament.

Have you read it?

philologos

Hivemind187 wrote:

I asked about hte disparity between their approaches, but yet again Jackass, you choose to interpret the question in such a way that you dont have to answer it.

So let me ask you this;

You dont find the slaughter of tens of thousands repulsive?
You dont find the condemnation of all mammals as wicked by extension of man's presumed guilt repulsive?
You dont find the treatment of women (notably the seemingly blaise manner in which rape, stoning and transubstantiation into sodium chloride is treated?)


... need I go on?

I mean after reading the whole Old Testament (I'm currently on the Gospel of Mark, I started at Genesis, go figure). I don't find it repulsive given certain circumstances. That answers your question Wicknight.

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote:

I don't find it repulsive given certain circumstances

Which are?

Is this the "The Canaanites ate children" argument?

philologos

No infact it's nothing about the barbarism of the tribes that inhabited Israel before the Exodus.

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote:

No infact it's nothing about the barbarism of the tribes that inhabited Israel before the Exodus.

Ok

Care to elaborate on the circumstances under which you feel the actions describing the Bible are justified?

philologos

Wicknight wrote:

Ok

Care to elaborate on the circumstances under which you feel the actions describing the Bible are justified?

It's really a case by case scenario. Every story that is told of God's judgement is different in the Old Testament.

as for the OP: Love thy neighbour is actually written in Leviticus.

JC 2K3

Jakkass wrote:

Love thy neighbour is actually written in Leviticus.

So is somehting along the lines of not allowing the disabled approach the altar, and countless other examples of opression and just plain weird rules.

philologos

JC 2K3 wrote:

So is somehting along the lines of not allowing the disabled approach the altar, and countless other examples of opression and just plain weird rules.

I think that could be a benefit to the disabled as well when one thinks of it. Save them from getting up etc, that happens in a lot of churches the ministers bring communion to the elderly and disabled. Nothing wrong with that at all imo. I don't see that to be oppressive at all, rather it can help to facilitate older / disabled people.

Hivemind187

Jakkass wrote:

I think that could be a benefit to the disabled as well when one thinks of it. Save them from getting up etc, that happens in a lot of churches the ministers bring communion to the elderly and disabled. Nothing wrong with that at all imo. I don't see that to be oppressive at all, rather it can help to facilitate older / disabled people.

applying modern standards to ancient times huh? I thought that wasnt allowed

As for Leviticus, you know full well that playing that card is going to get a lot of other stuff brought up, but your point about "love thy neighbour" being in there ... its hardly the theme of the story now is it and to be blunt, Yahweh doesnt get around to adhering to that statement until the New Testament.

philologos

I'm still waiting for Elisha and the she-bears, and the other scripture that atheists use.

Galvasean

He killed a guy for gathering sticks on the Sabbath day? >_>

Don't tell God I work for six hours every Sunday! :eek:

philologos

In essence. God's system of punishment was not only upon the people who had to bear it. But as a sign to the future generations not to commit the crimes of their ancestors.

as for the "change of behaviour" you're talking about. God had tried to warn the people on earth to change their ways several times in the Bible. Then he took his punishment via the Exile after His people had ignored him. As for the OP who claimed there was a changeover between the Old and the New. That is simply untrue. The covenant with God changed as the people continued to disobey it. The Exile was seen as the ultimate punishment of the Hebrews and seen to be the ultimate sign to future generations to obey His word. Let's take a look a the prophet Isaiah.

Isaiah 54:9-10 wrote:

"In the time of Noah I promised never again to flood the earth,
Now I promise not to be angry with you again;
I will not reprimand or punish you.
The mountains and the hills may crumble,
but my love for you will never end;
I will keep forever my promise of peace."
So says the Lord who loves you.

How about Hosea?

Hosea 11:8-9 wrote:

How can I give you up Israel?
How can I abandon you?
Could I ever destroy you as I did Admah,
or treat you as I did Zeboiim?
My heart will not let me do it!
My love for you is too strong.
I will not punish you in my anger;
I will not destroy Israel again.
For I am God and not a human being.
I, the Holy One, am with you.
I will not come to you in anger.

