God is perfect

[Stevil]

Ever had a discussion with a Christian who tells you that you are taking stories from the bible "out of context".
You might cite passages where god slaughters humans in imaginative and interesting ways e.g. setting two she bears onto children or flooding the earth etc. It is not hard to find such references in the Christian god's own inspired, perfect book.

The Christian will state that you need to take the action or passage "in context" with the whole book.

So you might be wondering to yourself how can murdering children for something as trivial as calling a bald man names be put into context? How can this be possible? Is the person I am having discussions with completely mad?

For an atheist the flood story, where the earth was intentionally flooded in order to kill almost everyone, would be a much greater "evil" act than the atrocities dished out by Hitler's Nazi regime. Would you entertain the thought, if a person told you that you were taking the Holocaust out of context and that you ought to read Mein Kampf in order to understand how perfect and loving Hitler was? That Hitler is love and that the killing of Jews was perfectly justified and perfectly necessary.

I have no doubt that if I read the bible end to end that I will find myself, highlighter in hand, marking out all the atrocities, the contradictions, the "evil" actions carried out by the "evil Christian god, his "evil" army of angels and his "evil" earthly Christian companions (Abram, Moses, Jesus etc)

How can I know this? How can I know that reading the bible would not put the Christian god's plan perfectly into context for me. The key to me is reading posts made by the likes of Gawen, TheJackle, Kevin Crady etc. These people appear to know the bible inside out. They have read it and obviously have taken a great deal of time to study it and understand it. They are all self professed ex-warriors of God. And yet, they see the bible and its atrocities, contradictions, "evil" actions carried out by the "evil Christian god, his "evil" army of angels and his "evil" earthly Christian companions.

But I am sure a Christian would make out that these people are not reading the Bible in the correct context.

The correct context of course is that God is perfect and all loving and that humans are flawed and limited.
If read in that context then you are properly understanding the bible correctly.
The all perfect and loving god set two she bears upon 42 children because that was the perfect and loving thing to do. It truly was. It is unfortunate that the bible doesn't go on to show how this was a perfect and loving act, but that doesn't lessen the understanding that this was indeed a perfect and loving act carried out by a perfect and loving god incapable of evil or sin or unjustness. In that context an explanation would be unnecessary. A limited and flawed human cannot judge god, possibly cannot even understand the perfection of god's plan. God is after all the creator and the judge at the end of days. Perfect justice will be dispensed under a perfect god's gaze, eternity will be perfect, of that there is no doubt.

Will reading the bible allow a person to know that God is perfect and all loving?

Not as far as I have been lead to believe, this must be taken as a priori. You must read the bible in that context, it is only when you believe this priori and know it to be true that you can see the bible absolutely substantiates its own priori (doesn't that sound circular?), everything in the bible thus shows how perfect the Christian god is.

So how does a person come to believe in the priori that the Christian god is perfect and loving?
And how are these reasons to believe in the priori more compelling from the priori that the Muslim god is perfect and loving, or the Jewish god, or the Roman gods or the Maori gods?

[Gawen]

Superb post Stevil!! Allow me to comment...

Ever had a discussion with a Christian who tells you that you are taking stories from the bible "out of context".

I've had atheists tell me I read it out of context!...*laffin*

The Christian will state that you need to take the action or passage "in context" with the whole book.

Well, I've never heard that before. It was always to take the context within the story, because there's an awful lot of stories. However, there is a great big discrepancy there. How does one take a multitude of stories with different contexts and meld it into the entire book? Near impossible.

So you might be wondering to yourself how can murdering children for something as trivial as calling a bald man names be put into context? How can this be possible? Is the person I am having discussions with completely mad?

I hate to say it, but yes, depending upon their fervor, in a way they are mad.

For an atheist the flood story, where the earth was intentionally flooded in order to kill almost everyone, would be a much greater "evil" act than the atrocities dished out by Hitler's Nazi regime. Would you entertain the thought, if a person told you that you were taking the Holocaust out of context and that you ought to read Mein Kampf in order to understand how perfect and loving Hitler was? That Hitler is love and that the killing of Jews was perfectly justified and perfectly necessary.

I was once told that if I hadn't read Mein Kampf, I had no say in Nazi policy, politics, etc. I have been told several times over the years the same for the Bible and Christianity.

I have no doubt that if I read the bible end to end that I will find myself, highlighter in hand, marking out all the atrocities, the contradictions, the "evil" actions carried out by the "evil Christian god, his "evil" army of angels and his "evil" earthly Christian companions (Abram, Moses, Jesus etc)

Luckily for us, that has already been done.

How can I know this? How can I know that reading the bible would not put the Christian god's plan perfectly into context for me.

Ain't that just the biggest kicker of them all? If it was a perfect plan and put in perfect context within a perfect book, why is it that there are so many "perfect" denominations of imperfect Christians?

The key to me is reading posts made by the likes of Gawen, TheJackle, Kevin Crady etc. These people appear to know the bible inside out. They have read it and obviously have taken a great deal of time to study it and understand it. They are all self professed ex-warriors of God. And yet, they see the bible and its atrocities, contradictions, "evil" actions carried out by the "evil Christian god, his "evil" army of angels and his "evil" earthly Christian companions.

I will take that as an extreme compliment. I bow to you! However, for me only, I have never believed.

But I am sure a Christian would make out that these people are not reading the Bible in the correct context.

You would be correct. Also, many Christians would attach the "Satan's inya!" comment as well.

The correct context of course is that God is perfect and all loving and that humans are flawed and limited.
If read in that context then you are properly understanding the bible correctly.[/size]

That goes along with the "Ain't that just the biggest kicker of them all? If it was a perfect plan and put in perfect context within a perfect book, why is it that there are so many "perfect" denominations of imperfect Christians?" I made above.

The all perfect and loving god set two she bears upon 42 children because that was the perfect and loving thing to do. It truly was. It is unfortunate that the bible doesn't go on to show how this was a perfect and loving act, but that doesn't lessen the understanding that this was indeed a perfect and loving act carried out by a perfect and loving god incapable of evil or sin or unjustness. In that context an explanation would be unnecessary. A limited and flawed human cannot judge god, possibly cannot even understand the perfection of god's plan.

Precisely. I'll never understand how sheep can understand the Shepherd's perfect plan.

God is after all the creator and the judge at the end of days. Perfect justice will be dispensed under a perfect god's gaze, eternity will be perfect, of that there is no doubt.

Of course, many Christians take that out of context...*chucklin*

Will reading the bible allow a person to know that God is perfect and all loving? Not as far as I have been lead to believe, this must be taken as a priori. You must read the bible in that context, it is only when you believe this priori and know it to be true that you can see the bible absolutely substantiates its own priori (doesn't that sound circular?), everything in the bible thus shows how perfect the Christian god is.

It's quite disgusting isn't it?

So how does a person come to believe in the priori that the Christian god is perfect and loving?
And how are these reasons to believe in the priori more compelling from the priori that the Muslim god is perfect and loving, or the Jewish god, or the Roman gods or the Maori gods?

Special pleading, wishful thinking, superstition, fear and a willingness to through away critical thinking.

When we can get theists to ask these same questions, Stevil, and to examine them without bias and prejudice, then maybe we will have made inroads to a very long recovery of the human species.

[Tristan Jay]

This is the kind of thing that makes me start to think of a "new" blasphemy that's emerged in my mind.  All the talk of God is love and God shows perfect love has indeed inspired me.

To take your example of setting the she-bears on 42 children (I have to confess, I've not come across that one in the Bible, where's it at?), it occurred to me that God wanted his holy book to be an example to us, and I would love to tell God, "Let me show you how much I love you!  Get ready for the she-bears, buddy, I'm doing it 'cause I'm loving you by the example you've shown!"

