God is more evil than Satan the Devil

 Pages 1 2 3 NEXT
 

This is directed at Christians mainly :)

Okay so let's assume that the Bible, in general (the argument is not affected by what type of Christian you are e.g. Catholic, Protestant etc.), is correct in what it claims about reality. As you are going to see, even if this was true, it STILL would not be desirable to worship/serve God.

Here's why:

1) The Bible says that God created the possibility for moral evil to happen. The evidence for this is right at the start of the Bible;

Genesis 2:9:
In the fertile land, the Lord God grew every beautiful tree with edible fruit, and also he grew the tree of life in the middle of the garden and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

Source - http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=genesis%202&version=CEB

The scripture says that God planted the "tree of knowledge of good and evil" this means that God has the knowledge of evil and was able to bring evil into the world - and he did. In planting the tree it allowed for the possibility that humans would learn how to be evil and would be able to be evil.
Now even if you don't take Genesis literally i.e. you think that it is metaphorical, the metaphor still indicates that God, in some form, made it possible for humans to be evil.

So far so good?

2) Satan the Devil is in principle similar to God in the same way. At different points in the Bible the Devil intentionally creates situations in which it is possible for a person to be evil. For example, Satan tries to tempt Job and later Jesus to do something which is supposed to be immoral. At NO point in the Bible does Satan force someone to be evil or punish someone for being good, in fact after tempting Jesus, Satan just leaves!

3) So far we have established that, for this particular point on creating situations where it is possible for people to be evil, God and Satan are equal however this is not the case since God intends to punish Satan for creating such situations for people.

Revelation 20:10":
Then the devil, who had deceived them, was thrown into the lake of fire and sulfur, where the beast and the false prophet also were. There painful suffering will be inflicted upon them day and night, forever and always.

Source: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=revelation%2020&version=CEB

This is hypocritical of God since it means that God thinks that he should not be accountable for creating situations where it is possible for someone to be evil and yet thinks that it is MORALLY WRONG for Satan to do the EXACT SAME THING.

Conclusion: God must therefore be more morally corrupt than Satan.

Captcha: shaken not stirred XD LOL indeed!

You could argue that you believe that Satan is not real and is just metaphorical but this does not excuse God thinking he should be exempt from punishment for creating evil.

Thoughts?

I think it's a bit weak.

God actively told people not to fucking touch the tree.
Satan tries to get people to willingly commit evil acts through temptation.

You could argue that saying *don't touch it* is temptation, but it's not encouraging temptation or anything, it's saying "don't fucking do it". The devil was tempting people and saying *do it* to the evil acts.

Yeah, I realised this a few years back.

Satan didn't destroy 2 cities and flood the whole world for not liking him.

I'm not sure how accurate this is but it gets the point across.

image

Here is a tally of his kills.

http://dwindlinginunbelief.blogspot.co.uk/2010/04/drunk-with-blood-gods-killings-in-bible.html

Grand totals are shown below and at the end of the table.
Biblical number 2,476,636
Estimate 25 million

Drawde:

Zekksta:
I think it's a bit weak.

God actively told people not to fucking touch the tree.
Satan tries to get people to willingly commit evil acts through temptation.

You could argue that saying *don't touch it* is temptation, but it's not encouraging temptation or anything, it's saying "don't fucking do it". The devil was tempting people and saying *do it* to the evil acts.

You're right. I mean, how could God know that Adam and Eve would eat from the tree? It's not like he's omniscient or something.

/////

Didn't God create Satan?

No fucking idea.

Zekksta:

You could argue that saying *don't touch it* is temptation, but it's not encouraging temptation or anything, it's saying "don't fucking do it".

Yeah, I'm sure "Because I fucking said so" is a great way to justify your "rules".

Vegosiux:

Zekksta:

You could argue that saying *don't touch it* is temptation, but it's not encouraging temptation or anything, it's saying "don't fucking do it".

Yeah, I'm sure "Because I fucking said so" is a great way to justify your "rules".

I didn't say it was a good way to justify rules or anything. I said it wasn't actively encouraging temptation.

Unless God knew it would and that's why he said it I guess.

Zekksta:

Vegosiux:

Zekksta:

You could argue that saying *don't touch it* is temptation, but it's not encouraging temptation or anything, it's saying "don't fucking do it".