Hivemind187

Jakkass wrote:

In essence. God's system of punishment was not only upon the people who had to bear it. But as a sign to the future generations not to commit the crimes of their ancestors.

as for the "change of behaviour" you're talking about. God had tried to warn the people on earth to change their ways several times in the Bible. Then he took his punishment via the Exile after His people had ignored him. As for the OP who claimed there was a changeover between the Old and the New. That is simply untrue. The covenant with God changed as the people continued to disobey it. The Exile was seen as the ultimate punishment of the Hebrews and seen to be the ultimate sign to future generations to obey His word. Let's take a look a the prophet Isaiah.



How about Hosea?

I can't believe this. You are saying that Yahweh didnt change his methods and practices yet there he is in YOUR OWN QUOTE doing exactly that.

My point is, when you view the Old Testament and the New Testament the two positions are radically different and the very quotations you are using there would support my assertion that at some point God pulls a switcheroo and decides to stop being a complete jerk to everyone. this appears to be an arbitrary decision (delivered by word of mouth by a "prophet"), what brought it about?

You seem to suggest that mans own wickedness got him out of another cosmic drenching because God gave up trying to chastise him.

The two positions are totally different yet theists still use pre-hippy style god to justify their belief systems.

philologos

Hivemind187 wrote:

I can't believe this. You are saying that Yahweh didnt change his methods and practices yet there he is in YOUR OWN QUOTE doing exactly that.

My point is, when you view the Old Testament and the New Testament the two positions are radically different and the very quotations you are using there would support my assertion that at some point God pulls a switcheroo and decides to stop being a complete jerk to everyone. this appears to be an arbitrary decision (delivered by word of mouth by a "prophet"), what brought it about?

My argument is just that. It's not between the Old and New Testament, it seems that it was a natural progression after the Exile (when God brought his greatest punishment upon the people of Israel and Judah). not between the books of say Malachi and Matthew, which is the point in which you are saying the behaviour changes. It's in God's nature to show mercy on his people despite their punishment. God through Jeremiah even told the people to repent and change their ways and that they would be forgiven. The arrogance of the people was the catalyst for their exile to Babylonia and Assyria.

God being a jerk? are you being serious? They clearly broke his ground rules, again and again and again. They went to Baal and other Gods of different nations again and again. How much patience do you expect Him to have.

Shane_C

This may be taking the thread elsewhere but it is my answer to the question and not more case by case scenarios.

Regardless of whether you believe the bible is history mixed with drama (legend if you will) or the actual word of god, it is still an authors interpretation.

These authors were trying to promote/establish a religion, which was a MAJOR part of society when both testaments were written, so, the testaments contain gods which reflect the needs of the people of the age in which they were written.

To take it further, the christianity (and hence the god) of today is far fluffier than the christianity of the new testament, so it is a sliding scale......as society develops we do not need threat of an almighty punisher to keep us in check.

philologos

Shane. They did it because they believed it was true also. Of course if you believed that your message could save a nation, you would go out and tell the people what you prophesied. Unless you are trying to imply that they didn't believe it and they intentionally fluffing it up to look better. That's rediculous. Do you not think the prophets were trying to spread Judaism? I see it as substitution. More was demanded of people in Jesus' new commandments. Such as lustfulness as opposed to adultery. Jesus brought people the New Covenant, as it was God's time for it to happen. So yes things are based on the time period. Ecclesiastes makes that very clear, everything happens at a certain time for a certain reason. Meaning that God had a plan for the earth and for it's people from the beginning, and the new covenants were merely a progression in his plan. Thats the way I see it anyway.

Sangre

Jakkass wrote:

God being a jerk? are you being serious? They clearly broke his ground rules, again and again and again. They went to Baal and other Gods of different nations again and again. How much patience do you expect Him to have.

Well, I'd expect an omnipotent, all-loving God to have an infinite amount of patience.

Ground rules don't mean much when God made us knowing we would break them and knowing he would punish us for it. Its like pointing at someone with a gun and saying 'if you dont move im going to shoot and kill you'. Its hardly the guy who got shot fault is it?

Hivemind187

Sangre wrote:

Well, I'd expect an omnipotent, all-loving God to have an infinite amount of patience.

Ground rules don't mean much when God made us knowing we would break them and knowing he would punish us for it. Its like pointing at someone with a gun and saying 'if you dont move im going to shoot and kill you'. Its hardly the guy who got shot fault is it?

