Yahweh: Benevolent God of Bloodthirsty Monster?

dnihila

Senior Member
Mar 29, 2007
2,336
61
48
✟17,803.00
Faith
Muslim
Marital Status
Private
Salam, Peace, Shalom to everyone,
I am wondering why do students keep on asking the questions after reading or seeing or hearing the lesson?
1. Were they absent minded during the lesson?
2. Were they ready to not understand the lesson?
3. Were they against the teacher, the book or the school itself?
4. Why do they attend the lesson in first place as long as they don't like it?
5. Why do they use the school books as long as they have their own books to be used as weapons? Are their books weak enough not to be used to challenge Holy Books?
6. Which is easier to those scholars: to tear a page from a book to hide an unpleasent truth? Or to write their own " Perfect Book"?
A reader is always a student who learns and never criticize as long as a particular book was his/her own choice.
Every student should:
choose the school, the class, the book. And prepare him/herself to be present minded
write comments, thoughts forward,backward and present , visions, questions, the lessons learned and conclusions.
Whenever you adapt and accept the thoughts of that book you might be able to criticize out of seeking more knowledge but not " the poor attempts of- and I mean of but not ( or) - putting the book down". Rules must be known for knowledge seekers.
To take the place of a critical thinker, reader or listener, anyone must show the piece of art they made or they had or they chose to give a chance to categorize the level of their interests in order to choose the right words that fits the issue.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

stonetoflesh

reformed librarie-keeper
Apr 20, 2004
2,810
52
Round Rock, TX
✟11,660.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I'm going to start this off by giving you a little challenge. I'd like you to justify just one of the innumerable evils committed by Yahweh in the Old Testament. In 2 Chronicles 21:14-20. I'll post the passages.
21:14 Behold, with a great plague will the LORD smite thy people, and thy children, and thy wives, and all thy goods: 21:15 And thou shalt have great sickness by disease of thy bowels, until thy bowels fall out by reason of the sickness day by day. 21:16 Moreover the LORD stirred up against Jehoram the spirit of the Philistines, and of the Arabians, that were near the Ethiopians: 21:17 And they came up into Judah, and brake into it, and carried away all the substance that was found in the king's house, and his sons also, and his wives; so that there was never a son left him, save Jehoahaz, the youngest of his sons. 21:18 And after all this the LORD smote him in his bowels with an incurable disease. 21:19 And it came to pass, that in process of time, after the end of two years, his bowels fell out by reason of his sickness: so he died of sore diseases. And his people made no burning for him, like the burning of his fathers. 21:20 Thirty and two years old was he when he began to reign, and he reigned in Jerusalem eight years, and departed without being desired. Howbeit they buried him in the city of David, but not in the sepulchres of the kings.

I agree with other comments that it is not for us to judge what the Lord does, but there's nothing wrong with asking questions. In this case, reading the rest of 2 Chr 21 reveals why the Lord struck down Jehoram:
6 He followed the ways of the kings of Israel, as the house of Ahab had done, for he married a daughter of Ahab. He did evil in the eyes of the LORD.

11 He had also built high places on the hills of Judah and had caused the people of Jerusalem to prostitute themselves and had led Judah astray.
There you have it: wickedness (the "Kings of Israel" weren't good guys), idolatry, leading the people astray, rebelling against God.

Question: if the Lord was truly a "bloodthirsty monster" would we see a passage like v.7?
7 Nevertheless, because of the covenant the LORD had made with David, the LORD was not willing to destroy the house of David. He had promised to maintain a lamp for him and his descendants forever.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Darkeonz

Newbie
Mar 15, 2011
156
3
40
✟7,801.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
It's pretty simple. The god of the bible is immoral. There's really nothing more to say. If your daughter or son didn't love you, would it be justification enough to torture them for an eternity in your basement? Of course not. Why would it okay for a god? It wouldn't. But religious people will say that god is above that and can do as he pleases. It makes no sense though. He puts these laws into place, but doesn't follow them himself. How does that make sense? How did he come up with those rules if he does not himself believe in them
 
Upvote 0

Lee52

Well-Known Member
Mar 11, 2011
1,951
79
Normal, Illinois
✟2,645.00
Faith
Wesleyan
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
It's pretty simple. The god of the bible is immoral. There's really nothing more to say. If your daughter or son didn't love you, would it be justification enough to torture them for an eternity in your basement? Of course not. Why would it okay for a god? It wouldn't. But religious people will say that god is above that and can do as he pleases. It makes no sense though. He puts these laws into place, but doesn't follow them himself. How does that make sense? How did he come up with those rules if he does not himself believe in them

Did you ever create anything in school art class? If you did, was it immoral of you to destroy it when its purpose had been fulfilled or it failed to fulfill the purpose for which you designed it?
 
Upvote 0

Darkeonz

Newbie
Mar 15, 2011
156
3
40
✟7,801.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Did you ever create anything in school art class? If you did, was it immoral of you to destroy it when its purpose had been fulfilled or it failed to fulfill the purpose for which you designed it?

If what I made was alive, and I had set up rules for it. Then yes. Remember, i'm not perfect, but god is perfect. He's omnipotent. He doesn't make errors. He knows the past and the future.
 
Upvote 0

Lee52

Well-Known Member
Mar 11, 2011
1,951
79
Normal, Illinois
✟2,645.00
Faith
Wesleyan
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
If you know what eternity holds for you, why would you choose to follow a road of destruction?

In your case, you are flirting with Christianity on this forum. The truth of God is posted several times a day in this forum, yet you choose to argue with it because it does not fit into your desires for your life in the here and now.

If you knew, beyond all doubt, that you were not following God's intended purpose for your life, what do you think the consequences should be?

Stop placing punishment and torture in the equation, and jut try to go with eternal separation from God's unconditional love.

I can choose to live my life in service to God and man, or in service to myself. Each has its own rewards and punishments throughout this life and the next. It is our choice which we seek to make more rewarding.

I can invest in instant gratification and spend everything I have on it now, or, I can invest in future stability and happiness by denying myself instant gratification now. I choose the investment strategy.

In return, God gives me a whole lot of contentment and core happiness in this life. Not a bad deal.

Be blessed,
Lee
 
Upvote 0

ephraimanesti

Senior Veteran
Nov 22, 2005
5,702
390
81
Seattle, WA
✟23,171.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Justify Yahweh's vicious murders.

"If one believes that God is monstrously vengeful, one will hear the images of apocalypse very differently than if one believes that God is compassionate, with a patience that is turned to our salvation. The latter is the God who spoke through the prophet Ezekiel, saying, "I HAVE NO PLEASURE IN THE DEATH OF THE WICKED, BUT THAT THE WICKED TURN FROM THEIR WAYS AND LIVE . . ." (Ezek. 33:11).

"But the first image of God is the easier interpretation, one that serves both Christian fundamentalists and atheists rather well. One can either assume that the Book of Revelation and similar Scriptural material is about God punishing those 'other people' while you yourself remain secure, or reject the whole story as infantile at best or sick and twisted at worst. BUT AS IS SO OFTEN THE CASE, WHAT COMES EASILY IS OF CONSIDERABLY LESS VALUE THAN THAT WHICH COMES HARD, EARNED OVER TIME AND WITH A STRUGGLE."
(from Amazing Grace by Kathleen Norris)

This quote and your demand for "explanations" both act to highlight the primary weakness of self-righteous "atheists"--an intellectual laziness, an unwillingness to struggle with the Truth, coupled with an ego-serving need to dismiss reality by denigrating and cavalierly dismissing its Creator--or, as Revelations puts it, by "hiding among the caves and rocks." (Rev. 6:15)

:bow:ABBA'S FOOL,
ephraim
 
Upvote 0

ephraimanesti

Senior Veteran
Nov 22, 2005
5,702
390
81
Seattle, WA
✟23,171.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Justify Yahweh's vicious murders.

Only an atheist would ask a believer to "justify God"--the Creator and Ruler of the Universe. God needs no "justification" and hubris is not a Christian strong suit.

ephraim
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

BleedingHeart

Well-Known Member
Feb 1, 2011
1,596
44
Grand Blanc, Michigan
✟2,049.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Only an atheist would ask a believer to "justify God"--the Creator and Ruler of the Universe. God needs no "justification" and hubris is not a Christian strong suit.

ephraim

Translation: My brother, I can't prove anything.
 
Upvote 0

ephraimanesti

Senior Veteran
Nov 22, 2005
5,702
390
81
Seattle, WA
✟23,171.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Translation: My brother, I can't prove anything.
MY BROTHER,

There is no need to "prove" the obvious. However, you are correct in that God-related Truths cannot be "proven" by one person to another, because they are "proved" true by experiencing them, not by the exercise of largely meaningless rhetoric. As Scripture states, "TASTE AND SEE THAT THE LORD IS GOOD" (Psalms 34:8) or, more colloquially, "THE PROOF IS IN THE PUDDING."

:bow:ABBA'S FOOL,
ephraim
 
Upvote 0

ephraimanesti

Senior Veteran
Nov 22, 2005
5,702
390
81
Seattle, WA
✟23,171.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
And no ability to prove the imaginary, apparently.

"Proving the imaginary" is strictly the domain of the benighted minority who hold that there is no God--those trying to prove, essentially, that the Universe accidentally and for no particular reason or purpose created itself out of nothing in an unknown manner. The situation is analogous to a man with his eyes tightly closed trying to convince his sighted friend standing beside him that the sunset the friend is enjoying and describing to him doesn't really exist because he can't see it.

:bow:ABBA'S FOOL,
ephraim
 
Upvote 0

BleedingHeart

Well-Known Member
Feb 1, 2011
1,596
44
Grand Blanc, Michigan
✟2,049.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
1."Proving the imaginary" is strictly the domain of the benighted minority who hold that there is no God--those trying to prove, essentially, that the Universe accidentally and for no particular reason or purpose created itself out of nothing in an unknown manner.

2.The situation is analogous to a man with his eyes tightly closed trying to convince his sighted friend standing beside him that the sunset the friend is enjoying and describing to him doesn't really exist because he can't see it.

:bow:ABBA'S FOOL,
ephraim
1. The burden of proof remains on those who make a claim of anything. Saying God exists does require proof, as much as you hate that fact.

"those trying to prove, essentially, that the Universe accidentally and for no particular reason or purpose created itself out of nothing in an unknown manner"
I don't think that. And for that matter, no atheists I've ever talked to has ever said that he thinks that. Nor or are we trying to prove it.
In order for atheist to think the universe "was an accident", we'd have to believe that there was a being that made a mistake while developing it. We don't. Once again, you are wrong.

2. Try to avoid analogies. Any idiot can make an analogy to present himself in a good light, not to mention they try to simplify rather complicated issues. For instance, I can say a better, and more accurate analogy would be that an atheist and theists are standing watching a sunset.
Theist: there's a giant man pushing it through the sky.
Atheist: Giant man? I don't see anything?
Theist: That's because you are blind to his giantness.
Atheist: But I can see.
Theist: You can, but you can't really, really see.
Atheist: Can you prove that he is there?
Theist: I don't have to because its obvious.
Atheist: Right....[walks away slowly]
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

ephraimanesti

Senior Veteran
Nov 22, 2005
5,702
390
81
Seattle, WA
✟23,171.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
1. The burden of proof remains on those who make a claim of anything. Saying God exists does require proof, as much as you hate that fact.
MY BROTHER,

Isn't saying that there is no God likewise making a claim and should it not likewise require proof?

If there are 10 people standing on the beach and 9 of them see a beautiful sunset and one of them, a blind man, sees nothing--upon whom does the burden of proof lie?

Those who have experienced God for themselves far outnumber those stuck in the cold of a godless darkness, for whatever reason, with no understanding and no personal experience of God's reality--upon whom does the burden of proof lie?

i have no need to prove God's existence because, having experienced Him for myself, i have no need of "proof"--the union has been made and the relationship realized. As i have done, so others must do for themselves--no one can "prove" God to another--all spiritual truths are experiential the other must prove for himself God's reality as i did. There are no shortcuts. i suggest you get on your knees and get to work.

:bow:ABBA'S FOOL,
ephraim
 
Upvote 0

BondiHarry

Newbie
Mar 29, 2011
1,715
94
✟9,913.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Constitution
It's pretty simple. The god of the bible is immoral. There's really nothing more to say. If your daughter or son didn't love you, would it be justification enough to torture them for an eternity in your basement? Of course not. Why would it okay for a god? It wouldn't. But religious people will say that god is above that and can do as he pleases. It makes no sense though. He puts these laws into place, but doesn't follow them himself. How does that make sense? How did he come up with those rules if he does not himself believe in them

God is holy, it is man who is immoral. The law is made for the unrighteous that they may know what sin (evil) is since men do an amazing job of rationalizing that their evil is not evil. God is under no moral obligation to preserve the lives of those who do evil. He actually demonstrates a patience that mortal man cannot fathom for not destroying the lot of us and being done with it. But not only does He not destroy us but He sent His only begotten son to die for our sins that we may yet be reconciled with Him.

Please understand the Bible chronicles a great deal of the evil of men. It also chronicles God's response to man's great evil be it the flood in Noah's day to putting entire tribes to the sword to telling men, since they would not do away with evils they created like slavery or divorce, how they should handle such evils. To man's perspective it may appear evil when 'innocent' people are killed directly or indirectly by God but then are any of us truly 'innocent' and keep in mind, those who have gained God's favor do not lose their lives but keep them in heaven where there is no suffering, no tears, no pain or any of the other challenges of our mortal lives.

You're raising objections that a more thorough reading of the Bible would likely show have no basis.
 
Upvote 0

BleedingHeart

Well-Known Member
Feb 1, 2011
1,596
44
Grand Blanc, Michigan
✟2,049.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
MY BROTHER,

Isn't saying that there is no God likewise making a claim and should it not likewise require proof?

If there are 10 people standing on the beach and 9 of them see a beautiful sunset and one of them, a blind man, sees nothing--upon whom does the burden of proof lie?

Those who have experienced God for themselves far outnumber those stuck in the cold of a godless darkness, for whatever reason, with no understanding and no personal experience of God's reality--upon whom does the burden of proof lie?

i have no need to prove God's existence because, having experienced Him for myself, i have no need of "proof"--the union has been made and the relationship realized. As i have done, so others must do for themselves--no one can "prove" God to another--all spiritual truths are experiential the other must prove for himself God's reality as i did. There are no shortcuts. i suggest you get on your knees and get to work.

:bow:ABBA'S FOOL,
ephraim

1. Gnostic atheism would, but I am not a gnostic atheist.
2. The burden of proof would not lie with anyone, since no one has made a claim. If a blind man says he doesn't/can't see the sun; that's not a claim, that's a statement of fact. If the blind man were to say there is absolutely no sun, then yes he would be required to prove it.
And didn't I tell you to stop with the analogies?

3. Based on the extremely condescending way you phrased the question, the burden of proof would lie with those claiming to have witnessed/seen/observed/experienced/whatever God or Jesus Christ or whatever. What you have to understand about the burden of proof is that it's not based on which side has more people on it; it's based on those making a strong claim.
4. "I have no need to prove God's existence". You do have a need if you care about whether you are right or wrong. The funny thing about you is that you offer "zero evidence" for your claims and then in other threads you say that atheists are in denial.
 
Upvote 0

ephraimanesti

Senior Veteran
Nov 22, 2005
5,702
390
81
Seattle, WA
✟23,171.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
"I have no need to prove God's existence". You do have a need if you care about whether you are right or wrong.

MY BROTHER,

You appear to miss the point--i HAVE PROVEN GOD'S REALITY BY EXPERIENCING HIM FOR MY SELF. God, from my personal knowledge and experience is alive, well, and very much in Love with each one of His children. End of story.

As far as proving that to you--can't be done. You can, however, experience it for yourself, thus proving it to yourself. There is no other way.

If i can use a very crude analogy: Suppose we are both virgins until i get married and have my first sexual experience. i come back and rave to you about how pleasurable the experience was. Your reply is, "Prove it." Can't be done--you have to experience it for yourself--after marriage, of course, with "the marriage bed undefiled", etc.

Soooooooo . . . . i got mine. Again, i suggest you stop trying to get others to do for you what only you can do for yourself, and get off your couch, get on your knees, and prove to yourself that "these things are true."

:bow:ABBA'S FOOL,
ephraim
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

BleedingHeart

Well-Known Member
Feb 1, 2011
1,596
44
Grand Blanc, Michigan
✟2,049.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
MY BROTHER,

You appear to miss the point--i HAVE PROVEN GOD'S REALITY BY EXPERIENCING HIM FOR MY SELF. God, from my personal knowledge and experience is alive, well, and very much in Love with each one of His children. End of story.

As far as proving that to you--can't be done. You can, however, experience it for yourself, thus proving it to yourself. There is no other way.

If i can use a very crude analogy: Suppose we are both virgins until i get married and have my first sexual experience. i come back and rave to you about how pleasurable the experience was.
:bow:ABBA'S FOOL,
ephraim
Now we're talkin'.
 
Upvote 0