Irrational, or: Four Bible Stories I Don't Get

I think you have to put things in the proper perspective and keep things in context. According to the text, God is a being on a higher level than on us humans. God is supposedly more powerful, more intelligent, faster than a speeding bullet...etc...etc... Which pretty much means this God can do whatever the gods think is right with us humans. No fair you say?, well is it fair that we hunt animals for sport? Is it fair that we can kill a deer for sport just because we are humans? How can we say it's wrong for a God or gods, to turn a human into salt for disobeying when we justify killing precious and graceful animals for sport ?

How can we say it's wrong for a God or gods, to turn a human into salt for disobeying when we justify killing precious and graceful animals for sport ?

God is supposed to be the epitome of goodness and mercy.

I've never heard anyone try to defend sport hunters as the epitome of goodness and mercy.

If God were merely human, then I'd have very little problem with your statement. But, very few people lower him, in any way, to our level.

God is supposed to be the epitome of goodness and mercy.

God, to be God, only has to have one attribute, which is ultimate power. If God did not have this one critical attribute, God would not be God. That he is loving and merciful is a choice that God made. To judge God by a human standard, which standard would you use? The absolutely most interesting character attribute of God is that God deals with each of us on an individual, as well as corporate basis.

As it is written, God owns everything. If God wants to take an individual (Samuel, David, Paul, me, you) and use them for God's own purposes, then that is God's most fundamental right. Does your Dog question your right to discipline or train him as you please? It is made clear, both by Jesus in his parables, and by Paul in the book of Ephesians, that some were chosen by God, before the universe was created, to be an instrument for God's purposes. This is no more wrong than the fact that Prince Charles of England was chosen before he was born for the purpose of being an heir to the throne of the house of Hanover.

We still have a choice, to accept, or to reject that calling. However, it would be as foolish as Charles abdicating the throne to be a heroin addict. You seem to make the calling of God a burden to be borne and not a opportunity to be more than what you otherwise have the opportunity to be. That he willingly became that instrument, his name (Samson), is known to use 3000 years later. Somewhat longer than the world will remember Brittiany Spears.

God, to be God, only has to have one attribute, which is ultimate power. If God did not have this one critical attribute, God would not be God. That he is loving and merciful is a choice that God made.

I don't know about you, but I hope you place "ultimate goodness and mercy" as an innate attribute of God. I would abhor absolutely following an entity that could turn into Ultimate Hitler on a whim.

Does your Dog question your right to discipline or train him as you please?

Yes. That's why owners need to constantly reinforce their dominant status. Were you expecting a different answer?

I hope you're not trying to say that we should unquestioningly follow what other people say is God's Word.

You seem to make the calling of God a burden to be borne and not a opportunity to be more than what you otherwise have the opportunity to be.

Show me it's an opportunity to be more than I can otherwise be.

God is supposed to be the epitome of goodness and mercy.

Oh. There's your problem.

The Bible doesn't say that. It does say, "And he passed in front of Moses, proclaiming, "The LORD, the LORD, the compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger, abounding in love and faithfulness, maintaining love to thousands, and forgiving wickedness, rebellion and sin. Yet he does not leave the guilty unpunished; he punishes the children and their children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation"" (Exodus 34:6-7); it says that "When you are in distress and all these things have happened to you, then in later days you will return to the LORD your God and obey him. For the LORD your God is a merciful God; he will not abandon or destroy you or forget the covenant with your forefathers, which he confirmed to them by oath" (Deuteronomy 4:30-31); that "The LORD is compassionate and gracious, slow to anger, abounding in love" (Psalms 103:8), and even in one of the apocalyptic books -- "Rend your heart and not your garments. Return to the LORD your God, for he is gracious and compassionate, slow to anger and abounding in love and he relents from sending calamity" (Joel 2:13).

But at no point does it say that he is the epitome of goodness and mercy, or -- more importantly, your implication, that he is only capable of goodness or mercy. God is capable of wrath and anger, too, and the Bible's chock full of it.

A better example is what the Bible has to say about God and love.

The Bible says that "God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in him" (I John 4:16), and "Because of the LORD's great love we are not consumed, for his compassions never fail" (Lamentations 3:22). But John is speaking of God's love being proved because of Jesus's sacrifice, and Jeremiah (in Lamentations) is speaking of God's love in the same breath as he's bemoaning how the Lord's anger has punished him; the entire chapter begins with "I am the man who has seen affliction by the rod of his wrath."

You can certainly see these as self-contradictory -- even self-contradictory within the space of their own verses -- or you can simply note that what we, as normal people in modern times, think of as the behavior of a loving relationship between equals (or even between a parent and a child) isn't actually what's meant here. The Bible's talking about God, you know, smiting whole cities but still being patient enough to wait for individuals to come back around to their faith. It's not talking of love as a human concept.

I'm just offering a different way to look at it.

Pev, good points. I agree with your interpretations, that God can often be an extremely wrathful God, and be compassionate at other times.

But, I'd have to say that God would be an extremely unfair (albeit compassionate and loving in His own sense) character.

He'd commit xenocide and genocide, and incite people to commit fratricide, infanticide, incest, and rape. But, he's still loving and compassionate because he waits for some individuals to come around to his faith.

I'm sorry, but I can't reconcile those as any sort of sensible behavioral model. To me, it is indeed very self-contradictory.

As it is written, God owns everything. If God wants to take an individual (Samuel, David, Paul, me, you) and use them for God's own purposes, then that is God's most fundamental right. On the contrary, this is God's capability, not God's right. The notion of "rights" in respect to God is mistaken. "Rights" are only something that can exist as a relationship between near-equals. Your rights obligate me to respect you in some fashion. If you have a right to freedom, I have an obligation not to enslave you. If God has a "right" to use us as he sees fit, what is our obligation?

Starting with the notion that God is all-powerful, it becomes apparent that God has no rights, but merely asserts power where he pleases. Not coincidentally, as a result, we have no rights where God is concerned, either.

Does your Dog question your right to discipline or train him as you please? If you think he doesn't, you obviously don't understand much about dogs.

It is made clear, both by Jesus in his parables, and by Paul in the book of Ephesians, that some were chosen by God, before the universe was created, to be an instrument for God's purposes. Predestination then raises the problem of the existence of evil.

We still have a choice, to accept, or to reject that calling. By your argument, we actually don't. Unless of course, God chooses to amuse himself by allowing us an illusion of free will, which makes our decision to accept or reject him inconsequential.

That he willingly became that instrument, his name (Samson), is known to use 3000 years later. Somewhat longer than the world will remember Brittiany Spears. I thought pride was a sin? And I'm a bit unclear on what his name being remembered 3000 years later has to do with whether the calling of God is a burden or an "opportunity"-- you're suggesting it can't be both?

God is supposed to be the epitome of goodness and mercy.
I've never heard anyone try to defend sport hunters as the epitome of goodness and mercy.
If God were merely human, then I'd have very little problem with your statement. But, very few people lower him, in any way, to our level.

My statement does not lower a suppose God to human level for I said God is considered far wiser and more powerful than humans. Moreover I did not say the gods are sport hunters of humans. Humans kill animals for food although we don't have too, we killed them, not for survival, not for disobedience, we killed them for our enjoyment, whether it be for sport or food. Yet most people won't call people who eat chicken evil, or people who wear leather evil. Given human logic, greater beings can exert their own sense of justice on lower lifeforms and still be an "epitome of goodness and mercy". For this is exactly what we do. We need to consider who sets the standards of what's good and what is merciful. Perhaps God is merciful because he does not kill us for justifying the killing of animals for sport ? Who knows ?How can we judge a far superior being? It's like saying it's make sense for a chicken to judge a human. Humans set standards of what's just behavior towards the animals we did not even create, it's only logical to expect the same from God who supposedly created us.

Given human logic, greater beings can exert their own sense of justice on lower lifeforms and still be an "epitome of goodness and mercy" Really? I can think of a number of different ways to parse the example that don't require the assignment of categories such as "greater" or "lesser", and it's not immediately apparent that people in general view other people (whether vegetarian or not) as the "epitome of goodness and mercy." In other words, your analogy isn't very good, unless you're lowering God to human level.

How can we judge a far superior being? You tell me. You're the one judging God as "far superior."

Humans set standards of what's just behavior towards the animals we did not even create, it's only logical to expect the same from God who supposedly created us. I think you and I would disagree on what constitutes "logic," in this respect.

Good response. I don't really buy the near equals thing though.

Does your Dog question your right to discipline or train him as you please?

If you think he doesn't, you obviously don't understand much about dogs.

Kinda like we are with God ain't it. There is an old testament story about the Potter's house where God was telling Jerimiah. In the potter's house the potter worked at a pot on the wheel, shaping has he desired, and throwing away pots that did not meet his standard. God basically told Jerimiah that his life was no different in how it was to be molded than the pot's. The nice epitaph to that story in the New Testament is that the blood price of Jesus, the 30 pieces of silver, were used to buy a potter's field, where all the bad and broken pots had been thrown. Lest you think God too harsh, the price of his son's life was used to purchase all of us to give us our freedom.

It is made clear, both by Jesus in his parables, and by Paul in the book of Ephesians, that some were chosen by God, before the universe was created, to be an instrument for God's purposes.

Predestination then raises the problem of the existence of evil.

Didn't say all, said some, big difference. In essence, the definition of sin (which literally means to fall short) is to defy God, which covers evil even if everyone was predestined. "Many are called, few are chosen", covers that aspect as all are not.

We still have a choice, to accept, or to reject that calling.

By your argument, we actually don't. Unless of course, God chooses to amuse himself by allowing us an illusion of free will, which makes our decision to accept or reject him inconsequential.

Again, you are generalizing what is a case by case circumstance. For example Samson had far more free will that Paul, who admitted that he bore the stigmata, or the branding of a slave to God. Paul was not allowed free will after his little revelation on the Damascus road. In the old testament God made Ezekiel eat dung and killed his wife, just to make a point regarding the sin of Israel. Read about the chains that God put on Jerimiah as well. Others, such as our example Samson were given more leeway. When you are called by God to specific purpose, your life is no longer your own and the rewards, if any, may only be in the hearafter.

Luckily for the vast majority of us, that calling is far easier and with few exceptions, Jesus's statement "for my yoke is easy, and the burden light" applies to all of us today.

That he willingly became that instrument, his name (Samson), is known to use 3000 years later. Somewhat longer than the world will remember Brittiany Spears.

I thought pride was a sin? And I'm a bit unclear on what his name being remembered 3000 years later has to do with whether the calling of God is a burden or an "opportunity"-- you're suggesting it can't be both?

Oh most certainly it is both, but if you read about the life of Paul, 99.5% of the opportunity came after death, which is fine for those of us who belive that. There is no problem with a certain pride in being called, as long as the proper realization of what that means is.

