Enough with the baiting already why not

Really, stop it already, it makes you look dumb. You say you don't like crazy fundy Christians? You don't like people trying to convert you? You don't like folks coming around and telling you that they are somehow better than you by virutre of their beliefs? Annoyed with people who think that they can "change your life" by uttering a few stock pharases about the bible? Well, you know what? It's kind of dumb looking to complain about people doing all of that while doing it yourself.

The idea that somehow, even though Christianity has existed for 2,000 years, you are going to come and "convert" all of us to Christians to non-christianism or whatever is silly. If it were possible to end Christianity by saying "oh yeah, well an obscure passage in Hosea says that God did something mean" it would have happened already, Christianity would have ended.

Now by no means is this proof of the correctness of Christianity. My point here is that you are not about to discover some brand new way of slinging mud that will make all the Christians go "Hallelujah, I don't see the light anymore!!".

I appreciate thoughtful and genuine questioning and discussion. However, baiting and attempts at un-conversion are essentially the same thing as Christians going into the atheist forum and trying to convert people using "hell fire and brimstone" tactics.

 

obviously directed at me. actually I'm intersted in christianity, but nobody can give me legit answers to my questions.

 

Careful LG, I came here asking questions and I'm pretty sure I'm on most people's ignore list now.

 

I don't complain about you trying to tell me what you believe in if I ask.

I have a problem with you smashing at my door. I have a problem with you deciding what I should read and shouldn't. I have a problem with you sending your kids into the schoolyard with mine and trying to get them scared out of their wits with a bunch of Hebraic fairy tales about everlasting fire.

I have a problem with you making your religion the state policy. I have a problem with you phrasing things so it's who's the best churchgoer who should win an election. I have a problem with your condescending attitude that articles of faith in which you believe are somehow some universal truths we all must abide by.

I have a problem with you targeting and oppressing people you disapprove of (gays) while performing similar sins (adultery) but believing yourself "Saved by the Lamb" so you get a pass on your misbehaviour.

I have a problem with you electing a bozo president based on "moral issues" in the sense that you support a man who lied (bearing false witness) in order to steal (thou shalt not steal) oil from a nation that has it (thou shalt not covet) murdering children, women and noncombatants in an illegal invasion (thou shalt not kill) in order to accomplish this aim.

Congrats, you've elected someone who won't fund stem cell research and who wants a marraige amendment in the Constitution to prevent two gays marrying. Of course as a result the economy and the Constitution is in shreds, but hey. At the VERY LEAST YOUR RELIGIOUS VIEWS ARE NOW PUBLIC POLICY.

 

It is a bit disturbing that you would write off God killing women children and babies as "God said something mean". There are many many sick and twisted things in the OT, the NT is the only reason I have even given Christianity a chance. Christians supposedly want to convert as many people as possible but nobody has made an effort to answer my questions. Either Christians don't care, or they don't have any answers.

Try to explain these. I'm not "baiting" or "attacking" I GENIUNLY WANT YOU TO, there is a lot of good in the Bible, Jesus's teaching are really inspirational, but I can't turn on blind eye at some of this sick stuff even if it means I'll go to hell.

hosea 13:16, psalms 137:9, 2 kings 2:23,24

 

Why can God only solve problems with incredible violence?

You'd think "you know what, I forgive you guys. You may be flawed creatures but I love you. Come to me" or *snap* goodbye Evil

But instead.....

"OK, so I'm going to create myself as a man who needs my blessing, and then I'm going to have myself flogged into an unrecognizable bleeding strip of tissue, which will then be nailed to a tree and burned in Hell for three days".

Er

OK

 

No, not obviously directed at you. In fact not directed at you or at any specific individual. I used your referrence to Hosea because it happens to be a good example of baiting.

In order to recieve "legit" answers you must ask legit questions. An insulting opening, an insulting close, three random and entirely out of context verses, and a strawman argument do not make a legit question.

Briefly I will address these. Hosea 13:16, if you read the whole verse you will notice the dashing to pieces of infants that takes place is not God's doing, it is a prophecy of the destruction of Samaria at the hands of her enemies, not destruction by God. God is involved, but chiefly it is a prophecy of what will happen if God withdraws his protection.

Psalms 137:9. Apparently you are not familiar with what the psalms are. The psalms are a collection of greatly varied poetic works written over a period of 800 years. Some claim to be prophetic, 137 is not one of them. Psalm 137 is a lament/prayer made by the captive Isrealites in Babylon. It is a lament for the loss of Zion and a prayer for retribution upon Babylon of all of the evils that Babylon did to Zion. Essentailly the psalmist is asking God to do evil to the Babylonians. In 137:8&9 (137:9 all by itself is non-sensical) the psalmist is speaking to Babylon and threatening vengence. God plays no part at all in psalm 137. You need to read the entire psalm for it to make sense.

