| Topic: |
Religions > Bible |
| User: |
"SJAB1958" |
| Date: |
25 Jul 2007 12:36:54 AM |
| Object: |
Is the God of the Bible a Bloodthirsty God? |
Apart from the flood in Genesis, can anyone tell me any other Biblical
account where God had a direct hand in the killing of any human being?
And by direct hand I mean where there was no intermediary such as the
angel of death.
.
|
|
| User: "Zadok" |
|
| Title: Re: Is the God of the Bible a Bloodthirsty God? |
25 Jul 2007 04:25:40 AM |
|
|
"SJAB1958" <> wrote in message ...
Apart from the flood in Genesis, can anyone tell me any other Biblical
account where God had a direct hand in the killing of any human >being?
And by direct hand I mean where there was no intermediary >such as the angel
of death.
2 Samuel 24: 15 - So the LORD sent a plague on Israel from that morning
until the end of the time designated, and seventy thousand of the people
from Dan to Beersheba died.
Same story in 1 Chronicles 21: 14 - So the LORD sent a plague on Israel,
and seventy thousand men of Israel fell dead.
God sends a flood, God sends a plague.
Smile
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Lorentz" |
|
| Title: Re: Is the God of the Bible a Bloodthirsty God? |
25 Jul 2007 12:00:41 PM |
|
|
On Jul 25, 1:36 am, SJAB1958 <balf...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Apart from the flood in Genesis, can anyone tell me any other Biblical
account where God had a direct hand in the killing of any human being?
And by direct hand I mean where there was no intermediary such as the
angel of death.
Excuse me, why are you making the distinction between
directly killing someone and ordering someone to do it? Charles Manson
did not personally kill most of the victims of his cult. In fact, I
don't think that he directly killed anyone. Manson thought at times
thought himself to be God. Would he be less responsible if he really
were God?
Your mention of an intermediary is misleading, since the God of
the Bible doesn't often use spiritual intermediaries. The Bible seldom
if ever mentions the angel of death. I think the taking of the first
born Egyptians is worded in such a way that there MAY be an
intermediate angel, but other than that I can't think of any other
case. The Lord God either does it himself, or more often orders human
beings to do it. Even in some cases where people do the killing, there
is an implication that God manipulated them. The invaders are sent by
God to punish sin.
The Israelites were ordered to kill Canaanites. In fact, when
Joshua goes into Canaan there are six Canaanite cities were the
Israelites killed each and every man, woman, child, and domesticated
animal. The Bible says that "they were sacrificed to God by the
sword." Then the cities were cleansed "with fire." Later in the Bible,
the Lord their God orders them to wipe out the Canaanites. God adds
that if they don't do this, the Lord thy God will do to the people of
Israel what he would do to the Canaanites. He tells the people of
Israel to do it slowly, piece by piece, so as not to damage the land
that the lord God has given them.
The major sin of the kings of Israel was NOT killing the
people god asked them to kill. Saul didn't kill the Molochites kings
and Samuel, speaking for God, when psycho. Samuel chops up the kings
personally. When Saul points out that he sacrificed to God properly,
Samuel says, "The Lord God want obedience, not sacrifices."
Saul's later problems were blamed in the Bible for his
disobedience. I think so. His problems start with David, who was
anointed as king by Samuel. David joins the Philistines later. Saul is
killed by Philistines. This is often used as an example of how
disobeying God leads to disaster.
Consistently, it is the kings of Israel who show mercy and the
priests/prophets who are bloodthirsty. Elijah is the maniac, not Ahab
or Jezabel. We can see a little of this today in the Middle East. Only
its the Koran, not the Bible, where which motivates this. I believe
that the Koran cites the Bible at certain maniacal points, though.
God shows mercy to the Assyrians, though. Read Jonah. Sometimes
I wonder if the Assyrians bloodthirsty god, Asshur, was perceived as
being the same as the God of the Hebrews. The Assyrian kings often
refer to God when speaking to the Hebrews. They don't refer to the
name of Yaweh, but maybe Asshur is just another name for Yaweh. Both
Gods seem to require a lot of blood. You have to remember that none of
the pagan Gods directly kill people themselves. They manipulate
natural disasters or they order people to kill. The Aztec gods didn't
directly kill any human being either. Probably because gods are not
real. Gods are just a made up excuse for people.
You either take the Bible literally, or you interpret according
to your own heart, or you disbelieve it entirely. If you choose to
take the Bible literally, with no interpretation using outside values,
then God is bloodthirsty.
.
|
|
|
| User: "SJAB1958" |
|
| Title: Re: Is the God of the Bible a Bloodthirsty God? |
25 Jul 2007 01:00:18 PM |
|
|
On 25 Jul, 18:00, Lorentz <drosen0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Jul 25, 1:36 am, SJAB1958 <balf...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Apart from the flood in Genesis, can anyone tell me any other Biblical
account where God had a direct hand in the killing of any human being?
And by direct hand I mean where there was no intermediary such as the
angel of death.
Excuse me, why are you making the distinction between
directly killing someone and ordering someone to do it? Charles Manson
did not personally kill most of the victims of his cult. In fact, I
don't think that he directly killed anyone. Manson thought at times
thought himself to be God. Would he be less responsible if he really
were God?
How can you compare God to a lunatic cult leader who thought he was
God? That isn't exactly a good idea.
Your mention of an intermediary is misleading, since the God of
the Bible doesn't often use spiritual intermediaries. The Bible seldom
if ever mentions the angel of death. I think the taking of the first
born Egyptians is worded in such a way that there MAY be an
intermediate angel, but other than that I can't think of any other
case. The Lord God either does it himself, or more often orders human
beings to do it. Even in some cases where people do the killing, there
is an implication that God manipulated them. The invaders are sent by
God to punish sin.
Did I specify that the intermediary was always spiritual? No.
The Israelites were ordered to kill Canaanites. In fact, when
Joshua goes into Canaan there are six Canaanite cities were the
Israelites killed each and every man, woman, child, and domesticated
animal. The Bible says that "they were sacrificed to God by the
sword." Then the cities were cleansed "with fire." Later in the Bible,
the Lord their God orders them to wipe out the Canaanites. God adds
that if they don't do this, the Lord thy God will do to the people of
Israel what he would do to the Canaanites. He tells the people of
Israel to do it slowly, piece by piece, so as not to damage the land
that the lord God has given them.
Ah so God is to blame for what the Israelites did in his name. Are you
going to blame God for the actions of the IRA, or blame Allah for the
actions of the al-Qaida, or blame Kali for the actions of the
Thuggees? These people took it upon themselves to do these things, and
in order to exonerate themselves they claim they are doing the work of
their god.
The major sin of the kings of Israel was NOT killing the
people god asked them to kill. Saul didn't kill the Molochites kings
and Samuel, speaking for God, when psycho. Samuel chops up the kings
personally. When Saul points out that he sacrificed to God properly,
Samuel says, "The Lord God want obedience, not sacrifices."
Which contradicts the previous mention of the Caananites being
"sacrificed by the sword". And as you clearly point out Samuel went
nuts and slaughtered the Molochites. The action of a man, not the act
of a god.
Saul's later problems were blamed in the Bible for his
disobedience. I think so. His problems start with David, who was
anointed as king by Samuel. David joins the Philistines later. Saul is
killed by Philistines. This is often used as an example of how
disobeying God leads to disaster.
Let's put that another way, you break the law you are in trouble and
bad things will happen to you if you get caught. Again this is the
action of a man and not the act of a god.
Consistently, it is the kings of Israel who show mercy and the
priests/prophets who are bloodthirsty. Elijah is the maniac, not Ahab
or Jezabel. We can see a little of this today in the Middle East. Only
its the Koran, not the Bible, where which motivates this. I believe
that the Koran cites the Bible at certain maniacal points, though.
I don't know if the Koran cites the Bible, but I do know that the
muslims recognise all the prophets and teachers of the Judaic and
Christian faith from Abraham right up to and including Jesus (whom
they don't see as the Son of God), they even acknowledge that their
God (Allah) is the same as the Christian God and the Judaic God.