Given human logic, greater beings can exert their own sense of justice on lower lifeforms and still be an "epitome of goodness and mercy" Really? I can think of a number of different ways to parse the example that don't require the assignment of categories such as "greater" or "lesser", and it's not immediately apparent that people in general view other people (whether vegetarian or not) as the "epitome of goodness and mercy." In other words, your analogy isn't very good, unless you're lowering God to human level.

Humans as a whole, are superior than animals, generally speaking humanity does not consider killing animals for food as an evil act. We treat animals differently from the way in which we treat humans, we judge/decide what is right for animals, animals do not judge what is right us. This is a fact, humans justice does not consider animals to be our equals. So likewise if God is on a higher level we can't adequately judge God because is supposed greater than us, just like a chicken can't judge a human. That is the analogy. This analogy does not lower the concept of God, but it questions our ability to adequately judge a superior being, just like a chicken can't adequately judge a human. In other-words can the creation judge the creator? Only if the creator gave the creation the ability to adequately do so. Still all this is dependent on our trust of the creator, that the creator did not create us with some judgmental bias, one way or the other. To put it simply who should set standard of what acts by God are merciful and good? Humans? What right do we have to set standards for God? (given the premise that God is the superior, the creator of morals)

"How can we judge a far superior being?" You tell me. You're the one judging God as "far superior."

No, it's not judging, it is the premise, the premise is God is suppose to be "far superior". In a logical discussion you have to stay within the given premises. What is being questioned by the poster on the surface, is not God's existence, nor is it God's superiority, but God's justice.
You have to judge a story within it's context. For example Superman is an alien man who can fly and has more power than humans, that is the given premise, so typically the question in a Superman story is not whether he can fly or he is powerful, but how will he use such power to help humanity. So same thing here, the question was not whether God is superior or God exist, but whether the things God allows in these stories are fair, just. And my response is given the premise what's the point of judging God ? If God is all powerful, and all wise and can do whatever God wants with our mind and bodies, what's the point of Judging God ? With that premise God is going to win every time

I think you and I would disagree on what constitutes "logic," in this respect.

Something is either logical or it is not.

Humans as a whole, are superior than animals No, humans (as a whole) are inferior to animals. You're suffering from a serious case of anthropocentrism.

Aren't we having fun?

generally speaking humanity does not consider killing animals for food as an evil act. Humanity does not consider killing some animals for food as an evil act. Try killing someone's dog, and eating it, and you'll likely find a great many humans who will consider you evil.

This is a fact, humans justice does not consider animals to be our equals. But it also does not consider animals and their rights/feelings/autonomy to be de facto inconsequential. Nor should we kid ourselves that animals view us as "the epitome of goodness and mercy." I think you're missing the point, here.

So likewise if God is on a higher level we can't adequately judge God because is supposed greater than us, just like a chicken can't judge a human. That is the analogy. I got the analogy the first time. Repeating it isn't doing anything to remove its flaws. Being the epitome of goodness and mercy has absolutely nothing to do with having the ability to assert one's will over "inferior" creatures, does it? Nor does having power over other creatures necessarily equate to labels of "greater" or "lesser"; nor does the imposition of one being's "sense of justice" on other beings necessarily equate to that sense of justice being justice.

Again, you're mapping your dearly held sense of anthropocentrism onto God, and suggesting that sense you feel justified, God is justified.

It's a flawed analogy.

Still all this is dependent on our trust of the creator, that the creator did not create us with some judgmental bias, one way or the other. To put it simply who should set standard of what acts by God are merciful and good? Humans? What right do we have to set standards for God? (given the premise that God is the superior, the creator of morals) No, it's all dependent on semantic games, which is precisely why discussions about God devolve into nonsense when pushed far enough; and hence the position that agnosticism is the only rational and logical approach to the question.

What right do we have to set standards for God? (given the premise that God is the superior, the creator of morals) If we have free will, we have every right to set the standards for God. It doesn't matter one whit whether God created us or not. God is not the creator of morals, men are. And if God does not manipulate us like automatons, then God had better recognize that might does not make right, and punishing people for thinking he's a @!$%#ty friend doesn't mean that he is not a @!$%#ty friend. We can play the game all night long that God is all pwerful, and gets to do whatever he wants whenever he wants without question from us obedient believers, but I reserve the right to hold that if God's actions are indistinguishable from the actions of a cruel and indifferent Nature, I pretty much don't have to give God credit for any of the good stuff.

No, it's not judging, it is the premise, the premise is God is suppose to be "far superior" Why? I don't agree with the premise. Define God in some other way.

In a logical discussion you have to stay within the given premises. No, I don't. We have to negotiate premises that we both agree on, and I don't agree with yours.

If God is all powerful, and all wise and can do whatever God wants with our mind and bodies, what's the point of Judging God ? With that premise God is going to win every time No, he is not. Because what God admits he wants is praise and worship and a loving relationship with all us individuals. He can do whatever he wants, with the exception of forcing me to pretend that it's just or fair. We both have things we want, and I see no point in pretending that the flow of love, praise, and worship should all flow in one direction. It's a two way street. Either we have free will, or God can manipulate us to be what he wants us to be. It can't be both.

And before anyone says, "But without God's love, you wouldn't exist!", so what?! I don't recall begging God to bring me into existence, and I certainly don't recall signing any contract requiring me to give obeisance to God in exchange for my life. If he has anyone to blame, that blameworthy personage is himself. He made me what I am, and if I'm ungrateful, well... he made me that way.

If he didn't want me to be unhappy with this shell-game he plays on the question of his existence and the proper respect to show for him, he should have designed the rules of the game differently.

I got the analogy the first time. Repeating it isn't doing anything to remove its flaws. Being the epitome of goodness and mercy has absolutely nothing to do with having the ability to assert one's will over "inferior" creatures, does it?

In a sense it does, consider your own words

" If we have free will, we have every right to set the standards for God. "

So obviously you are setting your own standards of "goodness and mercy" for God, and then Judging God based on that. By inference, you are therefore asserting your will, which is whatever standards you set, is the standards God should live by.

Nor does having power over other creatures necessarily equate to labels of "greater" or "lesser";

That is very true, but in terms of who is more powerful, yes it does equate to who is greater and who is lesser.

nor does the imposition of one being's "sense of justice" on other beings necessarily equate to that sense of justice being justice.

Once again you are correct, that is why I said who are we to judge God (within this context)? If we judge God, are we not imposing own sense of justice on God?

generally speaking humanity does not consider killing animals for food as an evil act. Humanity does not consider killing some animals for food as an evil act. Try killing someone's dog, and eating it, and you'll likely find a great many humans who will consider you evil.

There is a reason why I mentioned "Generally speaking" basically most people won't call a person evil simply because he is not a vegetarian.

No, humans (as a whole) are inferior to animals. You're suffering from a serious case of anthropocentrism.

First thing, saying humans are inferior to other animals is illogical, second you're the one suffering from a serious case of anthropocentric. you said:

God is not the creator of morals, men are.

Believing men created morals, and no other beings in the vast Universe had morals before men is anthropocentric.

"No, it's not judging, it is the premise, the premise is God is suppose to be "far superior" Why? I don't agree with the premise. Define God in some other way.

I did not define God, who said I even believe in God ? The original poster, posted a story from a text that set the premise, the definition of God. If people are going to discuss the story, they should discuss the story within it's context. If you change the premise you change the story. That's like saying I don't agree Superman can fly, and I don't agree Superman is powerful, change the premise so that he does not fly,and he's not powerful. If we change that premise then you've change the original superman story. A story is only illogical if it does not follow it's own premise.

God admits he wants is praise and worship and a loving relationship with all us individuals. He can do whatever he wants, with the exception of forcing me to pretend that it's just or fair. We both have things we want, and I see no point in pretending that the flow of love, praise, and worship should all flow in one direction. I either we have free will, or God can manipulate us to be what he wants us to be. It can't be both.

That's not true, I can manipulate people and I'm not a god, Humans have been manipulating other humans with free will to do what they want all the time. Think about people who were manipulated into believing in God/gods. Is it fair? How can we really judge, unless humans standard of justice is
the only standard that count, we can't adequately judge. According to you, judging animals with human standards will make us anthropocentric right? So we have to apply that rule consistently and say judging gods with human standards will make us anthropocentric also.

Moreover since you feel animals are superior to humans, I don't see the point of this discussion. I love my pets, but how could you believe that some animals can even begin to comprehend the concept of what the epitome of "goodness and mercy is"?

So obviously you are setting your own standards of "goodness and mercy" for God, and then Judging God based on that. By inference, you are therefore asserting your will, which is whatever standards you set, is the standards God should live by.

Sure, why not?

Believing men created morals, and no other beings in the vast Universe had morals before men is anthropocentric.

Okay, then. Man created known morals -- as in we didn't get them from elsewhere, unless you're entertaining the option that aliens genetically manipulated us to give us self-preservation tendencies.

Once again you are correct, that is why I said who are we to judge God (within this context)?

I don't see why judging something is a privilege. A child can judge the actions of his parents. A dog can be be disapproving and angry about actions of his owner.

Humans have been manipulating other humans with free will to do what they want all the time.

True, but there's no guarantee when we do it.

how could you believe that some animals can even begin to comprehend the concept of what the epitome of "goodness and mercy is"?

Can you concretely define the characteristics that define the epitome of goodness and mercy?

Thanks, Jack. I'll additionally note:

" If we have free will, we have every right to set the standards for God. "

So obviously you are setting your own standards of "goodness and mercy" for God, and then Judging God based on that. By inference, you are therefore asserting your will, which is whatever standards you set, is the standards God should live by.

You've completely missed the point, which was that the relationship with God is a negotiated relationship. This is not "asserting one's will," but simply an acknowledgment that one's reaction to acts of God aren't inconsequential or non-valid simply by virtue of the fact that God can eradicate you if he doesn't like how you feel about his actions. Like other words the meaning of which you seem to misunderstand, you seem unfamiliar with what could be meant by the phrase "asserting one's will."

Your argument boils down to saying, essentially, that the powerless cannot sit in judgment of those who hold power over them. This is self-evidently incorrect. We may be incapable of doing anything about it, but we can certainly judge the situation.

Once again you are correct, that is why I said who are we to judge God (within this context)? If we judge God, are we not imposing own sense of justice on God? We're one set of actors in a relationship. Who are we to judge God? Who is God to judge us? Again, presupposing that we have free will (an assumption that is necessary for this conversation to have any meaning whatsoever), the street goes both ways. This is a negotiated relationship.