2Kings 2:23&24. Well yup, there really is no excuse for these two passages, or at least not for 2:24. 2:23 is fine except that it then goes on to 2:24. You found a good one, these passages are genuinely insane and awful.


Why it is baiting, or seems to be anyhow. It is baiting because you certainly seemed to desire a reaction, not an answer. You must know that opening by insulting the people that you are asking questions of is not a good way to get a straightforward answer, yet you did it anyway. You must also know that out-of-context Bible quotes usually make no sense, yet you used them anyway. Finally, you must know that strawman arguments are transparent and unlikely to lead to good discussion. Your question of how these passages could come from a loving God Is a strawman argument. This is the Old Tesament God that we're talking about here. Never in the OT is it claimed that God is universally loving. He is at times loving but at times is also described as "jealous", "vengeful", "wrathful", "angry", and "hateful". You set up this strawman "loving God" for the OT, well no such God ever appears anyplace in the OT. Not even the craziest fundies would dispute that.

You did all this stuff, which you must have known would not yield straightforward answers. Why then if not to illicit a reaction?

 

I'm not really sure who you intended that for. Maybe you we responding to me directly and maybe you weren't. If you were then how about this. I'm mostly German by heritage. Do you assume that becuase of that I keep a picture of Hitler by my bed? Of course you don't, that would be 100% insane. Yet you assume that because I am "Christian" (a lable that is woefully inadequate at best) I would like to do all of that crap that you ranted about. That assumption is also 100% insane, yet you made it anyway.

If this is not a response to me then it is a good example of exactly the kind of thing that I was talking about. This is a mean rant full of the vilest nastiest mud you could fling. Frankly it doesn't make much sense here. This is something better sent to Pat Robertson or Fred Phelps. As far as I know nobody here agrees with those things in your rant, we don't get too many fundies around these parts

An analogy: This rant here would be like me going into the Atheist forum and ranting about how awful and evil Stalin was. Hey, Stalin was an atheist so all atheists must be like Stalin. Would that make sense? No, not at all. Doesn't make sense to do essentailly the same thing here.

p.s. Unrelated Hitler and Stalin references in one post without even trying. I do believe that I get a trophy for that

 

The fact is that there are terrible things in the OT, including ethnic clensing, child killing etc. I don't think it is unresonable to request Christians to explain how that can be reconciled with a God of love.

Given the efforts made by believers to convince others of the truth of these myths, and the power wielded by 'christians', esp. in the US, it seems only reasonable that an explanation should be demanded.
"God said it was ok for the ancient Hebrews to do this stuff, so it's ok for us to do it too"
Pity he didn't say anything about the need for action on global pollution and climate change - but of course, that wouldn't fit the agenda of his little man in the whitehouse.

 

Couldn't have said it better myself. I feel the exact same way.

 

~ the above assertion is based upon a false presumption ~ that all of the information that has recently been uncovered about christianity has always been available when quite simply it hasn't, and that people have always been free to debate christianity, when they haven't! Did you not know the historical christian church was an autocracy that weilded it's own laws outside of common law? And that the clergy were immune to prosecution under common law until only a couple of hundred years ago?
There is only now and relatively recently research into the validity of the christian religion, and this has only been able to have been accomplished since the christian church lost totalitarian control of religious education and study circa the late 1800's.
In reality, any claims made against the christian church in times gone by were severly punished, and people were forced to keep their minds and mouths shut. But since we've eneterd into enlightened times, minds are opening to truth, and the lies of the christian church are only now being exposed. Thus we have discussion, debate, and denouncement by those whose eyes and minds are open, and who once were called "heathen" but in truth are "enlightened".
It's such a pity that christians live in denial of such evidential truth when, with a little research, they could Know the truth that will set them free.

 

I didn't open with an insult, I opened with the truth. I have received insane rationalizations.

Also please this paper thin "out of context" excuse gets old. Any time I ask a Christian about the horrible stuff in the OT they give 1: rationalizations or 2: The out of context excuse.

Strawmen argument? Hardly, the NT itself claims "God is love". Are you saying the God of the OT and NT are two different Gods? But God never changes I thought?

I would ask why the God of the OT and NT are so different but apparently questions are a no no in Christianity, and answers are even more difficult to come by.

 

I have no direct personal problems with Christianity or Christians except when they engage in public prosetlyzation or aggressive fundraising efforts, especially with me as the target!