God shows mercy to the Assyrians, though. Read Jonah. Sometimes
I wonder if the Assyrians bloodthirsty god, Asshur, was perceived as
being the same as the God of the Hebrews. The Assyrian kings often
refer to God when speaking to the Hebrews. They don't refer to the
name of Yaweh, but maybe Asshur is just another name for Yaweh. Both
Gods seem to require a lot of blood. You have to remember that none of
the pagan Gods directly kill people themselves. They manipulate
natural disasters or they order people to kill. The Aztec gods didn't
directly kill any human being either. Probably because gods are not
real. Gods are just a made up excuse for people.
So the god or gods are used as excuses for the human lunatics to go
blood letting on a grand scale, so God himself is not bloodthirsty in
the slightest, as according to what you state here there are no gods
of any kind.
You either take the Bible literally, or you interpret according
to your own heart, or you disbelieve it entirely. If you choose to
take the Bible literally, with no interpretation using outside values,
then God is bloodthirsty.
Would I be correct in assuming here that you don't recognise the papal
authority as you make no mention of seeking interpretation from
another source other than one's own heart?
If one takes the Bible literally from cover to cover (as some claim to
do - even when they are moving the goalposts) then it becomes a badly
written story full of errors and contradictions.
If you consider the fact that the people that wrote the books that
became the Bible used analogy (in the form of parables) then the
literal interpretation idea can be thrown out of the window, and you
need to seek your interpretation elsewhere, usually in the form of a
much wiser and spiritually developed person (such as a priest, bishop,
cardinal, the pope, or if you like even a messianic rabbi). Then you
will see that much that appears ridiculous in the literal
interpretation makes a heck of a lot more sense.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lorentz" |
|
| Title: Re: Is the God of the Bible a Bloodthirsty God? |
25 Jul 2007 05:15:35 PM |
|
|
On Jul 25, 2:00 pm, SJAB1958 <balf...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 25 Jul, 18:00, Lorentz <drosen0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Jul 25, 1:36 am, SJAB1958 <balf...@hotmail.com> wrote:
If you consider the fact that the people that wrote the books that
became the Bible used analogy (in the form of parables) then the
literal interpretation idea can be thrown out of the window, and you
need to seek your interpretation elsewhere, usually in the form of a
much wiser and spiritually developed person (such as a priest, bishop,
cardinal, the pope, or if you like even a messianic rabbi). Then you
will see that much that appears ridiculous in the literal
interpretation makes a heck of a lot more sense.
Even an atheist has to admit that much good has been done by
religious people claiming to work in the name of their gods.
One example is AA. I am not going to tell people in AA that
they shouldn't trust in a higher power help them o get rid of their
alcoholism. If they can kick their habit, that may be all the evidence
they require. However, the higher power of AA is not the God of the
Bible. The God of the Bible doesn't ever help anybody kick an
addiction.
I think that rabbinical Judiasm is much, much better than the
Judiasm described in the Bible. However, I think the moderately humane
parts came in medieval times. I think that Christianity is much better
than the Judiasm described in the Bible. In fact, I think almost all
derivatives of the Bible are better than the Judiasm described in the
Bible. Hitler made a few comments derived from the Bible. These were
not good.
I do make the claim that almost no good in the world has been
performed by people who take the Bible literally, word for word.
Often, the modified versions of Hebrew religion generate a lot of
good.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Is the God of the Bible a Bloodthirsty God? |
25 Jul 2007 08:51:20 PM |
|
|
On Jul 26, 2:00 am, SJAB1958 <balf...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 25 Jul, 18:00, Lorentz <drosen0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Jul 25, 1:36 am, SJAB1958 <balf...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Apart from the flood in Genesis, can anyone tell me any other Biblical
account where God had a direct hand in the killing of any human being?
And by direct hand I mean where there was no intermediary such as the
angel of death.
Excuse me, why are you making the distinction between
directly killing someone and ordering someone to do it? Charles Manson
did not personally kill most of the victims of his cult. In fact, I
don't think that he directly killed anyone. Manson thought at times
thought himself to be God. Would he be less responsible if he really
were God?
How can you compare God to a lunatic cult leader who thought he was
God? That isn't exactly a good idea.
Your mention of an intermediary is misleading, since the God of
the Bible doesn't often use spiritual intermediaries. The Bible seldom
if ever mentions the angel of death. I think the taking of the first
born Egyptians is worded in such a way that there MAY be an
intermediate angel, but other than that I can't think of any other
case. The Lord God either does it himself, or more often orders human
beings to do it. Even in some cases where people do the killing, there
is an implication that God manipulated them. The invaders are sent by
God to punish sin.
Did I specify that the intermediary was always spiritual? No.
The Israelites were ordered to kill Canaanites. In fact, when
Joshua goes into Canaan there are six Canaanite cities were the
Israelites killed each and every man, woman, child, and domesticated
animal. The Bible says that "they were sacrificed to God by the
sword." Then the cities were cleansed "with fire." Later in the Bible,
the Lord their God orders them to wipe out the Canaanites. God adds
that if they don't do this, the Lord thy God will do to the people of
Israel what he would do to the Canaanites. He tells the people of
Israel to do it slowly, piece by piece, so as not to damage the land
that the lord God has given them.
Ah so God is to blame for what the Israelites did in his name. Are you
going to blame God for the actions of the IRA, or blame Allah for the
actions of the al-Qaida, or blame Kali for the actions of the
Thuggees? These people took it upon themselves to do these things, and
in order to exonerate themselves they claim they are doing the work of
their god.
The major sin of the kings of Israel was NOT killing the
people god asked them to kill. Saul didn't kill the Molochites kings
and Samuel, speaking for God, when psycho. Samuel chops up the kings
personally. When Saul points out that he sacrificed to God properly,
Samuel says, "The Lord God want obedience, not sacrifices."
Which contradicts the previous mention of the Caananites being
"sacrificed by the sword". And as you clearly point out Samuel went
nuts and slaughtered the Molochites. The action of a man, not the act
of a god.
Saul's later problems were blamed in the Bible for his
disobedience. I think so. His problems start with David, who was
anointed as king by Samuel. David joins the Philistines later. Saul is
killed by Philistines. This is often used as an example of how
disobeying God leads to disaster.
Let's put that another way, you break the law you are in trouble and
bad things will happen to you if you get caught. Again this is the
action of a man and not the act of a god.
Consistently, it is the kings of Israel who show mercy and the
priests/prophets who are bloodthirsty. Elijah is the maniac, not Ahab
or Jezabel. We can see a little of this today in the Middle East. Only
its the Koran, not the Bible, where which motivates this. I believe
that the Koran cites the Bible at certain maniacal points, though.
I don't know if the Koran cites the Bible, but I do know that the
muslims recognise all the prophets and teachers of the Judaic and
Christian faith from Abraham right up to and including Jesus (whom
they don't see as the Son of God), they even acknowledge that their
God (Allah) is the same as the Christian God and the Judaic God.
God shows mercy to the Assyrians, though. Read Jonah. Sometimes
I wonder if the Assyrians bloodthirsty god, Asshur, was perceived as
being the same as the God of the Hebrews. The Assyrian kings often
refer to God when speaking to the Hebrews. They don't refer to the
name of Yaweh, but maybe Asshur is just another name for Yaweh. Both
Gods seem to require a lot of blood. You have to remember that none of
the pagan Gods directly kill people themselves. They manipulate
natural disasters or they order people to kill. The Aztec gods didn't
directly kill any human being either. Probably because gods are not
real. Gods are just a made up excuse for people.
So the god or gods are used as excuses for the human lunatics to go
blood letting on a grand scale, so God himself is not bloodthirsty in
the slightest, as according to what you state here there are no gods
of any kind.
You either take the Bible literally, or you interpret according
to your own heart, or you disbelieve it entirely. If you choose to
take the Bible literally, with no interpretation using outside values,
then God is bloodthirsty.
Would I be correct in assuming here that you don't recognise the papal
authority as you make no mention of seeking interpretation from
another source other than one's own heart?
If one takes the Bible literally from cover to cover (as some claim to
do - even when they are moving the goalposts) then it becomes a badly
written story full of errors and contradictions.