Yeah, I'm sure "Because I fucking said so" is a great way to justify your "rules".

I didn't say it was a good way to justify rules or anything. I said it wasn't actively encouraging temptation.

Unless God knew it would and that's why he said it I guess.

See, the paradox there is that...Adam and Eve couldn't have known they were doing anything wrong. They could not tell right from wrong. They didn't have the capacity to even understand why the tree was "don't touch". They couldn't even have known touching it regardless was "wrong" because they had no concept of "right" and "wrong" until after they touched the tree. In short:

1) Before they touched the tree, they didn't have the capacity to know or understand what's right and what's wrong.
2) Touching the tree was allegedly wrong.
3) Therefore, before touching the tree, Adam and Eve couldn't have known or understood that touching the tree was wrong.

And for even more fun...

1) Before they touched the tree, they didn't have the capacity to know or understand what's right and what's wrong.
2) Breaking rules is wrong.
3) Therefore, before touching the tree, Adam and Eve couldn't have known or understood that breaking the rule not to touch the tree was wrong.

For a perfect being, that "God" sure has some serious problems with logic.

The whole argument hinges on the biblical account being an accurate historical representation. Which is FAR less likely than the odds of a divine being existing at all.

Even among the heavily religious, the phenomenon of considering the bible to be literally word for word true is a recent thing. It was always before considered to be mostly allegory.

This is news?

According to the bible (supposedly written by god) women who aren't virgins when they marry should be stoned to death, yeah, real nice guy. Also, he flooded the planet, killing people in a horrific, gruesome manner to kill the nefulum (not sure about spelling) who weren't doing bad shit anyway. God also murdered people in Egypt if they didn't slap red paint on their doors...dafuq?

Vegosiux:

Zekksta:

Vegosiux:

Yeah, I'm sure "Because I fucking said so" is a great way to justify your "rules".

I didn't say it was a good way to justify rules or anything. I said it wasn't actively encouraging temptation.

Unless God knew it would and that's why he said it I guess.

See, the paradox there is that...Adam and Eve couldn't have known they were doing anything wrong. They could not tell good from bad. They didn't have the capacity to even understand why the tree was "don't touch". They couldn't even have known touching it regardless was "bad" because they had no concept of "good" and "bad" until after they touched the tree.

Well I don't think they were actively trying to be evil by eating a piece of fruit or anything, but the thing that created them explicitly told them not to.

Whether or not eating an apple is considered good or evil, or whether they even understood the concept of good or evil might not even be relevant.

They disobeyed a direct order. You know, I would have thought some forgiveness might be on the cards but apparently not.

I don't really have the expertise or knowledge to go further in this argument, I was just saying that while Gods policy might be a bit hypocritical, the situations presented in the OP are pretty different, so it's hard to draw a conclusion over a "who's the evilest" competition.

We got to keep an eye on this "god" fellow, he doesn't seem very trustworthy nor balanced.

Zekksta:

They disobeyed a direct order. You know, I would have thought some forgiveness might be on the cards but apparently not.

They disobeyed a direct order the same way a cat disobeys a direct order not to knock stuff off the table, not the way someone goes and robs a guy blind despite the rule is "thou shalt not steal".

A war of aggression is considered the ultimate war crime as it contains all the lesser evils and war crimes within itself.

Likewise I could see an argument for Yaweh being the ultimate evil as all the lesser evils are supposedly contained within his design.

Vegosiux:

Zekksta:

They disobeyed a direct order. You know, I would have thought some forgiveness might be on the cards but apparently not.

They disobeyed a direct order the same way a cat disobeys a direct order not to knock stuff off the table, not the way someone goes and robs a guy blind despite the rule is "thou shalt not steal".

Well I don't see the importance of an apple from a tree, but apparently within the story there must have been some.

I think it's more akin to "despite not knowing or understand why it's wrong, it's still wrong" than anything else.

God may be more evil then Satan the Devil, but is he more evil then Satan the Tyrannous Rex? That motherfucker is bad.

Yawn.

There's nothing wrong with examining the notion that the deity portrayed as God in the Bible could be evil. Personally, I find the Gnostic concept that the Biblical God is a demiurge, a false builder who misdirects people from the real true God fascinating.

