Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Just a thought...

1…5681011…16

Comments

  • #212
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,458 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    whatsup? wrote: »
    you ask if we ignore the "evil God" as wrong interpretation then why not ignore the Loving God too? Because Jesus preaches about a loving God in the Gospels.
    It's a strange "love" in which a deity offers everybody a choice between on the one hand, the opportunity to adore and praise them (how desperately boring and selfish is that?); and on the other hand, the chance at spending a trillion years standing up to their noses in a lake of burning sulphur.

    Do you seriously think that constitutes "love"?


  • #213
    whatsup?
    Closed Accounts Posts: 73 ✭✭whatsup?


    King Mob wrote: »
    And nothing in the bible at all supports this nonsense idea.
    No where does it ever say that parts of the old testament aren't real, or shouldn't be taken as true, or that it's a "history of wrong interpretations".
    Not even the Catholic Church claims this.

    Everything in the bible and the church says that the entirety of the bible is true, even the bits where god is being clearly evil. They just try to justify the evil parts rather than ignore them as you do.

    If you can just decide which bits are real and which are not based totally on your own aesthetic choices, the entire thing is rendered totally pointless.

    The Church does accept that the Bible in its entirety is the true word of God and i'm in no way deciding which bits are real and which bits are not, based on what sort of God we want, God is the same throughout the texts and is ultimately revealed as a Loving God by Jesus in the Gospels.

    Catechism of the RCC "In order to discover the sacred authors' intention, the reader must take into account the conditions of their time and culture, the literary genres in use at that time, and the modes of feeling, speaking and narrating then current. "For the fact is that truth is differently presented and expressed in the various types of historical writing, in prophetical and poetical texts, and in other forms of literary expression."

    The truth is differently presented, so if you read in the OT that its says that God said to lead an army into battle and kill women and children it doesn't mean God wanted a holocaust, (even though it states this, the Church points out that it has to be interpreted correctly) it points to the fact that God wanted his people to trust in Him and therefore they would secure victory if they pledged their allegiance to God.

    Catechism of RCC "Sacred Scripture must be read and interpreted in the light of the same Spirit by whom it was written."

    Again correctly reading the scripture is vital and of course its not easy to be asked to interpret a text differently from what is blatantly stated. Also the Gospels are the focal point for Christians the Old Testament prepares for the New and the New Testament fulfills the Old. The Gospels reveal a Loving God so we base the Church on that.


  • #214
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    whatsup? wrote: »
    ......

    The truth is differently presented, so if you read in the OT that its says that God said to lead an army into battle and kill women and children it doesn't mean God wanted a holocaust, (even though it states this, the Church points out that it has to be interpreted correctly) it points to the fact that God wanted his people to trust in Him and therefore they would secure victory if they pledged their allegiance to God.
    ........

    So it doesn't literally mean what it says, except where it does, and thats decided by the church.


  • #215
    mrac
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 130 ✭✭mrac


    whatsup? wrote: »
    The Church does accept that the Bible in its entirety is the true word of God and i'm in no way deciding which bits are real and which bits are not, based on what sort of God we want, God is the same throughout the texts and is ultimately revealed as a Loving God by Jesus in the Gospels.

    Catechism of the RCC "In order to discover the sacred authors' intention, the reader must take into account the conditions of their time and culture, the literary genres in use at that time, and the modes of feeling, speaking and narrating then current. "For the fact is that truth is differently presented and expressed in the various types of historical writing, in prophetical and poetical texts, and in other forms of literary expression."

    The truth is differently presented, so if you read in the OT that its says that God said to lead an army into battle and kill women and children it doesn't mean God wanted a holocaust, (even though it states this, the Church points out that it has to be interpreted correctly) it points to the fact that God wanted his people to trust in Him and therefore they would secure victory if they pledged their allegiance to God.

    Catechism of RCC "Sacred Scripture must be read and interpreted in the light of the same Spirit by whom it was written."

    Again correctly reading the scripture is vital and of course its not easy to be asked to interpret a text differently from what is blatantly stated. Also the Gospels are the focal point for Christians the Old Testament prepares for the New and the New Testament fulfills the Old. The Gospels reveal a Loving God so we base the Church on that.

    The bolded text made me laugh. It takes some amount of mental gymnastics to read "kill woman and children" and take it to mean "trust god, he's nice and loving" :rolleyes:


  • #216
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    whatsup? wrote: »
    The Church does accept that the Bible in its entirety is the true word of God and i'm in no way deciding which bits are real and which bits are not, based on what sort of God we want, God is the same throughout the texts and is ultimately revealed as a Loving God by Jesus in the Gospels.

    Catechism of the RCC "In order to discover the sacred authors' intention, the reader must take into account the conditions of their time and culture, the literary genres in use at that time, and the modes of feeling, speaking and narrating then current. "For the fact is that truth is differently presented and expressed in the various types of historical writing, in prophetical and poetical texts, and in other forms of literary expression."

    The truth is differently presented, so if you read in the OT that its says that God said to lead an army into battle and kill women and children it doesn't mean God wanted a holocaust, (even though it states this, the Church points out that it has to be interpreted correctly) it points to the fact that God wanted his people to trust in Him and therefore they would secure victory if they pledged their allegiance to God.

    Catechism of RCC "Sacred Scripture must be read and interpreted in the light of the same Spirit by whom it was written."

    Again correctly reading the scripture is vital and of course its not easy to be asked to interpret a text differently from what is blatantly stated. Also the Gospels are the focal point for Christians the Old Testament prepares for the New and the New Testament fulfills the Old. The Gospels reveal a Loving God so we base the Church on that.

    Complete and total nonsense and waffle.

    Those sections I pointed out are either true or untrue. They can't be both.

    You declared that they are untrue because you believe that they are depicting god as evil, which is plainly true.
    Nowhere in the bible or in the church do they specifically state that those and other passages where god is an evil prick (of which there are many) are wrong or not depicting actual events. Nor are you basing your opinion that those events didn't happen as reported on any historical or evidential sources.
    Sure the church gives you all that waffle to allow you to ignore these bits, but you yourself have made the judgement that it is not true because of the evil acts depicted and for no other reason.

    And if you are deciding which is the word of god and which is "wrong interpretations", it renders the Bible pointless. It doesn't become the unquestionable word of god, it's the bits that you personally have agreed are just and good and then raises the question why you need God to tell you what's right or wrong in the first place?


  • Advertisement
  • #217
    whatsup?
    Closed Accounts Posts: 73 ✭✭whatsup?


    Nodin wrote: »
    So it doesn't literally mean what it says, except where it does, and thats decided by the church.

    More or less :)


  • #218
    old hippy
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 9,441 ✭✭✭old hippy


    And that, folks, is why religion is a load of contradictory bs. At the very least, the Xtian bible and/or its followers needs to jettison one or the other of the testaments - seeing as how incompatible they are.


  • #219
    whatsup?
    Closed Accounts Posts: 73 ✭✭whatsup?


    King Mob wrote: »
    Complete and total nonsense and waffle.

    Of course it's waffle to you as you don't believe in God, it's not waffle to me or to others worldwide, it's what the Church follows and asks Catholics to accept...it's the history of the faith in all it's glory.

    I suppose it's pointless arguing these points with guys who see God as nothing but fairy tale, anything I say will be rejected as nonsense but I just wanted you to know that is how the RCC views the OT, as the true word of God but the truth has to be rooted out of the stories and analogies that it finds itself in.


  • #220
    old hippy
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 9,441 ✭✭✭old hippy


    whatsup? wrote: »
    Of course it's waffle to you as you don't believe in God, it's not waffle to me or to others worldwide, it's what the Church follows and asks Catholics to accept...it's the history of the faith in all it's glory.

    I suppose it's pointless arguing these points with guys who see God as nothing but fairy tale, anything I say will be rejected as nonsense but I just wanted you to know that is how the RCC views the OT, as the true word of God but the truth has to be rooted out of the stories and analogies that it finds itself in.

    Stories for the easily led. What a waste of a life.

    tumblr_m0uwknQCx81qcaljjo1_1280.jpg


    The pink tabs are for murder, purple for human or animal sacrifice, blue for rape, yellow for slavery and green for misogyny.


  • #221
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    whatsup? wrote: »
    More or less :)


    And that doesn't strike you as just a tad convenient?