A paralyzed man in fact, since, the shooter would have foreknowledge that he would fail to do the ordered task. (Omniscience)

Its real playground bully stuff really

Hivemind187

Jakkass wrote:

My argument is just that. It's not between the Old and New Testament, it seems that it was a natural progression after the Exile (when God brought his greatest punishment upon the people of Israel and Judah). not between the books of say Malachi and Matthew, which is the point in which you are saying the behaviour changes. It's in God's nature to show mercy on his people despite their punishment. God through Jeremiah even told the people to repent and change their ways and that they would be forgiven. The arrogance of the people was the catalyst for their exile to Babylonia and Assyria.

God being a jerk? are you being serious? They clearly broke his ground rules, again and again and again. They went to Baal and other Gods of different nations again and again. How much patience do you expect Him to have.

You arent answering the question. What brought on the changes in personality? What made him change his mind?

Honestly, for an entity supposedly capable of the three omni's he seems like a kid with some ants and a magnifying glass.

according to your position god knew what we would do and because we did what he knew we would do he drowned the bally lot of us? His own creation. That he designed to do what was done?

We got jipped in that case.

As for how much patience he is supposed to have I agree with Sangre, Infinite.

Instead what we see is petty jealousy, temper tantrums, excessive punishments and deliberately leaving the taps on. The behavior of a five year old. Then all of a sudden he decides, you know what, I am not going to get angry any more and this will be better ... like he got anger management counseling (which is a hilarious concept) and now is all loved up.

Just saying "everything has a time to happen" is pretty weak when you have been given genuine reasons for smitings in the past (proper sins like wickedness, false gods, eating pork)

Zombrex

Hivemind187 wrote:

As for how much patience he is supposed to have I agree with Sangre, Infinite.

Patience as a property of God doesn't even make sense.

God is all powerful and all knowing. He doesn't wait nor does he endure. He knows if something will ever happen or not before it happens.

For example, why would God patiently give me 10 years to become a good Christian when he knows now if I am or am not going to become one. He knows now if patiently waiting for me to accept Jesus will do anything.

Its ridiculous. A patient God is an oxymoron.

* Before I get in trouble with the theists who don't get this, I'm not saying that God is not a patient God (ie that he is an impatient God). I'm saying that the concept of patience has no bearing on God, either way, since patience implies only to someone stuck in a linear time line who must endure this time line and the day to day, minute to minute effects. God clearly doesn't.

philologos

Sangre wrote:

Well, I'd expect an omnipotent, all-loving God to have an infinite amount of patience.

If you loved someone would you want to correct them in their ways when they were doing the wrong thing?

philologos

Hivemind187 wrote:

according to your position god knew what we would do and because we did what he knew we would do he drowned the bally lot of us? His own creation. That he designed to do what was done?

Sure he told Moses that he knew that his people would sin against him, and that he would have to punish them again in the Promised Land after the exile. He knew some people would continually disobey his commands (led by Satan). (Particularly on false idols if you read the OT).

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote:

If you loved someone would you want to correct them in their ways when they were doing the wrong thing?

God already knows if you will or will not.

Wanting something or someone to change is, again, an nonsense position for an omniscient God.

philologos

God knew from the start that people would disobey his word. That's what I pointed out to you with what God told Moses before the people of Israel entered the promised land.

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote:

God knew from the start that people would disobey his word.

That is the point .. how can God lose patience with someone when He knew, before time itself existed, exactly what that person would do throughout their entire life?

If he was going to lose patience with him he would lose patience with him in the singular moment of creation, along with everyone else He was going to lose patience with.

philologos

It also depends which version of the Judeo-Christian creation myth you believe in. There is one in Manichaeism that claims that it was the Creator God's sin to create the world in the first place. The one in Genesis suggests that it was the fault of man.

Wicknight, let me put another propositition forward. If you knew that someone was going to do something bad, say your son such as robbing a bank. Does that excuse him of his punishment just because you knew beforehand? Just a question.

Sangre

The analogy only has bearing if you kidnapped his wife looking for a ransom knowing he would rob the bank for the money. Tbh, your analogy is just ridiculously off the wall, how has it any bearing? We are talking creator/creation here not two separate parties with no control over eachother.

philologos

So just because one of the parties is the creator, that means that mankind should be spared the punishment of their wrong doing. That's just as illogical as anything else.

Scofflaw

Jakkass wrote:

It also depends which version of the Judeo-Christian creation myth you believe in. There is one in Manichaeism that claims that it was the Creator God's sin to create the world in the first place. The one in Genesis suggests that it was the fault of man.

Wicknight, let me put another propositition forward. If you knew that someone was going to do something bad, say your son such as robbing a bank. Does that excuse him of his punishment just because you knew beforehand? Just a question.

Presumably, though, I did not know this before my son was born - instead, as time has gone by, I have discovered that he intends to rob a bank. If I am culpable, though, of letting my son rob the bank (assuming I do nothing), is not God also culpable?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Sangre

It really isn't Jakkas. He created me, knowing I would commit every sin I ever commit the moment he created me. Yet he still created me this way. He chose not to make less sinful or more holy. He had the choice to make so that I wouldn't sin. However, despite this he is willing to punish me to ETERNAL damnation in hell for these sins. People should be punished for wrong doings, just not by someone who made them knowing they'd do these.

Its like giving out to a dog for eating the steak you put in its dog food bowl.

philologos

Sangre wrote:

However, despite this he is willing to punish me to ETERNAL damnation in hell for these sins.

He doesn't enjoy giving out punishment to anyone, infact God gives you several chances to mend your way and your life before even considering punishing you to eternal damnation.

Sangre

He gives you several chances knowing that you won't take them. Why? Why didn't he just create me as a better person? Its almost as if he wants to punish me...

JimiTime

Yeh its so cruel that God didn't make us automatonic so we just did everything right, out of programming. How cruel:rolleyes: He gave us free will guys!! he gave us the ability to love. Some use that ability and take his teachings and advices having faith in the fact that he loves us, so wants whats best. Others see their 'affliction' as Gods fault. Oh why did you give me the capacity to make this bad decision you cruel being! I just don't get you and your line of reasoning.

Sangre

Well I'd disagree we actually can have free will if we're created by an omnipotent being but thats already been done to death in another thread.

He didn't make us knowing we COULD sin. He made us knowing we'd make every particular sin we ever make. Thus when creating us he knew exactly what punishment he'd give us.

JimiTime

Sangre wrote:

Well I'd disagree we actually can have free will if we're created by an omnipotent being but thats already been done to death in another thread.

He didn't make us knowing we COULD sin. He made us knowing we'd make every particular sin we ever make. Thus when creating us he knew exactly what punishment he'd give us.

the interesting thing is that you use the term 'us'. He knew that there would be those of us that would be saved through the fact that we have faith in him. This is open to everyone to choose or reject. Faithful Job is a prime example of someone who chose Gods way. God promises us everlasting life and 'exquisite delight', if we are faithful. Those who reject him will be punished, as consistantly as was done in old testement times. The diference is, the next judgement is final. Maybe, the history of man has been a filtering system to sift the worthy from the rest.

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote:

Wicknight, let me put another propositition forward. If you knew that someone was going to do something bad, say your son such as robbing a bank. Does that excuse him of his punishment just because you knew beforehand? Just a question.

Not quite sure what this has to do with patience, but no it doesn't excuse him. But I would also be responsible if I had the power to stop him and didn't.

What would be a little strange though is if after he robbed the bank I said I was angry and that I had lost patience with him when I knew he was going to rob that bank when he was 3 years old.

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote:

He doesn't enjoy giving out punishment to anyone, infact God gives you several chances to mend your way and your life before even considering punishing you to eternal damnation.

Again that doesn't make any sense.

How can God give you "several chances" to turn your life around when He already knows what you will or will not do. By definition you will either not take any of the chances or only take the last chance you are given. God knows this.

Why does he give you chance after change that he knows you won't take? That is a nonsense of an idea

It would be like me turning up for a train at 1pm, then 2pm, then 3pm, then 4pm and then 5pm, after I had read the time table and seen that the train leaves at 5pm

It is pointless.

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote:

Yeh its so cruel that God didn't make us automatonic so we just did everything right, out of programming. How cruel:rolleyes:

Why is that always the theists response?

That we either have to be capable of great wickedness or robots running off a program? Why can't we have free will and still be designed to be wonderful happy caring people? Why is that not an option? Explain that one please.

Do you really not see the problem with your reasoning. You are essentially saying that God is limited in how he created the universe and us, and that he had to do the best of a bad job.

JimiTime wrote:

Oh why did you give me the capacity to make this bad decision you cruel being! I just don't get you and your line of reasoning.

That seems to be because you imagine that this is the only way that humans can ever be. God had to either create us like this, or he had to strip away our free will to make sure we didn't harm each other.

There is no logical grounds for that reasoning, beyond simply not being able to imagine the world any other way than it current is.

Of course the reality is that God, with is omnipotence and omniscients could have created us any way he liked.