Help me if I haven't had this thought in so many variations, each one based out of the "Good" Book.  But mostly, my favorite example is my own personal one.  God, I would like to show you how much I love you, exactly as you've shown me love.  I will lock Your sentient mind into a physical brain that has to fight through distraction, anxiety, depression, and obsession everyday; I'll let you keep access to knowledge and wisdom at human level and an IQ equivalent to my own.  No superpowers, no perspective on the way the World/Universe really is.  I'll give Him friends that obsess about me, and suggest that He ought to accept that I'm perfect.  I'll send a woman His way, if He likes, who will seem so right for him, but will tell Him constantly that He needs help, and eventually will ditch Him at a particularly ill-timed moment, because He just needs help.  I believe I can show him this love, without a trace of hatred, but I can't deny that I would feel there was a great deal of irony in showing God this kind of love, in return for his "perfect" love. 

It's not quite like my preferred default desire of an axe to His face, but there is something appealing to reciprocating the interest and care he's shown me.  Come here, God, let me show you what it's like to be loved by You!  Fucker.

[history_geek]

I have to confess, I've not come across that one in the Bible, where's it at?

2 Kings, 2:23-25 (NIV and KJV);

23 From there Elisha went up to Bethel. As he was walking along the road, some boys came out of the town and jeered at him. "Get out of here, baldy!" they said. "Get out of here, baldy!" 24 He turned around, looked at them and called down a curse on them in the name of the LORD. Then two bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the boys. 25 And he went on to Mount Carmel and from there returned to Samaria.

23And he went up from thence unto Bethel: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head.

24And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the LORD. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them.

25And he went from thence to mount Carmel, and from thence he returned to Samaria.

Actaully one of my favourite youtube atheists made a video about the subject because of an apologetic that made really interesting (and pulled-out-of-his-ass) arguments and claims about the story. And a longer series as the said apologetic tried to defend his funny word bendings For those intrested:

Looney Cartooney Apologetics: JPHolding and Da Bears  - brettppalmer

The Art of Pwnage: Elisha and the Bears, A Final Read Part 1 of 5 - brettppalmer
The Art of Pwnage: Elisha and the Bears, A Final Read Part 2 of 5  - brettppalmer
The Art of Pwnage: Elisha and the Bears, A Final Read Part 3 of 5  - brettppalmer
The Art of Pwnage: Elisha and the Bears, A Final Read Part 4 of 5  - brettppalmer
The Art of Pwnage: Elisha and the Bears, A Final Read Part 5 of 5  - brettppalmer

[Traveler]

Maybe the bible is a test. Anyone who can read the whole thing, and still bow down to a ridiculous, trivial, hateful, murderous god, has failed miserably in the eyes of the REAL god. Hey, maybe we've won the prize for seeing through to the obvious. Whatever the prize is.

[Sandra Craft]

Maybe the bible is a test. Anyone who can read the whole thing, and still bow down to a ridiculous, trivial, hateful, murderous god, has failed miserably in the eyes of the REAL god. Hey, maybe we've won the prize for seeing through to the obvious. Whatever the prize is.

The religious often say that god is perfect, it's the human perception of god that is flawed.  Which immediately suggests the question, "then why am I listening to you about it?"

[Ecurb Noselrub]

Will reading the bible allow a person to know that God is perfect and all loving?

No, not if you include the Old Testament. But the New Testament presentation of God is much more consistent with a loving deity.  Jesus didn't kill anyone and didn't tell anyone else to kill anyone.  There's really no way to fit the OT presentation of God into the Christian "God is love" mold, IMO.  That is one reason why I think many of the stories in the OT are interpretations of events from the standpoint of a mistaken paradigm of God.  Jesus corrected a lot of that misconception about God's nature, but since modern Christianity has failed to break free from the OT (as I think Jesus intended for it to do), it is still proclaiming a flawed theory of God.

So how does a person come to believe in the priori that the Christian god is perfect and loving?

I don't know about the "perfect" part, as that word can have a lot of meanings.  But understanding God as loving comes primarily from personal, subjective experience as opposed to a wooden interpretation of biblical texts.  If one's personal experience of God is generally good (as mine is), it seems as though one is dealing with a good, loving God.   