  • Advertisement
  • #222
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    whatsup? wrote: »
    Of course it's waffle to you as you don't believe in God, it's not waffle to me or to others worldwide, it's what the Church follows and asks Catholics to accept...it's the history of the faith in all it's glory.
    Yes, if we don't start with the presupposed assumption it's true, it's easily shown to be not true...
    But if we assume it is true from the start we can ignore all the arguments against it...
    whatsup? wrote: »
    I suppose it's pointless arguing these points with guys who see God as nothing but fairy tale, anything I say will be rejected as nonsense but I just wanted you to know that is how the RCC views the OT, as the true word of God but the truth has to be rooted out of the stories and analogies that it finds itself in.
    But you've been telling us that only some of it is true and that you are basing the judgement of what is true and was is not on your own personal ability to judge what is right and wrong.
    This means that you are not relying on God or the Church to determine what is true, or even right and wrong. And this in turn completely makes God, the Bible and the church entirely pointless.


  • #223
    Improbable
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,576 ✭✭✭Improbable


    whatsup? wrote: »
    Of course it's waffle to you as you don't believe in God, it's not waffle to me or to others worldwide, it's what the Church follows and asks Catholics to accept...it's the history of the faith in all it's glory.

    I suppose it's pointless arguing these points with guys who see God as nothing but fairy tale, anything I say will be rejected as nonsense but I just wanted you to know that is how the RCC views the OT, as the true word of God but the truth has to be rooted out of the stories and analogies that it finds itself in.

    Actually, we reject the existence of a god, but that doesn't mean we can't understand the human side of it. We understand it perfectly well and all the things you've pointed out are unfortunately the result of a very deluded point of view that is CLEARLY desperately trying to ignore the evil stuff that your supposed god has done.

    I can create logical arguments in my head on the presupposition that god exists. That is in no way an impossibility for me. I happen to have a spectacularly evolved brain. So presupposing that god does exist, I then think "Hmm, let's have a look at the bible and see what kind of character this god is." At which point I discover that in the old testament, he's a murderous, genocidal megalomaniac. Then I read the new testament and although he's toned down the killing and the orders for others to kill, he's now got this new concept which is even worse. "You will love me and adore me and worship me and pray to me or I will sentence you to an eternity of hell. But I love you." So something here is clearly amiss. But whatever, maybe he's just not a very nice guy. That's totally ok too. There's no universal law that says god has to be a nice guy. But then enter the catholic church who says that god IS a nice guy. In fact, he's the NICEST guy ever. So you kind of think to yourself "Well, if he's such a nice guy, what's with all the calls for murder, and slaughtering entire cities and condemning people to an eternity of hell? That doesn't seem very nice to me." But then the church completely explains it all. They say that you've simply misinterpreted it. They tell you that what you ACTUALLY have to do, is just... ignore... all the evil stuff he does in the bible. All that evil stuff? It doesn't matter. It never happened, or it was just allegorical, or you've misinterpreted it in some other way. How does the church know that? Well because Jesus told them so in the new testament. But wait, didn't jesus himself say that the laws of the old testament stand until the heavens and earth crumble? Either he didn't read the old testament too closely or he agrees with his message. In once case, he's a moron and in the other case, he's an evil bastard.

    That is a very short summation of a single part of the reason why I don't believe in the catholic god. And just to clarify THAT statement, I call myself an agnostic atheist which is to say that I don't think that god exists, but that I admit I cannot know for sure. When it comes to the catholic god however, I am absolutely, 100% infallibly, come down from a mountain with some stones and form a religion sure that the catholic god does not exist. And if he does, I double dog dare him to smite me down right now and prove it.


  • #224
    Knasher
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,370 ✭✭✭Knasher


    whatsup? wrote: »
    The Church does accept that the Bible in its entirety is the true word of God
    Okay so you have established your belief that the bible in its entirety is the true word of god. So if an action is attributed to god, you either accept it as being accurate or you are contradicting yourself.
    whatsup? wrote: »
    and i'm in no way deciding which bits are real and which bits are not, based on what sort of God we want, God is the same throughout the texts and is ultimately revealed as a Loving God by Jesus in the Gospels.
    And we establish that you believe that god is loving...
    whatsup? wrote: »
    The truth is differently presented, so if you read in the OT that its says that God said to lead an army into battle and kill women and children it doesn't mean God wanted a holocaust, (even though it states this, the Church points out that it has to be interpreted correctly) it points to the fact that God wanted his people to trust in Him and therefore they would secure victory if they pledged their allegiance to God.
    Okay so what is this correct interpretation that both acknowledges that god ordered this genocide, as depicted in the bible, while still portraying god as loving?
    Or how about that time he sent bears to kill 42 children for calling Elisha bald, what is the correct interpretation for that?
    whatsup? wrote: »
    It is peoples perceptions of God, historical fact, but some portrayals of God as recorded in it are a mistake.
    Unless this is one of those parts that while being part of the bible which "in its entirety is the true word of God", is also simultaneously a mistake. Therefore forming a superposition of truth, where it can be both true and false at the same time until you need to use it in an argument and the quantum wave function collapses into whatever state you currently need it.


