Let's Read the Bible Once

[TrafficJam]

I don't recall any part of that story where it is alluded to that the couple killed instantly in that manner by god might go to heaven. It was quite clear they were just killed for trying to fool the apostle.
A bit like Lycaon, who got his sons killed and himself transformed into a wolf (lycos) due to trying to fool Zeus.

There no indication either way as to whether or not they went to heaven or hell. The only thing we can go on is what the Bible does say - those who put their trust in Christ for the forgiveness of their sins go to heaven; those who don't, don't.

So if killing a person will just send them to heaven or hell sooner than otherwise, you must have a pretty lax view of murder. Or is it different if God murders a person than when a human murders another person?

I'd say it's a little different for an omniscient God to ends someone's life than it would be for me to do so. God knows the outcome of their lives, so he knows if someone is going to accept or reject him. I don't, so for me to murder them is to deny them the opportunity to live their life and perhaps one day accept him.

Of course, that's not to say that it would be ok for me to kill a Christian since I already know they've accepted him.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

An extreme reaction from God, I suppose you could say, however, he knew their hearts and just decided to make an example out of them for his fledgling church.

So it's not petty, it was just a marketing campaign.

he knew their hearts [...] If they were believers, they just ended up going to heaven sonner than they would have otherwise. If they weren't, then they got to go the hell sooner.

If God knows our hearts, what use is life? If it is to act out on our free will, that raises a question.

People always talk about the importance of Free Will, so why weren't the wealthy couple granted this very important freedom?

God knows the outcome of their lives, so he knows if someone is going to accept or reject him.

Again, what possible use is this life on Earth?

 

[Lillefix]

I'd say it's a little different for an omniscient God to ends someone's life than it would be for me to do so. God knows the outcome of their lives, so he knows if someone is going to accept or reject him.

So it hasn't occurred to you that he might just be evil?

 

[civvver]

On the other hand, seeing the mind games intelligent people play to claim the Bible is completely consistent can be pretty fascinating. Like the whole "Judas hung himself and then the rope snapped and he got disemboweled." thing. And it gets better/weirder.

What flavor of Christian are you, Kat?

I think that's a mistranslation. I believe the more accurate translation is he threw himself headlong, which is to say he threw himself onto a spike or sharp rocks or something to commit suicide which would explain the disembowelment. Different version of the bible of full of stuff like that though.

 

[civvver]

MAking Satan God's practical joke on the rest of its creation.

Evil because of free will, but Satan can only be evil, therefore no free will. Not even the original sin thing can hide that one. But it was a smart move, putting that story at the beginning.

Yea but satan is an angel thrown out of heaven. I don't know if he has free will. That's what supposedly makes human beings special and made in god's image, is the free will thing and the ability to comprehend good and evil.

 

[TrafficJam]

People always talk about the importance of Free Will, so why weren't the wealthy couple granted this very important freedom?

They had the choice to either be truthful or lie. They chose the later and paid the consequences.

Again, what possible use is this life on Earth?

You're trying to reconcile the ability of man to make choices with the fact that God is omniscient. It's not any easy thing to understand - I certainly can't say I understand it completely. Free Will and Predestination are parallel lines that only meet in infinity. I doubt any of us will ever understand it on this side of life. The reconciliation of these two concepts makes sense to an infinite God, and so he has a meaningful purpose to life. We can't understand it, so it shouldn't really surprise us that we can't fuly comprehend his purpose of creating life. All we can do is act on what he's revealed to us.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

They had the choice to either be truthful or lie. They chose the later and paid the consequences.

That does not answer my question.

At least I hope not. Because the consequence would be that lying forfeits your Free Will. And I'm sure that's not what you meant.

You're trying to reconcile the ability of man to make choices with the fact that god is omniscient.

I'll stop you right there, since I was very careful not to.

I was comparing similar situations. On the one hand there is the very important Free Will, on the other hand there is the justification of the wealthy couple being denied that Free Will.

We can't understand it, so it shouldn't really surprise us that we can't fully comprehend his purpose of creating life.

I agree. And in that spirit I will take no one's word for anything God related.

All we can do is act on what he's revealed to us.

And when that is contradictory to our limited understanding what we actually got is a throw of the dice. If you mean for instance the Bible as being what's revealed to us. But since that also was created by those who have the same limited understanding as I have, I will not take it's word for it.

So I am left with what God has revealed to me, personally. And in that spirit I can only conclude that if there is a God, it is fine with me not believing in it. Since I have nothing to show for.

 

[TrafficJam]

So it hasn't occurred to you that he might just be evil?

It's evil for God to end the life of someone who doesn't and never will believe him? I guess you could come to that conclusion if you only take that one incident by itself. But again, bigger picture, maybe it's merciful. Maybe the person he decided to kill was going to be a mass murderer, but God ending his life prevented that. There's all kinds of scenarios that can play out - it's kinda presumptuous for us to categorically call him evil just because we have no way of seeing the entire picture of what he's doing.

 

[warpus]

So I am left with what God has revealed to me, personally. And in that spirit I can only conclude that if there is a God, it is fine with me not believing in it. Since I have nothing to show for.

But Ziggy, you won't see God until you want to see him. Since you're not convinced of his existence or his want to communicate with you, you will never get his message. As soon as you accept him you will have something to show for

It's evil for God to end the life of someone who doesn't and never will believe him? I guess you could come to that conclusion if you only take that one incident by itself. But again, bigger picture, maybe it's merciful. Maybe the person he decided to kill was going to be a mass murderer, but God ending his life prevented that. There's all kinds of scenarios that can play out - it's kinda presumptuous for us to categorically call him evil just because we have no way of seeing the entire picture of what he's doing.

But if that's the case you can't say he's good either. All you can say is: "Maybe he's good, maybe he's evil, we don't know"

You could look in the Bible and check whether God is evil there, but if God is truly evil.. of course he would tell us that he wasn't. So that wouldn't work.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

But Ziggy, you won't see God until you want to see him. Since you're not convinced of his existence or his want to communicate with you, you will never get his message. As soon as you accept him you will have something to show for

I have seen God, and wasn't she ironic. A little too ironic, I really do think.

 

[Borachio]

How come I find myself on the wrong side of this debate? Hmm.

Still, there seems to be a lot of strange notions flying about this thread at the moment. Let's see if I can add to them. Just for fun.

Because the scientific theories behind these phenomena make predictions both into the future and into the past and all the predictions check out.

Yes. But you see, the scientific theories presume that the processes we observe today continued at the same rate 6000 years ago. (And will continue to do so in the future - though this is besides the point.) What reason do we have for thinking that they continued at the same rate?

Evidence? Observation? Little things like that.

Well, yes. Precisely. But we have no observations from 6000 years ago. All we have are the observations that we make today.

 

[Kyriakos]

I wish people would stop using the terms "bible" and "god" as if they are something which has to be related.
The bible is not even a well-written book. I often heard the argument that god meant to present his message in a simple way, so as to reach the simplest of people too. He could have just made the simplest of people less simple so that his message could be more interesting to the rest. Or kill the rest.
Or stop his favorite ram on the way out of his cave, and complain to it that No-one blinded his only eye.

I think that even Polyphemus was less evil than the god of the old testament, and he even commited hubris himself against the gods he believed in. At least in the case of the Dodecatheon there was no sick idea of a deity which on the one hand destroys everyone it wants to, on the other keeps arguing it is the pinnacle of ethics. Such an act is far more reminiscent of a horrible parent.

If a deity exists, i am quite sure it would be something far more important and intelligent and complicated and inspiring and a source of knowledge and creativity and a siren which never stops its song towards the travelers who happen to pass through any of the straits where its likeness or moving statue still stands.

 

[TrafficJam]

That does not answer my question.

At least I hope not. Because the consequence would be that lying forfeits your Free Will. And I'm sure that's not what you meant.

I don't believe in Free Will in the first place, at least not in terms of us being able to do something and it completely taking God by surprise. God gives us the ability to make choices within the confines of his predetermined will. The wealthy couple (Ananias and Sapphira, if you care to know their names ) were not denied the opportunity to make whatever choice they wanted to. The fact taht God knew what choice they were going to make doesn't take away their responsibility for that choice, nor does it take away the consequences that followed as a result of that choice.

I'm not really trying to dodge your question, but I feel like I'm coming off that way. It's a hard concept to explain, so please forgive my uneloquent way of doing so.

If you mean for instance the Bible as being what's revealed to us. But since that also was created by those who have the same limited understanding as I have, I will not take it's word for it.

Well, that gets into the debate of who is the author of the Bible. You believe it was created by many different men. The Bible claims it was authored completely by God himself and simply penned by many different men.

 

[TrafficJam]

But if that's the case you can't say he's good either. All you can say is: "Maybe he's good, maybe he's evil, we don't know"

You could look in the Bible and check whether God is evil there, but if God is truly evil.. of course he would tell us that he wasn't. So that wouldn't work.

I tend to think an evil God wouldn't offer us a way of forgiveness after we had sinned against him. He would have just destroyed everything right then and there.

 

[warpus]

Yes. But you see, the scientific theories presume that the processes we observe today continued at the same rate 6000 years ago. (And will continue to do so in the future - though this is besides the point.) What reason do we have for thinking that they continued at the same rate?

Well, what reason do we have that they at any point occurred at a different rate? None. Zero. So we go with what we have. The theories we've formulated match the data we've collected so our assumptions appear to be sound.

If all of a sudden some of these processes sped up or slowed down, we'd have a reason to check that assumption. But we have virtually 0 reasons to do so, so why question it? Not to sound like a jerk, but you might as well assume that the world was created yesterday. Certain assumptions just have to be made, and unless we have some evidence to the contrary, this particular one seems to be a solid one.

Well, yes. Precisely. But we have no observations from 6000 years ago. All we have are the observations that we make today.

If you pooped on a carpet yesterday, I will see the stain today and would be able to get it DNA tested and without a shadow of a doubt confirm that you were the pooper, even if nobody was there to see you poop.

I tend to think an evil God wouldn't offer us a way of forgiveness after we had sinned against him. He would have just destroyed everything right then and there.

But now you're making assumptions and drawing conclusions about a God we're supposedly not able to understand due to our existence on this plain mortal plane. In the end I suppose assumptions are all you've got, but you don't really know, because God could after all be a sneaky bastard and we'd never know - why would he tell us? He could just be playing games. Who knows, right?

 

[timtofly]

Thats the translation consistent with the story, otherwise you get people claiming God created Heaven and Earth twice - "in the beginning" and later in the story when God actually creates Heaven and Earth. How do you explain that? Did God create Heaven and Earth in Gen 1:1 and again on the 2nd or 3rd days? I've seen people make that argument.

God didn't create anything in Gen 1:1 because we know from the very next verse (Gen 1:2) the Earth was void and formless (submerged by the deep, ie not dry land - you gotta look at how God defines these words, Earth is not this planet) and Heaven doesn't appear until after the 1st day. How do you get Heaven and Earth before the "Light" of creation and again after the Light?

If you read verse one as creating formless material, everything matter wise was created. The other verses just shows how God formed that matter. It does not make sense that God would create light if he is light. All he would have to do is use his light to interact with the material he created in verse 1. There are no second or third creations. The Hebrews did not use the exact same terms and words that we use today, and perhaps the way it was written did not confuse them at all. The word create only appears once. It is the lost in translation that throws people off, but it should not.

The word made in verse 16 does not mean create, it is closer to the meaning prepare that Young "misused" in verse 1. Why would you take a Hebrew word from verse 16 and apply it to verse 1? God began with unformed matter in verse 1. He then went about using that matter as earth to form the earth. Later he used the matter at their locations in the universe and called them stars and planets/moons.

Earth wasn't that small 6000 years ago. And according to Wikipedia's article on Pangaea,
Since humans were not around 200 million years ago, they couldn't have lived when "the pangaea shape" existed.


