God is cruel

[I'mConvinced]

4 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

No the god of the OT is not a vengeful angry god.  i don't see that in the OT writings.  He is certainly just and there are consequences for our behaviours, but he is consistently loving and merciful, especially to those people with whom he has a covenant   Dont forget that, in the OT, gods covenat was only withe jews In the NT it is with all humans  

Perhaps you should read some more:

http://www.adamhamilton.org/blog/gods-violence-in-the-old-testament-the-problem/#.WmWyYqhl-Uk

Quote

 

The death penalty. There are numerous “crimes” for which God, through the Law of Moses, requires the death penalty. Among these are sacrificing to a god other than Yahweh (Exodus 22:20), persistent rebelliousness on the part of a child (Deuteronomy 21:18–21), a child who hits or curses his or her parents (Exodus 21:15 and 17), working on the Sabbath (Exodus 35:2), premarital sexual intercourse (Deuteronomy 22:13–21), and the requirement for a priest to burn his daughter alive if she became a prostitute (Leviticus 21:9).

God’s anger and wrath. In the Old Testament, God’s anger repeatedly burns against his people for their disobedience. At times, the punishment he dispenses seems particularly harsh, unjust, and disproportionate. Let’s consider just one example.

In 2 Samuel 24, we find that King David decided to take a census of the men of fighting age. The prophet Gad was sent to David to announce God’s displeasure with the taking of the census. The punishment for David’s sin: “The Lord sent a pestilence on Israel from that morning until the appointed time; and seventy thousand of the people died” (2 Samuel 24:15). David makes a decision that does not please God, and God kills 70,000 Israelites for it? How could this action ever be reconciled with a God of mercy, compassion, justice, and love?

Genocide in the name of God. I’ll mention one last category of scriptures related to the violence of God: those that describe the conquest of Canaan.  At the time the Israelites entered the land to conquer it, Canaan was populated with small city-states or kingdoms made up of various ethnic groups speaking similar languages. God promised Israel that he would give them this land, but to do so these people had to be displaced.

This is problematic enough, but God wasn’t asking the Israelites to forcibly relocate them to other lands. God instructed the Israelites to kill every man, woman, and child among these Canaanites. In Deuteronomy 20:16–18, Moses gives these instructions: “As for the towns of these peoples that the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance, you must not let anything that breathes remain alive. You shall annihilate them—the Hittites and the Amorites, the Canaanites and the Perizzites, the Hivites and the Jebusites—just as the Lord your God has commanded.”

The Hebrew word for “annihilate” has as its root herem (also transliterated as cherem or sometimes charam). The classic Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon notes the meaning of the word in English is “to exterminate.” It also has the sense of devoting something to God by completely destroying it. This is sometimes translated as “ban”—a word that in this context means “given to God by complete destruction.”

 

 

[Mr Walker]

5 hours ago, LightAngel said:

I agree.

However, we are the aliens, so we are the Gods.

While we can be gods, I am not sure  if, by definition, we can be aliens, on earth.

We could, of course, be aliens when we visited someone else's planet.  

[Mr Walker]

4 hours ago, Sherapy said:

Probably, most people, of course there are exceptions, but, regardless, of religious affiliation or a belief in god most tend towards finding value in experiences, using affect emotion to define a situation and then become transformed for the better due to life’s tougher moments which happen to us all at one time or another. 

The lady I just took care of who died in August didn’t use a god construct to face her death, she just faced it and welcomed it, it was a wonderful experience for all of us that knew her, thanks to her approach, same with my grandfather ( Athiest) he was happy to be moving on, he felt he had lived a good life. 

There is a code we follow in Hospice—that how the person embraces or doesn’t embrace their death is their right, it is their show and we let them play out how they see fit. 

My first live in job the lady was terrified to die, and resistant to any other approach to the idea of dieing, in retrospect, I think it was the first time in her life of 88 years that she acknowledged her emotions, she had been an alcoholic for most of her adult life, she numbed herself, except the last 8 months of her life she felt things, mainly fear, which is understandable because her dementia left her with no choice she had to feel, she couldn’t mask anymore. 

Her death, her show. 

 

Nothing to disagree with here.  Belief and faith come in many forms

They aren't essential at all but the y are a powerful healing and coping mechanism for many.   