  • #225
    whatsup?
    Closed Accounts Posts: 73 ✭✭whatsup?


    King Mob wrote: »
    But you've been telling us that only some of it is true and that you are basing the judgement of what is true and was is not on your own personal ability to judge what is right and wrong.

    You seem to think that i'm randomly picking sections of the Bible that convey a Loving God and use them to my advantage while ignoring "and bashing" the "evil God" or merely rejecting it as wrong interpretation. I'm not rejecting anything. Nothing should be rejected in the Bible OT or NT. Nothing. It all leads us to a better understanding of faith. The parts which create most difficulty for believers and non believers alike are the sections where we read about a God who orders killings and murders..many of these events probably happened in the name of God just the same as the crusades, holocaust or countless other acts of utter violence, but to say that God killed these people himself or was happy to see them wiped of the face of the earth is an incorrect interpretation. I know is difficult to see it that way. Scripture interpretation is incredibly difficult and must be down with a knowledge that God is all loving and nothing else.

    King Mob wrote: »
    This means that you are not relying on God or the Church to determine what is true, or even right and wrong. And this in turn completely makes God, the Bible and the church entirely pointless.

    I do rely on the Church for guidance as that is a fundamental part of Catholicism, the supremacy of the Church in matters of faith and morals. The Church holds the key to interpreting scripture and that is why a loving God is the only product of the Bible. When you ignore the Church's view you come to your argument where God is an evil murderer which is utterly wrong and is an attack on Biblical study.


  • #226
    ShooterSF
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,824 ✭✭✭ShooterSF


    whatsup? wrote: »
    You seem to think that i'm randomly picking sections of the Bible that convey a Loving God and use them to my advantage while ignoring "and bashing" the "evil God" or merely rejecting it as wrong interpretation. I'm not rejecting anything. Nothing should be rejected in the Bible OT or NT. Nothing. It all leads us to a better understanding of faith. The parts which create most difficulty for believers and non believers alike are the sections where we read about a God who orders killings and murders..many of these events probably happened in the name of God just the same as the crusades, holocaust or countless other acts of utter violence, but to say that God killed these people himself or was happy to see them wiped of the face of the earth is an incorrect interpretation. I know is difficult to see it that way. Scripture interpretation is incredibly difficult and must be down with a knowledge that God is all loving and nothing else.

    So why is there no passage in the NT where Jesus sits with his followers and says "Look Dad's pretty pissed at some of the stuff you claim to be doing in his name. He'd never send you out to commit genocide oh and see that flood that killed millions that was just an act of Go.. eh I mean nature and was not his doing (Your quote "Noah and the flood or the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah were probably linked to natural disasters such as great rainfalls or earthquakes" ,by the way this is marvellously mind bending logic at this point!) and he couldn't prevent it without interfering in your freewill of whether to drown at the start or to put up a fight and then drown."
    I do rely on the Church for guidance as that is a fundamental part of Catholicism, the supremacy of the Church in matters of faith and morals. The Church holds the key to interpreting scripture and that is why a loving God is the only product of the Bible. When you ignore the Church's view you come to your argument where God is an evil murderer which is utterly wrong and is an attack on Biblical study.

    A bible study that has the answer to the question what type of personality is god before you even open the book to study it for the answer!