If you consider the fact that the people that wrote the books that
became the Bible used analogy (in the form of parables) then the
literal interpretation idea can be thrown out of the window, and you
need to seek your interpretation elsewhere, usually in the form of a
much wiser and spiritually developed person (such as a priest, bishop,
cardinal, the pope, or if you like even a messianic rabbi). Then you
will see that much that appears ridiculous in the literal
interpretation makes a heck of a lot more sense.
Come on, guys, you are bogged down with bible accounts which were
false stories.
Why on earth there is a need to be associated with fairy tales?
The Isrealis killed innocent people and they have to pay for it,
that's all.
Likewise, in this current world, some one or nation abuse their
strength to kill innocent people, they or their descendents will pay
for it. Regardless whether they like it or conscious of it or not.
Yap
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Andrew W" |
|
| Title: Re: Is the God of the Bible a Bloodthirsty God? |
25 Jul 2007 03:17:21 AM |
|
|
On Jul 25, 3:36 pm, SJAB1958 <balf...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Apart from the flood in Genesis, can anyone tell me any other Biblical
account where God had a direct hand in the killing of any human being?
And by direct hand I mean where there was no intermediary such as the
angel of death.
Sodom and Gomorrah?
The Christian God is definitely blood thirsty because he was rather
satisfied by Jesus' brutal human blood sacrifice (even though he
himself outlawed human blood sacrifice), and he was at least
entertained by the thought of Abraham callously killing his own son.
--
Andrew W.
Jesus said that we must search everywhere for the truth, that we must
leave no stone unturned.
How naive and foolish is the man who thinks he can get all the answers
to
life from one convenient book. ~me
What we are told God and Jesus said, they did not say.
http://www.divinelove.org/volume1/Mission.htm
TABLE OF CONTENTS. Must read! http://www.divinelove.org/revnt/Rev-TOC-title.htm
The true Creator wants us to be happy and abundant.
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Science_of_Getting_Rich
Audio version. http://website.lineone.net/~cornerstone/richaudio.htm
Think you know what ego is? Think again. The Bible is full of it!
http://www.acim.org/
Religion Exposed!
http://members.optusnet.com.au/~ajwerner
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gabriel" |
|
| Title: Re: Is the God of the Bible a Bloodthirsty God? |
11 Aug 2007 08:06:07 AM |
|
|
Hi Andrew W,
"Andrew W" <ajwerner@optushome.com.au> wrote in message
news:1185351441.974676.61010@m37g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 25, 3:36 pm, SJAB1958 <balf...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Apart from the flood in Genesis, can anyone tell me any other Biblical
account where God had a direct hand in the killing of any human being?
And by direct hand I mean where there was no intermediary such as the
angel of death.
Sodom and Gomorrah?
The Christian God is definitely blood thirsty because he was rather
satisfied by Jesus' brutal human blood sacrifice (even though he
himself outlawed human blood sacrifice), and he was at least
entertained by the thought of Abraham callously killing his own son.
As you already have shown, you twist what you think is going on into a
version that supports your own viewpoint. Clearly he was never
"entertained", as even you admit in your next post. And yet you said He was.
You clearly show you're dishonest when it comes to God.
I suggest you turn away from your blasphemous cult you admitted to following
months ago: a man and woman a mere 40 years ago who claimed to talk with
God, and know what He truly wanted, as if His church could not survive for
2,000 years w/out the help of those individuals claiming they personally
talked with God and know what He really wanted. As if God is not strong
enough to preserve His Word or His Church. Until you do so, you're providing
nothing here except the viewpoint of a dishonest heretic.
--
Andrew W.
Jesus said that we must search everywhere for the truth, that we must
leave no stone unturned.
How naive and foolish is the man who thinks he can get all the answers
to
life from one convenient book. ~me
What we are told God and Jesus said, they did not say.
http://www.divinelove.org/volume1/Mission.htm
TABLE OF CONTENTS. Must read!
http://www.divinelove.org/revnt/Rev-TOC-title.htm
The true Creator wants us to be happy and abundant.
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Science_of_Getting_Rich
Audio version. http://website.lineone.net/~cornerstone/richaudio.htm
Think you know what ego is? Think again. The Bible is full of it!
http://www.acim.org/
Religion Exposed!
http://members.optusnet.com.au/~ajwerner
.
|
|
|
| User: "Andrew W" |
|
| Title: Re: Is the God of the Bible a Bloodthirsty God? |
13 Aug 2007 03:28:16 AM |
|
|
"Gabriel" <gabriel_baptist@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3vivi.29660$ax1.20858@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
Hi Andrew W,
"Andrew W" <ajwerner@optushome.com.au> wrote in message
news:1185351441.974676.61010@m37g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 25, 3:36 pm, SJAB1958 <balf...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Apart from the flood in Genesis, can anyone tell me any other Biblical
account where God had a direct hand in the killing of any human being?
And by direct hand I mean where there was no intermediary such as the
angel of death.
Sodom and Gomorrah?
The Christian God is definitely blood thirsty because he was rather
satisfied by Jesus' brutal human blood sacrifice (even though he
himself outlawed human blood sacrifice), and he was at least
entertained by the thought of Abraham callously killing his own son.
As you already have shown, you twist what you think is going on into a
version that supports your own viewpoint. Clearly he was never
"entertained", as even you admit in your next post. And yet you said He
was. You clearly show you're dishonest when it comes to God.
You have taken the word 'entertained' in the strict sense.
Silly you. Read what I said again.
I suggest you turn away from your blasphemous cult you admitted to
following months ago:
A cult is an organisation. I don't belong to any organisations.
You do however.
a man and woman a mere 40 years ago who claimed to talk with God, and know
what He truly wanted,
That's exactly the process by which your scriptures came about. The timeline
is irrelevant.
Talk about double standards.
as if His church could not survive for 2,000 years w/out the help of those
individuals claiming they personally talked with God and know what He
really wanted.
It has survived for two reasons.
1/ Humans are basically stupid and rather impressionable and obsessive.
2/ Your mighty dependable God stopped talking to us, or just left us,
leaving nothing better to follow.
As if God is not strong enough to preserve His Word or His Church.
That's assuming he wanted to, which depends on whether it was really his
word.
Just because God is strong enough to do something doesn't mean he actually
did.
Until you do so, you're providing nothing here except the viewpoint of a
dishonest heretic.
Only cultists use words like heretic.
I guess there's no hope for people like you to change. You're just too
brainwashed.
--
Andrew W.
Jesus said that we must search everywhere for the truth, that we must leave
no stone unturned.
How naive and foolish is the man who thinks he can get all the answers to
life from one convenient book. ~ me
What we are told God and Jesus said, they did not say.
http://www.divinelove.org/volume1/Mission.htm
TABLE OF CONTENTS. Must read!
http://www.divinelove.org/revnt/Rev-TOC-title.htm
The true Creator wants us to be happy and abundant.
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Science_of_Getting_Rich
Audio version. http://website.lineone.net/~cornerstone/richaudio.htm
Think you know what ego is? Think again. The Bible is full of it!
http://www.acim.org/
Religion Exposed!
http://members.optusnet.com.au/~ajwerner
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Andrew" |
|
| Title: Re: Is the God of the Bible a Bloodthirsty God? |
25 Jul 2007 03:25:08 AM |
|
|
On 2007-07-25 09:17:21 +0100, Andrew W <ajwerner@optushome.com.au> said:
On Jul 25, 3:36 pm, SJAB1958 <balf...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Apart from the flood in Genesis, can anyone tell me any other Biblical
account where God had a direct hand in the killing of any human being?
And by direct hand I mean where there was no intermediary such as the
angel of death.
Sodom and Gomorrah?
The Christian God is definitely blood thirsty because he was rather
satisfied by Jesus' brutal human blood sacrifice (even though he
himself outlawed human blood sacrifice), and he was at least
entertained by the thought of Abraham callously killing his own son.
Does it say that he was entertained?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Andrew W" |
|
| Title: Re: Is the God of the Bible a Bloodthirsty God? |
25 Jul 2007 04:18:23 AM |
|
|
On Jul 25, 6:25 pm, Andrew <thecr...@macunlimited.net> wrote:
On 2007-07-25 09:17:21 +0100, Andrew W <ajwer...@optushome.com.au> said:
On Jul 25, 3:36 pm, SJAB1958 <balf...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Apart from the flood in Genesis, can anyone tell me any other Biblical
account where God had a direct hand in the killing of any human being?
And by direct hand I mean where there was no intermediary such as the
angel of death.
Sodom and Gomorrah?
The Christian God is definitely blood thirsty because he was rather
satisfied by Jesus' brutal human blood sacrifice (even though he
himself outlawed human blood sacrifice), and he was at least
entertained by the thought of Abraham callously killing his own son.
Does it say that he was entertained?
Not entertained in the classic sense.
It was acceptable to him.
--
Andrew W.
Jesus said that we must search everywhere for the truth, that we must
leave no stone unturned.
How naive and foolish is the man who thinks he can get all the answers
to
life from one convenient book. ~me
What we are told God and Jesus said, they did not say.
http://www.divinelove.org/volume1/Mission.htm
TABLE OF CONTENTS. Must read! http://www.divinelove.org/revnt/Rev-TOC-title.htm
The true Creator wants us to be happy and abundant.
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Science_of_Getting_Rich
Audio version. http://website.lineone.net/~cornerstone/richaudio.htm
Think you know what ego is? Think again. The Bible is full of it!
http://www.acim.org/
Religion Exposed!
http://members.optusnet.com.au/~ajwerner
.
|
|
|
| User: "Andrew" |
|
| Title: Re: Is the God of the Bible a Bloodthirsty God? |
25 Jul 2007 06:08:34 AM |
|
|
On 2007-07-25 10:18:23 +0100, Andrew W <ajwerner@optushome.com.au> said:
On Jul 25, 6:25 pm, Andrew <thecr...@macunlimited.net> wrote:
On 2007-07-25 09:17:21 +0100, Andrew W <ajwer...@optushome.com.au> said:
On Jul 25, 3:36 pm, SJAB1958 <balf...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Apart from the flood in Genesis, can anyone tell me any other Biblical
account where God had a direct hand in the killing of any human being?
And by direct hand I mean where there was no intermediary such as the
angel of death.
Sodom and Gomorrah?
The Christian God is definitely blood thirsty because he was rather
satisfied by Jesus' brutal human blood sacrifice (even though he
himself outlawed human blood sacrifice), and he was at least
entertained by the thought of Abraham callously killing his own son.
Does it say that he was entertained?
Not entertained in the classic sense.
It was acceptable to him.
No - it wasn't. He did not allow Abraham to go through with it. Did you
miss that bit?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ralph" |
|
| Title: Re: Is the God of the Bible a Bloodthirsty God? |
25 Jul 2007 07:59:55 AM |
|
|
"Andrew" <thecroft@macunlimited.net> wrote in message
news:2007072512083416807-thecroft@macunlimitednet...
On 2007-07-25 10:18:23 +0100, Andrew W <ajwerner@optushome.com.au> said:
On Jul 25, 6:25 pm, Andrew <thecr...@macunlimited.net> wrote:
On 2007-07-25 09:17:21 +0100, Andrew W <ajwer...@optushome.com.au> said:
On Jul 25, 3:36 pm, SJAB1958 <balf...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Apart from the flood in Genesis, can anyone tell me any other Biblical
account where God had a direct hand in the killing of any human being?
And by direct hand I mean where there was no intermediary such as the
angel of death.
Sodom and Gomorrah?
The Christian God is definitely blood thirsty because he was rather
satisfied by Jesus' brutal human blood sacrifice (even though he
himself outlawed human blood sacrifice), and he was at least
entertained by the thought of Abraham callously killing his own son.
Does it say that he was entertained?
Not entertained in the classic sense.
It was acceptable to him.
No - it wasn't. He did not allow Abraham to go through with it. Did you
miss that bit?
There are passages that indicate that he did go through with it and that
later redactors wrote out that part.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Andrew" |
|
| Title: Re: Is the God of the Bible a Bloodthirsty God? |
25 Jul 2007 09:10:43 AM |
|
|
On 2007-07-25 13:59:55 +0100, "Ralph" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> said:
"Andrew" <thecroft@macunlimited.net> wrote in message
news:2007072512083416807-thecroft@macunlimitednet...
On 2007-07-25 10:18:23 +0100, Andrew W <ajwerner@optushome.com.au> said:
On Jul 25, 6:25 pm, Andrew <thecr...@macunlimited.net> wrote:
On 2007-07-25 09:17:21 +0100, Andrew W <ajwer...@optushome.com.au> said:
On Jul 25, 3:36 pm, SJAB1958 <balf...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Apart from the flood in Genesis, can anyone tell me any other Biblical
account where God had a direct hand in the killing of any human being?
And by direct hand I mean where there was no intermediary such as the
angel of death.
Sodom and Gomorrah?
The Christian God is definitely blood thirsty because he was rather
satisfied by Jesus' brutal human blood sacrifice (even though he
himself outlawed human blood sacrifice), and he was at least
entertained by the thought of Abraham callously killing his own son.
Does it say that he was entertained?
Not entertained in the classic sense.
It was acceptable to him.
No - it wasn't. He did not allow Abraham to go through with it. Did you
miss that bit?
There are passages that indicate that he did go through with it and that
later redactors wrote out that part.
Perhaps. There are passages that suggest that much of this part of the
Bible consists of older tales that the redactors have changed. This
does not affcet the argument, however.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ralph" |
|
| Title: Re: Is the God of the Bible a Bloodthirsty God? |
25 Jul 2007 11:10:59 AM |
|
|
"Andrew" <thecroft@macunlimited.net> wrote in message
news:2007072515104316807-thecroft@macunlimitednet...
On 2007-07-25 13:59:55 +0100, "Ralph" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> said:
"Andrew" <thecroft@macunlimited.net> wrote in message
news:2007072512083416807-thecroft@macunlimitednet...
On 2007-07-25 10:18:23 +0100, Andrew W <ajwerner@optushome.com.au> said:
On Jul 25, 6:25 pm, Andrew <thecr...@macunlimited.net> wrote:
On 2007-07-25 09:17:21 +0100, Andrew W <ajwer...@optushome.com.au>
said:
On Jul 25, 3:36 pm, SJAB1958 <balf...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Apart from the flood in Genesis, can anyone tell me any other
Biblical
account where God had a direct hand in the killing of any human
being?
And by direct hand I mean where there was no intermediary such as
the
angel of death.
Sodom and Gomorrah?
The Christian God is definitely blood thirsty because he was rather
satisfied by Jesus' brutal human blood sacrifice (even though he
himself outlawed human blood sacrifice), and he was at least
entertained by the thought of Abraham callously killing his own son.
Does it say that he was entertained?
Not entertained in the classic sense.
It was acceptable to him.
No - it wasn't. He did not allow Abraham to go through with it. Did you
miss that bit?
There are passages that indicate that he did go through with it and that
later redactors wrote out that part.
Perhaps. There are passages that suggest that much of this part of the
Bible consists of older tales that the redactors have changed. This does
not affcet the argument, however.
It doesn't????????? Wow, you fundies think of more ways to keep the bible
rational.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Andrew" |
|
| Title: Re: Is the God of the Bible a Bloodthirsty God? |
25 Jul 2007 12:01:44 PM |
|
|
On 2007-07-25 17:10:59 +0100, "Ralph" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> said:
"Andrew" <thecroft@macunlimited.net> wrote in message
news:2007072515104316807-thecroft@macunlimitednet...
On 2007-07-25 13:59:55 +0100, "Ralph" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> said:
"Andrew" <thecroft@macunlimited.net> wrote in message
news:2007072512083416807-thecroft@macunlimitednet...
On 2007-07-25 10:18:23 +0100, Andrew W <ajwerner@optushome.com.au> said:
On Jul 25, 6:25 pm, Andrew <thecr...@macunlimited.net> wrote:
On 2007-07-25 09:17:21 +0100, Andrew W <ajwer...@optushome.com.au>
said:
On Jul 25, 3:36 pm, SJAB1958 <balf...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Apart from the flood in Genesis, can anyone tell me any other
Biblical
account where God had a direct hand in the killing of any human
being?
And by direct hand I mean where there was no intermediary such as
the
angel of death.
Sodom and Gomorrah?