He could have created a universe where the human species that doesn't feel pain or sadness or misery etc. He could have done this and still given us all the free will. Remember we only have "free will" within the boundaries that God has defined. We don't have proper free will because there are a large number of things that we cannot do, or don't want to do, due to the way the universe is set up in the first place.

In fact, being omnipotent, he could have done this as easily as anything else.

pinksoir

Ok. You must understand the irreconcilability of an omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient God, and free will.

Omnipotent:
–adjective
1. almighty or infinite in power, as God
2. having very great or unlimited authority or power.

Omniscient
–adjective
1. having complete or unlimited knowledge, awareness, or understanding; perceiving all things.

Omnipresent
–adjective
present everywhere at the same time: the omnipresent God.

So to summarise - God has the power to do anything, he knows everything and he is everywhere. However, this also means that this has been the case since he created the world. So he knows eveything that has happened, is happening now, and ever will happen. He also caused all of these things to happen.

So add to this equation a human being. Say me. Since God created the world he has always known that I would be born. He always knew that my parents would meet, and their parents and so on. He also knows everything I have done, I am doing now and what I will ever do. He was also with me since I was born, throughout all my life and will be until I die.

Now consider this. If he knew that my parents would meet, no matter what, did they have free will? Did they choose to meet if he already knew that they would? Could it have been any other way? Could there have been any other outcome?

If God knows everything that I will do, even before I do it, do I have free will? Since God is omniscient he must know what my end choices would be otherwise he is not all knowing. He would know a lot, but not all.

So at the end of this paradox we are left with a God that creates me knowing that he will damn me to hell . Furthermore, since he is all powerful he could step in and stop me making bad choices that would cause him to damn me to hell. But this would interfere with my free will. However, he already knows what I will do, so it could never be any other way. So we are left with a God that creates billions of people who are going to go to hell and he knows this. Why would he do this?

And this is completely ignoring the philosophical understanding of free will, which maintains that it is an illusion and that all our choices come at the end of a causal chain over which we have no power. We have a choice, but it is so heavily influenced by existing factors as to render it virtually non-existent. Remember, most choices we make we do not think about but are almost knee jerk reactions to a current situation and the conditions within that situation.

The whole thing reminds me of the poem:
Can omniscient God, who
Knows the future, find
The omnipotence to
Change His future mind?

The very nature of God is a paradox. So either the Bible is wrong, or God does not exist. Or there is a third option that I haven't thought of!

Tar.Aldarion

Call_me_al wrote:

this thread is not getting a good reception!!! a stat for you in the bible

killings
God 2,270,365+
Satan 10

from http://dwindlinginunbelief.blogspot.com/2006/08/who-has-killed-more-satan-or-god.html

sorry updated:

Here is a more complete table.
numbered killings estimated total killings
God 2,270,365+ 32.9 million
Satan 10 10

Will somebody answer why this murdering god, suddenly became a diffrent entity in the NT?
Why did he also stop killing millions?

JimiTime

Wicknight wrote:

Why is that always the theists response?

Why is the response to whats 2+2 always 4? because its the answer thats why!

Why can't we have free will and still be designed to be wonderful happy caring people? Why is that not an option? Explain that one please.

It is an option! If you choose it!

Do you really not see the problem with your reasoning. You are essentially saying that God is limited in how he created the universe and us, and that he had to do the best of a bad job.

No.

That seems to be because you imagine that this is the only way that humans can ever be. God had to either create us like this, or he had to strip away our free will to make sure we didn't harm each other.

There is no logical grounds for that reasoning, beyond simply not being able to imagine the world any other way than it current is.

What would you suggest then? If God hired you as a consultant, what would you advise of his creation?

He could have created a universe where the human species that doesn't feel pain or sadness or misery etc. He could have done this and still given us all the free will. Remember we only have "free will" within the boundaries that God has defined. We don't have proper free will because there are a large number of things that we cannot do, or don't want to do, due to the way the universe is set up in the first place.

In fact, being omnipotent, he could have done this as easily as anything else.

TBH, I'm not getting into this again.

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote:

Why is the response to whats 2+2 always 4? because its the answer thats why!

Rather circular reasoning there Jimi

4 is the answer because of the rules of mathematics. It is the response because it is the correct answer. It is the correct answer irrespective of it being the response.

What I'm describing isn't the correct answer, yet for some bizarre reason it is the answer that is always given in response.