But whenever someone makes a post like this where they arrogantly proclaim that their particular interpretation must be the only correct interpretation and must herald an overthrow of Christianity, it makes the whole argument reek of nothing more than baby's first theological discussion.

Religious behavior requires interpretation. There is always an enormous number of ways to interpret dogma. These arguments are thousands of years old. Many, many people before you have come up with the exact same arguments you're proposing, and many many believers before you have already reconciled the proposal with their interpretation of their beliefs. There's nothing wrong with questioning dogma and proposing interpretations, but you'll sound a lot less like some obnoxious kid in his parents' basement if you show a basic level of respect for the material under discussion.

That respect would entail:
1) Acknowledging that the interpretation of dogma most convenient for your argument may not be the only interpretation,
2) Phrasing your post as a request for information, rather than as a, smug "Take that!"
3) Incorrectly assuming your argument is unaffected by the denomination of the Christian.

Katatori-kun:
Yawn.

There's nothing wrong with examining the notion that the deity portrayed as God in the Bible could be evil. Personally, I find the Gnostic concept that the Biblical God is a demiurge, a false builder who misdirects people from the real true God fascinating.

But whenever someone makes a post like this where they arrogantly proclaim that their particular interpretation must be the only correct interpretation and must herald an overthrow of Christianity, it makes the whole argument reek of nothing more than baby's first theological discussion.

Religious behavior requires interpretation. There is always an enormous number of ways to interpret dogma. These arguments are thousands of years old. Many, many people before you have come up with the exact same arguments you're proposing, and many many believers before you have already reconciled the proposal with their interpretation of their beliefs. There's nothing wrong with questioning dogma and proposing interpretations, but you'll sound a lot less like some obnoxious kid in his parents' basement if you show a basic level of respect for the material under discussion.

That respect would entail:
1) Acknowledging that the interpretation of dogma most convenient for your argument may not be the only interpretation,
2) Phrasing your post as a request for information, rather than as a, smug "Take that!"
3) Incorrectly assuming your argument is unaffected by the denomination of the Christian.

So basically, if I'm understanding this correctly, while people use the bible as their poof that some sort of god exists, they also claim that it's heavily based into interpretation and that as-is a large chunk of it is most likely wrong, and that is in and of itself the reason why you refute this man's argument, as he has a lack of respect for material that Christians themselves have little respect for?

The fuq?

Also, @the op yeah the bible paints God as a gigantic troll.

Zekksta:
I think it's a bit weak.

God actively told people not to fucking touch the tree.
Satan tries to get people to willingly commit evil acts through temptation.

You could argue that saying *don't touch it* is temptation, but it's not encouraging temptation or anything, it's saying "don't fucking do it". The devil was tempting people and saying *do it* to the evil acts.

But hang on, Adam and Eve didn't know the difference between good and evil. If you give an order to people who don't know right from wrong, and you know that they're stupid, and they do the wrong thing, who is to blame ?

Consider the following scenario...

Parent leaves retarded children with a babysitter they know is a completely untrustworthy drug dealer. For a laugh the drug dealer gets the kids stoned, even though the parent told the kids not to take drugs. Who is to blame here ? The drug dealer ? Certainly. The parent ? Yes, them too, they took a stupid risk with their kids. The retarded children ? No, they have no knowledge of good or evil.

God knows everything, god bestows the gift of prophecy and can therefore see what is going to happen next. God has no excuses whatsoever.

Drawde:

Zekksta:
I think it's a bit weak.

God actively told people not to fucking touch the tree.
Satan tries to get people to willingly commit evil acts through temptation.

You could argue that saying *don't touch it* is temptation, but it's not encouraging temptation or anything, it's saying "don't fucking do it". The devil was tempting people and saying *do it* to the evil acts.

You're right. I mean, how could God know that Adam and Eve would eat from the tree? It's not like he's omniscient or something.

/////

Didn't God create Satan?

He did, and God allowed Satan to rebel, and allowed Satan to stay alive to corrupt and tempt human beings. Which to me is much more twisted than anything, the fact that God is allowing Satan to do his work to see who is "worthy" enough for heaven.

PlatonicRapist:

Zekksta:
I think it's a bit weak.

God actively told people not to fucking touch the tree.
Satan tries to get people to willingly commit evil acts through temptation.

You could argue that saying *don't touch it* is temptation, but it's not encouraging temptation or anything, it's saying "don't fucking do it". The devil was tempting people and saying *do it* to the evil acts.

But hang on, Adam and Eve didn't know the difference between good and evil. If you give an order to people who don't know right from wrong, and you know that they're stupid, and they do the wrong thing, who is to blame ?

Consider the following scenario...

Parent leaves retarded children with a babysitter they know is a completely untrustworthy drug dealer. For a laugh the drug dealer gets the kids stoned, even though the parent told the kids not to take drugs. Who is to blame here ? The drug dealer ? Certainly. The parent ? Yes, them too, they took a stupid risk with their kids. The retarded children ? No, they have no knowledge of good or evil.

God knows everything, god bestows the gift of prophecy and can therefore see what is going to happen next. God has no excuses whatsoever.

Well that's a very special analogy. If ignorance or a poor understanding mattered in these situations then people who don't understand why murder is wrong would get a free pass.

Whether or not they understood the concept of good or evil is irrelevant to the question anyway.

Zekksta:
I think it's a bit weak.

God actively told people not to fucking touch the tree.
Satan tries to get people to willingly commit evil acts through temptation.

You could argue that saying *don't touch it* is temptation, but it's not encouraging temptation or anything, it's saying "don't fucking do it". The devil was tempting people and saying *do it* to the evil acts.

Actually, I have to point out with insufferable smugness that there is really no indication that the snake in the garden of Eden has anything to do with Satan. From what we can gather in Genesis, it was just a snake, albeit very devious.

Of course, all this is moot, since we're only getting one side of the story in the Bible. That book is a big propaganda poster, and nobody should expect to get a fair view of the Adversary in it.

Zekksta:

Vegosiux:

Zekksta:

They disobeyed a direct order. You know, I would have thought some forgiveness might be on the cards but apparently not.

They disobeyed a direct order the same way a cat disobeys a direct order not to knock stuff off the table, not the way someone goes and robs a guy blind despite the rule is "thou shalt not steal".

Well I don't see the importance of an apple from a tree, but apparently within the story there must have been some.

I think it's more akin to "despite not knowing or understand why it's wrong, it's still wrong" than anything else.

When dealing with someone who doesn't understand why it is wrong but is capable of understanding, the appropriate response is to explain it to them before hand.

When dealing with someone who is not capable of understanding why something is wrong, like with the cat Vegosiux references, the appropriate response is to take measures to make relatively certain they don't have an opportunity to commit that action.

Elcarsh:

Zekksta:
I think it's a bit weak.

God actively told people not to fucking touch the tree.
Satan tries to get people to willingly commit evil acts through temptation.

You could argue that saying *don't touch it* is temptation, but it's not encouraging temptation or anything, it's saying "don't fucking do it". The devil was tempting people and saying *do it* to the evil acts.

Actually, I have to point out with insufferable smugness that there is really no indication that the snake in the garden of Eden has anything to do with Satan. From what we can gather in Genesis, it was just a snake, albeit very devious.

Of course, all this is moot, since we're only getting one side of the story in the Bible. That book is a big propaganda poster, and nobody should expect to get a fair view of the Adversary in it.

Yeah I know?

I've always thought the Bible does a really shitty job of making God look like the good guy and Satan like the bad guy, and if history is written by the victor, it makes me wonder just how different the truth would be. Perhaps in actuality God represents a totalitarian existence where complete obedience and servitude are demanded, while Satan is more liberal and relativistic than his holy counterpart and is closer to what the Western world would consider an adequate ruler.

nyttyn:
So basically, if I'm understanding this correctly,

You're not.

while people use the bible as their poof that some sort of god exists,

Some people use the Bible as their proof that some sort of God exists. These people would be what we would call fools.