  • #227
    Knasher
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,370 ✭✭✭Knasher


    ShooterSF wrote: »
    by the way this is marvellously mind bending logic at this point!
    .
    George Orwell wrote:
    To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them, to use logic against logic, to repudiate morality while laying claim to it, [...], to forget, whatever it was necessary to forget, then to draw it back into memory again at the moment when it was needed, and then promptly to forget it again, and above all, to apply the same process to the process itself – that was the ultimate subtlety; consciously to induce unconsciousness, and then, once again, to become unconscious of the act of hypnosis you had just performed. Even to understand the word 'doublethink' involved the use of doublethink


  • #228
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    whatsup? wrote: »
    You seem to think that i'm randomly picking sections of the Bible that convey a Loving God and use them to my advantage while ignoring "and bashing" the "evil God" or merely rejecting it as wrong interpretation. I'm not rejecting anything. Nothing should be rejected in the Bible OT or NT. Nothing. It all leads us to a better understanding of faith. The parts which create most difficulty for believers and non believers alike are the sections where we read about a God who orders killings and murders..many of these events probably happened in the name of God just the same as the crusades, holocaust or countless other acts of utter violence, but to say that God killed these people himself or was happy to see them wiped of the face of the earth is an incorrect interpretation. I know is difficult to see it that way. Scripture interpretation is incredibly difficult and must be down with a knowledge that God is all loving and nothing else.
    So again you going back on yourself.
    I asked you plainly whether you thought the examples I picked actually happened. You said no, but are now saying that they did.

    So is it a case of that they actually happened, but God did not actually order his troops to kill anyone, they just falsely claimed they did?

    If so, where specifically does the bible or the church say this is the actual case?
    whatsup? wrote: »
    I do rely on the Church for guidance as that is a fundamental part of Catholicism, the supremacy of the Church in matters of faith and morals. The Church holds the key to interpreting scripture and that is why a loving God is the only product of the Bible. When you ignore the Church's view you come to your argument where God is an evil murderer which is utterly wrong and is an attack on Biblical study.
    Great, so please show us where specifically the church says in clear terms that the two examples I gave are incorrect interpretations of God.


  • #229
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    whatsup? wrote: »
    You seem to (............)Biblical study.

    If you'd be as good as to get back to me
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=79678399&postcount=221


  • #230
    Turtwig
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    whatsup? wrote: »
    Of course it's waffle to you as you don't believe in God, it's not waffle to me or to others worldwide, it's what the Church follows and asks Catholics to accept...it's the history of the faith in all it's glory.

    I suppose it's pointless arguing these points with guys who see God as nothing but fairy tale, anything I say will be rejected as nonsense but I just wanted you to know that is how the RCC views the OT, as the true word of God but the truth has to be rooted out of the stories and analogies that it finds itself in.

    There's no need to feel so dismissive.:) Please don't try to presuppose a person's belief. Always, whenever possible, try to give them the benefit of doubt in that they're going to try and understand your argument not dismiss it off hand. We extend that same benefit to you, we don't just go "Oh it's What's up that idiot believes in a sky fairy and therefore is never going to understand any of our points or discussions."

    Only if your point is gobblydeegook will be it be rejected as such. Ergo shodc la dus. :)


  • #231
    whatsup?
    Closed Accounts Posts: 73 ✭✭whatsup?


    Nodin wrote: »
    If you'd be as good as to get back to me
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=79678399&postcount=221

    The catholic Faith is basically Love one another, that's it, so in that sense it is that convenient. Scouring through the Bible looking for examples of an angry, vengeful, evil God don't don't serve purpose to a Catholics faith today. Even the concept of evil when discussing God is complete nonsense to any person of proper faith, because it's just not the case.

    The OT is so full of opinions and stories that it can very easily obscure a persons understanding of the almighty, that's why speaking from a religious view you are always told to approach the "evil God" quotes with the guidance of the Holy Spirit and fully emerged in the knowledge that God is all loving.

    Again, Catholics base their belief in Jesus and his teachings. Jesus is God and he was compassionate. The OT sequence of events portray the Jewish God intertwined with traditions and customs of the day. They are not to be interpreted literally but are to be viewed as a societies perception of God. Jesus corrected this perception with his message of love and therefore the Church was established with a loving God at the core.


  • Advertisement
  • #232
    Improbable
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,576 ✭✭✭Improbable


    whatsup? wrote: »
    The catholic Faith is basically Love one another, that's it, so in that sense it is that convenient. Scouring through the Bible looking for examples of an angry, vengeful, evil God don't don't serve purpose to a Catholics faith today. Even the concept of evil when discussing God is complete nonsense to any person of proper faith, because it's just not the case.

