Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

I am religious and believe in free will

71 (27.7%)

I am religious and do not believe in free will

10 (3.9%)

I am not religious and believe in free will

114 (44.5%)

I am not religious and do not believe in free will

61 (23.8%)

Total Members Voted: 251

[Vilanat]

I don't get it either. in fact, i think that Christians should have just dropped the OT altogether and saved themselves this annoying dissonance from the beginning.

[ChairmanPoo]

Marcionists argued that, actually

[Putnam]

Catharism was sorta like that, too.

[Harry Baldman]

It might that God isn't actually meant to be love, good or merciful, or even omniscient or omnipotent. Rather, that's just the words you use to flatter and appease him. Kind of like you would with an unstable king who could have you killed for any number of reasons at any time, except in this case the king does not need to obey the laws of physics to do so and also happens to be functionally immortal in your time scale.

Come to think of it, what if you read the Bible as a whole while assuming the above to be its purpose?

[Teneb]

It might that God isn't actually meant to be love, good or merciful, or even omniscient or omnipotent. Rather, that's just the words you use to flatter and appease him. Kind of like you would with an unstable king who could have you killed for any number of reasons at any time, except in this case the king does not need to obey the laws of physics to do so and also happens to be functionally immortal in your time scale.

Come to think of it, what if you read the Bible as a whole while assuming the above to be its purpose?

So... Kim Jong-Un?

[Putnam]

It might that God isn't actually meant to be love, good or merciful, or even omniscient or omnipotent. Rather, that's just the words you use to flatter and appease him. Kind of like you would with an unstable king who could have you killed for any number of reasons at any time, except in this case the king does not need to obey the laws of physics to do so and also happens to be functionally immortal in your time scale.

Come to think of it, what if you read the Bible as a whole while assuming the above to be its purpose?

are you saying that god is a wizard

[penguinofhonor]

After Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Judea, during the time of King Herod

[Rolan7]

Marcionists argued that, actually

So did the Cath- feck, ninja-Putnam!
Yeah, I like the Cathar take on things.  It *makes sense*.
(In a nutshell the OT God is Satan and ruler of the world and shit sucks, LIKE IT OBVIOUSLY DOES, but fortunately Jesus can help us escape instead of being reincarnated for another round.  You just have to adopt a clean path when you're about to die.  And some crazy people become clean when they *aren't* about to die, and they're the priest basically, and they have to be very fuckin careful until they die.  No killing, not even animals.)

And while I somehow still don't understand what "gnostic" means, the impression I've gotten is that they largely considered God to be separate from Jesus. *

Myself, I would say I have sympathy for the idea of a powerful divine dictator.  I mean, how enlightened can you get?
Not to be confused with progressive, ohhhh no.

But it doesn't matter what sounds good to me, I just wanted to point out the hypocrisy.

Edit:  The main reason people don't know what a gnostic is is probably because the Catholic church desperately murdered them all as heretics, starting with the Cathars, after trying to argue against them and failing

[Vilanat]

The marcionists didn't drop the OT, marcion just said the OT god was evil, which imply dualism and since christians are monotheists, it keeps almost the same dissonance - how can an ultimate god which preaches love and compassion create and allow the evil OT god? i personally think marcion was just too indoctrinated to completely throw away the OT. it was carved on his brain so early and deeply that he had to accept the OT as true, only through a different personal interpretation.

Getting back to your initial question Rolan7. come to think of it, i kinda tend to see the reason in the initial common christian argument you didn't like.

Liken it to raising a child. when you see your two years old kid about to stick a fork into the electric socket, most fathers would quickly and forcefully remove the kid's hand and shout at him. from the kid eyes, his dad is a schizophrenic monster that a second ago gave him food and now shouts at him and treat him badly. when he is six years old you can teach him the result of closing an electric circuit.

Same as the Israelites. maybe as a society they were too infantile to appreciate love and believe in god through understanding and faith, and were forced to believe in him and follow him through fear. as for the forced raping, pillaging and other stuff, well, can't always be sticks, gotta give some carrots here and there.

[Rolepgeek]

'You better beat the shit out of that kid, Bobby, or no ice cream with dinner tonight'

Whut

[Loud Whispers]

Better no ice cream than an electric baby

[Orange Wizard]

After Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Judea, during the time of King Herod

... yes, Herod Antipas. His Latin title was tetrarch, but that was translated to king for some reason.

...

christians are monotheists

Most (theologically-minded) Christians wouldn't call themselves monotheists because of the Trinity, which doesn't really qualify as either monotheistic or polytheistic.

[Loud Whispers]

There are two definitions of monotheist, one of them being the belief in one God and the other being the oneness of God. So I guess that makes Christians trinity-monotheists for having one God of threeness

[Frumple]

It'd be one or the other based mostly on how the believer thinks about it, really. A number of hindu groups largely have the same conceit as the trinity, and insofar as that goes most christians would definitely call them polytheist. Which would mean trinitarians are, too, assuming consistency means anything to 'em. _{Which, being fair (?), it usually doesn't.}

... that said, most theologically minded (and pretty much all of the rest of) christians I've met definitely call christianity monotheistic. If there's much divergence from that I've not noticed it. Trinitarianism isn't considered some kind of half-way state, just an odd form of monotheism.

[Rolan7]

Re:  The trinity being monotheism
I mean it's so simple rite
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQLfgaUoQCw