the so fallible Bible

[Tonus]

The JWs read it as god personifies love, and justice, and merciful kindness and so on. We rationalized the brutality the way some of the other Biblical literalists seem to, that a god of incalculable power who created everything was within his rights to act as he pleased with it, while also trying to deal with the unease of that position by deciding that the victims must have been deserving (an understanding made unnecessary by the first part). That he occasionally showed exceptional love (ie, by offering salvation to the damned) was the part we focused on.

It seems messy to me because the rationalizations tended to come amid constant reminders that god was good and kind and loving and just and that he was all of those things on a level far greater than we could ever be. We were made in his image, so we reflect his qualities, but we are "evil" if we reflect some of his darker qualities, whereas he cannot possibly be evil. Yet we must reflect his qualities as exemplified by Christ, who told us to be "perfect, as your heavenly father is perfect." It's like a puzzle where only some of the pieces fit. I wound up with these clumps of pieced-together puzzle that cannot properly combine into a coherent whole.

[John V]

Come along John, then I was talking about the reality of a multifaceted, complex interwoven system of structures that contribute (and/or exacerbate) cyclical poverty.

And in this case, if you've read the Bible, you've seen a god with a multifaceted, complex personality - then near the end you drop all that over a 3-word statement.

Interpretation is key. It's the only thing that one can rely on on the bible. But if you're saying your god only uses love when it sees fit, then I'll take your word for it. Sounds bit like an arsehole, though. Like a father who beats and rapes his child.

I don't know anyone who loves everyone no matter what they do, so I suppose you see all of humanity as a father who beats and rapes his child.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

Come along John, then I was talking about the reality of a multifaceted, complex interwoven system of structures that contribute (and/or exacerbate) cyclical poverty.

And in this case, if you've read the Bible, you've seen a god with a multifaceted, complex personality - then near the end you drop all that over a 3-word statement.

I've seen nothing of the sort, just a fairy tale about a character that happens to be described as some sort of a deity.

Still, not equatable. The tangibility of one is not up for debate, whilst the other, well, who knows.

Interpretation is key. It's the only thing that one can rely on on the bible. But if you're saying your god only uses love when it sees fit, then I'll take your word for it. Sounds bit like an arsehole, though. Like a father who beats and rapes his child.

I don't know anyone who loves everyone no matter what they do, so I suppose you see all of humanity as a father who beats and rapes his child.

But...surely you're note equating a mortal human being to an infallible, all powerful deity, are you?

I don't know anyone who loves everyone unconditionally either. But then again, I don't know any gods. Which is why your god sounds more and more like a rapist and murderer.

[Minimalist]

I already answered that one Minnie.

I'm sure you think you're fucking drivel is an "answer."

It isn't.

It's just more of your customary god shit.

Evidence, son. Real evidence. I could care less what you or any of the other fuckheads "believe."

[John V]

I've seen nothing of the sort, just a fairy tale about a character that happens to be described as some sort of a deity.

A complex, multifaceted deity. Then you throw that away (assuming you've even read it) over a three-word statement near the end, rather than interpreting that statement in light of all that was said before.

I don't know anyone who loves everyone unconditionally either.

Do you therefore view them as rapists and murderers? If not, why not? Are you saying it's a failure to not love everyone unconditionally? If so, if god exists, shouldn't you love him even if you view him as a rapist and murderer?

---

I already answered that one Minnie.

I'm sure you think you're fucking drivel is an "answer."

It isn't.

It's just more of your customary god shit.

Evidence, son. Real evidence. I could care less what you or any of the other fuckheads "believe."

Oh wow, mighty comeback there Minnie.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

I've seen nothing of the sort, just a fairy tale about a character that happens to be described as some sort of a deity.

A complex, multifaceted deity. Then you throw that away (assuming you've even read it) over a three-word statement near the end, rather than interpreting that statement in light of all that was said before.

I don't know anyone who loves everyone unconditionally either.

Do you therefore view them as rapists and murderers? If not, why not? Are you saying it's a failure to not love everyone unconditionally? If so, if god exists, shouldn't you love him even if you view him as a rapist and murderer?

Is a person an all powerful deity? I'm wondering why anyone would like something that has the power to love unconditionally but choses not to...especially when the object of its love are the things it created.

I have read the bible. It was a great read. I have a KJV in my bookshelf somewhere.

And really, the god of the bible isn't so complex, or nuanced. Genocidal, though, by your own admission. John says god is love, that's all. I have no reason to doubt the literalism of that statement...well...let's not go there. Your interpretation might be right...then again, it could be a load of bull.

[xpastor]

Giving money to the poor that would otherwise have been spent for booze, pot and video games would result in a mental breakdown? I'm gonna have to go ahead and disagree with you there, mmkay?

You're really stuck on this bit about booze and pot and video games. A bit of puritanism there, puritanism being defined as "the lingering fear that someone somewhere may be enjoying himself." (H.L. Mencken) What is the big difference between the video games and what I spend a few thousand on most years, maintaining a couple of canine companions in health and well-being?