The Christian God is definitely blood thirsty because he was rather
satisfied by Jesus' brutal human blood sacrifice (even though he
himself outlawed human blood sacrifice), and he was at least
entertained by the thought of Abraham callously killing his own son.
Does it say that he was entertained?
Not entertained in the classic sense.
It was acceptable to him.
No - it wasn't. He did not allow Abraham to go through with it. Did you
miss that bit?
There are passages that indicate that he did go through with it and that
later redactors wrote out that part.
Perhaps. There are passages that suggest that much of this part of the
Bible consists of older tales that the redactors have changed. This does
not affcet the argument, however.
It doesn't????????? Wow, you fundies think of more ways to keep the bible
rational.
Of course it doesn't affect it. (And, by the way, I'm not a
fundamentalist). The Bible - that is, the sacred book of Christianity,
and I assume the tbook you're referring to - contains the text as we
have them. What the source materials were for these texts is irrelevant
because they are not part of the Bible. To give you a clearer example;
the story of Noah is a reworking, by a redactor, of a common folk-tale
in the Middle East of the period. It would make no sense, however, to
point to the attitude of the god El in the older version of the story
in the Epic of Gilgamesh and claim that this is the way that Yahweh
behaves in the Bible.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Is the God of the Bible a Bloodthirsty God? |
26 Jul 2007 07:48:42 AM |
|
|
In <2007072518014416807-thecroft@macunlimitednet>, on 07/25/07
at 06:01 PM, Andrew <thecroft@macunlimited.net> said:
On 2007-07-25 17:10:59 +0100, "Ralph" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> said:
"Andrew" <thecroft@macunlimited.net> wrote in message
news:2007072515104316807-thecroft@macunlimitednet...
On 2007-07-25 13:59:55 +0100, "Ralph" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> said:
"Andrew" <thecroft@macunlimited.net> wrote in message
news:2007072512083416807-thecroft@macunlimitednet...
On 2007-07-25 10:18:23 +0100, Andrew W <ajwerner@optushome.com.au> said:
On Jul 25, 6:25 pm, Andrew <thecr...@macunlimited.net> wrote:
On 2007-07-25 09:17:21 +0100, Andrew W <ajwer...@optushome.com.au>
said:
On Jul 25, 3:36 pm, SJAB1958 <balf...@hotmail.com> wrote:
snip
No - it wasn't. He did not allow Abraham to go through with it. Did you
miss that bit?
There are passages that indicate that he did go through with it and that
later redactors wrote out that part.
Perhaps. There are passages that suggest that much of this part of the
Bible consists of older tales that the redactors have changed. This does
not affcet the argument, however.
It doesn't????????? Wow, you fundies think of more ways to keep the bible
rational.
Of course it doesn't affect it. (And, by the way, I'm not a
Of course it does affect the accuracy of and meaning of the Hebrew bible
where the stories are based on falsehoods. It helps to remember that
the Hebrew bible is to creation stories the ancient Hebrew society in
Judea to feel good about themselves. First and foremost it is the
creation of a story of the formulation of the universe. Secondly, it is
the creation of the story of the relationship of the Hebrew society with
that god. Originally, that god was él.
fundamentalist). The Bible - that is, the sacred book of Christianity,
That would be part two, commonly referred to as the New Testament.
Xianity, since approximate World War II, has been trying to divorce
itself from its Judaic roots. Currently, only time the Hebrew bible is
referenced by xians is when it supports their myopic view. Yahweh has
been pretty much eliminated the xian pulpit. Maybe it is because some
people remember the adage, like father like son, or maybe it's confusing
the poor dears with too many gods. Not my concern.
and I assume the tbook you're referring to - contains the text as we
have them. What the source materials were for these texts is irrelevant
The source materials are extremely irrelevant, for they were the means
of forging the story.
because they are not part of the Bible. To give you a clearer example;
But they are the foundation of the Hebrew and xian bible's.
the story of Noah is a reworking, by a redactor, of a common folk-tale
in the Middle East of the period. It would make no sense, however, to
point to the attitude of the god El in the older version of the story
Wrong god, él is Canaanite, not Mesopotamian.
in the Epic of Gilgamesh and claim that this is the way that Yahweh
behaves in the Bible.
Yahweh, like every other man-made god, acts in an extremely human
manner. One could say a childish manner & be accurate. Apparently, he
acts in the exact same manner people did around their rulers. Not so
very strange when you think about it, for what other standard did they
have to compare it with?
walksalone who does realize the number of legends that are used to base
the Hebrew bible on, however, that does not mean it is a good thing too
use to guide your life by.
--
When you think of the long and gloomy history of man, you will find more
hideous crimes have been committed in the name of obedience than have ever
been committed in the name of rebellion.
--C.P. Snow, scientist and writer
(1905-1980)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Tiktaalik" |
|
| Title: Re: Is the God of the Bible a Bloodthirsty God? |
25 Jul 2007 12:43:54 PM |
|
|
On Jul 25, 6:01 pm, Andrew <thecr...@macunlimited.net> wrote:
On 2007-07-25 17:10:59 +0100, "Ralph" <mmman...@yahoo.com> said:
"Andrew" <thecr...@macunlimited.net> wrote in message
news:2007072515104316807-thecroft@macunlimitednet...
On 2007-07-25 13:59:55 +0100, "Ralph" <mmman...@yahoo.com> said:
"Andrew" <thecr...@macunlimited.net> wrote in message
news:2007072512083416807-thecroft@macunlimitednet...
On 2007-07-25 10:18:23 +0100, Andrew W <ajwer...@optushome.com.au> said:
On Jul 25, 6:25 pm, Andrew <thecr...@macunlimited.net> wrote:
On 2007-07-25 09:17:21 +0100, Andrew W <ajwer...@optushome.com.au>
said:
On Jul 25, 3:36 pm, SJAB1958 <balf...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Apart from the flood in Genesis, can anyone tell me any other
Biblical
account where God had a direct hand in the killing of any human
being?
And by direct hand I mean where there was no intermediary such as
the
angel of death.
Sodom and Gomorrah?
The Christian God is definitely blood thirsty because he was rather
satisfied by Jesus' brutal human blood sacrifice (even though he
himself outlawed human blood sacrifice), and he was at least
entertained by the thought of Abraham callously killing his own son.
Does it say that he was entertained?
Not entertained in the classic sense.
It was acceptable to him.
No - it wasn't. He did not allow Abraham to go through with it. Did you
miss that bit?
There are passages that indicate that he did go through with it and that
later redactors wrote out that part.
Perhaps. There are passages that suggest that much of this part of the
Bible consists of older tales that the redactors have changed. This does
not affcet the argument, however.
It doesn't????????? Wow, you fundies think of more ways to keep the bible
rational.
Of course it doesn't affect it. (And, by the way, I'm not a
fundamentalist). The Bible - that is, the sacred book of Christianity,
and I assume the tbook you're referring to - contains the text as we
have them. What the source materials were for these texts is irrelevant
because they are not part of the Bible. To give you a clearer example;
the story of Noah is a reworking, by a redactor, of a common folk-tale
in the Middle East of the period.
How then do you reconcile this with a belief that all scripture is
inspired? Either the Bible is the word of God or it is a collection of
tales, some based on actual events, some no more than fables.
"I am in favour of animal rights as well as human rights. That is the
way of a whole human being". (Abraham Lincoln).
It would make no sense, however, to
point to the attitude of the god El in the older version of the story
in the Epic of Gilgamesh and claim that this is the way that Yahweh
behaves in the Bible.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
.
|
|
|
| User: "Andrew" |
|
| Title: Re: Is the God of the Bible a Bloodthirsty God? |
25 Jul 2007 05:26:31 PM |
|
|
On 2007-07-25 18:43:54 +0100, Tiktaalik <corneliusjmchugh@yahoo.ie> said:
On Jul 25, 6:01 pm, Andrew <thecr...@macunlimited.net> wrote:
On 2007-07-25 17:10:59 +0100, "Ralph" <mmman...@yahoo.com> said:
"Andrew" <thecr...@macunlimited.net> wrote in message
news:2007072515104316807-thecroft@macunlimitednet...
On 2007-07-25 13:59:55 +0100, "Ralph" <mmman...@yahoo.com> said:
"Andrew" <thecr...@macunlimited.net> wrote in message
news:2007072512083416807-thecroft@macunlimitednet...