You seem to be saying that because it is the answer that is always given, it must be correct, which is flawed logic.

JimiTime wrote:

It is an option! If you choose it!

Not an option for us, an option for God.

Why was it not an option for God to create humans who were not capable of being hurt or hurting others?

The classic response to this is that doing so would destroy our free will, which is utter nonsense.

Walking through solid matter isn't necessary for us to have free will. Eating stars isn't necessary for us to have free will. Being able to fly isn't necessary for us to have free will.

We cannot do any of these things, yet we still have free will. Why can we kill each other? Why can we make each other hurt?

JimiTime wrote:

No.

Actually that is exactly what you are saying. God cannot create humans that are incapable of living blissful happy pain free lives and still have free will. God can only do one or the other. If we are to have happy blissful pain free lives God must remove our free will. If we are to have free will it must be possible for us to inflict terrible pain on each other.

Nonsense. God can (is supposed to be able to) do anything and everything.

JimiTime wrote:

What would you suggest then? If God hired you as a consultant, what would you advise of his creation?

No one can die.

No one can be hurt.

No one feels pain, or suffers physical injury.

No one needs food, or can go hungry.

No one needs fight over limited resources, there is enough for everyone.

Nothing in the universe can harm a human or animal, no poison, no molten lava, no lighting storms.

No one experiences negative emotions, such as fear, hatred, sorrow etc

I could go on, but you get the idea.

JimiTime wrote:

TBH, I'm not getting into this again.

JimiTime wrote:

I just don't get you and your line of reasoning.

The line of reasoning is pretty simple Jimi. God could have made things a lot better than they are. He didn't, he decided to make things this way. He is a bit of a bastard for doing so.

You response to this seems to be first trying to show that God couldn't have made things a lot better without destroying free will, which isn't true, and then throwing your toys out of the pram....

Its not really my fault you don't have a response to this. Its probably why I'm an atheists and your not.

JimiTime

Wicknight wrote:

You response to this seems to be first trying to show that God couldn't have made things a lot better without destroying free will, which isn't true, and then throwing your toys out of the pram....

Its not really my fault you don't have a response to this. Its probably why I'm an atheists and your not.

I hope u realise wat a pain in the arse you are wicknight:p Its not toys out of the pram its more lifes too short. this discussion happens again and again, and ends in everyone goin there seperate ways in the end. I merely am making a call on the fact that I don't wish to waste this time again, and again, and again.

philologos

Tar.Aldarion wrote:

Will somebody answer why this murdering god, suddenly became a diffrent entity in the NT?
Why did he also stop killing millions?

It didn't become a different entity in the NT. If you read the quotes I placed from Isaiah and Hosea (on the first page of this thread), it's quite clear that that assumption is wrong.

JC 2K3

Jakkass wrote:

If you loved someone would you want to correct them in their ways when they were doing the wrong thing?

By killing them and condemning them to eternal damnation?

philologos

JimiTime wrote:

I hope u realise wat a pain in the arse you are wicknight:p Its not toys out of the pram its more lifes too short. this discussion happens again and again, and ends in everyone goin there seperate ways in the end. I merely am making a call on the fact that I don't wish to waste this time again, and again, and again.

he does have a point.

JC 2K3: lets be realistic here. The people before the exile, were committing sin again and again even after God had warned them even when He had brought drought to warn them. People were even going to the extent of murdering eachother (which as we know is a major violation of scriptural law). People had to see that there would be a punishment for this kind of behaviour, this was hardly an isolated incident, violations of this were occuring throughout the Holy Land. It was inevitable that God would eventually try to correct the behaviour of his people. It's hardly as if God was killing the innocent, infact many were spared His punishment in the Exile. This shows that perhaps there were different punishments for the people of Israel dependent on the crimes they had committed. It's funny when looking at the Bible, and what a wonderful text it is may I say so myself (a lot of the Gnostic stuff is also brilliant from the small bit I've read), atheists only seem to pick the elements of God's judgement to back up their arguement. It seems when atheists read the Bible, their eyes completely overlooks the ways in which God graced the people of Israel during periods of time when the people served God to the fullest. Examples would be God during the reign of Israel during the reign of King David and King Solomon. There are numerous accounts of God rewarding the people as well as punishing. The clear message also was that God punished His people when they rejected Him, and was benevolent when they accepted Him. I don't see what's so difficult to understand about that, call me dumb if you wish, but this is my view on it.