Anyway, your obsession about booze and pot and video games has led you into a whopping great undistributed middle.

Some atheists here spend their money on booze and pot and video games.

Some atheists here say it is monstrous not to alleviate suffering.

Therefore all atheists here who say it is monstrous not to alleviate suffering are hypocrites.

It's also a logical howler to ignore the distinction that people are making.

Human beings (with limited powers) should make some efforts to alleviate suffering.

An omnipotent God should make an effort to alleviate suffering, and by definition that would eradicate suffering.

You've said often enough that God doesn't care to eliminate suffering. OK, fine. Don't bother saying it again. By my standards your God is less moral than an atheist who smokes some weed and gives 50 bucks occasionally to UNICEF.

[John V]

Is a person an all powerful deity? I'm wondering why anyone would like something that has the power to love unconditionally but choses not to...especially when the object of its love are the things it created.

How is love a function of power? Do you fail to love people because you're tired?

I have read the bible. It was a great read. I have a KJV in my bookshelf somewhere.

And really, the god of the bible isn't so complex, or nuanced. Genocidal, though, by your own admission.

Regardless, you have to love him, or you're like a father who beats and rapes his children.

John says god is love, that's all.

No, that's not all. Before he says god is love, he says god is light, and he is pure, and he is righteous. You ignore those in order to cling to your desired position.

I have no reason to doubt the literalism of that statement...well...let's not go there. Your interpretation might be right...then again, it could be a load of bull.

We've already been there, and your position is weak.

---

You're really stuck on this bit about booze and pot and video games.

They're mentioned here frequently (watch the shout box) and very obviously unnecessary, so yes, they make particularly good examples. I don't drink myself, but the wife and I do enjoy playing DDO, and spend ten bucks a month each to do so. We sponsor a child through Children International. We could give up DDO and sponsor another. We don't. So, I don't judge god or others for allowing suffering, as I do so myself.

Anyway, your obsession about booze and pot and video games has led you into a whopping great undistributed middle.

Some atheists here spend their money on booze and pot and video games.

Or any other unnecessary pleasure. I sometimes do term it generally, you know. As noted, booze and pot and video games are just particularly applicable on this forum.

Some atheists here say it is monstrous not to alleviate suffering.

Therefore all atheists here who say it is monstrous not to alleviate suffering are hypocrites.

Yep, I'm sure every atheist here devotes some money and/or time to personal pleasure which could be devoted to reducing suffering.

Human beings (with limited powers) should make some efforts to alleviate suffering.

If they think it's monstrous to allow suffering, they should devote all excess to reducing suffering.

An omnipotent God should make an effort to alleviate suffering, and by definition that would eradicate suffering.

God sees value in suffering. So do many people. I've grown more through suffering than through ease. I've grown closer to my wife more through times of suffering than through times of ease. Heck, the Bible says that Jesus was made perfect through suffering.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

Is a person an all powerful deity? I'm wondering why anyone would like something that has the power to love unconditionally but choses not to...especially when the object of its love are the things it created.

How is love a function of power? Do you fail to love people because you're tired?

Why do you keep equating a human being to a supposedly all powerful deity that created humans?

Your version of god supposedly created love and the supposed parameters to which it can/could be used...

...and still genocides it's way through almost the entirety of its own creation. How is that in any way similar to a person who has never once admitted they're perfect failing to love everyone unconditionally, nor created every living thing?

Tell me where they're similar. Do it. Because I'm failing to see the equivalence.

I have read the bible. It was a great read. I have a KJV in my bookshelf somewhere.

And really, the god of the bible isn't so complex, or nuanced. Genocidal, though, by your own admission.

Regardless, you have to love him, or you're like a father who beats and rapes his children.

No I don't. Stop talking shit and making an equivalence between your imaginary friend who is a god (bracketing out the fact it doesn't exist) and a human being. One is by definition perfect, the other makes no such claims (unless they're insane).

John says god is love, that's all.

No, that's not all. Before he says god is love, he says god is light, and he is pure, and he is righteous. You ignore those in order to cling to your desired position.

No, it does. It's right there in black and white. Read your bible. How you interpret that is up for debate. Also, a god that is described as righteous but commits atrocities such as genoicde is anything but righteous. It is a murderer, and a rapist, and deserves nothing but derision. All those unborn children killed in the flood (which of course didn't happen).

Yeah, the biblical god certainly isn't love in any shape or form, is it?

I have no reason to doubt the literalism of that statement...well...let's not go there. Your interpretation might be right...then again, it could be a load of bull.

We've already been there, and your position is weak.

*sigh*

My 'position' is to doubt the love of a god (even if it is bestowed in certain circumstances) when it is the very same megalomaniacal genocide-inclined deity that supposedly created both the feeling itself and the rules to which it can be used.

The bible is entirely about interpretation. That's all it is.

'God sees value in suffering'. *sigh* so I guess by definition so do you, right?

Shame you've had to stoop to your god's level, John. I feel sorry for you.

[Doubting Thomas]

Regardless, you have to love him, or you're like a father who beats and rapes his children.

Wow. Just wow.