On 2007-07-25 10:18:23 +0100, Andrew W <ajwer...@optushome.com.au> said:
On Jul 25, 6:25 pm, Andrew <thecr...@macunlimited.net> wrote:
On 2007-07-25 09:17:21 +0100, Andrew W <ajwer...@optushome.com.au>
said:
On Jul 25, 3:36 pm, SJAB1958 <balf...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Apart from the flood in Genesis, can anyone tell me any other
Biblical
account where God had a direct hand in the killing of any human
being?
And by direct hand I mean where there was no intermediary such as
the
angel of death.
Sodom and Gomorrah?
The Christian God is definitely blood thirsty because he was rather
satisfied by Jesus' brutal human blood sacrifice (even though he
himself outlawed human blood sacrifice), and he was at least
entertained by the thought of Abraham callously killing his own son.
Does it say that he was entertained?
Not entertained in the classic sense.
It was acceptable to him.
No - it wasn't. He did not allow Abraham to go through with it. Did you
miss that bit?
There are passages that indicate that he did go through with it and that
later redactors wrote out that part.
Perhaps. There are passages that suggest that much of this part of the
Bible consists of older tales that the redactors have changed. This does
not affcet the argument, however.
It doesn't????????? Wow, you fundies think of more ways to keep the bible
rational.
Of course it doesn't affect it. (And, by the way, I'm not a
fundamentalist). The Bible - that is, the sacred book of Christianity,
and I assume the tbook you're referring to - contains the text as we
have them. What the source materials were for these texts is irrelevant
because they are not part of the Bible. To give you a clearer example;
the story of Noah is a reworking, by a redactor, of a common folk-tale
in the Middle East of the period.
How then do you reconcile this with a belief that all scripture is
inspired? Either the Bible is the word of God or it is a collection of
tales, some based on actual events, some no more than fables.
That's right - create a dichotomy that implies that either I'm stupid
or you're right. "Inspired" simply does not mean "written by God" or
"the literal words of God". All scriptures are written by human beings,
in their own words, and are inspired by their relationship with God.
That does not mean that they are necessarily literal truth, but it does
mean that we should learn from them.
"I am in favour of animal rights as well as human rights. That is the
way of a whole human being". (Abraham Lincoln).
It would make no sense, however, to
point to the attitude of the god El in the older version of the story
in the Epic of Gilgamesh and claim that this is the way that Yahweh
behaves in the Bible.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tiktaalik" |
|
| Title: Re: Is the God of the Bible a Bloodthirsty God? |
25 Jul 2007 10:02:01 PM |
|
|
On Jul 25, 11:26 pm, Andrew <thecr...@macunlimited.net> wrote:
On 2007-07-25 18:43:54 +0100, Tiktaalik <corneliusjmch...@yahoo.ie> said:
On Jul 25, 6:01 pm, Andrew <thecr...@macunlimited.net> wrote:
On 2007-07-25 17:10:59 +0100, "Ralph" <mmman...@yahoo.com> said:
"Andrew" <thecr...@macunlimited.net> wrote in message
news:2007072515104316807-thecroft@macunlimitednet...
On 2007-07-25 13:59:55 +0100, "Ralph" <mmman...@yahoo.com> said:
"Andrew" <thecr...@macunlimited.net> wrote in message
news:2007072512083416807-thecroft@macunlimitednet...
On 2007-07-25 10:18:23 +0100, Andrew W <ajwer...@optushome.com.au> said:
On Jul 25, 6:25 pm, Andrew <thecr...@macunlimited.net> wrote:
On 2007-07-25 09:17:21 +0100, Andrew W <ajwer...@optushome.com.au>
said:
On Jul 25, 3:36 pm, SJAB1958 <balf...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Apart from the flood in Genesis, can anyone tell me any other
Biblical
account where God had a direct hand in the killing of any human
being?
And by direct hand I mean where there was no intermediary such as
the
angel of death.
Sodom and Gomorrah?
The Christian God is definitely blood thirsty because he was rather
satisfied by Jesus' brutal human blood sacrifice (even though he
himself outlawed human blood sacrifice), and he was at least
entertained by the thought of Abraham callously killing his own son.
Does it say that he was entertained?
Not entertained in the classic sense.
It was acceptable to him.
No - it wasn't. He did not allow Abraham to go through with it. Did you
miss that bit?
There are passages that indicate that he did go through with it and that
later redactors wrote out that part.
Perhaps. There are passages that suggest that much of this part of the
Bible consists of older tales that the redactors have changed. This does
not affcet the argument, however.
It doesn't????????? Wow, you fundies think of more ways to keep the bible
rational.
Of course it doesn't affect it. (And, by the way, I'm not a
fundamentalist). The Bible - that is, the sacred book of Christianity,
and I assume the tbook you're referring to - contains the text as we
have them. What the source materials were for these texts is irrelevant
because they are not part of the Bible. To give you a clearer example;
the story of Noah is a reworking, by a redactor, of a common folk-tale
in the Middle East of the period.
How then do you reconcile this with a belief that all scripture is
inspired? Either the Bible is the word of God or it is a collection of
tales, some based on actual events, some no more than fables.
That's right - create a dichotomy that implies that either I'm stupid
or you're right.
I didn't create anything, I asked a civil question. And if I think
you're stupid I will not imply it, I will say it. Likewise if I
believe myself to be right.
"Inspired" simply does not mean "written by God" or
"the literal words of God".
Try telling that to some of the fundamentalists who post here.
All scriptures are written by human beings,
in their own words,
Which leaves room for error which fallible humans are wont to do.
and are inspired by their relationship with God.
That makes more sense than the proposition put to me by a genuinely
devout Christian that it was as if God himself dictated the words
while the various authors merely recorded them.
That does not mean that they are necessarily literal truth, but it does
mean that we should learn from them.
Therefore there is no reason to take the creation account as other
than an attempt by one or more honest but fallible individuals to make
sense out of the world as he or they perceived it.
"I am in favour of animal rights as well as human rights. That is the
way of a whole human being". (Abraham Lincoln).
It would make no sense, however, to
point to the attitude of the god El in the older version of the story
in the Epic of Gilgamesh and claim that this is the way that Yahweh
behaves in the Bible.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
.
|
|
|
| User: "Andrew" |
|
| Title: Re: Is the God of the Bible a Bloodthirsty God? |
26 Jul 2007 02:26:16 AM |
|
|
On 2007-07-26 04:02:01 +0100, Tiktaalik <corneliusjmchugh@yahoo.ie> said:
On Jul 25, 11:26 pm, Andrew <thecr...@macunlimited.net> wrote:
On 2007-07-25 18:43:54 +0100, Tiktaalik <corneliusjmch...@yahoo.ie> said:
On Jul 25, 6:01 pm, Andrew <thecr...@macunlimited.net> wrote:
On 2007-07-25 17:10:59 +0100, "Ralph" <mmman...@yahoo.com> said:
"Andrew" <thecr...@macunlimited.net> wrote in message
news:2007072515104316807-thecroft@macunlimitednet...
On 2007-07-25 13:59:55 +0100, "Ralph" <mmman...@yahoo.com> said:
"Andrew" <thecr...@macunlimited.net> wrote in message
news:2007072512083416807-thecroft@macunlimitednet...
On 2007-07-25 10:18:23 +0100, Andrew W <ajwer...@optushome.com.au> said:
On Jul 25, 6:25 pm, Andrew <thecr...@macunlimited.net> wrote:
On 2007-07-25 09:17:21 +0100, Andrew W <ajwer...@optushome.com.au>
said:
On Jul 25, 3:36 pm, SJAB1958 <balf...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Apart from the flood in Genesis, can anyone tell me any other
Biblical
account where God had a direct hand in the killing of any human
being?
And by direct hand I mean where there was no intermediary such as
the
angel of death.
Sodom and Gomorrah?
The Christian God is definitely blood thirsty because he was rather
satisfied by Jesus' brutal human blood sacrifice (even though he
himself outlawed human blood sacrifice), and he was at least
entertained by the thought of Abraham callously killing his own son.
Does it say that he was entertained?
Not entertained in the classic sense.
It was acceptable to him.