Bible contains stories about a character called God. If those stories inspire someone to believe in that character, that's one thing. To say those stories are proof of that character's existence is as absurd as saying that stories of Santa Clause are proof of his existence. Thankfully, despite having been surrounded by Christians for most of my life, I've only heard someone try to make the argument that the Bible is proof of God only once or twice. Even most Christians I know readily acknowledge that proof of their concept of God does not exist- in fact, such proof existing would eliminate the need for faith and would in doing so eliminate the central pillar of most Christian dogmas.

they also claim that it's heavily based into interpretation and that as-is a large chunk of it is most likely wrong,

Some Christians may think that, but that has nothing to do with anything I wrote. The notion that any attempt to use the Bible to inform one's beliefs requires interpretation that equates to deciding parts of the Bible are wrong is an overly simplistic argument that we should really evolve past if we want to have an adult conversation. Sadly a lot of people don't want to have an adult conversation.

and that is in and of itself the reason why you refute this man's argument, as he has a lack of respect for material that Christians themselves have little respect for?

Nope, your attempt to parse my post has gone off into loony-land. I propose you read it again, and this time read the words that are written, not the words you want to have been written.

All I have to say is this
God created the tree for humans to choose to eat from if they wish. Satan didnt force them you are correct. Satans crime however was calling God a liar publicly to the universe. Saying that not only do humans not need him nobody does. Jehovah made a situation for everyone to choose to serve him if they didnt want to they no longer got his gift of eternal life. This is made evident due to the fact the everyone dies because of ADAM. Why is that relavent u ask it is because even though Eve was the first to eat the fruit Adam could have choosen not too and he would have still been prefect and all mankind would have been perfect. Since he choose knowing that what the snake said was false he choose to disobey Jehovah.
That little story your talking about is the whole reason for the bible if its not true then none of it is. That is why its important. Satan wasnt trying to hurt humans he doesnt really care about us he wanted everything including Angels to stop worshipping Jehovah. He wanted to prove that HE and nobody else needed Jehovah. So Jehovah gave him the chance to prove it. When it became clear that it wasnt going to work that is when Jesus came in. Jesus was needed to pay for what Adam did giving us the choice to follow god to recieve his gift at a later date or to choose to do what we want when we want for the payment of a quick brief life.

Endersgate1321:
All I have to say is this
God created the tree for humans to choose to eat from if they wish. Satan didnt force them you are correct. Satans crime however was calling God a liar publicly to the universe. Saying that not only do humans not need him nobody does. Jehovah made a situation for everyone to choose to serve him if they didnt want to they no longer got his gift of eternal life. This is made evident due to the fact the everyone dies because of ADAM. Why is that relavent u ask it is because even though Eve was the first to eat the fruit Adam could have choosen not too and he would have still been prefect and all mankind would have been perfect. Since he choose knowing that what the snake said was false he choose to disobey Jehovah.
That little story your talking about is the whole reason for the bible if its not true then none of it is. That is why its important. Satan wasnt trying to hurt humans he doesnt really care about us he wanted everything including Angels to stop worshipping Jehovah. He wanted to prove that HE and nobody else needed Jehovah. So Jehovah gave him the chance to prove it. When it became clear that it wasnt going to work that is when Jesus came in. Jesus was needed to pay for what Adam did giving us the choice to follow god to recieve his gift at a later date or to choose to do what we want when we want for the payment of a quick brief life.

Did you get that from Demon: The Fallen? Because that ain't in the Bible but it sounds damn familiar.

Anyway, you seem to believe that creating the possibility for evil is itself an evil act. Incorrect. While it is possible to be Good without the possibility for evil, it lacks any value because there is no recourse. For Humanity to be worthy of entering the Kingdom of God, we had to have the will to resist the temptation of Evil. If God wanted automatons forced to obey his will no matter what, he wouldn't have made beings capable of emotions or learning, he'd have just made machines.

Besides, if you believe the stories in the Bible are true, killing someone...isn't really that bad, given that when you die you're sent to your final judgment and given your earned reward or punishment. God kind of gets that whole 'kill them all and let God sort them out' thing, because oh yeah, he's actually God.

Satan, on the other hand, isn't about the possibility of evil, but driving people towards it, making it more enticing. And even then, that's not why he's damned. He's damned for a little incident, you may have heard of it, it was called the War in Heaven.

PrinceOfShapeir:

Anyway, you seem to believe that creating the possibility for evil is itself an evil act. Incorrect. While it is possible to be Good without the possibility for evil, it lacks any value because there is no recourse. For Humanity to be worthy of entering the Kingdom of God, we had to have the will to resist the temptation of Evil. If God wanted automatons forced to obey his will no matter what, he wouldn't have made beings capable of emotions or learning, he'd have just made machines.

