Is God A Moral Monster?

[PennEd]

i just want to hear about nephilim from brother @PennEd thats all.

truth always matter

Can you narrow down your question a bit?

Most, if not all of this issue is laid out in the "Nephilim" thread, but if you have a question, and I'm able to answer, I'd be glad to.

 

[Hevosmies]

Atheists are moral monsters. Come tell me about morality after commiting the sin of abortion.

Lucky for us, these men are also spineless cowards who wont STEP UP in the real world, their place of dominion is youtube and the internet.

What I can say to all Christians here is: DONT BE ASHAMED of the Bible. Many times ive seen Christians get awkward when atheists present some 'controversial' verses to them.
Here is what I say: OH what verse you wanna talk about? OH LEVITICUS, I LOVE IT. I love that verse. WHATS NEXT?

 

[limmuwd]

MELACH:
are you saying they were nephilim then? those in samuel?


Yes.

Hey, we agree on something!

And there are the seed of the nephilim among us today.

 

[Whispered]

Here is a quote from a leading New Age Atheist.

The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.​

Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion

I have to hand it to Dick. He both encapsulated and authored his own atheistic pathology there.
And how perfect on the cover of a book no less. "Richard Dawkins, the God delusion" His self admitted pathology on the cover, and then detailed within.
(God) is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.

We should pray for a man who later after this book was published in 2006 claimed he was a "secular Christian".
2014 Atheist Richard Dawkins Says He's 'Secular Christian,' Embraces Biblical Ideas

 

[Nehemiah6]

We should pray for a man who later after this book was published in 2006 claimed he was a "secular Christian".

This is what the Nephilim would also claim (if they were around).

 

[Dibby53]

Here is a quote from a leading New Age Atheist.

The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.​

Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion

Due to confusion from other threads on this very issue. I will in detail speak on this issue.

Most Christians believe the Bible to be the Word of God. To be true. And God to have certain characteristics like all loving but also all just. This is the typical belief. And for the time being I will assume we do not need to go into Biblical evidence or on how we can know the Bible to be true. I will start with that conclusion that the Bible is 100% true.

So with this in mind it is intellectually honest for people to question scriptures that deal with the killing of woman, children, God causing miscarriages, or a raped woman is forced to marry the rapist, or even slavery is brought up by critics. Now remember we say the Bible is true and the Word of God.

I will list 1 example of each.

1 Samuel 15:2-3, 8 New International Version (NIV)

2 This is what the Lord Almighty says: ‘I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt.
3 Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.’”
8 He took Agag king of the Amalekites alive, and all his people he totally destroyed with the sword.

Numbers 5:21-22 New International Version (NIV)
21 here the priest is to put the woman under this curse—“may the Lord cause you to become a curse among your people when he makes your womb miscarry and your abdomen swell. 22 May this water that brings a curse enter your body so that your abdomen swells or your womb miscarries.”
“‘Then the woman is to say, “Amen. So be it.”

Deuteronomy 22:28-29 New International Version (NIV)
28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.

Exodus 21:20-21 New International Version (NIV)
20 “Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, 21 but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property.

Those verses will fill your church pews wont they?

I'll start with 1 Samuel 15.

Let us remember God is Holy. A Holy being is perfect. God cannot sin but is all good and loving. But being Holy he must be just because sin cannot dwell with God. Adam cursed all of mankind.

Romans 5:12 New International Version (NIV)
12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned—

Was the Amalekites innocent? In God's eyes no one is innocent in less you in the OT followed the ceremonial sacrifices or in the NT put faith in Christ who became the ultimate sacrifice.

This was a point in history, a season in history, where God is the immediate king of a people, Israel, different than the way he is the king over the church, which is from all the peoples of Israel and does not have a political, ethnic dimension to it.

With Joshua there was a political, ethnic dimension, God was immediate king, and he uses this people as his instrument to accomplish his judgment in the world at that time.

The Amalekites was heavily pagan and seeping so deep in demonic evil for a very long time and God patiently waited as he does with any nations judgement in the OT. Their time had ran out and when God decides to judge a nation he is Just for doing so.

When God takes life he isn't a murderer but is well within his resume as the creator of life. Dealing with the Amalekites, Saul failed to kill all as God commanded and the Amalekites just a couple of decades later, there were enough to take David and his men’s families captive (1 Samuel 30:1-2). After David and his men attacked the Amalekites and rescued their families, 400 Amalekites escaped.

If Saul had fulfilled what God had commanded him, this never would have occurred. Several hundred years later, a descendant of Agag, Haman, tried to have the entire Jewish people exterminated (see the book of Esther).

So, Saul’s incomplete obedience almost resulted in Israel’s destruction. God knew this would occur, so He ordered the extermination of the Amalekites ahead of time.

I will add in time 3 more explanations of the next 3 scriptures critics like to pick out. I'll post this first one. Feel free to add more details for the new in faith.

Hi again Roughsoul

It is simple for me. Yes. Any "god" who demands murder( even of babies) and commands a rapist to marry the one he raped is a moral monster. Period.

 

[limmuwd]

We actually look into this area of discussion and Biblical understanding of the nephilim and abortion here -

 

[Dino246]

Hi again Roughsoul

It is simple for me. Yes. Any "god" who demands murder( even of babies) and commands a rapist to marry the one he raped is a moral monster. Period.

So you have learned nothing from our interaction?

You have no basis to call anyone "moral" or "immoral" if your concept of morality isn't based on the nature of God. You only have your own opinion.

 

[JamOn]

Hmm interesting words between ḥāzaq and tāpas

 

[Roughsoul1991]

Hi again Roughsoul

It is simple for me. Yes. Any "god" who demands murder( even of babies) and commands a rapist to marry the one he raped is a moral monster. Period.

Then you must defend why is my defensive arguments wrong? Which part do you counter? Which verse is wrong or how do you interpret the verse?

I have so far only defended two of the scriptures.

 

[JamOn]

hmm yea proper translation is quite important

Deu 22 28/29
28If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; 29Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.

 

[Roughsoul1991]

I ca

hmm yea proper translation is quite important

Deu 22 28/29
28If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; 29Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.

I can see your intentions but I would suppose it would help to hear your own interpretation of these verses.

Because I see no difference in understanding.

 

[Dibby53]

So you have learned nothing from our interaction?

You have no basis to call anyone "moral" or "immoral" if your concept of morality isn't based on the nature of God. You only have your own opinion.

Thank goodness for that! At least I can reason and think about these things. "Love" is a word with a meaning. "Good" is a word with a meaning. "Moral" is a word with a meaning. These words cannot be twisted to mean anything we want them to mean. Epecially if we are doing so to protect biblical inerrancy. If these words can mean anything then they mean nothing; and are useless to describe God.

 

[JamOn]

I ca


I can see your intentions but I would suppose it would help to hear your own interpretation of these verses.

Because I see no difference in understanding.

From what I’ve there’s a census that the word rape wasn’t presented properly, here’s just one site I was reading.

https://cbmw.org/topics/sex/did-old-testament-law-force-a-woman-to-marry-her-rapist/

 

[JamOn]

Clip from the site, and of deu 22:28/29

One more detail: Unlike the previous two laws in vv. 23-29, this points out that the man and the woman were caught in the act. Whereas verses 25-27 refer to the man and the woman as separate persons, verses 28-29 refer to them as a unit. One Hebrew scholar sees this detail as another reason to believe vv. 28-29 did not describe a rape, but rather mutual consent

 

[JamOn]

I just look at most all the top translations and sure enough at the end of 28 they say this or similar

they are discovered

 

[Roughsoul1991]

Thank goodness for that! At least I can reason and think about these things. "Love" is a word with a meaning. "Good" is a word with a meaning. "Moral" is a word with a meaning. These words cannot be twisted to mean anything we want them to mean. Epecially if we are doing so to protect biblical inerrancy. If these words can mean anything then they mean nothing; and are useless to describe God.

Thank goodness for your opinion? Who defines love? You? The Bible? Only the New Testament?

What is Biblical inerrancy? Give a example?

 

[Roughsoul1991]

Clip from the site, and of deu 22:28/29

One more detail: Unlike the previous two laws in vv. 23-29, this points out that the man and the woman were caught in the act. Whereas verses 25-27 refer to the man and the woman as separate persons, verses 28-29 refer to them as a unit. One Hebrew scholar sees this detail as another reason to believe vv. 28-29 did not describe a rape, but rather mutual consent

Thanks. I will add this to my conclusion once I get the the time to post my defense on this verse.

 

[Dibby53]

Then you must defend why is my defensive arguments wrong? Which part do you counter? Which verse is wrong or how do you interpret the verse?

I have so far only defended two of the scriptures.

I think that christians who believe in " inerrancy and infallible" scriptures are forced to defend the indefensible to protect that idea of scripture. ( I must reiterate again, that this does not invalidate scripture). It is truly worrying that people who claim to be moral will defend: genocide, forced marriage, women as property, the killing of children etc. There maybe numerous interpretations for these scriptures ( Maimonides, the jewish philosopher wrote commentaries) but a simplitic, literalistic reading is probably only one way. My own view, at the moment, is that the writers of these scriptures were writing to justify their wars of conquest and atrocities. They were speaking from their own cultural context and in a time very different from ours. Their experience of God was very mixed and imperfect. That's why they can have a law saying, "Thou shalt do no murder" and then commit the most heinous murders.

If Jesus is the truest likeness of the Father, then we can see it clearly. LOVE your enemies. Do good to those who hate you......not slaughter them!

 

[oldethennew]

who cares what any 'new-age-idiot' says, thinks, does??? -
we who LOVE God, Who CREATED EVERYTHING 'care' only what HIS (((THOUGHTS ARE))) -

who can compare the created with The CREATOR, let's get REAL???

they always say, 'they don't CARE anymore, they only mock and scoff and nothing else...