No - it wasn't. He did not allow Abraham to go through with it. Did you
miss that bit?
There are passages that indicate that he did go through with it and that
later redactors wrote out that part.
Perhaps. There are passages that suggest that much of this part of the
Bible consists of older tales that the redactors have changed. This does
not affcet the argument, however.
It doesn't????????? Wow, you fundies think of more ways to keep the bible
rational.
Of course it doesn't affect it. (And, by the way, I'm not a
fundamentalist). The Bible - that is, the sacred book of Christianity,
and I assume the tbook you're referring to - contains the text as we
have them. What the source materials were for these texts is irrelevant
because they are not part of the Bible. To give you a clearer example;
the story of Noah is a reworking, by a redactor, of a common folk-tale
in the Middle East of the period.
How then do you reconcile this with a belief that all scripture is
inspired? Either the Bible is the word of God or it is a collection of
tales, some based on actual events, some no more than fables.
That's right - create a dichotomy that implies that either I'm stupid
or you're right.
I didn't create anything, I asked a civil question. And if I think
you're stupid I will not imply it, I will say it. Likewise if I
believe myself to be right.
"Inspired" simply does not mean "written by God" or
"the literal words of God".
Try telling that to some of the fundamentalists who post here.
I imagine some may be reading this. In which case, I am.
All scriptures are written by human beings,
in their own words,
Which leaves room for error which fallible humans are wont to do.
Yes. It leaves room for error.
and are inspired by their relationship with God.
That makes more sense than the proposition put to me by a genuinely
devout Christian that it was as if God himself dictated the words
while the various authors merely recorded them.
I've heard that view. It isn't one that has held sway in the mainstream
churches, but among fundamentalists it does tend to be widespread.
That does not mean that they are necessarily literal truth, but it does
mean that we should learn from them.
Therefore there is no reason to take the creation account as other
than an attempt by one or more honest but fallible individuals to make
sense out of the world as he or they perceived it.
There's very good reason not to take it as an attempt to explain the
beginning of things at all. The Bible is, first and foremost, a
religious book. The purpose of the writers of Genesis was to describe
the relationship between Man and God. Whether their cosmology was right
or wrong would have been a matter of indifference to them.
"I am in favour of animal rights as well as human rights. That is the
way of a whole human being". (Abraham Lincoln).
It would make no sense, however, to
point to the attitude of the god El in the older version of the story
in the Epic of Gilgamesh and claim that this is the way that Yahweh
behaves in the Bible.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tiktaalik" |
|
| Title: Re: Is the God of the Bible a Bloodthirsty God? |
26 Jul 2007 07:34:27 PM |
|
|
On Jul 26, 8:26 am, Andrew <thecr...@macunlimited.net> wrote:
On 2007-07-26 04:02:01 +0100, Tiktaalik <corneliusjmch...@yahoo.ie> said:
On Jul 25, 11:26 pm, Andrew <thecr...@macunlimited.net> wrote:
On 2007-07-25 18:43:54 +0100, Tiktaalik <corneliusjmch...@yahoo.ie> said:
On Jul 25, 6:01 pm, Andrew <thecr...@macunlimited.net> wrote:
On 2007-07-25 17:10:59 +0100, "Ralph" <mmman...@yahoo.com> said:
"Andrew" <thecr...@macunlimited.net> wrote in message
news:2007072515104316807-thecroft@macunlimitednet...
On 2007-07-25 13:59:55 +0100, "Ralph" <mmman...@yahoo.com> said:
"Andrew" <thecr...@macunlimited.net> wrote in message
news:2007072512083416807-thecroft@macunlimitednet...
On 2007-07-25 10:18:23 +0100, Andrew W <ajwer...@optushome.com.au> said:
On Jul 25, 6:25 pm, Andrew <thecr...@macunlimited.net> wrote:
On 2007-07-25 09:17:21 +0100, Andrew W <ajwer...@optushome.com.au>
said:
On Jul 25, 3:36 pm, SJAB1958 <balf...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Apart from the flood in Genesis, can anyone tell me any other
Biblical
account where God had a direct hand in the killing of any human
being?
And by direct hand I mean where there was no intermediary such as
the
angel of death.
Sodom and Gomorrah?
The Christian God is definitely blood thirsty because he was rather
satisfied by Jesus' brutal human blood sacrifice (even though he
himself outlawed human blood sacrifice), and he was at least
entertained by the thought of Abraham callously killing his own son.
Does it say that he was entertained?
Not entertained in the classic sense.
It was acceptable to him.
No - it wasn't. He did not allow Abraham to go through with it. Did you
miss that bit?
There are passages that indicate that he did go through with it and that
later redactors wrote out that part.
Perhaps. There are passages that suggest that much of this part of the
Bible consists of older tales that the redactors have changed. This does
not affcet the argument, however.
It doesn't????????? Wow, you fundies think of more ways to keep the bible
rational.
Of course it doesn't affect it. (And, by the way, I'm not a
fundamentalist). The Bible - that is, the sacred book of Christianity,
and I assume the tbook you're referring to - contains the text as we
have them. What the source materials were for these texts is irrelevant
because they are not part of the Bible. To give you a clearer example;
the story of Noah is a reworking, by a redactor, of a common folk-tale
in the Middle East of the period.
How then do you reconcile this with a belief that all scripture is
inspired? Either the Bible is the word of God or it is a collection of
tales, some based on actual events, some no more than fables.
That's right - create a dichotomy that implies that either I'm stupid
or you're right.
I didn't create anything, I asked a civil question. And if I think
you're stupid I will not imply it, I will say it. Likewise if I
believe myself to be right.
"Inspired" simply does not mean "written by God" or
"the literal words of God".
Try telling that to some of the fundamentalists who post here.
I imagine some may be reading this. In which case, I am.
All scriptures are written by human beings,
in their own words,
Which leaves room for error which fallible humans are wont to do.
Yes. It leaves room for error.
and are inspired by their relationship with God.
That makes more sense than the proposition put to me by a genuinely
devout Christian that it was as if God himself dictated the words
while the various authors merely recorded them.
I've heard that view. It isn't one that has held sway in the mainstream
churches, but among fundamentalists it does tend to be widespread.
That does not mean that they are necessarily literal truth, but it does
mean that we should learn from them.
Therefore there is no reason to take the creation account as other
than an attempt by one or more honest but fallible individuals to make
sense out of the world as he or they perceived it.
There's very good reason not to take it as an attempt to explain the
beginning of things at all. The Bible is, first and foremost, a
religious book. The purpose of the writers of Genesis was to describe
the relationship between Man and God. Whether their cosmology was right
or wrong would have been a matter of indifference to them.
That makes perfect sense. Thank you.
"I care not for a man's religion whose cat and dog are not the better
for it".(Abraham Lincoln).
"I am in favour of animal rights as well as human rights. That is the
way of a whole human being". (Abraham Lincoln).
It would make no sense, however, to
point to the attitude of the god El in the older version of the story
in the Epic of Gilgamesh and claim that this is the way that Yahweh
behaves in the Bible.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Is the God of the Bible a Bloodthirsty God? |
25 Jul 2007 09:08:20 PM |
|
|
On Jul 26, 6:26 am, Andrew <thecr...@macunlimited.net> wrote:
On 2007-07-25 18:43:54 +0100, Tiktaalik <corneliusjmch...@yahoo.ie> said:
On Jul 25, 6:01 pm, Andrew <thecr...@macunlimited.net> wrote:
On 2007-07-25 17:10:59 +0100, "Ralph" <mmman...@yahoo.com> said:
"Andrew" <thecr...@macunlimited.net> wrote in message
news:2007072515104316807-thecroft@macunlimitednet...
On 2007-07-25 13:59:55 +0100, "Ralph" <mmman...@yahoo.com> said:
"Andrew" <thecr...@macunlimited.net> wrote in message
news:2007072512083416807-thecroft@macunlimitednet...
On 2007-07-25 10:18:23 +0100, Andrew W <ajwer...@optushome.com.au> said:
On Jul 25, 6:25 pm, Andrew <thecr...@macunlimited.net> wrote:
On 2007-07-25 09:17:21 +0100, Andrew W <ajwer...@optushome.com.au>
said:
On Jul 25, 3:36 pm, SJAB1958 <balf...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Apart from the flood in Genesis, can anyone tell me any other
Biblical
account where God had a direct hand in the killing of any human
being?