There is a reason why I mentioned "Generally speaking" basically most people won't call a person evil simply because he is not a vegetarian. But you do recognize that there is a spectrum of acceptable behavior in regard to the treatment of animals, do you not? There are some animals of which we consider the killing for food evil. (Or indeed, killing for a variety of purposes evil.) Hedging with the words "generally speaking" simply points out the flaw in the argument.

First thing, saying humans are inferior to other animals is illogical Not at all, it merely highlights the semantic game you're playing. Are you faster than a cheetah? Stronger than an ape? Can you hold your breath longer than a whale? Swim as fast as a shark? Most humans, plopped down in environments that various animals can survive quite nicely, will die on their own. So who's inferior?

You didn't define your terms, in other words.

Believing men created morals, and no other beings in the vast Universe had morals before men is anthropocentric. And creating a straw man argument is a logical fallacy. So there you go.

But I'll willingly play your game: Where is the proof that there are other beings in the vast universe, and that these beings created systems of morals? For that matter, since this seems really to be the direction that you're heading, where is there proof that there is a God, and that God created a universal set of morals to which we must hold?

There are self-evidently several systems of man-made morals, suggesting that all moral systems we know of are man-made. If you think not, please present an argument that relates to something evidential, rather than imaginary (like alien races' moral systems).

I did not define God, who said I even believe in God ? You defined God in #2.2-- "God is supposedly more powerful, more intelligent, faster than a speeding bullet...etc...etc... Which pretty much means this God can do whatever the gods think is right with us humans. No fair you say?" That's a definition, followed by an assertion about the implications of that definition. I disagree with the definition. Please show the logical premises upon which the definition is founded. Then show the logical premises upon which you make your assertions regarding the implications of this definition. Maybe we can come to some sort of agreement regarding the argument. But that only happens if you define the terms you're using.

The original poster, posted a story from a text that set the premise, the definition of God. Which is another way of saying that the Bible defines God, and what I'm saying is that I don't agree to the Bible's definition of God. In fact, I'd hazard a guess that more people disagree with the Bible's definition of God than agree with it. Which means that, at some point, those holding that this definition is correct have to show why everyone should agree that it is correct. In other words, "We have to negotiate premises that we both agree on, and I don't agree with yours."

If people are going to discuss the story, they should discuss the story within it's context. If you change the premise you change the story. That's like saying I don't agree Superman can fly, and I don't agree Superman is powerful, change the premise so that he does not fly,and he's not powerful. If we change that premise then you've change the original superman story. Again, why? Why should I discuss the story within its context? Why would it be impermissible to point out that the logical contradictions of the story suggest it was written by men, rather than God, for example. Or why would it be impermissible to suggest that the logical structure of the story contained within the text as a whole operates at odds with what believers in the story currently purport as the ramifications of that story? The failure of your Superman analogy is that we all agree that Superman is fictional, and hence the only way in which we can relate to the story IS within the context of the story. But Bible believers purport that God exists, which renders your analogy fundamentally inapplicable.

That's not true, I can manipulate people and I'm not a god, Humans have been manipulating other humans with free will to do what they want all the time. I'm sorry, but you're flatly wrong. What you do is persuade other people. It's true that you could perhaps force other people to do what you want, for example at gunpoint, but then that's force, isn't it? Which undercuts their free will. God, wielding the ultimate force, cannot manipulate people without it. "Believe in me, or burn eternally in a lake of fire." That's not coercion? That allows for free will? The belief it engenders is belief under duress.

Think about people who were manipulated into believing in God/gods. Is it fair? How can we really judge, unless humans standard of justice is the only standard that count, we can't adequately judge. Why not?

Again, if God set the rules of this game, as has been asserted, then he could set the rules in such a way as that humans can understand his justice. Indeed, who has said that he hasn't? It's merely an assumption that our standard of justice is not also God's standard of justice. So by what reasoning do you assert that a human standard of justice is inadequate?

Moreover since you feel animals are superior to humans, I don't see the point of this discussion. Good point, neither do I. Although you mistake the argument I made.

So obviously you are setting your own standards of "goodness and mercy" for God, and then Judging God based on that. By inference, you are therefore asserting your will, which is whatever standards you set, is the standards God should live by.

Sure, why not?

Because it won't be a critical judgement of the story.

Believing men created morals, and no other beings in the vast Universe had morals before men is anthropocentric.

Okay, then. Man created known morals -- as in we didn't get them from elsewhere, unless you're entertaining the option that aliens genetically manipulated us to give us self-preservation tendencies.

Nope, anthropocentric means viewing and interpreting everything in terms of human experience and values. I was initially accused of being anthropocentric, but it's clear the accusers are the ones being anthropocentric. Some will argue the that "aliens genetically manipulated us to give us self-preservation tendencies" are the gods or God....perhaps not. Now if men created morals at what point in history did men see the need to create morals and how did it evolve to become a part of our consciousness ? In fact what about the human conscience ? All question worth considering.

don't see why judging something is a privilege. A child can judge the actions of his parents. A dog can be be disapproving and angry about actions of his owner.

There is a type of judgment that is a mere opinion or notion, then there is the type of
judgment that is an objective conclusion. To make an objective judgment, the person
judging must have mental amplitude and sufficient information. In other words the judgment that counts, the judgment that has credibility, is a privilege. Correct ?

Can you concretely define the characteristics that define the epitome of goodness and mercy?

Well that's my point, my notion of what is "epitome of goodness and mercy" may be completely different from your notion of what is "epitome of goodness and mercy", we live in a society where
what is right and wrong, differs from nation to nation, state to state. One man thinks eating a dog is evil while the other man thinks eating a dog is fine.

Your argument boils down to saying, essentially, that the powerless cannot sit in judgment of those who hold power over them. This is self-evidently incorrect. We may be incapable of doing anything about it, but we can certainly judge the situation.

Nope, my argument is basically the powerless and ignorant cannot adequately judge the situation.
That is why I mentioned a chicken can't judge a human, because not only is a chicken physically weaker but a chicken is a dumb animal. A judge that has no power or wisdom is a useless judge.

We're one set of actors in a relationship. Who are we to judge God? Who is God to judge us? Again, presupposing that we have free will (an assumption that is necessary for this conversation to have any meaning whatsoever), the street goes both ways. This is a negotiated relationship.

Within the context, the premise, we are the inferior creation with limited knowledge. Therefore we can't adequately judge God's actions in the story without knowing all the facts.
Going back to Lots wife we are told that she is killed because of her disobedience , also according to the premise of the bible God can read hearts and see things we can't see...given that premise, that God has access to evidence we don't, how can we adequately judge the situation?

But you do recognize that there is a spectrum of acceptable behavior in regard to the treatment of animals, do you not? There are some animals of which we consider the killing for food evil. (Or indeed, killing for a variety of purposes evil.) Hedging with the words "generally speaking" simply points out the flaw in the argument.

No it does not, it only acknowledges the exceptions.

First thing, saying humans are inferior to other animals is illogical Not at all, it merely highlights the semantic game you're playing. Are you faster than a cheetah? Stronger than an ape? Can you hold your breath longer than a whale? Swim as fast as a shark? Most humans, plopped down in environments that various animals can survive quite nicely, will die on their own. So who's inferior?

Animals are inferior, because my semantic considered the entire human ability as a group, not as individuals, as a group we are superior, and in the bible God is superior
to humans.

But I'll willingly play your game: Where is the proof that there are other beings in the vast universe, and that these beings created systems of morals? For that matter, since this seems really to be the direction that you're heading, where is there proof that there is a God, and that God created a universal set of morals to which we must hold?

Nope, if I was going in that direction why would I insist on discussing the stories within the context of the test, the bible ? Remember I kept saying "I think you have to put things in the proper perspective and keep things in context. " Whether those questions you now pose are true is up to anyone who cares to find out for himself.

There are self-evidently several systems of man-made morals, suggesting that all moral systems we know of are man-made. If you think not, please present an argument that relates to something evidential, rather than imaginary (like alien races' moral systems).

Did anyone create their conscience, did their parents create conscience? The evolution of morals
is elusive. Moreover why would man create morals laws like fornication and adultery, why do humans have need for such morals, why would we frustrate ourselves like that ?

You defined God in #2.2-- "God is supposedly more powerful, more intelligent, faster than a speeding bullet...etc...etc... Which pretty much means this God can do whatever the gods think is right with us humans. No fair you say?" That's a definition, followed by an assertion about the implications of that definition. I disagree with the definition. Please show the logical premises upon which the definition is founded. Then show the logical premises upon which you make your assertions regarding the implications of this definition. Maybe we can come to some sort of agreement regarding the argument. But that only happens if you define the terms you're using.

I presented the bible text definition of God, and I argue that if we're going to discuss the logic of the stories, we have to discuss the story within the given premise. I have no desire to debate the actual existence of a God or gods.

The original poster, posted a story from a text that set the premise, the definition of God. Which is another way of saying that the Bible defines God, and what I'm saying is that I don't agree to the Bible's definition of God. In fact, I'd hazard a guess that more people disagree with the Bible's definition of God than agree with it. Which means that, at some point, those holding that this definition is correct have to show why everyone should agree that it is correct. In other words, "We have to negotiate premises that we both agree on, and I don't agree with yours."

Well It's possible to discuss the bible's logic without actually saying it's fact or fiction. The question is not whether God actually exists or if the bible was influence by God, the questions was regarding the logic of the stories.

If people are going to discuss the story, they should discuss the story within it's context. If you change the premise you change the story. That's like saying I don't agree Superman can fly, and I don't agree Superman is powerful, change the premise so that he does not fly,and he's not powerful. If we change that premise then you've change the original superman story.

Again, why? Why should I discuss the story within its context?

So you can logically point out the contradictions in the story.

Why would it be impermissible to point out that the logical contradictions of the story suggest it was written by men, rather than God, for example.

It is permissible as long as you stay within it's context.

Or why would it be impermissible to suggest that the logical structure of the story contained within the text as a whole operates at odds with what believers in the story currently purport as the ramifications of that story?

That is permissible. Can't argue against that.

The failure of your Superman analogy is that we all agree that Superman is fictional, and hence the only way in which we can relate to the story IS within the context of the story. But Bible believers purport that God exists, which renders your analogy fundamentally inapplicable.

No, I disagree, little children may believe superman is real, just like they believe in Santa Claus.
Does that stop us from examining the stories within it's context ? No.

That's not true, I can manipulate people and I'm not a god, Humans have been manipulating other humans with free will to do what they want all the time. I'm sorry, but you're flatly wrong. What you do is persuade other people. It's true that you could perhaps force other people to do what you want, for example at gunpoint, but then that's force, isn't it?

No it's coercion, a person with a Gun to their head can always refuse to comply, just like Lot's wife.