    The OT is so full of opinions and stories that it can very easily obscure a persons understanding of the almighty, that's why speaking from a religious view you are always told to approach the "evil God" quotes with the guidance of the Holy Spirit and fully emerged in the knowledge that God is all loving.

    Again, Catholics base their belief in Jesus and his teachings. Jesus is God and he was compassionate. The OT sequence of events portray the Jewish God intertwined with traditions and customs of the day. They are not to be interpreted literally but are to be viewed as a societies perception of God. Jesus corrected this perception with his message of love and therefore the Church was established with a loving God at the core.

    I still have yet to hear a response to my post here especially with regards to the things that Jesus himself stated.


  • #233
    whatsup?
    Closed Accounts Posts: 73 ✭✭whatsup?


    Improbable wrote: »
    I still have yet to hear a response to my post here especially with regards to the things that Jesus himself stated.

    Its hard to reply to every post individually as i'm kinda on my own here:) I'll give it a look


  • #234
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    whatsup? wrote: »
    The catholic Faith is basically Love one another, that's it, so in that sense it is that convenient. Scouring through the Bible looking for examples of an angry, vengeful, evil God don't don't serve purpose to a Catholics faith today. Even the concept of evil when discussing God is complete nonsense to any person of proper faith, because it's just not the case.

    The OT is so full of opinions and stories that it can very easily obscure a persons understanding of the almighty, that's why speaking from a religious view you are always told to approach the "evil God" quotes with the guidance of the Holy Spirit and fully emerged in the knowledge that God is all loving..

    So essentially the old Testament is wrong. Grand.

    Does this "its not to be taken literally except when it is" kind of thing not set off any alarm bells at all when applied to certain teachings of the church?


  • #235
    Pushtrak
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,640 ✭✭✭Pushtrak


    whatsup? may I recommend you actually read the bible? I think the issue at hand here is you don't seem to have a proper grasp on what you are trying to defend.


  • #236
    whatsup?
    Closed Accounts Posts: 73 ✭✭whatsup?


    Improbable wrote: »
    So in other words, your god seems evil at times, particularly in the old testament but not exclusively so, and so you choose to believe that the bad bits are simply incorrectly interpreted. What if you have it the wrong way around? What if god is actually evil and the bits that say he is good is misinterpreted. The only reason you don't think that is because YOU want to believe that's not the case. To rule out personal bias, there is no choice but to examine ALL the presented data.

    So, we may have wrongly interpreted an evil murderous God as an all loving almighty? So we're worshiping the devil but got it wrong and treat him as good?
    Look every religious person of any sort of belief believes in a loving God. The Church presents a loving God, even Islam, Judaism and every other world religion have a "good guy" at the top, so your're argument makes no sense. if we treat our almighty as ultimately good and conduct ourselves based on his message of Love then we can't fare too wrong. Its universally accepted by persons of faith and supported by Christ, that a Loving God created us so we haven't got it wrong.

    Improbable wrote: »
    Matthew 5:17 - Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

    It seems that he approves of the old testament does it not? So if you follow his teachings and his words, would it not make sense to you to follow the laws of the old testament as well as he instructs you to?

    Yes Jesus does wholeheartedly approve the Old Testament. The Catechism describes it as an "an indispensable part of Sacred Scripture" and it shouldn't be cast aside. The main part of your quote is "I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill" Jesus didn't abandon the Jewish God but fulfilled our understanding of him by teaching about his Love. Therefore all other mentions of God in the OT are now perfected with this Love.
    We're not supposed to follow the laws of the OT, firstly because they were laws enacted by dictatorships and obeyed in societies that are alien to the world today and also Jesus replaced these laws with his message so to follow the laws is to follow Christ.
    The OT and NT are not two separate distinct belief systems, they are inextricably linked and all conclude with the coming of Christ, his death and Resurrection, so to refer to any section on its own is wrong if the Gospel message is not taken into consideration.
    Improbable wrote: »
    Is it not the case that the ENTIRE reason for Jesus' existence the fact that Adam and Eve disobeyed god in the OT? So how do you dismiss the OT as being irrelevant and yet still retain Jesus when the two are inexorably bound together?