Are you saying there were perfect humans who were not "fallen" (ie. had not sinned, which is my understanding of this; enlighten me if I've misunderstood the term), and those are the ones God allowed to drown? If God drowns perfect people, what incentive would anyone else have to improve themselves?


So all this took just 1000 days, or just under 3 years?



I'd love to see the links to reputable sources for this - peer-reviewed by paleontologists, geologists, physical anthropologists, etc.


Since the Sun is going to expand into a red giant some day and swallow up the inner Solar System (likely including Earth, if we're not vaporized first), I have to agree with this.


I tried looking up that word on dictionary.com. The site never heard of it.


Evidence? Observation? Little things like that.


Sorta like me starting a game of Test of Time, not liking my starting position, and instead of playing it through, just rebooting and starting over...

I meant revolutions around the sun, did not mean to mislead any one.

We know that the universe is expanding. We know the sun is expanding. Why would the earth not expand also? To keep gravitational masses equal and to keep the earth at the most efficient relation to the sun to sustain life, saying the earth is expanding is not that far fetched. If a planet absorbed huge meteors at varies extinction level events, it is not out of question that the mass from those objects would be added to the earth. I would like to see how the ocean seams would be re-written to show how the plates rotate. According to the data, the seams expanded from the position they have always been in.

 

[TrafficJam]

I think that even Polyphemus was less evil than the god of the old testament, ... a deity which on the one hand destroys everyone it wants to, on the other keeps arguing it is the pinnacle of ethics. Such an act is far more reminiscent of a horrible parent.

God in the OT was very much a God of law. But according to the NT, the law is meant as a way to show us that we are incapable of keeping all of the law - it makes us all sinners. And the Bible, both OT and NT, is all about God's plan to reconcile sinners so they can forgiven of their sins.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Well, yes. Precisely. But we have no observations from 6000 years ago. All we have are the observations that we make today.

Carbon-14 dating, K-Ar dating, tree-ring dating, varve dating, other ways of gathering samples (ie. drilling through the ice to find out what the climate was like in the past, and see what lifeforms may be trapped in glacial ice), using advanced imaging systems to see what's beneath the Earth's surface...

And every time you look through a telescope, you're looking back in time. On an astronomical scale, 6000 years is trifling.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

I'm not really trying to dodge your question, but I feel like I'm coming off that way. It's a hard concept to explain, so please forgive my ineloquent way of doing so.

Oh sure, it's a little complex. I'm still not convinced by your answer, but I'll drop it since on my side it's difficult to convey my issue with the couple and the concept of Free Will as well.

Well, that gets into the debate of who is the author of the Bible. You believe it was created by many different men. The Bible claims it was authored completely by God himself and simply penned by many different men.

Isn't "Inspired" the correct term? I am sure it wasn't dictated by God, and thus suspect of all human limitations. Which is why I feel a literal or historical interpretation would be further of the mark than interpreting the spirit of the Bible. Which of course also isn't exact science, so there will be disagreements.

And what reasons do I have to believe one interpretation, and not another? Indeed, personal ones. Those that coincide with my own personal experiences. Even though I also cannot trust my own judgements on the matter. In this case my judgement is that God does not exist. Any other conclusion on my part would be dishonest. And as I said before, I don't think God wants me to be dishonest, and I cannot be honest in believing in him.

So what choice do I have?

 

[TrafficJam]

But now you're making assumptions and drawing conclusions about a God we're supposedly not able to understand due to our existence on this plain mortal plane. In the end I suppose assumptions are all you've got, but you don't really know, because God could after all be a sneaky bastard and we'd never know - why would he tell us? He could just be playing games. Who knows, right?

I see your point. I don't think it's an assumption, though, to think that an evil God would not offer himself (working under the belief that Jesus is God) as a sacrifice in order to offer us salvation. If he was just playing games, he would have just made a bunch of unrelated rules that we have to follow to get to heaven. But he didn't. He offered himself as a payment for our sins - a measure of justice that an evil God would have no interest in.