Which undercuts their free will. God, wielding the ultimate force, cannot manipulate people without it. "Believe in me, or burn eternally in a lake of fire." That's not coercion? That allows for free will? The belief it engenders is belief under duress.

If God tells you that in person you why wouldn't you believe in God? So you believe in God, big deal....but if some dude without credibility says that, why should anyone care...because it was not
God who was saying that, but men with swords and armor...the whole "believe or burn" jive never carried much weight, it was the edge of the sword that forced people to believe.

Again, if God set the rules of this game, as has been asserted, then he could set the rules in such a way as that humans can understand his justice. Indeed, who has said that he hasn't? It's merely an assumption that our standard of justice is not also God's standard of justice. So by what reasoning do you assert that a human standard of justice is inadequate?

Once again, going back to the context of the story, God can see into the future, read hearts, discern things we can't, if all the evidence is not presented to us how can we adequately we judge?

You're a strange person, quoting your own previous comment as your first paragraph.

But hey, let's play your semantic games.

By inference, you are therefore asserting your will, which is whatever standards you set, is the standards God should live by.

Just in the same way that I think the Big Bad Wolf should live by the standards I set. Everyone judges everyone else by their own set of standards, no matter how softpedaled or understanding the words they say in public. It's human nature, and is necessary for survival.

Because it won't be a critical judgement of the story.

Umm, why not? Don't tell me you're pretending that my judgment is subjective while yours is objective in any way.

Believing men created morals, and no other beings in the vast Universe had morals before men is anthropocentric.

Morals, as behavioral tendencies, were in existence long before humans ever walked the Earth. Indeed, you can see behavior governed by morality everywhere in the animal world.

As far as I'm aware, we are the only species with written language, so we are the only ones to codify morals. Sorry if you think I implied that nothing before man had any behavioral tendencies we now call morality.

Anyway, your initial implication that morality must've been given to man is faulty. Morality is indirectly part of our genetic code. It's a combination of genetics and social interaction. So, it's given to man in the same way five-fingered hands were given to man.

There is a type of judgment that is a mere opinion or notion, then there is the type of
judgment that is an objective conclusion.

And we both made opinion judgments. What's your point?

Well that's my point, my notion of what is "epitome of goodness and mercy" may be completely different from your notion of what is "epitome of goodness and mercy", we live in a society where
what is right and wrong, differs from nation to nation, state to state. One man thinks eating a dog is evil while the other man thinks eating a dog is fine.

I don't remotely see how that was ever your point.

You attempted to tell me that my opinion of God not being the epitome of good and mercy cannot be correct "if only you'd think about it the way I do."

You were trying to pass off your opinion as an objective conclusion, by essentially saying God is the epitome of good and mercy because you decided that the epitome of good and mercy is defined by God. I hope you didn't think we'd simply accept that at face value.

Nope, my argument is basically the powerless and ignorant cannot adequately judge the situation. Powerlessness has nothing to do with the ability to evaluate. Now you can claim that God must, of necessity, have information that he's going on, which we lack, that explains the disparity between what we consider just and what God considers just, but that's nothing more than an assumption. No matter how you choose to phrase it, the import of that argument is that "God works in mysterious ways." In other words, there's nothing to distinguish between God and chance except the choice to believe that God has a purpose behind actions that we see as fundamentally unjust, and because he's not talking about his reasons, what we're left to go by is whether we think those actions are just, not some purported reason that we choose to assign because we think God must have one. Claiming God is just being a dick is entirely as warranted as claiming that he has some purpose, by the logic of your own argument.

Therefore we can't adequately judge God's actions in the story without knowing all the facts. Adequate to what? Again (I'm not sure why you're not following this), this is, within the context of the story, a negotiated relationship.

Going back to Lots wife we are told that she is killed because of her disobedience , also according to the premise of the bible God can read hearts and see things we can't see...given that premise, that God has access to evidence we don't, how can we adequately judge the situation? It's already been mentioned several times. You're saying that God can see into the heart of Lot's wife, and determine that there's some reason for turning her into a pillar of salt. It brings up the idea of predestination and omniscience as opposed to free will. You're not claiming that there's no reason that Lot's wife was destroyed, or that she was destroyed simply for disobeying God on the minor issue of looking back at the destruction of her home, you're claiming that there's a reason we don't understand that relates to God's omniscience and judgment of Lot's wife. As a result, the conclusion to be draw is that there is no free will.

Animals are inferior, because my semantic considered the entire human ability as a group, not as individuals, as a group we are superior, and in the bible God is superior to humans. Again, by what criteria? You keep throwing the term "superior" about as though it had some sort of meaning that is self-evident. As a group, beetles are superior to humans. By the simple evidence of their prevalence, God loves beetles more than he loves man. Which group is "superior"?

Nope, if I was going in that direction why would I insist on discussing the stories within the context of the test... Allow me to reference what you said:

Umm, why not? Don't tell me you're pretending that my judgment is subjective while yours is objective in any way.

No I'm not, remember I said who are we to judge, obviously making my judgment subjective as well. Within the context if only God has all the information, then none of us can make an objective judgment.

Anyway, your initial implication that morality must've been given to man is faulty. Morality is indirectly part of our genetic code. It's a combination of genetics and social interaction. So, it's given to man in the same way five-fingered hands were given to man.

Well, morality is given, you said it, it is just a matter of how? The how being is there a God who created the Universe or did Universe evolve from nothing...

And we both made opinion judgments. What's your point?

That's my point, we cannot make an objective judgment without all the facts.

"Well that's my point, my notion of what is "epitome of goodness and mercy" may be completely different from your notion of what is "epitome of goodness and mercy", we live in a society where
what is right and wrong, differs from nation to nation, state to state. One man thinks eating a dog is evil while the other man thinks eating a dog is fine."

I don't remotely see how that was ever your point.

Nope, That's my point, we cannot make an objective judgment without all the facts.

You attempted to tell me that my opinion of God not being the epitome of good and mercy cannot be correct "if only you'd think about it the way I do."You were trying to pass off your opinion as an objective conclusion, by essentially saying God is the epitome of good and mercy because you decided that the epitome of good and mercy is defined by God. I hope you didn't think we'd simply accept that at face value.

Nope, my point is none of us can objectively judge the Lot's wife situation because we have limited knowledge, in other words my statement in this context that God is the epitome of good and mercy is only true if we accept the bible's premise, not because I objectively showed this through the lot's wife story.

Within the context if only God has all the information, then none of us can make an objective judgment.

iarnuocon has shown that to be a false context, if you're using the Bible.

Nope, my point is none of us can objectively judge the Lot's wife situation because we have limited knowledge, in other words my statement in this context that God is the epitome of good and mercy is only true if we accept the bible's premise, not because I objectively showed this through the lot's wife story.

In this case, there is no possible way to ever objectively judge anything at all. If you're saying that, because we can't perfectly objectively judge it, then we shouldn't because God is awesome, then we cannot ever judge anything, because we're never sure we're perfectly correct.

That's a rather ridiculous position. Like iarnuocon, it's the same "God works in mysterious ways" copout all over again.

Errr, last sentence should've been "Like iarnuocon said, it's the same 'God works in mysterious ways' copout all over again. "

Errr, last sentence should've been "Like iarnuocon said, it's the same 'God works in mysterious ways' copout all over again. "

Well according to the bible God works in mysterious ways to the unrighteous. Which means God allows the righteous to ask questions and the adequate information regarding God's actions.

I will address that when I address iarnuocons reply.

Powerlessness has nothing to do with the ability to evaluate.

No the power to question and investigate is an important function in evaluation. If don't have
to the power to question someone and investigate a situation how you effectively evaluate.

Now you can claim that God must, of necessity, have information that he's going on, which we lack, that explains the disparity between what we consider just and what God considers just, but that's nothing more than an assumption. No matter how you choose to phrase it, the import of that argument is that "God works in mysterious ways."

Yes, but if God allows you to question, the action then it's no longer a mystery, as in the case of Abraham.

In other words, there's nothing to distinguish between God and chance except the choice to believe that God has a purpose behind actions that we see as fundamentally unjust, and because he's not talking about his reasons, what we're left to go by is whether we think those actions are just, not some purported reason that we choose to assign because we think God must have one. Claiming God is just being a dick is entirely as warranted as claiming that he has some purpose, by the logic of your own argument.

No because the premise of the bible is God is just, God is only unjust until proven guilty. The bible place the burden of proof on the accuser, just like in the court of law.

Going back to Lots wife we are told that she is killed because of her disobedience , also according to the premise of the bible God can read hearts and see things we can't see...given that premise, that God has access to evidence we don't, how can we adequately judge the situation? It's already been mentioned several times. You're saying that God can see into the heart of Lot's wife, and determine that there's some reason for turning her into a pillar of salt. It brings up the idea of predestination and omniscience as opposed to free will. You're not claiming that there's no reason that Lot's wife was destroyed, or that she was destroyed simply for disobeying God on the minor issue of looking back at the destruction of her home, you're claiming that there's a reason we don't understand that relates to God's omniscience and judgment of Lot's wife. As a result, the conclusion to be draw is that there is no free will.

No God being able to read hearts can be likened to a lie detector test. A lie detector test monitor heart rates to tell if a person is uneasy, hence lying about an answer, it only examines a person, nothing else. God's omniscience does not suggest predestination in anyway

Animals are inferior, because my semantic considered the entire human ability as a group, not as individuals, as a group we are superior, and in the bible God is superior to humans. Again, by what criteria? You keep throwing the term "superior" about as though it had some sort of meaning that is self-evident. As a group, beetles are superior to humans. By the simple evidence of their prevalence, God loves beetles more than he loves man. Which group is "superior"?

I was not talking about prevalence, using your analogy would imply humans were superior to God.
It is clear the definition was based on wisdom and strength.

You brought up other beings and the possibility of other beings moral systems, as proving that the claim that "men created morals" is anthropocentric, and (I'm assuming, here) false. In point of fact, it does neither. You can't prove that there are other beings and other moral systems than those created by men, so you have no basis to claim that the statement is anthropocentric, rather than a simple statement of fact.

I cannot prove and you cannot disprove, It does not matter. What stands is my refutation that you were being anthropocentric, not me. So I am correct in this instance and you are wrong. It is indeed a simple statement of the fact that .

Nor have you provided any evidence on which to judge whether the claim is false. You follow it up with an argument from ignorance ("why would man create morals laws like fornication and adultery, why do humans have need for such morals, why would we frustrate ourselves like that?"), but your own lack of imagination for the answers to those questions does not mean that those questions are unanswerable, nor that such questions refute the assertion that man created morals.

Men did not create all known morals, morals are part of our consciousness, men did not create the conscience just like men did not create their "five fingers" it's part of our evolution.

As I've shown, you have not gone back to the context of the story. Going by the context, we have enough evidence to judge that God may be motivated by something, but that something is in no way an omniscient understanding of what is contained within the hearts and minds of men.

I disagree, now lets examine why.

Ok, let's look at the "logic"
Then the LORD said, "Shall I hide from Abraham what I am about to do? 18 Abraham will surely become a great and powerful nation, and all nations on earth will be blessed through him. 19 For I have chosen him, so that he will direct his children and his household after him to keep the way of the LORD by doing what is right and just, so that the LORD will bring about for Abraham what he has promised him." Apparently God has a sense of rightness and justice that is understandable by men

True, but I never said we could not understand, only we don't have enough information in the case of Lot's wife to objectively judge.

The outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is so great and their sin so grievous 21 that I will go down and see if what they have done is as bad as the outcry that has reached me. If not, I will know." God claims he is not omniscient. If he were, he wouldn't have to "go and see for himself."

Your interpretation is wrong. The text is conveyed in a way that can be interpreted in a number of ways. In others words the bible writer is writing in a figurative way that
was known to the people of that day. It's like saying the sun rise, literally speaking the sun does not rise. How this apply to this case? Well consider superman, he can use his super hearing to investigate a situation, but that is not the only tool at his disposal, Superman can also see through
walls as a supplement to his initial investigation. In other words God "going down" could mean
God was going to do something other than merely hear the outcry of the land. Once again the bible is open to interpretation which means it's impossible for us to always objectively judge, so we have to go by the premise.

The LORD said, "If I find fifty righteous people in the city of Sodom, I will spare the whole place for their sake." God, not knowing beforehand the extent of the city's wickedness, bargains with Abraham. i.e. his "moral system" is malleable.

Nope, God was given Abraham the chance to question him, so that Abraham can adequately judge the situation. In other words God was removing the mystic so Abraham could judge God's justice.
The response was made to explain what God would do if there were fifty righteous, which there wasn't. It was not because God was reckless and was going to destroy a city without proper investigation.

When he hesitated, the men grasped his hand and the hands of his wife and of his two daughters and led them safely out of the city, for the LORD was merciful to them. But apparently not Lot's son in laws, who although apparently righteous, were destroyed along with the wicked inhabitants of Sodom.

That is only your assumption, the bible never said they were righteous in anyway, it never specifically said they were unrighteous either, so we are left with an unknown in this story, we don't have all the information. Now given that "God is just until proven unjust" then God is not unjust, because the burden on proof(based on the premise), is job of the accuser.

He said to him, "Very well, I will grant this request too; I will not overthrow the town you speak of. 22 But flee there quickly, because I cannot do anything until you reach it." Here the Lord is revealed as not being omnipotent. He cannot do anything until Lot reaches Zoar.

Ok, this is any easy one, what text basically means is that God will not continue the destruction until
Lot reaches Zoar, once again faulty interpretation.

he overthrew those cities and the entire plain, including all those living in the cities—and also the vegetation in the land. 26 But Lot's wife looked back, and she became a pillar of salt. Either the Lord intentionally turned Lot's wife into a pillar of salt, or he was powerless to prevent it from happening. In either case, considering that the Lord was incapable of determining Sodom's wickedness without visiting in person, it is not logical to state that he turned her into a pillar of salt because he knew something within her heart that was not immediately apparent.

Once again faulty interpretation, visiting Sodom in person was not a literal statement, moreover lack of one type of power, does not necessarily negate the another, just because superman can't resurrect the dead does not mean he can't see through walls.

And for the sake of a little humor, So both of Lot's daughters became pregnant by their father. Is it really possible that a guy who is so drunk as to be completely unaware that women are trying to have sex with him could actually get it up? Or is this part of the story simply a highlighting of the fact that Biblical authors really didn't understand how babies are made?

Once again it's open to interpretation, in this case the bible writer was basically saying he was too drunk to make a proper judgment, his awareness was low, but sexually he was not impotent. They obviously figured out a way to get some kind rise out of him, drunk men can have sex, in fact another extreme I'm sure we've all heard of a drunk rapist.

Wow. Talk about a disappointing reply. I was hoping for some actual consideration of the points I brought up. Instead, you served up some plaintive protests that you were really right all along, without ever answering the points.

No the power to question and investigate is an important function in evaluation. If don't have
to the power to question someone and investigate a situation how you effectively evaluate. According to the "premise" of the Bible, we have the power to question and investigate-- prayer. If God remains mute, the clear conclusion to reach is that he won't defend his actions. you even admit as much when you say, if God allows you to question, the action then it's no longer a mystery, as in the case of Abraham.

No because the premise of the bible is God is just, God is only unjust until proven guilty. This sentence doesn't make any sense.

But you've stated that the Bible's premise is that God is "just", and I've shown from the text of the Bible itself that God expects what is "right and just" to be comprehensible to men, and that God's "justice" is malleable and negotiable. When you say the burden of proof is "on the accuser", I agree. I think the story itself offers plenty of evidence that God is not just, from the destruction of Lot's sons, through turning Lot's wife into a pillar of salt. You cannot defend these actions as "God knowing what was in their hearts" because God admits to not knowing what is in their hearts-- otherwise he would not have needed to visit Sodom.

No God being able to read hearts can be likened to a lie detector test. Then he is not omniscient, as I said.

God's omniscience does not suggest predestination in anyway Yes, it does. I submit that you have a substantially deficient understanding of the meaning of the terms "omniscience" and "predestination," if you think it doesn't.

I was not talking about prevalence, using your analogy would imply humans were superior to God. It is clear the definition was based on wisdom and strength. lol. Which is anthropocentric, as I stated. It's ok. I'm ok with it, I was just trying to point out that you hadn't defined your terms.

What stands is my refutation that you were being anthropocentric, not me. So I am correct in this instance and you are wrong. Sorry, charley. Unless you can show other moral systems than man's, you haven't refuted dick. If man is the only being who creates moral systems, then it is not anthropocentric to note it. It's merely fact. At any rate, it sure doesn't follow that God created morality.

men did not create the conscience just like men did not create their "five fingers" it's part of our evolution. Yes. Men did not create consciousness or their own consciences, but they clearly have created moral systems based on those things. A sense of conscience is not a moral system.

At any rate, you're failing to stick to the context of the story. By that context, God is not omniscient, nor omnipotent, nor the creator of morals. So I fail to see why you would think it prudent to exempt his actions from critical judgments about their justice.

I'm sorry, but I'm having a hard time seeing you as not being completely disingenuous.

Your interpretation is wrong. The text is conveyed in a way that can be interpreted in a number of ways. In others words the bible writer is writing in a figurative way that was known to the people of that day. I'm sorry, but that's simply bull@!$%#. For instance--

In other words God "going down" could mean God was going to do something other than merely hear the outcry of the land. Once again the bible is open to interpretation which means it's impossible for us to always objectively judge, so we have to go by the premise. No, it couldn't mean something other than going down. God physically showed up there, according to the story. Abraham sees him, speaks to him. What you're doing is going beyond the text in an effort to rescue your preferred interpretation, but it doesn't fit the text. It's that simple.

You argument is essentially that the Bible says God is [x], and if in other areas the Bible contradicts that, we should ignore those contradictions in favor of adhering to the "premise" that God is [x]. It's disingenuous.

God was removing the mystic so Abraham could judge God's justice.
The response was made to explain what God would do if there were fifty righteous, which there wasn't. It was not because God was reckless and was going to destroy a city without proper investigation. I'm sorry, but you're going beyond the text, again. And if God is omniscient, as you claim, then no "investigation" is necessary on his part. He would already know.

That is only your assumption, the bible never said they were righteous in anyway, it never specifically said they were unrighteous either, so we are left with an unknown in this story, we don't have all the information. It's pretty rich that you're pointing out my assumption while blithely ignoring your own. What we know is that God was willing to spare them. Here's a question for you, if Lot had chosen to stay, would God have destroyed the city?

Ok, this is any easy one, what text basically means is that God will not continue the destruction until Lot reaches Zoar, once again faulty interpretation. God hadn't started the destruction. Again, if God were omnipotent, he wouldn't need for Lot to even leave Sodom. He could easily have eradicated Sodom, leaving Lot and his family untouched. That would be omnipotence. Having to wait around while your servant flees, and not being able to destroy the city until the servant has reach a safe distance implies power, but not omnipotence. It's that simple.

visiting Sodom in person was not a literal statement You're killing me. The Bible contradicts your interpretation:

Like iarnuocon, it's the same "God works in mysterious ways" copout all over again.

Jack, I know you corrected this statement, but I can't resist noting that iarnuocon also works in mysterious ways. ;-)

Actually, I am impressed by the depth of feeling and knowledge of Scripture that iarnuocon expresses. There's an interesting story behind all of that I am sure; one that I am sincerely curious about.

Ancients couldn't understand the reality they witnessed. Had to come up with some answer.

I fully agree. Either that, o the stories are just plain dreamed up by people who wanted other people to listen to their rules. However, you'll find that many vocal Christians wouldn't even let themselves consider the possibility that the stories written down in the Bible weren't literal eyewitness accounts verified by God himself.

The prevailing theory regarding a real-world basis for the Flood is the explosion of Thera, one of the greatest volcanic explosions in the last 5000 years. Up to 61 cubic kilometers of material was thrown into the air, causing massive local climate change in the Mediterranean. It would've made the SE Asian tsunami look like high tide.

"Raiders of the Lost Ark" pretty much 'splains it.

Could be there was no room then for shades of gray. Only absolutes. I don't imagine there was much critical thinking among the ancients.

Many beliefs and practices among primitives even today may very well have a grain of merit. Along the way, real reasons were lost in time.

I still wonder at the prohibition against pork.

I wonder what changes in the original text have occurred since the original. Might be interesting. King James tweaked predecessors.

It's the reason that mystifies.

Probably another one of those things lost in the sands of time. Perhaps it has something to do with what swine will eat. These days, their diets are somewhat more prescribed. Possibly, a sickness the ancients witnessed.

I know the shellfish ban was probably because shellfish got you sick very easily.

I dunno about pork.

It sure is tasty.

The shellfish are bottom feeders . . . Unclean . . . at least that's how it was explained to me by an Orthodox ex-husband of mine.

I think the Jewish prohibition against eating pork probably follows the same line of reasoning. Of course, when you're talking about people who lived in the desert for years, it seems that any meat would be suspect. The heat, the spoilage . . .

Urp.

Interesting.

Not to pooh-pooh the philosophical reasons, but I've found that a number of Jewish dietary and lifestyle laws actually have, for their time, pretty good real-life reasoning behind them.

Where does one draw the line between what's literal and what's figurative?

You can't. That's the problem with asserting the Bible as some sort of God-given truth.

And how much of it is just due to the misunderstanding of natural phenomena?

Biblical archaeology is partly devoted to finding real-world events that may have coincided with stories in the Bible.

Maybe that's a helicopter? Maybe it's something not yet invented? How would a man of those times identify a helicopter?

No offense, but that seems like one of the least likely explanations for the man-headed locust sighting. It could've just been a deformed grasshopper. (Like in the movie "Mimic.")

An interesting side note is the Hidden Imam belief that Arachnid-jihad and his bunch profess to believe.

Curious about those end of times beliefs.

Mutants? Dreams?

uhhhh condescending assumptions much?

Satan is the guy monkeying around with the sound equipment during the alter call. He's been at that game for years.

Actually, I thought Satan- unlike God- was not opmnipresent. How could he be in all those churches?

@ badkungfu: Horcruxes on steroids.

. . . organized religion reminds me of a cult."

"We need to carry this message from every corner from the east to west, so that on judgment day we can be proud," said Salim Frederick of Hizbut Tahrir's English branch.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20236318/

I choose not to believe in Satan. He strikes me as a human construct who serves as a merely punitive device.

Life is a miracle. Albert Einstein once said that he didn't believe in the anthropomorphic idea of God. The universe is SO vast and our place in it so small -- the likelihood of other civilizations is enormous. Why would the universal force, whatever it is, assume the guise of a human being from our little solar system?

I don't know. I suppose none of us do. And perhaps that's most we can hope for. Meanwhile, we can dedicate ourselves to following the teachings of all wise men: Jesus, Buddha, Mohammad, Lao-Tzu, the Rastafarians' Jah. Compassion, acceptance, love, respect: those are all wonderful places to start.

Albert Einstein once said that he didn't believe in the anthropomorphic idea of God.

I think he's right. See my comment in #14.1 about Einstein's admiration of Mary Baker Eddy's idea of God.

This one would also pretty much damn every farmer in the world.

It's also very unproductive and can potentially render fields barren.

Was that a big problem back then?

It was indeed.

People back then weren't creative with their filial strumpeting.

Transcript here.

If it's not your cup of tea, it's okay. Jung is not for everyone.

It's also worth reading "misquoting jesus", a semi-academic work explanation of how and why the bible changed dramatically over the years, how none of it was written down until at least the second or third century BC, and how we really don't have much way of knowing what much of it said originally. Interesting.

Tim

This has been shown to not be the case. From the fragements of Matthew at a british college (Magdaline I think), to the fragments of Mark found in the dead sea scrolls, to the ancient songs of the church, there is much evidence of the gospels from before the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem. There have been fragements of gospel also found in the catacombs of Rome, the mines of Greece, and other locations.

(that's second or third century AD by the way).

Misquoting Jesus is a great book. I also recommend Original Blessing, by Matthew Fox, or Jesus for the Non-Religious by John Shelby Spong.

Oops, AD. If there were gospels written in 200 BC, then that would really be something.

Dustymuffin,

If I recall correctly, you are a Lutheran pastor. What do you think the meaning or lessons of those stories are? Why are they in the Bible?

The Council of Nicaea was the group that established the modern day cannon of scripture in the bible...

Its also thought that the Council made the decision what religious practices and icons should be brought in to the Catholic religion from the roman Pagon religions to make the religion more acceptable by the citizens of the roman empire.

Its my believe that Constantine wanted the empire to be under one religious indoctrine being fed up with the lobbying of countless pagan religious leaders effect on the senate and its laws.

I have wrote about this in my book "The second renaissance"

There of course must of been many arguments on which of the hundred and thirty or so gospels should be acceptable within the new testaments.

If you want a good read I highly recommend the Gospel of Judas

Not that I believe the whole "Da Vinci Code" conspiracy, but I do think there's a lot more to modern enslavement Christianity than we are led to believe which is a shame in my opinion

Indeed, maybe god intentionally had certain parts of the Bible to make no sense, or actually contradict reality, knowing that people would be less likely to believe and he could have more people sent to hell...and of course he did it that way only because he loves us.

Oh Yes I can feel the love god is in my heart, the only problem is how do I get rid of this permanent grin?

"God says my first mission is to!" sorry lost touch, as beautiful young maid winked at me and a little red devil is smiling on my left shoulder.

Unbeknownst to us, God is competing with the other deities on who can most consistently fill their weekly Hell quota.

(Is it just me, or does that sound like a Far Side caption?)

A little pessimistic, though logical and perhaps true.

1. See #15, which explains more about Samuel than I could. You could also say that one follows the other: e.g. that since his mother prayed for a son, then the conception of such a son would automatically mean her faith would grow by leaps and bounds and that she would raise him in the church. That God would take such an interest in the lad speaks more of the strength of the boy than the binding promise of his mother.

2. There's a lot of this sort of thing in the Bible. You could also interpret the salt pillar transformation as a byproduct of God's wrath; if you gaze upon it, you are transformed. Note that the Bible never says "God turned her into a pillar of salt for turning back." This means that she was warned, and disobeyed. It's like me telling you, "Don't dip your head into this barrel of acid, OK?" The fact that you're dissolved when you do so isn't me punishing you for disobeying, it's just what happens, and, hey, I gave you fair warning.

3. It could also mean that opportunities come along when you least expect it, and sometimes you just have to "go with it" to avoid missing the chance. Jesus is just harsh about it, or was lost in translation.

4. OK, this one is strange. I'd chalk it up to Elisha being a jerk, but yeah, I bet he was stuffed in a lot of lockers in high school.

(Note: I was raised Christian, but my beliefs are complicated and lean more towards pantheism. I'm also not a Bible scholar.)

The barrel of acid analogy is rather flawed.

It'd be more like
"Don't take this scrumptious cookie."
"What'll happen if I do?"
"Something... bad."
"Uhhh..." *takes cookie*
*vat of acid pours down on Lot's wife*

I do like your parable-centric interpretation, though.

"Don't take this scrumptious cookie."

Haha, well that's a matter of opinion. I've heard stories about children and fire, in that fire is a pretty, dancing, shimmering thing and children want to touch it. Yet touching fire is bad and we warn children against putting their hand in it, but if they do, they get burned. We aren't punishing them for putting their hand in the fire: that's just what happens.

Ah, so the punishment for looking back wasn't dished out by God?

That's news to me. Who was it dished out by? If noy God, who transformed Lot's wife?

I'm not saying this is right or wrong, just a thought.

I'm saying it was "dished out" by the nature of the destruction. Back to the fire analogy: who punished the child for sticking his hand in the fire? Who burned the child? No one; it's not punishment, it's just what happens. If you stop thinking about it as punishment then you can see it from all sorts of angles.

I'm saying it was "dished out" by the nature of the destruction.

The destruction that God commanded? :-)

If it "just happened" and not by the will of God, I've never heard of any forest fires or arson cases where only people who looked at the flames were seared... into a block of salt. That's a smart transmuting fire, yo.

I said don't look, you did, now you can't.

But turning her into salt is a much fancier trick. Simply making her blind could get the reaction of "Lot, your stupid wife looked at the really bright fire and went blind."

I'm saying it was "dished out" by the nature of the destruction. So God wasn't "all-powerful" enough to contrive a method of destroying the city that exempted folks who might be tempted to have a look?

If God was the author of the destruction, and he is all-powerful, I can only conclude that he was being a dick.

If it "just happened" and not by the will of God, I've never heard of any forest fires or arson cases where only people who looked at the flames were seared... into a block of salt. That's a smart transmuting fire, yo.

It's an analogy, not a proof. If you find any biblical city-destroying fire-n-brimstone we can analyze it.

Just a thought.

I think the incident with Lot's wife is analogous to the story of Orpheus and Eurydice. It's not so much a 'buh, wtf, salt?!', and -- more importantly -- the story isn't about Lot's wife. It's about Lot.

Lot was a virtuous man. Lot's daughters were also virtuous (yeah, some weird stuff comes later, but whatever). Lot's wife was a part of the city, a townswoman, and weak in many of the same ways they were weak -- i.e, easily given to temptation, and not obedient to God. Lot was the one who was saved, and Lot was allowed to take his family with him, but they were ordered not to look back on the destruction of the city. Lot, the virtuous man, was obedient. Lot's daughters, the virtuous virgins, were obedient. Lot's wife, who was part of the city, was not obedient, and looked back on the destruction of her city.

It was important to the story that someone had to disobey...that someone had to look back. Someone had to, because Lot had to be the virtuous opposite to that person; Lot had to be the one who obeyed God when someone else disobeyed. Lot's wife, who was more a part of the community than Lot was, disobeyed, and suffered the repercussions for that; Lot, who is the hero of the story, obeyed and survived.

Many mythologies have stories where a hero is tested by being told that he can have something good, but he must not look; he must simply trust in the gods to provide the good thing. It's a metaphor for faith itself: no, you cannot go see God, or Zeus, or Buddha. You cannot go see Heaven or Hell (i.e, the destruction of Sodom). You cannot confirm your belief with your eyes. You must just trust that what you believe is so, and do as you are told. This is an example of that sort of story.

-----

The story of Hannah and Samuel is kind of obvious, I think. A woman prayed for a child and swore she'd do what she believed would please God the most if she had one. Sarai also prayed for a child. It's not unusual.

-----

I agree with John Whitting above -- Jesus was offering these men one chance to follow him. Assuming you believe what the Bible says, Jesus knew that he had to die. Okay, so you know that you're going to die young -- within a year or so at the time of these verses, if I'm remembering right -- and that before you die, you have to speak to as many people as possible. You have to make as big an impact on people as you can, and you have to make that a personal impact. You can't just email them. Are you going to stand around waiting for some guy to perform burial rituals? How about wait for some other guy to go back to his village and say all his goodbyes to his various friends and family? You have places to be and not much time. So what do you do? You say, 'Look, bus is leaving, pal. Either you're on board or you're hanging out burying the dead. Let's go. Manna and fishes getting cold over here.'

This too is a metaphor. Remember, Jesus knew that what he was offering people wasn't going to be an easy road. He was offering trials and struggles, and his words would divide families. Here he's saying that you need to be willing to leave everything behind, even your family, to follow him.

-----

As for the last...well, I guess that's a hell of a story about why you don't shout insults at random old men on the road, huh.

Whitting

Almost. ;)

*laugh*. Damn! I almost scrolled up to double-check, but got lazy. Consider my wrist slapped.

I'm just saying that in the allegorical story, it was God's own punishment that He was warning Lot against, not some fire that was out of God's hands.

Thus, it's more like "If you take this cookie, I'll set you on fire" and less like "If you take this cookie, a flamethrower I don't control will light you on fire."

Just a thought. I don't know the whole passage; in the provided quote, there's nothing to suggest God smote her down. Interpretation.

John Whittet nice to see a wise man with an open mind one day someone will invent a word for people like us that are weak atheist that lean towards pantheism.

Perhaps:such a word such as ultimatenessism meaning those that do not believe in a man made god or gods but in an ultimate creator or intelligence that the universe is possibly the creation and the creator.

Perhaps:such a word such as ultimatenessism

Which is not to be confused with Ultimate Nessiests, who are the believers in the Loch Ness Monster. ;-)

Perhaps: such a word such as ultimatenessism meaning those that do not believe in a man made god or gods but in an ultimate creator or intelligence that the universe is possibly the creation and the creator.

Religious thought is so hard to plot. I'm not even sure I'd include myself in ultimatenessism, though the name is pretty awesome. If they have line dancing and good coffee I'll totally show up to the meetings.

Which is not to be confused with Ultimate Nessiests, who are the believers in the Loch Ness Monster. ;-)

I may show up to these meetings, too.

Hehehee, perhaps we should start an Ultimate Nessiest group on Newsvine. But, seriously, Babel Fish may have a good point with using ultimatenessism in describing his own perspective on eternal matters.

Jack H used this analogy earlier:

"Don't take this scrumptious cookie."
"What'll happen if I do?"
"Something... bad."
"Uhhh..." *takes cookie*

That reminded me of U2's song "Running to Stand Still"

Sweet the sin
Bitter the taste in my mouth

The cookie may look scrumptious or even taste scrumptious at first. But, some cookies are best not eaten because they are really poisonous.

The issue of temptation being in the world is a tough one; God allows them to exist, and they test our faith - we learn a lot about who we are and who God is when we face these tests, especially when we are alone and no one else is around to see what we're up to.

If you want to understand faith, have faith, don't use reason.

I understand your point of view. I felt similar until I read Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures by Mark Baker Eddy. Curiously, Einstein was an admirer of this author and the logic and reason that she brought to the study of the scriptures. Most libraries have copies.

Sorry typo fingers at it again - that's Mary Baker Eddy.

If one continues to read through the book of 1 Samuel, all of a sudden big themes begin to emerge very quickly.

Have to agree that the Bible has to be seen from the larger themes. For those interested in the big themes of the Bible, Mary Baker Eddy wrote a book called Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures. There are two Chapters specifically dedicated to Genesis and Revelation.

My personal viewpoint of the Bible is that it shows an arc of thought growing from material based thinking to one that is spiritually based. For example, the Bible's first statement establishes the true foundation of God as spiritual and the complete goodness of creation (God is called Elohim in Genesis 1). Then in Genesis 2 the understanding of God (now called Jehovah) is changed to one based on a matter/spirit, human-like misunderstanding (mist) of God called Jehovah of the Old Testament. Through all the various stories mentioned, the key theme is the struggle of spiritual consciousness over materiality, which leads mankind back to the more spiritual understanding of God through Jesus' teachings in the New Testament. Jesus' Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7) is all about how one can establish and maintain a spiritually dominated consciousness and relationship with God (back full circle to Genesis 1).

Bottom line: If the Bible can help one put off the material-based thinking and progress toward a more spiritual based consciousness, then scriptures have become a living, useful tool in improving one's life, and ultimately the life of those around us and of society as a whole.

Just a reminder concerning a recorded view of Jesus.s.

To me, the point of the story is that when one chooses to follow Jesus, one soon discovers a love for one's family far beyond whatever crowded corner of the mind they previously occupied.

Bury My Father

Wow. Where to begin with this one. These two guys come up and tell Jesus that they want to follow him, and he blatantly tells them, "Nope! Denied." Why? Were they evil misfits unsuited for the rewards to be reaped by following him? No such thing. One wanted to go bury his late father, and one wanted to say goodbye to his family before embarking on a trip to Jesus-knew-where.

You seemly have got it wrong your mind has to be firmly fixed on Jesus, give away your personal things forget your family and follow in the footsteps of the Christ.

Excellent, Joshua. I fully agree with all your points. The Lot's wife anecdote, for example, is. . .curious, to say the least. But these events were recorded because they did have significance to the original audience. Calling them "irrational" simply because we cannot immediately deduce that significance from our our 21st century perspective is, well. . . irrational.

Well, I know a little Greek. I looked into it, but I can't figure out from my dictionary the interpretation being made about the dead/dying father.

59Εἶπεν δὲ πρὸς ἕτερον, Ἀκολούθει μοι. ό δὲ εἶπε, Κύριε, ἐπίτρεψόν μοι ἀπελθόντι πρῶτον θάψαι τὸν πατέρα μου.

Rough literal translation: Then he said to a second (man), "Follow me." But he said, "Lord, grant me to go away first to buy my father."

The word in question here would seem to be θάψαι (from θἀπτω). From my LSJ, the meanings given are "to pay the last dues to a corpse, to honour with funeral rights, i.e. in early times by burning the body, then, simply, to bury, inter." I'm not seeing anything in the language itself that would imply the father isn't dead yet. If he weren't dead, I would expect the future infinitive where here we have an aorist.

Hmm... Maybe I'm not remembering something then. There was something about the cultural context I thought, but I really don't know now. BrashMonkey had more to say below about this, and I do remember hearing something related to what he said as well.

I could be mixing things from this story and the prodigal son story, where when the son asked for his father's inheritance, it was as if he were saying, "You're dead to me, father. Can I just have the money I would get if you were dead now?"

Maybe BlaiseP will stop by. I think he has more Greek than I do. I flipped quickly through Smyth's Greek Grammar, but I didn't see anything that particularly applied.

As far as "baldy" having a different meaning, I was wondering about this story recently and came across an apologetics site that suggested it had to do with leprosy. And it also mentioned that the word for "child" might have been referring young men and that since so many were killed it was really probably more of a mob than a few kids heckling an old guy.

It's possible. A couple thoughts that interest me:
1. how the Word was allowed to become corrupted by translation. I thought this was not supposed to happen.
2. how apologists are willing to be flexible and consider metaphor with accounts like this one that seem gruesome but won't bend in the least on other accounts that just seem weird or contradictory- creation, flood, virgin birth, Jesus riding both an ass and a foal to fulfill prophecy, zombies hanging out in the cemetery after Jesus died, Judas dying by different methods, etc.

I suspect your take on the "baldy" story is more correct. Still don't understand what the meaning of it is.

Good questions/inquiries, too. I'm not sure I have any responses to those. This is not where I typical put my energy so I haven't given much thought to resolving those dilemmas.

There is an ancient train of thought very much alive today that says most people don't know what is good for them and thus debating opens the doors to much that is bad. Don't explain what you do otherwise the recipient might mistakenly believe they are being given some choice or that there might be another answer when you being the smart (chosen, holy, wise, etc) one know better.

The technique applied by those 'who know better' has been refined over millennia but the result is amazingly consistent. Today it typically takes the form of government instead of religion but the tools of persuasion and coercion would be familiar to a Sumerian hearing about Gilgamesh from the High Priest.

The next time you read about a proposed law seeking to restrict behavior 'for the public good' look to your Bible, that was the same idea 2000 years ago. When you laugh at their foolishness think about what somebody will say about your law 2000 years from now. The old days aren't some golden it's all good and correct but don't make the same reverse mistake that you are obviously better having been born today. The circumstances and lies change but the story rarely does.

tigerblade,

I think that there's a fair amount of openness in many denominations, the question becomes, are we ready to be open to God? Are we ready to give up our self-centeredness and to commit to a life that serves God's purpose?

We can blame religions and others for our unwillingness to make such a commitment, but basically it's on our shoulders and nobody else's. The only one who can surrender one's own will and life to got is ourselves.

I'm not claiming to be a theologian here, but here's what I learn from these stories:

Hannah and Samuel

Hannah believed that a child was a blessing from the Lord. She also believed - as did most of the people in that society - that service to the Lord was a great blessing and honor for any person's life; that had been the experience of her and her husband. And so she promised the Lord that if He would give her a son, then she would do the best and highest thing she could think of for her son's sake: dedicate him to the Lord and to the Lord's service, to be raised and educated and trained in much the same way that a parent might send their child off to an exclusive boarding school.

While Samuel may not have "had a choice," I would ask what choices do any children have as to who they are born to, and where they are born, and how they are raised? What choice does a child have who is born to a crack whore or born in an impoverished and war-torn nation? In Samuel's case, he was raised in a positive environment, well-cared for, and he grew up to become a wise and influential prophet of God who anointed kings.

I would wonder - although it is none of my business - if your own parents might have prayed prayers of blessing or dedication over you when you were a baby. Even though you may not have had a choice then - and you do have a choice now about whether or not to live a life of faith - those prayers for you then still bless your life; sometimes, the blessings are unseen, or may not yet be seen, but they are still there for you.

Lot's Wife

I don't think she necessarily wanted to go back to Sodom so that she could sin, but the fact that she turned back, after being warned not to do so, revealed that her heart was still there in that place. This could take a long time to discuss, but to summarize: our actions reveal what's in our hearts. What was in the heart of Lot's wife was not to follow God, but to pine for the past, even though what she was leaving behind was totally corrupt and evil.

God knows our hearts and He offers to change our hearts and our direction, but we can choose to look away from Him if we want to. Lot's wife is a warning to everyone that hearing God's instructions is not enough - it's doing them that leads to salvation (here I am not speaking of eternal salvation versus damnation, but simply the fact that acting wisely brings benefits and acting foolishly brings destruction).

Following Jesus

This isn't about being in a fan club, or even experiencing God's salvation and mercy for eternity - this is about what it means to be a disciple of Jesus Christ, to follow Him on His mission regardless of personal cost. Scripture is full of teaching about the necessity of taking care of family, friends, and even strangers, so it's not that Jesus is suggesting cruelty. What He is saying is, "I'm going somewhere; follow Me, or don't."

I think Jesus was testing this young man to see how serious and committed he was to being a disciple. Just as in the earlier verses, a young man promised to follow Jesus anywhere, and Jesus basically said, "I have nothing to offer you but blood, sweat, and tears" (paraphrasing Churchill). Jesus wasn't looking for casual "fans" or pew-warming spectators, but he was looking for those who had counted the cost, understood the mission, and were not afraid to forsake all to follow Him.

This all points out the seriousness of following Jesus. He is not just a flower-sniffing hippie with a ukelele and a pipe full of good weed. He said that some would be offended by Him. Apparently, some were; enough to kill Him.

None of Jesus' disciples then (or now) should be surprised when difficult choices or circumstances come their way. After all, Jesus' central message is: "Take up your own cross and follow Me. If you want to save your life, you'll lose it, but if you're willing to lay down your life for Me and for this cause, I will give you eternal, abundant life."