And by direct hand I mean where there was no intermediary such as
the
angel of death.
Sodom and Gomorrah?
The Christian God is definitely blood thirsty because he was rather
satisfied by Jesus' brutal human blood sacrifice (even though he
himself outlawed human blood sacrifice), and he was at least
entertained by the thought of Abraham callously killing his own son.
Does it say that he was entertained?
Not entertained in the classic sense.
It was acceptable to him.
No - it wasn't. He did not allow Abraham to go through with it. Did you
miss that bit?
There are passages that indicate that he did go through with it and that
later redactors wrote out that part.
Perhaps. There are passages that suggest that much of this part of the
Bible consists of older tales that the redactors have changed. This does
not affcet the argument, however.
It doesn't????????? Wow, you fundies think of more ways to keep the bible
rational.
Of course it doesn't affect it. (And, by the way, I'm not a
fundamentalist). The Bible - that is, the sacred book of Christianity,
and I assume the tbook you're referring to - contains the text as we
have them. What the source materials were for these texts is irrelevant
because they are not part of the Bible. To give you a clearer example;
the story of Noah is a reworking, by a redactor, of a common folk-tale
in the Middle East of the period.
How then do you reconcile this with a belief that all scripture is
inspired? Either the Bible is the word of God or it is a collection of
tales, some based on actual events, some no more than fables.
That's right - create a dichotomy that implies that either I'm stupid
or you're right. "Inspired" simply does not mean "written by God" or
"the literal words of God". All scriptures are written by human beings,
in their own words, and are inspired by their relationship with God.
That does not mean that they are necessarily literal truth, but it does
mean that we should learn from them.
"I am in favour of animal rights as well as human rights. That is the
way of a whole human being". (Abraham Lincoln).
It would make no sense, however, to
point to the attitude of the god El in the older version of the story
in the Epic of Gilgamesh and claim that this is the way that Yahweh
behaves in the Bible.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
*****, psycho writers of ancient times were indoctrindated from small
about god, satan, evil, hell, heaven and nothing else.
Do you expect them in their adulthood to rid themselves of those
influence, much like people of today?
Anyway, they had written something to con some of you even up to
today, great.....!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Andrew" |
|
| Title: Re: Is the God of the Bible a Bloodthirsty God? |
26 Jul 2007 02:21:04 AM |
|
|
On 2007-07-26 03:08:20 +0100, said:
On Jul 26, 6:26 am, Andrew <thecr...@macunlimited.net> wrote:
On 2007-07-25 18:43:54 +0100, Tiktaalik <corneliusjmch...@yahoo.ie> said:
On Jul 25, 6:01 pm, Andrew <thecr...@macunlimited.net> wrote:
On 2007-07-25 17:10:59 +0100, "Ralph" <mmman...@yahoo.com> said:
"Andrew" <thecr...@macunlimited.net> wrote in message
news:2007072515104316807-thecroft@macunlimitednet...
On 2007-07-25 13:59:55 +0100, "Ralph" <mmman...@yahoo.com> said:
"Andrew" <thecr...@macunlimited.net> wrote in message
news:2007072512083416807-thecroft@macunlimitednet...
On 2007-07-25 10:18:23 +0100, Andrew W <ajwer...@optushome.com.au> said:
On Jul 25, 6:25 pm, Andrew <thecr...@macunlimited.net> wrote:
On 2007-07-25 09:17:21 +0100, Andrew W <ajwer...@optushome.com.au>
said:
On Jul 25, 3:36 pm, SJAB1958 <balf...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Apart from the flood in Genesis, can anyone tell me any other
Biblical
account where God had a direct hand in the killing of any human
being?
And by direct hand I mean where there was no intermediary such as
the
angel of death.
Sodom and Gomorrah?
The Christian God is definitely blood thirsty because he was rather
satisfied by Jesus' brutal human blood sacrifice (even though he
himself outlawed human blood sacrifice), and he was at least
entertained by the thought of Abraham callously killing his own son.
Does it say that he was entertained?
Not entertained in the classic sense.
It was acceptable to him.
No - it wasn't. He did not allow Abraham to go through with it. Did you
miss that bit?
There are passages that indicate that he did go through with it and that
later redactors wrote out that part.
Perhaps. There are passages that suggest that much of this part of the
Bible consists of older tales that the redactors have changed. This does
not affcet the argument, however.
It doesn't????????? Wow, you fundies think of more ways to keep the bible
rational.
Of course it doesn't affect it. (And, by the way, I'm not a
fundamentalist). The Bible - that is, the sacred book of Christianity,
and I assume the tbook you're referring to - contains the text as we
have them. What the source materials were for these texts is irrelevant
because they are not part of the Bible. To give you a clearer example;
the story of Noah is a reworking, by a redactor, of a common folk-tale
in the Middle East of the period.
How then do you reconcile this with a belief that all scripture is
inspired? Either the Bible is the word of God or it is a collection of
tales, some based on actual events, some no more than fables.
That's right - create a dichotomy that implies that either I'm stupid
or you're right. "Inspired" simply does not mean "written by God" or
"the literal words of God". All scriptures are written by human beings,
in their own words, and are inspired by their relationship with God.
That does not mean that they are necessarily literal truth, but it does
mean that we should learn from them.
"I am in favour of animal rights as well as human rights. That is the
way of a whole human being". (Abraham Lincoln).
It would make no sense, however, to
point to the attitude of the god El in the older version of the story
in the Epic of Gilgamesh and claim that this is the way that Yahweh
behaves in the Bible.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
*****, psycho writers of ancient times were indoctrindated from small
about god, satan, evil, hell, heaven and nothing else.
Do you expect them in their adulthood to rid themselves of those
influence, much like people of today?
Ah! The rational approach! Bluster when you run out of facts.
Anyway, they had written something to con some of you even up to
today, great.....!
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Andrew W" |
|
| Title: Re: Is the God of the Bible a Bloodthirsty God? |
25 Jul 2007 06:45:20 AM |
|
|
On Jul 25, 9:08 pm, Andrew <thecr...@macunlimited.net> wrote:
On 2007-07-25 10:18:23 +0100, Andrew W <ajwer...@optushome.com.au> said:
On Jul 25, 6:25 pm, Andrew <thecr...@macunlimited.net> wrote:
On 2007-07-25 09:17:21 +0100, Andrew W <ajwer...@optushome.com.au> said:
On Jul 25, 3:36 pm, SJAB1958 <balf...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Apart from the flood in Genesis, can anyone tell me any other Biblical
account where God had a direct hand in the killing of any human being?
And by direct hand I mean where there was no intermediary such as the
angel of death.
Sodom and Gomorrah?
The Christian God is definitely blood thirsty because he was rather
satisfied by Jesus' brutal human blood sacrifice (even though he
himself outlawed human blood sacrifice), and he was at least
entertained by the thought of Abraham callously killing his own son.
Does it say that he was entertained?
Not entertained in the classic sense.
It was acceptable to him.
No - it wasn't. He did not allow Abraham to go through with it. Did you
miss that bit?
If he didn't find it acceptable then such a callous act would never
have even crossed his mind in the first place.
The fact that it did shows what sort of God/god his is/was.
As for stopping it, he didn't. It was an angel that came along
stopped it.
--
Andrew W.
Jesus said that we must search everywhere for the truth, that we must
leave no stone unturned.
How naive and foolish is the man who thinks he can get all the answers
to
life from one convenient book. ~me
What we are told God and Jesus said, they did not say.
http://www.divinelove.org/volume1/Mission.htm
TABLE OF CONTENTS. Must read! http://www.divinelove.org/revnt/Rev-TOC-title.htm
The true Creator wants us to be happy and abundant.
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Science_of_Getting_Rich
Audio version. http://website.lineone.net/~cornerstone/richaudio.htm
Think you know what ego is? Think again. The Bible is full of it!
http://www.acim.org/
Religion Exposed!
http://members.optusnet.com.au/~ajwerner
.
|
|
|
| User: "Andrew" |
|
| Title: Re: Is th | | | | | | | |