[xSilverPhinx]

Maybe the bible is a test. Anyone who can read the whole thing, and still bow down to a ridiculous, trivial, hateful, murderous god, has failed miserably in the eyes of the REAL god. Hey, maybe we've won the prize for seeing through to the obvious. Whatever the prize is.

Do you have evidence of this? No? Doesn't matter because it's an idea I like and makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside - must be true!

[Egor]

Here's the thing you're going to have to get your head around: God does what God does. Where do you get your sense of morality from in order to judge God? You can call Him anything you want, a murderous tyrant, whatever; it doesn't matter. God is God. He created everything. Everything belongs to him, and he gives existence and consciousness to every living thing. He can give, and he can take. He can kill children, old people, the innocent, the guilty—it doesn't matter. God is God.

You think you can buck this idea, but the only way you can prevail is to be right when you say there is no God. Otherwise, you're stuck with being a creature of the Creator. I don't judge God; how can you? By using the standard God put in your mind?

I find it interesting that if a rock falls from a mountain and crushes a busload of kids, you blame God and not the rock, and yet you claim to be an atheist. Why is it atheists spend so much time blaming a God they don't believe exists?

Or are you trying to say that because of these things, there is no God? Fine, then why the outrage?

[Genericguy]

Here's the thing you're going to have to get your head around: Allah does what Allah does. Where do you get your sense of morality from in order to judge Allah? You can call Him anything you want, a murderous tyrant, whatever; it doesn't matter. Allah is Allah. He created everything. Everything belongs to him, and he gives existence and consciousness to every living thing. He can give, and he can take. He can kill children, old people, the innocent, the guilty—it doesn't matter. Allah is Allah.

You think you can buck this idea, but the only way you can prevail is to be right when you say Islam is wrong. Otherwise, you're stuck with being a creature of the Creator know as Allah. I don't judge Allah; how can you? By using the standard Allah put in your mind?

I find it interesting that if a rock falls from a mountain and crushes a busload of kids, you blame Allah and not the rock, and yet you claim to be an atheist. Why is it atheists spend so much time blaming a god they don't believe exists?

Or are you trying to say that because of these things, there is no God? Fine, then why the outrage?

[Genericguy]

You think you can buck this idea, but the only way you can prevail is to be right when you say there is no God.

My smart ass post above is aimed at this quote from you, egor.

The only way YOU can prevail is to be right when you say Islam is wrong, and judaism is wrong, and Hinduism is wrong, and buddhism is wrong...

[Sandra Craft]

Here's the thing you're going to have to get your head around: God does what God does.

Here's the thing you're going to have to get your head around: why would I listen to you about it?

[Stevil]

I find it interesting that if a rock falls from a mountain and crushes a busload of kids, you blame God and not the rock, and yet you claim to be an atheist. Why is it atheists spend so much time blaming a God they don't believe exists?

You want me to make a defense of your strawman argument?
Show me an atheist that blames any god for anything and I will show you a person that is not an atheist.

Or are you trying to say that because of these things, there is no God? Fine, then why the outrage?

Another strawman. No atheist is angry at god

[Stevil]

If one's personal experience of God is generally good (as mine is), it seems as though one is dealing with a good, loving God.   

By your own admission, you are making assumptions.
A con artist is very good at winning their mark over by appearing to be generally trustworthy, compassionate and honest. Such a person could be deemed as good and loving. In the Christian faith there is the concept of Satan whom is considered to be both powerful and deceptive.

How can you know that your personal experience was that of the god and not the satan?

[Ecurb Noselrub]

If one's personal experience of God is generally good (as mine is), it seems as though one is dealing with a good, loving God.   

By your own admission, you are making assumptions.
A con artist is very good at winning their mark over by appearing to be generally trustworthy, compassionate and honest. Such a person could be deemed as good and loving. In the Christian faith there is the concept of Satan whom is considered to be both powerful and deceptive.

How can you know that your personal experience was that of the god and not the satan?

I don't know.  It could be God, it could be Satan, it could be my own mind.  I'm simply relating my experience, and in my experience, it appears to me to be God.  This is about faith, not absolute knowledge.  I don't claim to know, I am simply reporting the basis for my belief.