Elisha and the Bears

The story, as you recounted it, has to do with some kids mocking the prophet of God. Notice that Elisha never attacked the kids or threw anything at them. He spoke a curse against them. Now, if you take this story literally, a prophet spoke something and then bears appeared and snacked on the kids. That's a bit of a giveaway there that we're dealing with something supernatural and something that is a little bit scary.

Elisha didn't "make" the bears do anything. Again, if you accept the veracity of the story, Elisha merely spoke. Why did the bears attack the kids? If one believes in a Sovereign God, then one must believe that God allowed or even caused the bears to act upon Elisha's words to not only punish the kids, but to demonstrate the severity of mocking and scorning a person that God Himself has anointed.

Many here will just take the whole thing as a twisted fairy tale. But, if you believe the Bible, or believe this story, then you have to see that something supernatural happened. Personally, I never question God's motives. I may question why He does what He does from the vantage point of, "What am I supposed to be learning or understanding here," but not from the idea that God is anything less than good.

Conclusion

His ways are above my ways; His thoughts are above my thoughts. He does not conform to my ideas of "right and wrong" or fairness or even justice. I cannot anthropomorphize God into thinking and acting like a man. Furthermore, Scripture says that the natural mind cannot fully comprehend the things of God. So, I will not sit in the judgement seat over God. My life experience tells me that God is good, merciful, and trustworthy, even when I am a scoundrel or others betray me.

I would be very curious to know if you have sat down with the pastor or teacher at your parents' church and asked him about these specific stories and expressed your own doubts or skepticism about them? If you have, what did he say? If you haven't, then why not?

Best wishes to you and I hope this - which is just my own honest attempt to answer your honest and fair questions - has helped in some way.

I have all these excuses before, or similar but if this was so why has these snippets remained in the bible with no explainations?

I'm not claiming to be a theologian here, but here's what I learn from these stories:

Tom, you did good here.

I've gotten to the point I just get angry (God will be the judge of if its righteous or not), and mostly skip these type articles on NV.

You're a better Christian than I am Brother...

You're a better Christian than I am Brother...

I am very honored you say that, though I know that I'm really just an old sinner who is very grateful for God's grace. I'm quoting U2 a lot tonight, but I feel a lot like their song "God Part II" which says:

Don't believe the devil I don't believe his book But the truth is not the same Without the lies he made up

Don't believe in excess Success is to give Don't believe in riches But you should see where I live I...I believe in love

Don't believe in forced entry Don't believe in rape But every time she passes by Wild thoughts escape I don't believe in death row Skid row or the gangs Don't believe in the Uzi It just went off in my hand I...I believe in love

So, I'm working to get my behavior to line up with my beliefs, and I'd be honored if you keep me in your prayers, Brother. I got convicted tonight when I read this sobering Newsvine article by Matthew Brennan; Shut Up and Incarnate. It's intense, but there's a lot of love there. I could almost hear God talking to me on that one.

Babel Fish, my friend, you ask a good question:

why has these snippets remained in the bible with no explainations?

There are many good commentaries on the Bible that offer some similar thoughts - probably even much better than mine. The difference is that Christians consider the Bible to be a sacred and Holy text that should not be tampered with. So, the Bible will stay basically the same, but many authors, scholars, and theologians offer their interpretations of these texts in various commentaries and books.

I highly recommend anything by Wayne Grudem, John Piper, or RC Sproul, plus the classic Matthew Henry commentary on the Bible. The UK's own Terry Virgo is one of the world's best writers on the subject of Grace. And, I also am greatly inspired by the teaching of people such as Bishop Eddie Long, Ern Baxter, Bishop Wellington Boone, Derek Prince, Arthur Wallis, and many more.

I beg to differ on this point as I have read many versions of the bible, where as the mentioned snippets have not changed, but a great deal of other things such as the base of morality the ten commandments have been amended to suit religious sects.

But of course your view should be respected.

But I am still left with a question that is unanswered, my assumed answer would be there was an original translation problem and errors made by the original scribes. The the church rather create an hidden meaning to the snippet than amend the original text, as a statement saying there is no mistakes only misunderstood meanings.

Tiger,

Whatever my humble opinion is worth, I think you are a lot closer to the Kingdom of God than you may realize. I suspect that God not only loves you, but that He likes you and doesn't get upset at your questions.

I don't know if I am up to the challenge of giving your questions the kind of answers they deserve, but I will do my best:

How far does free will extend if God knows everything that is going to happen?

This is probably the toughest question of all of your questions. I believe that God is indeed Sovereign (omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent Ruler of all), but in His Sovereign and wise plan, He also allows us to make choices. While I do believe that He knows everything that will happen, I also believe His purpose is unfolding and still being revealed to us. He knows; we do not always. We're walking out some kind of destiny set before us, and at the same time, we are choosing that destiny in every thought and action. He knows what we will choose, but allows us to choose anyway.

Confusing? Sure it is. I don't always understand God, but I'm glad He understands me. "I don't know what tomorrow holds, but I know who holds tomorrow."

Then that absolves Elisha of any responsibility and places the blame solely on God. I still don't understand the reasoning for killing them all for insults.

This relates to your other question about free will. I wonder how prayer works sometimes. How is it that a Sovereign and wise and powerful God allows His own heart to be touched and moved by our prayers or our words? While He decides and knows what He will do, somewhere in the process, He sometimes allows us to play a part in what happens. So, Elisha did indeed speak a curse - apparently with the approval of God - and then God caused a very specific physical manifestation of that curse to happen.

Look, there's no way I can explain a man speaking and two bears suddenly attacking some kids. And, yes, it does seem a bit harsh. But, whenever I am tempted to ruthlessly mock a servant of God, I do admit that I am reminded of this story. I wonder if that was God's point.

God is supposedly the only one who knows the REAL reason for anything we do, and thus His reasons for doing whatever he wishes are above any sort of rational process. To me, that reeks of an elitist "don't question this or else!" mentality. If you're dealing with an inferior being, you need to make an attempt to be understood by them. "Because I said so" doesn't cut it.

Yes, God's perspective is higher than ours; but, as we walk with Him, He also will at times reveal His perfect will to us in some matters...He says, "I no longer call you servants, but friends." By the way, God does believe that He is God - He is actually superior. He's not arrogant, but He sure is confident of His position, LOL. That's what makes the life of Jesus, Son of God, so remarkable:

"Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, 6 who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, 7 but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross. 9 Therefore God also has highly exalted Him and given Him the name which is above every name, 10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven, and of those on earth, and of those under the earth, 11 and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." - Letter to the Philippians, chapter 2, from Apostle Paul

Your point #2:

God seems to be rather thin-skinned.

God is very gracious and merciful; His Name is cursed and slandered in America millions of times a day, but He continues to call out to the very ones who curse Him, and offers His love and grace to us. It is true that God calls people to worship Him and to be thankful. This is because God is highly relational; there is a certain reciprocity that occurs in a healthy relationship with God. People who are thankful to Him seem to hear His voice more clearly and understand His will more perfectly. Those who become ungrateful or who fail to acknowledge Him are "given over" to their own selfish passions and desires; it is very self-destructive. God's call for worship is not merely to stroke His own ego, but to help His creation to function more healthily in the way that He created it to function. Man was created by God to have fellowship with God.

Free will is either ours or its not. If God knows everything we have done, are doing, and will ever do, then life is pointless, especially if he plans to punish us for said acts. If He knows that down the line I'll kill someone, and that His punishment for that is bringing out a siberian tiger to maul me to death, then why not just do that now? Why have me stick around only to sin and then die?

God knows, but we do not always know. Tonight, a wonderful pastor in our city lost his wife in a traffic accident. His young daughter was also in the accident, and she is in critical condition. That's a tough situation to comprehend. This man, his wife, and his daughter are wonderful and genuine folks. His wife did so much good for so many people. I don't have the answer - certainly not one that would satisfy your own questions. "In every high and stormy gale, my anchor holds within the veil." I have an anchor of hope and faith that goes into an unseen realm; unseen by me, but not by God. I know this pastor; I know he believes the same thing. As I type this, I can only pray that his deep and strong faith in God will hold fast; but I know that even if this man were to let go, God will never let him go, but will instead wrap him in a loving and strong embrace that will comfort him and carry him through. I have seen this kind of covenantal faithfulness with God before and I believe we will see it again here.

Tigerblade, you're asking good questions. Many here, myself included, have done our best to give answers. My encouragement would be to not only ask a local pastor there about this, but to go straight to the Author of the Book and ask, "Why is this part of the story?" After you ask, stop and listen for a bit and see what He says. Then, tell us. And, I mean that sincerely.

What's an example from the bible of God giving an inordinate amount of judgment on someone? Every time horrible judgment is dealt by God to someone or some group, the reasons are given in great detail, and they always have sounded convincing to me.

So either you disagree with the reasons given by the bible for when God kills like a lion, or else you don't believe in the God of the bible at all, so there was no God to have done any of these things anyways, or you may for sake of argument say God exists, but say that the reasons given by him for killing are exaggerated or just plain made up. I'm guessing you're position is the first I listed, so I'm interested in an example. I'm not just here to refute you; though, that's probably more likely than not, lol. All we have here is opinions on the intellectual battle field, I don't know you in real life ;)

She became a pillar of salt because of natural physics! The effects were probably like a neutron bomb or something.

Um... just... wow. Just wow.

Please, for the sake of your own credibility, don't use sciencey words when you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. It's hilarious for us, but just plain embarrassing for you.

Neutron bomb = woman --> salt. Wow.

Anyway, now that we're past that piece of golden entertainment:

What's an example from the bible of God giving an inordinate amount of judgment on someone? Every time horrible judgment is dealt by God to someone or some group, the reasons are given in great detail, and they always have sounded convincing to me.

Hmmmm, turning back to look at your home that God just vaporized gets you instant death.

Never mind that she's already "FLEE"-ing. The woman turns back to glance at the holy maelstrom consuming her city and BOOM, death and salting.

As I said in a comment above, what God did is like this:
Dad: "Son, don't take that cookie." Son: "Why not?" Dad: "Because it's bad, and if you do, I'll have to punish you in some way that's not pleasant." *son takes cookie*
*dad lights son on fire*

Ah yes, that's the act of a good, merciful, loving dad.

Hey, who's got dibs on certain words, Mr. Smartypants? lol ... I take a casual approach to Newsvine, let me warn you ... as a matter of fact, I'm sitting here in my underwear eating chicken. Now that you know better ...

I don't recall your cookie example being in the bible, but if it was, that would be terrible indeed. As for Lot's wife, God didn't turn her into a pillar of salt. She did, for staying within the blast radius!

I apologize for not having researched neutron bombs enough before writing, haha.