Is God A Moral Monster?

[Whispered]

i didn't give you any ultimatums.
i listed facts and their logical conclusions, and i gave you advice: to wit, that you should say what you really mean; be real.
there's no such thing as an ultimatum from me to you; do what you want. you already do, with your free will. i can't 'or else' anything to you. that's nonsense. i'm a mere worm passing through your life for you to step on.

No, as we can read in what is posted and not able to be edited.

this whole thread is derailed from the OP's intent already & has been for 10 pages at least.
i was shocked to read you implying that you don't believe the scripture - i knew you were poor at interpreting it, but i thought all this time you believed it. addressing that is far more important than some pretense of decorum, because i happen to care for you.

I never once in my life have said outright nor implied I do not believe the scripture. That is your inference because you wish to misrepresent the truth so as to side track what was under discussion and make it about me needing to prove your fiction that you write about me, is wrong.

you're insulting my character without justification, ignoring the issue at hand.
i'm trying to draw out an honest response from you, which is for your own good.

I didn't insult your character, let us be clear, you did.

 

[Whispered]

you go ahead and check if i quote some book that was never in any canonized text.

Well, when you don't accept what scripture actually says, some choose to offer other accounts so as to make the point that what was said is affirmed by unbiased sources.

if any of your apocraphya contradicts Genesis you let me know when i should tear Genesis out of my printed Bible and what book to replace it with, OK? THX

♥

And there you go again. God help you.

 

[oldethennew]

what's going on here??? would you all care to explain or take the time to inform me, as I just got on board??
or, is this a 'private or individual discussion just between the two of you???

 

[Whispered]

• God did show them both great mercy. study Genesis 3.

• I did. Have you?
• Adam was not deceived - 1 Timothy 2:14 - not only did he have the capacity to match wits with Satan, but Satan didn't have the capacity to overcome him.
  Now let us see what 1st Timothy chapter 2 actually says.

13. For Adam was first formed, then Eve; 14 and Adam was not beguiled, but the woman being beguiled hath fallen into transgression: 15 but she shall be saved through her child-bearing, if they continue in faith and love and sanctification with sobriety.
You are inserting personal commentary into actual scripture. There is a difference between personal opinion of what a passage conveys, and what the passage actually says in writing.
Satan approached Eve and beguiled her. Adam did not encounter the serpent at all, so there is no matter of matching wits with that which did not occur. Adam did not have the intellect to match Satan because neither Adam nor Eve possessed the knowledge of good and evil, obedience and disobedience. That is why we're told Eve was beguiled.
That is how she could be beguiled. Because Satan was cunning.

• why would God with great patience endure the objects of His wrath? study Romans 9.

It's in Romans 9, the answer itself. Have you read it?
22 What if God, willing to show his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering vessels of wrath fitted unto destruction: 23 and that he might make known the riches of his glory upon vessels of mercy, which he afore prepared unto glory, 24 even us, whom he also called, not from the Jews only, but also from the Gentiles?

Here is a question for the TULIP faithful. Why would God not predestine the fall? So that all that is in verse 23 is past tense and necessitated His own sacrifice so as to reunite himself with his human creation.
Why didn't God forgive the first mistake? (All as pertains to what TULIP affirms, particularly the T)

 

[oldethennew]

wow wisp,
don't be 'dumb', if you don't even realize that all of what our Saviour does and is for 'our future'
and our 'best-interest', then, why are you even trying to make your 'own sense of your argument,
which, is absurd???

 

[tasha66]

I am no Bible expert - far from it.
I was taught that the 1st part - the old part - of the Bible was mainly history, and it details the emergence of the earth and man, and all of men's good & evil deeds. The new testament I think was written more after Jesus was on the earth, sent by God to preach to men about the error of their ways.
God gave us a conscience to do what we like. He intervened in men's situations millenia ago, but he will not intervene until Christ's 2nd coming. So we all have to rely on our man made justice system to protect us in this world. This is why when bad stuff happens, God doesn't intervene. I was also taught that we may never now God's true intentions, or why he did what he did from millenia ago.
This is my albeit basic understanding of the Bible anyway.
I have also seen documentaries that the Bible (which consists of 66 books), may have more books than that, and that some of these books are in the Vatican, which haven't been released to the public apparently.

I'm pretty appalled at the level of outright hatred, vindictiveness & peurile name calling on here. Angelo called Dibbey 'infantile' & 'dim' I think, and other insulting stuff (won't let me copy & paste the post here I'm wanting to for some reason).
I have a personal relationship with God. It's mine and nobody elses. He knows my faults and listens when I rant and rave.
If someone is a wee bit intellectually disabled, and can't understand the intricacies of the Bible, does that mean that they are infantile or dim? That their personal relationship with God is any less than anybody elses? That their love for other people is somehow less? Or that their relationship with God is lesser than your own personal relationship with God? I may not understand all of the Bible, but that doesn't stop my praying and asking for help.
We don't need to understand all of the Bible to have a personal relationship with God or Jesus - it's not necessary.

 

[PS]

It is the middle of the night here, I woke up dreaming about schizophrenics, Hitler and people who kill in the name of God. Scary stuff. We should not even be talking about it, never mind condoning/advocating it.

 

[tasha66]

Talking about trauma helps de-mystify it and also helps the victim. Talking gives the trauma less power every time the story is told, and diminishes it's power and hold over the victim. With other therapies, such as medication etc, this works for 99% of people. Talking is also like a confession of sorts: that's why the Catholic Church is so popular methinks.

 

[posthuman]

I never once in my life have said outright nor implied I do not believe the scripture

Sounds great!

But..

the divide in the church, which are the faithful in Christ, arrives when the indwelling Holy Spirit is veiled by one's belief in the Bible, rather than in God that preexisted that creation of man.

What is this if it isn't an unambiguous statement calling the Bible a "creation of man" and a clearly stated opinion that believing in the Bible is in opposition to belief in God, that believing it veils the mind, and creates division among believers?

Please explain what you meant?
Cuz you confusing me, saying things that seem to oppose each other. Thanks!

 

[Dibby53]

but what value is such an admission if one won't accept correction when it comes to them?

Indeed. We can all ask ourselves that question.

 

[Dibby53]

Your concept of "coherent" and "rational" must include "agrees with me". I have given you coherent and rational answers. You just don't like them.

No. Not at all. It's not that I don't like them. I just disagree with your opinions.

 

[Dino246]

No. Not at all. It's not that I don't like them. I just disagree with your opinions.

Fallacy: non sequitur. Your disagreement with my opinions has nothing to do with your claim that you have not received any coherent and rational answers.

 

[TooFastTurtle]

Dibby and company have you stopped to consider that in the New Testament God does the exact same things, and even on a larger scale? Read the book of Revelation.

If you cannot stomach the Torah, the New Testament is far too much for you. Not only does the New Testament reveal the horrors of the book of Revelation for the lost people, but we have other consequences to deal with:


Gal 5:19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
Gal 5:20 Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,
Gal 5:21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.

1Co 6:9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality,
1Co 6:10 nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
1Co 6:11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

Matt 10:28 And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell.

2Th 1:7 and to grant relief to you who are afflicted as well as to us, when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with his mighty angels
2Th 1:8 in flaming fire, inflicting vengeance on those who do not know God and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus.
2Th 1:9 They will suffer the punishment of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might,

Mat 25:46 And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”

The New Testament is not any different, you cannot turn it into some all-loving daddy in heaven who does not judge sin, a character who is not Holy, who does not require holiness, who does not rule, to men in these easy times we are living in its tough to admit truth. But I have found in my life that those who are self-deceived, are the hardest to persuade. Those who do wrong and say "I know what im doing is wrong" and do it anyway are more likely to repent, the door is left open to repentance because they admit what they are doing is wrong, as Jesus says in Revelation: "I have given them space to repent" meaning time to repent.

 

[Dibby53]

Fallacy: non sequitur. Your disagreement with my opinions has nothing to do with your claim that you have not received any coherent and rational answers.

No. You misrepresent me.

"Your concept of "coherent" and "rational" must include "agrees with me". I have given you coherent and rational answers. You just don't like them."

You are ascribing motives to me and reading things into my posts that are not true. That is not coherent or rational. I don't care that you don't agree with me. I do care when you ascribe bad motives to me that I do not have.

 

[Dibby53]

I am no Bible expert - far from it.
I was taught that the 1st part - the old part - of the Bible was mainly history, and it details the emergence of the earth and man, and all of men's good & evil deeds. The new testament I think was written more after Jesus was on the earth, sent by God to preach to men about the error of their ways.
God gave us a conscience to do what we like. He intervened in men's situations millenia ago, but he will not intervene until Christ's 2nd coming. So we all have to rely on our man made justice system to protect us in this world. This is why when bad stuff happens, God doesn't intervene. I was also taught that we may never now God's true intentions, or why he did what he did from millenia ago.
This is my albeit basic understanding of the Bible anyway.
I have also seen documentaries that the Bible (which consists of 66 books), may have more books than that, and that some of these books are in the Vatican, which haven't been released to the public apparently.

I'm pretty appalled at the level of outright hatred, vindictiveness & peurile name calling on here. Angelo called Dibbey 'infantile' & 'dim' I think, and other insulting stuff (won't let me copy & paste the post here I'm wanting to for some reason).
I have a personal relationship with God. It's mine and nobody elses. He knows my faults and listens when I rant and rave.
If someone is a wee bit intellectually disabled, and can't understand the intricacies of the Bible, does that mean that they are infantile or dim? That their personal relationship with God is any less than anybody elses? That their love for other people is somehow less? Or that their relationship with God is lesser than your own personal relationship with God? I may not understand all of the Bible, but that doesn't stop my praying and asking for help.
We don't need to understand all of the Bible to have a personal relationship with God or Jesus - it's not necessary.

Thankyou for your support. May God bless you.......and you Angela......mind you sometimes I am "infantile" and "dim" but hopefully there is alot more to me!

 

[Whispered]

Sounds great!

But..



What is this if it isn't an unambiguous statement calling the Bible a "creation of man" and a clearly stated opinion that believing in the Bible is in opposition to belief in God, that believing it veils the mind, and creates division among believers?

Please explain what you meant?
Cuz you confusing me, saying things that seem to oppose each other. Thanks!

Glad you excerpted that part. Where in that do I state I don't believe the Bible?
Looking forward to your pointing out that precise statement as you claim I made.

Realizing as you should of course that your choice of inference has not a thing to do with my statement.

 

[Whispered]

No. You misrepresent me.

"Your concept of "coherent" and "rational" must include "agrees with me". I have given you coherent and rational answers. You just don't like them."

You are ascribing motives to me and reading things into my posts that are not true. That is not coherent or rational. I don't care that you don't agree with me. I do care when you ascribe bad motives to me that I do not have.

Something I think may help you here brother. And perhaps others who have faced the same thing here, and repeatedly.

There are those who consistently put words in our mouth, sort of speak, when they quote something we've said. They then add their inference to our actual posting, which is to say, what they think we mean to say regardless of what is actually in print and that they quote as our actual post.

What they're doing is asking you to clarify their beliefs that have nothing to do with what you've actually said. Because they're not actually responding to what you actually said when they've posted what you actually said in quote form first.
It's the Straw-man fallacy. Quite common here. Just as there are those who regularly commit to the ad-hominim attack fallacy.

This might help you and others.

List of common fallacies ​

You don't need to take drugs to hallucinate; improper language can fill your world with phantoms and spooks of many kinds. -Robert A. Wilson

 

[Dino246]

No. You misrepresent me.

"Your concept of "coherent" and "rational" must include "agrees with me". I have given you coherent and rational answers. You just don't like them."

You are ascribing motives to me and reading things into my posts that are not true. That is not coherent or rational. I don't care that you don't agree with me. I do care when you ascribe bad motives to me that I do not have.

Actually, it is both coherent and rational. It is drawing conclusions based on available evidence. My conclusions may be incorrect, but that by itself does not make them either incoherent or irrational.

 

[posthuman]

Please explain what you meant?

Please explain what you meant?

Where in that do I state I don't believe the Bible?

Please explain what you meant?

Please explain what you meant?

Looking forward to your pointing out

Looking forward to your pointing out

Looking forward to your pointing out

yes, i am looking forward to your pointing out what you meant

 

[posthuman]

in re: Genesis 2 & 3

So you could exist and then he could kill you.

that is the lie Satan told Eve, And that the Hebrews also told at Meribah.

None of that is actually in Genesis.

study Genesis 3.

I have.

hooray! we should all study Genesis 3
how do you study? this is how i study: i ask all the obvious questions i can think of about what i am reading, and try to figure out the answers to them.

why did God ask Adam where he was?
did God not know? of course He did. so why ask a question that you already know the answer to?
what's God doing by that? what's taking place?
God asks four questions - are there any He doesn't already know the answer to?
what kind of setting do people only ask questions that they already know the answer to?