There are other psychological coping strategies which can be taught  explicitly, or learned implicitly via life's experiences,  but faith and belief are so simple and effective that they are almost universal among humans, with less than 10% of modern humans saying they have NO form of spiritual faith or belief 

[Nostrodumbass]

On 1/20/2018 at 3:02 PM, I'mConvinced said:

If it is to be believed that God created the Heavens and the Earth, and all things, then I propose it is a sadist of the highest order.  Let us first imagine that we are Gods and we wished to create a new life form and environment for it to live in.  Our goal for this life form is for it to grow, evolve, learn and eventually become a part of our world once it has reached an appropriate level of development/understanding (join us in 'heaven').   So we start by creating a nursery (Earth) and all the things to support it (The universe).  If we now wanted our creation to succeed we would nurture it, provide it sustenance and a protective environment in which to grow and evolve.  Let us now look at what God actually did:

1. It made our environment particularly harsh, challenging and random.  Natural disasters, disease and plague, viruses, other predatory species to name but a few.

2. It created many, many different lifeforms and then destroyed almost all of them by hurling meteors and invoking massive climate change.  It did this sort of thing at least 5 times that we know of.  A bit like starting a new game of Civilisation.

3. It (supposedly) provided many different scraps of information regarding our purpose here without ever leaving any actual clear instruction.  It refuses to clear up this confusion even when we are killing ourselves in wars over it.  This isn't even something man could sort out for himself.

4. It created a world where you are more likely to die as a child than an adult and if so probably in a horrific way - war, starvation, disease, failed childbirth etc.

5. It refuses to provide any ongoing support for modern issues - heck, even Microsoft has better support for it's old OS's.

If God was benevolent and caring then I don't see the need for the above conditions to exist.  If however God was cruel (or at least indifferent to our suffering) and running an experiment, one in which it did not care for its subject but rather only the outcome, then it might make more sense.  If God didn't care then wars, plagues and all of the horrors on offer make much more sense - it wants life to be hard, to be a struggle, to end viciously for some and not for others.  It would explain the lack of fairness, the lack of care for those too young to even understand a concept of God let alone work towards knowing it before they die.

If you think God is a caring and loving God then what has lead you to this conclusion?  

 

The only way to think of God as loving and caring is to separate him (responsibility) from the bad things that permeate this existence in the following ways: 

1. Shift blame to humans.
2. Make it a test. (For the greater good etc.)
3. Make the truth 'spiritual'.(i.e. unreal and non-existent in a material sense, and thus pointless for objective debate).

These points can be used individually or together, and can make any believer sleep at night; Trust me I've used them all.

What got me in the end is a simple question: Where did I get any of these explanations?

My answer is: I have no religious concept that was not given me without (or purely from) human interference. If God cannot reveal himself to me without human interference then God becomes man-made and doesn't objectively exist. As simple as that. And if I choose to worship him, I will be indirectly worshiping whichever human had a role in my perception. Yes, I just said that!

If a religious person reads this and feels offended, just ask yourself what forms your understanding of God?....a book?....a preacher?....how you were raised?....your society?......a feeling?.....the convictions of my parents?.....the milieu in my country? 

Unlike the Matrix it seems we can, and need to be told what God is in order to form a concept of him/her/it/them. Its the only way we can know him/her/it/them. (the whole thread is full of believers telling us who and how God is and unbelievers disputing it)

[Mr Walker]

3 hours ago, I'mConvinced said:

Perhaps you should read some more:

http://www.adamhamilton.org/blog/gods-violence-in-the-old-testament-the-problem/#.WmWyYqhl-Uk

 

I've read and studied the bible many times with many different groups 

As i said, it is what you bring to the reading which determines how you perceive and judge the god described in the OT 

1. He created a perfect world for the first humans, with no death, no pain, no suffering.  

2. He outlined the very simple rules needed to be able to live in that paradise and what would happen if the rules were broken (like explaining what would hapen if you wlaked off a tall cliff) 

3. Every time he could have totally destroyed the world (which in the story was his to do with as he pleased)   in order to get rid of sin  he relented and gave humans another chance (and every time we let him down)

The OT was written by hebrew tribes, and in their creation account, god created a special covenant or relationship with them. He provided for, and protected them, in return for them worshipping and obeying him.   He stuck to his side of the deal even when the nation or individuals did not 

When he was  forced to prove that job worshipped him, not because of all the benefits god bestowed on job, but because job was a righteous man, he gave back all that he had taken away, two fold.  