    Adam and Eve is generally regarded as fiction, even the last Pope more or less accepted evolution yet maintained the uniqueness of the human soul and attributed God as the creator of the soul. "this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers". and he described all the research on the matter as a "significant argument in favour of this theory" Adam and Eve is more a metaphor for how we are all, like Adam, so prone to sin regardless of our intentions. Jesus Came firstly to reveal the true face of God and to "fulfill" the ancient scriptures that were written about him. Also by revealing Gods Love he offers Heaven to those who Love him.

    I don't dismiss the OT at all, it's all a lead up to the birth at Bethlehem. The OT foresees the Coming of God and then he arrives in the NT.

    Improbable wrote: »
    He could simultaneously speak into all of our minds. That'd be pretty neat evidence and it would be perfectly understandable by our brains. He could perform miracles in a repeated fashion to groups of scientists. There's plenty of stuff that would be considered decent evidence. But no. We also know that he's not against evidence because apparently, Jesus performed miracles all the time. Yes, it requires faith, but the only reason that is so is because there is no evidence, not because god is incapable of providing it.

    Of course it would be great of God appeared and proved his existence to the whole world and I don't know why he doesn't. Waiting around for concrete proof is a waste of time as there is none to suit either argument that God exists or does not, but claiming there is no God because he doesn't actually come and meet us is futile. Faith is needed and it ain't easy believing either but that what the faith is, believing in a God without concrete evidence. the whole issue of free will comes up too, if God forced us to worship him then would that be fair either? The choice to believe or not sums up the nature of God, he is there if you want him but if you don't, then fine. God gave us the choice to believe so I suppose that's why he doesn't pop in for tea now and again to remind us that he is the real deal. It's a massive theological question as to why God doesn't force us to worship him. The church teaches that God created man and whether to believe or not is 'left in the hand of his own counsel,'. We chose to believe and if not then 'our own prerogative but to assume there in no God because the capacity to believe this concept exists is incorrect.


  • #237
    Pushtrak
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,640 ✭✭✭Pushtrak


    What is a "good guy"? Is it based on their self identifying as such or on their actions?


  • #238
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    whatsup? wrote: »
    The catholic Faith is basically Love one another, that's it, so in that sense it is that convenient. Scouring through the Bible looking for examples of an angry, vengeful, evil God don't don't serve purpose to a Catholics faith today. Even the concept of evil when discussing God is complete nonsense to any person of proper faith, because it's just not the case.

    The OT is so full of opinions and stories that it can very easily obscure a persons understanding of the almighty, that's why speaking from a religious view you are always told to approach the "evil God" quotes with the guidance of the Holy Spirit and fully emerged in the knowledge that God is all loving.

    Again, Catholics base their belief in Jesus and his teachings. Jesus is God and he was compassionate. The OT sequence of events portray the Jewish God intertwined with traditions and customs of the day. They are not to be interpreted literally but are to be viewed as a societies perception of God. Jesus corrected this perception with his message of love and therefore the Church was established with a loving God at the core.
    Can you please point us to where specifically either in the bible or in the church's writing they identify the stories I pointed to as "wrong interpretations"?

    If not, how did either the church or the bible communicate that those stories aren't as they are told in the bible?

    Or was it that you yourself were able to judge that they portrayed a vicious evil tyrant and thus concluded that it could not have been true?


  • #239
    whatsup?
    Closed Accounts Posts: 73 ✭✭whatsup?


    Pushtrak wrote: »
    whatsup? may I recommend you actually read the bible? I think the issue at hand here is you don't seem to have a proper grasp on what you are trying to defend.

    I have not only read the Bible but have studied it at 3rd level under theologians of all religious persuasions and the arguments I have presented is what the academic definition is. I probably have a much better grasp of Biblical Scripture than you.

    Have you read the Bible?


  • #240
    Pushtrak
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,640 ✭✭✭Pushtrak


    whatsup? wrote: »
    I have not only read the Bible but have studied it at 3rd level under theologians of all religious persuasions and the arguments I have presented is what the academic definition is. I probably have a much better grasp of Biblical Scripture than you.
    Your qualifications aren't coming across in your posts, tbh.
    Have you read the Bible?
    Yes, a couple of times, but it has been quite a while since I've read the lot.


  • Advertisement
  • #241
    Improbable
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,576 ✭✭✭Improbable


    whatsup, that was not the post that I linked you to. The post I linked is THIS one. Once again, if you do respond to this, I would like your reactions especially with regards to the quotes attributed to Jesus.


Advertisement