In a broad sense, Christians or members of any other faith don't need to aggressively evangelize or seek to convert others. If they truly want to help others they should seek to do so in a practical way, "Let their light shine", and the results will follow.

 

You would never jokingly threaten a child to make them laugh?

If you wouldn't, you would be a shitty parent.

Would you punish a child to teach it that it must treat other children with respect?

If you wouldn't, you would be a shitty parent.

 

Ahh, the "truth". Very often it seems that people think that in order to speak the truth they must say mean nasty things. Or perhaps folks think that it is okay to insult people if they then claim that their insult was "the truth". There are many ways to say the same thing, each of which may recieve a different response . If you are unaware of this, or are unaware that people will respond negatively to negativity and rudeness then you are a pathetic ignorant moron.

Like my example? kinda jumps out at you, don't it? Even though that last sentence is indeed "the truth" it is unnecessarily rude and insulting, if I left it as that it would not foster good discussion, it would garner reaction. By the way, I do not think that you are pathetic, ignorant, or a moron. Just though I'd clear that up.

The out of context "excuse" works when it works and doesn't when it doesn't. For example, lets go back to psalm 137. The text of psalm 137:9 reads Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.. Reading this by itself we might assume that it is God or a prophet speaking or that it is some kind of commandment from God. When we read the entire psalm however we see that nothing could be further from the truth (there's that pesky truth again) http://www.searchgodsword.org/desk/?query=ps+137&t=kjv&sr=0&l=en

This psalm consists of a lament, a prayer, and a threat in that order; all made by human captives or perhaps exiles in Babylon, none of whom were prophets. God never shows or, says anything, or inspires anybody. In this case we see that the out of context "excuse" is not an excuse at all.

Let us go now to 2kings 2:23&24. Out of context though they are these passages are totally awful and cruel. In context they are even worse as we fine out that the incident in question was requested by a supposedly holy man. In this case the "out of context" argument would have indeed been an excuse, which is why I did not use it.

Strawman yes, because you referred only to the OT. You assumed this universally loving God for the OT (setting up the strawman), and then proceeded to argue against the real world existence of that God using passages from the OT (knocking the strawman down). Problem is, that kind of God is not in the OT. If you could referrence only new testament passages in the same manner then it would not be a strawman argument.

The old testament God and the new testament God are the same in name only. The OT God is often violent and cruel to say the least. The NT God is the "loving God" so often talked about. While various passages of the OT claim that God is "unchanging", the fact remains that even within the OT he changes quite frequently. As for me, I don't generally follow the OT. Though I will "stand in the band" at times.

 

In response to Mr. Ree. You apparently have assumed that the Christian Church as it existed at the height of Christian dominance of Europe sprang fully formed from the head of Jesus Christ. This is faulty and you should know better.

The Christian Church was offically outlawed in the Roman empire until the Reign of the Emperor Constantine in the mid fourth Century. During this time Christian beliefs were under constant attack from all sectors of society. If Christian beliefs could be defeated by merely quoting 2kings like you are the first person in history to notice that killing children is bad then Christianity never would have survived the first century.

 

Truth is a two-edged sword.
God is love, but can you give a real definition of love?
A definition is not a comparison; a definition is not an example.
Will someone post a definition of 'love'?

 

I answered your questions. And I knew those answers ( not just made them up for an excuse).

And God's not just a God of love, but also a just God.
And yes, they're the same God.

 

All that you've done here jumbo is scramble my point into something other than what is said. Rather contrary to your assertion, I am well aware of christian history and chronology. The point I make that you miss is that from constantine until late 19th century, the christian church could not be scrutinized in any way shape or form, and quoting hosea or 2kings outside of belief was illegal and punishable by the church, so it never happened until the church lost autocratic political power.
It is not a matter of who or when it was noticed that "killing children is bad ", but that it was historically illegal & heresy to notice it. So christians did as they were told by the autocratic church and kept their mouths and minds shut.
And no, I do not assume, as you assume I do, that "the Christian Church as it existed at the height of Christian dominance of Europe sprang fully formed from the head of Jesus Christ" ~ blind-faith christians assert that. Christianity was not fully formed as it is known now until well after the 1450 council of Trent to current.
It would be far better were you to read what is written rather than read into what is written. Then you might get it right.

 

hi michael,

with all due respect,
it very much sounds like you have some irrational hocus-pocus up your sleeve
that you're hesitant to post directly on the public forum,
perhaps for fear of logical retorts?

if you know the truth, would you not want to present it honestly to everyone? why do you have to whisper about it behind closed doors?

i don't know if lovesgravity took you 'test' and pm'ed you,
but i for once would be interested in the answers that you claim to have.


peace,

sophia