You judge gods laws for people 4000 years ago by modern standards The death penalty still exists in some western countries and was only abolished in others within my life time  Historically peole approved of the death penalty and other "harsh" punishments for civil crimes so it is not surprising they wrote them into god's laws as well. Adultery  was a criminal offence when i was born and still is in idaho  

(indeed in 2015 you could still be gaoled for adultery in 16 American states)  Prostitution remains a civil criminal offence in many places) 

We've got a bit more lax with Sabbath breakers and obnoxious children for better or worse  

In other words, in our modern world (but often only in the very modern world, and not all of it,)  we have relaxed prohibitions on some forms of behaviour  and reduced penalties for others, yet still see them as civil crimes  

In the OT god was in a special relationship with the jews. In the OT narrative  he owed nothing to other humans  at that time (remember the OT was written by and for the Hebrew peoples)

We don't approve of genocide, but when you are small group, surrounded by enemies, and differentiated by your religious belief from them,  sometimes the only way to survive is to eliminate all the male members of your enemies and make slaves of the women and children Remember, the OT is an "historical"  account of how the jews saw their history and their  relationship with a living and powerful god. It is no worse, and perhaps more civilised, than the behaviours of the ancient greeks, the romans, (think what they did to carthage)  the meso americans, the vikings, huns, goths, and visi goths or the mongols.      

Edited January 22, 2018 by Mr Walker

[freetoroam]

10 minutes ago, Nostrodumbass said:

 (the whole thread is full of believers telling us who and how God is and unbelievers disputing it)

Tis true, but i am not disputing a god...as such, what comes before that, is i am disputing the man made idea which man is trying to tell us is there is one.

[Mr Walker]

13 minutes ago, Nostrodumbass said:

The only way to think of God as loving and caring is to separate him (responsibility) from the bad things that permeate this existence in the following ways: 

1. Shift blame to humans.
2. Make it a test. (For the greater good etc.)
3. Make the truth 'spiritual'.(i.e. unreal and non-existent in a material sense, and thus pointless for objective debate).

These points can be used individually or together, and can make any believer sleep at night; Trust me I've used them all.

What got me in the end is a simple question: Where did I get any of these explanations?

My answer is: I have no religious concept that was not given me without (or purely from) human interference. If God cannot reveal himself to me without human interference then God becomes man-made and doesn't objectively exist. As simple as that. And if I choose to worship him, I will be indirectly worshiping whichever human had a role in my perception. Yes, I just said that!

If a religious person reads this and feels offended, just ask yourself what forms your understanding of God?....a book?....a preacher?....how you were raised?....your society?......a feeling?.....the convictions of my parents?.....the milieu in my country? 

Unlike the Matrix it seems we can, and need to be told what God is in order to form a concept of him/her/it/them. Its the only way we can know him/her/it/them. (the whole thread is full of believers telling us who and how God is and unbelievers disputing it)

A life time of living with god has given me a very different perspective

A human can construct a god form in any way they desire, from totally loving and good, to totally evil and destructive 

I judge god from how it behaves, how it treats me, speaks to me, and deals with me.  

I built my understanding of god from observation, analysis, deduction, and experience over time. 

You are totally wrong  in your conclusion.

Studies across the world show that  even  before the y can speak, and even if they are the children of atheists, human children construct belief in the existence of magical agents.

As the y grow older, the y pick up more adult understandings for these agents according to the culture and or beliefs of those around them.

But  initial belief in "gods"  comes totally from a child's mind trying to reconcile what it can observe of its world, with its lack of knowledge and understanding about how the world works 

[Nostrodumbass]

2 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

A life time of living with god has given me a very different perspective

A human can construct a god form in any way they desire, from totally loving and good, to totally evil and destructive 

I judge god from how it behaves, how it treats me, speaks to me, and deals with me.  

I built my understanding of god from observation, analysis, deduction, and experience over time. 

You are totally wrong  in your conclusion.

Studies across the world show that  even  before the y can speak, and even if they are the children of atheists, human children construct belief in the existence of magical agents.

As the y grow older, the y pick up more adult understandings for these agents according to the culture and or beliefs of those around them.

But  initial belief in "gods"  comes totally from a child's mind trying to reconcile what it can observe of its world, with its lack of knowledge and understanding about how the world works 

Could I know God if you were not able to speak for him Mr. Walker?

If so, let HIM let me know and understand. 

No disrespect, but I think you mistake the human capacity to imagine with the existence of the imaginary. In view of that when you say I am totally wrong in my conclusion, I take it as confirmation of the common sense in my words.

[+Liquid Gardens]

6 hours ago, Aquila King said:

I'm curious as to your thoughts on something...

Do you think that perhaps the negative things that happen in life are in some sort of twisted way possibly a good thing? In that perhaps the lack of that which is good causes us to value the good even more?

I think that's possible, but the logic works just as well the other way: could it be that the positive things that happen are in a definitely twisted way possibly a bad thing?  That the lack of that which is bad causes us to suffer that much more profoundly from the bad?

Edited January 22, 2018 by Liquid Gardens

[I'mConvinced]

3 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

I've read and studied the bible many times with many different groups 

As i said, it is what you bring to the reading which determines how you perceive and judge the god described in the OT 

1. He created a perfect world for the first humans, with no death, no pain, no suffering.  

2. He outlined the very simple rules needed to be able to live in that paradise and what would happen if the rules were broken (like explaining what would hapen if you wlaked off a tall cliff) 

3. Every time he could have totally destroyed the world (which in the story was his to do with as he pleased)   in order to get rid of sin  he relented and gave humans another chance (and every time we let him down)

The OT was written by hebrew tribes, and in their creation account, god created a special covenant or relationship with them. He provided for, and protected them, in return for them worshipping and obeying him.   He stuck to his side of the deal even when the nation or individuals did not 

When he was  forced to prove that job worshipped him, not because of all the benefits god bestowed on job, but because job was a righteous man, he gave back all that he had taken away, two fold.  

You judge gods laws for people 4000 years ago by modern standards The death penalty still exists in some western countries and was only abolished in others within my life time  Historically peole approved of the death penalty and other "harsh" punishments for civil crimes so it is not surprising they wrote them into god's laws as well. Adultery  was a criminal offence when i was born and still is in idaho  

(indeed in 2015 you could still be gaoled for adultery in 16 American states)  Prostitution remains a civil criminal offence in many places) 

We've got a bit more lax with Sabbath breakers and obnoxious children for better or worse  

In other words, in our modern world (but often only in the very modern world, and not all of it,)  we have relaxed prohibitions on some forms of behaviour  and reduced penalties for others, yet still see them as civil crimes  

In the OT god was in a special relationship with the jews. In the OT narrative  he owed nothing to other humans  at that time (remember the OT was written by and for the Hebrew peoples)

We don't approve of genocide, but when you are small group, surrounded by enemies, and differentiated by your religious belief from them,  sometimes the only way to survive is to eliminate all the male members of your enemies and make slaves of the women and children Remember, the OT is an "historical"  account of how the jews saw their history and their  relationship with a living and powerful god. It is no worse, and perhaps more civilised, than the behaviours of the ancient greeks, the romans, (think what they did to carthage)  the meso americans, the vikings, huns, goths, and visi goths or the mongols.      

Did you just try to excuse God's actions by saying "it's cool, he was pally with the Jews so all that murder, persecution, vengeance and hate is justified?"

[Truthseeker007]

20 hours ago, Will Due said:

 

My head isn't in the Urantia Book, but what it says is very much at the heart of my soul.

 

 

It is not usually a good idea to base your whole reality off of one book. You can only see a very limited version of reality and possibilities from one book. Though a single book may have some truths to it and lessons but it doesn't mean the whole book is correct and could lead you off a cliff.

[Will Due]

26 minutes ago, Truthseeker007 said:

It is not usually a good idea to base your whole reality off of one book. You can only see a very limited version of reality and possibilities from one book. Though a single book may have some truths to it and lessons but it doesn't mean the whole book is correct and could lead you off a cliff.

 

When the truth confronts you, no matter where it appears, if you don't recognize it for what it is, you might eventually lead yourself off a cliff for ignoring it.

If the truth presents itself in one book like no other, then it's there to be used instead of prejudging and forsaking it.

 

 

[XenoFish]

2 minutes ago, Will Due said:

 

When the truth confronts you, no matter where it appears, if you don't recognize it for what it is, you might eventually lead yourself off a cliff for ignoring it.

If the truth presents itself in one book like no other, then it's there to be used instead of prejudging and forsaking it.

 

 

That's not 'truth' its a personal view point. The way you've chosen to see things, your subjective filter.

[Truthseeker007]

Just now, Will Due said:

 

When the truth confronts you, no matter where it appears, if you don't recognize it for what it is, you might eventually lead yourself off a cliff for ignoring it.

If the truth presents itself in one book like no other, then it's there to be used instead of prejudging and forsaking it.

 

 

It might be your truth but that don't mean it is the truth. That book may resonate with you like a Bible does to a Christian but it don't mean it is the actual truth. It is the reality you chose to experience for yourself.