Why would humanity even want to enter it? I mean...really. I don't go trough no door I ain't knowin' what's on the other side. Suuuure, he says it's a lovely place, but what if it's boring or he's just lying for lulz cause he can...I'd actually prefer oblivion.

Katatori-kun:
But whenever someone makes a post like this where they arrogantly proclaim that their particular interpretation must be the only correct interpretation and must herald an overthrow of Christianity, it makes the whole argument reek of nothing more than baby's first theological discussion.

The post is a direct conclusion of the only sacred text of Christianity. How can you claim it could be wrong or misinterpreted? Claim that without even contesting any particular citation or interpretation no less.

You can't be a Christian and ignore the whole bible, so unless the OP made up quotes, which I'm quite certain he didn't, you can't attack his point like that.

Katatori-kun:

Bible contains stories about a character called God. If those stories inspire someone to believe in that character, that's one thing. To say those stories are proof of that character's existence is as absurd as saying that stories of Santa Clause are proof of his existence. Thankfully, despite having been surrounded by Christians for most of my life, I've only heard someone try to make the argument that the Bible is proof of God only once or twice. Even most Christians I know readily acknowledge that proof of their concept of God does not exist- in fact, such proof existing would eliminate the need for faith and would in doing so eliminate the central pillar of most Christian dogmas.

Thank goodness at least we can agree there.

Some Christians may think that, but that has nothing to do with anything I wrote. The notion that any attempt to use the Bible to inform one's beliefs requires interpretation that equates to deciding parts of the Bible are wrong is an overly simplistic argument that we should really evolve past if we want to have an adult conversation. Sadly a lot of people don't want to have an adult conversation.

Religious behavior requires interpretation. There is always an enormous number of ways to interpret dogma. These arguments are thousands of years old. Many, many people before you have come up with the exact same arguments you're proposing, and many many believers before you have already reconciled the proposal with their interpretation of their beliefs.

I'm confused. In order to remotely even consider the possibility of Christians denouncing the accusation that God is evil (or indeed, more evil then Satan), they would quite literally have to declare parts of the bible as flat out wrong no matter how they interpret it. Such as Nahum 1:2.

The LORD is a jealous God, filled with vengeance and wrath. He takes revenge on all who oppose him and furiously destroys his enemies!

It's pretty hard to interpret that as any way other then "Worship me or I WILL SMITE YOU DOWN. I AM ALSO FULL OF WRATH."

Or one of my personal favorites, Kings 20:35-36

Meanwhile, the LORD instructed one of the group of prophets to say to another man, "Strike me!" But the man refused to strike the prophet. Then the prophet told him, "Because you have not obeyed the voice of the LORD, a lion will kill you as soon as you leave me." And sure enough, when he had gone, a lion attacked and killed him.

Once again, not only is it hilariously evil -we're talking saturday morning cartoon villan here-, but it's pretty hard to come up with a different interpretation when it flat out says "God told you to hit me, all the while he forbids violence (Genesis 9:6), but you didn't hit me, so a lion is going to kill you. (And then a lion killed him.)"

3) Incorrectly assuming your argument is unaffected by the denomination of the Christian.

It's really hard to pose a counterargument to "catch-22 god killing you with lions." Say what you will about Satan, he didn't catch-22 you with lions.

nyttyn:
I'm confused.

Indeed you are.

In order to remotely even consider the possibility of Christians denouncing the accusation that God is evil (or indeed, more evil then Satan), they would quite literally have to declare parts of the bible as flat out wrong no matter how they interpret it. Such as Nahum 1:2.

The LORD is a jealous God, filled with vengeance and wrath. He takes revenge on all who oppose him and furiously destroys his enemies!

Incorrect.

You've made the mistake of pulling lines out of context. Lines out of context are meaningless. The Bible is not a checklist of rules, it's a collection of documents. And each document needs to be comprehended as a whole in order to be interpreted.

It's pretty hard to interpret that as any way other then "Worship me or I WILL SMITE YOU DOWN. I AM ALSO FULL OF WRATH."

Perhaps it's hard for you. But then you don't seem to be interested in trying either.