[Will Due]

2 minutes ago, Truthseeker007 said:

It might be your truth but that don't mean it is the truth. That book may resonate with you like a Bible does to a Christian but it don't mean it is the actual truth. It is the reality you chose to experience for yourself.

 

If you're an honest seeker of truth, why would you not investigate something that comes along that reveals truth, even, and perhaps especially because, it does so in an "unusual" way?

Aren't you seeking the truth?

 

 

[jmccr8]

22 hours ago, Mr. Argon said:

Would you qualify it as "fake"?

I don't know that I would go so far as to call it fake as it does give guidelines that are beneficial to a society. The problem arises when it is seen as a whole and dismisses other aspects of living in a world that is far more complex socially.

Edit to add that I was speaking of religious texts like the bible the UB is a fiction with Christian based teachings that can be of benefit but I do not accept the alien premises as factual.

jmccr8 

Edited January 22, 2018 by jmccr8
spelling and context

[Will Due]

2 minutes ago, jmccr8 said:

I don't know that I would go so far as to call it fake as it does give guidelines that are beneficial to a society. The problem arises when it is seen as a whole and dismisses other aspects of living in a world that is far more complex socially.

jmccr8 

 

Having made life complex unnecessarily, due to many factors based on almost total societal confusion, wouldn't you think that we ought to have a condensed and simple explanation, all in one place like the Urantia Book, to provide the answers we need?

 

 

[Illyrius]

4 minutes ago, jmccr8 said:

I don't know that I would go so far as to call it fake as it does give guidelines that are beneficial to a society. The problem arises when it is seen as a whole and dismisses other aspects of living in a world that is far more complex socially.

jmccr8 

Well i have read a few pages only... and all i can say that it is pretty interesting material, this doesn't mean i see it as something really special, but that is only my perspective.

[Truthseeker007]

3 minutes ago, Will Due said:

 

If you're an honest seeker of truth, why would you not investigate something that comes along that reveals truth, even, and perhaps especially because, it does so in an "unusual" way?

Aren't you seeking the truth?

 

 

I already have investigated the Blue Book. To me it is pretty much a knock off of the Mormons with better explanations. Of coarse I am seeking the truth and I don't find much truth in the Urantia book. It is just another book that a religion can be created out of.

[XenoFish]

Nothing is true, everything is permitted, belief is a tool.

[Truthseeker007]

7 minutes ago, Will Due said:

 

Having made life complex unnecessarily, due to many factors based on almost total societal confusion, wouldn't you think that we ought to have a condensed and simple explanation, all in one place like the Urantia Book, to provide the answers we need?

 

 

If the book is inaccurate then what good would that do?

[Will Due]

Just now, Truthseeker007 said:

I already have investigated the Blue Book. To me it is pretty much a knock off of the Mormons with better explanations. Of coarse I am seeking the truth and I don't find much truth in the Urantia book. It is just another book that a religion can be created out of.

 

Then why isn't there an organized religion out there based on the Urantia Book? No guru or high preist. No buildings or congregations?

You see, what the UB says is for the benefit of the individual, those who are certain there is a purpose to seeking for the truth because the truth exists.

The step that must be taken, is to get beyond the idea that no matter what, everything or anything that presents truth is automatically regarded as fiction.

Seeking for truth (and finding it) is impossible if one insists that truth is always and can only be someone elses subjective experience.

 

 

[XenoFish]

Why isn't there a religious organization based around the Simon Necronomicon? 

[Will Due]

5 minutes ago, Truthseeker007 said:

If the book is inaccurate then what good would that do?

 

Well, likewise, what good would it do to be inaccurate that the UB is inaccurate when you haven't read it? All of it?

With an open mind, in the spirit of sincerely seeking for truth, with the attitude that the truth is real and can be found?

 

 

[Truthseeker007]

Just now, Will Due said:

 

Then why isn't there an organized religion out there based on the Urantia Book? No guru or high preist. No buildings or congregations?

You see, what the UB says is for the benefit of the individual, those who are certain there is a purpose to seeking for the truth because the truth exists.

The step that must be taken, is to get beyond the idea that no matter what, everything or anything that presents truth is automatically regarded as fiction.

Seeking for truth (and finding it) is impossible if one insists that truth is always and can only be someone elses subjective experience.

 

 

It seems you are surly trying to make a religion out of it. Where are your buddies William Sadler and Wilfred Kellogg? Where they not Seven Day Adventist?