3) Incorrectly assuming your argument is unaffected by the denomination of the Christian.

It's really hard to pose a counterargument to "catch-22 god killing you with lions." Say what you will about Satan, he didn't catch-22 you with lions.

And what does this have to do with your absurd claim that denominations are irrelevant to interpretation? Nothing.

LetalisK:
I've always thought the Bible does a really shitty job of making God look like the good guy and Satan like the bad guy, and if history is written by the victor, it makes me wonder just how different the truth would be. Perhaps in actuality God represents a totalitarian existence where complete obedience and servitude are demanded, while Satan is more liberal and relativistic than his holy counterpart and is closer to what the Western world would consider an adequate ruler.

Well Communism was sort of like that, I was reading a book on the history of it and many of the major Communists like Marx, Engels, Stalin etc. all came from incredibly religious families. The book traces their calls for totalitarianism and brutality as an extension of the Apocalypse mentality, that you have a goal and that the only way to achieve the goal is to purge non-believers and go through hardships to ultimately get to paradise but most importantly you have to stay faithful to the belief.

While that's a bit off topic, what I'm saying overall is that it probably did inspire the authoritarian governments you see today.

So... God can create the Universe in six days but he couldn't create a fence?

Divine Fail.

Katatori-kun:

Incorrect.

You've made the mistake of pulling lines out of context. Lines out of context are meaningless. The Bible is not a checklist of rules, it's a collection of documents. And each document needs to be comprehended as a whole in order to be interpreted.

There are lines upon lines of this type of shit in the bible. I only pulled out two because I did not feel the need to list every single instance of god being a douche in the bible.

It's pretty hard to interpret that as any way other then "Worship me or I WILL SMITE YOU DOWN. I AM ALSO FULL OF WRATH."

Perhaps it's hard for you. But then you don't seem to be interested in trying either.

It's hard for me to interpret it in any other way because that's literally what it says. You cannot misinterpret a statement. Please, give me another interpretation of a line that literally says "God's vengeful and obsessive."

Some of the bible is interpret-able.

Many parts, such as "stone men who are wearing beards to death," are not.

3) Incorrectly assuming your argument is unaffected by the denomination of the Christian.

It's really hard to pose a counterargument to "catch-22 god killing you with lions." Say what you will about Satan, he didn't catch-22 you with lions.

And what does this have to do with your absurd claim that denominations are irrelevant to interpretation? Nothing.

I'm not claiming denominations are irrelevant to interpretation, and I'm not sure how you got that idea.

I'm claiming denominations based on interpretation are worthless as a defense when there is plenty of blatant obvious evidence which does not require interpretation in the bible that god's a gigantic dick.

Or, in other words, you can make as many vague claims of "Oh such and such in the bible really means!" at the end of the day as you want, but God's still going to kill you with lions for not striking someone who claims God told you to strike.

nyttyn:

Katatori-kun:

Incorrect.

You've made the mistake of pulling lines out of context. Lines out of context are meaningless. The Bible is not a checklist of rules, it's a collection of documents. And each document needs to be comprehended as a whole in order to be interpreted.

There are lines upon lines of this type of shit in the bible. I only pulled out two because I did not feel the need to list every single instance of god being a douche in the bible.

You aren't comprehending. Pulling a line out of context is the error. It doesn't matter how many scandalous lines there are when the only cause of their scandal is that they are taken out of context.

It's pretty hard to interpret that as any way other then "Worship me or I WILL SMITE YOU DOWN. I AM ALSO FULL OF WRATH."

Perhaps it's hard for you. But then you don't seem to be interested in trying either.

It's hard for me to interpret it in any other way because that's literally what it says.

Funnily enough, you provided a "translation". That means you are factually mistake, that is not "literally" what it says. If you have to interpret for your audience, then by definition interpretation is taking place.

You cannot misinterpret a statement.

If you read that line in context, you would know it was not a statement. It is a line from a narrative.

I'm not claiming denominations are irrelevant to interpretation, and I'm not sure how you got that idea.

The comment in question was in direct reply to my criticism of the OP for claiming that the denomination of Christians was irrelevant to their smug little theory. If you did not oppose what I wrote, why did you quote it?

 Pages 1 2 3 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked