Can God cure as well as kill? Should God kill or cure?

Human fat.

Regards
DL

 

very true after 911 people were every were collecting for victums street cornors at work so many people were donating blood i got turned away. Latter learned very little money went to them was mostly low life people taking avantage keeping the cash

 

Such things are why we in Canada do not pay for blood. It did fail us once years ago with tainted blood but so far, so good.

Regards
DL

 

Cure? That's funny. Actually in the bible is the opposite, I cite:
Deuteronomy 7:23
But the LORD thy God shall deliver them unto thee, and shall destroy them with a mighty destruction, until they be destroyed.

Jehova: "A Murderer and a Liar from the Beginning"

 

Don't you ever get tired of these fatuous games? "Can God cure as well as kill?" What sort of question is that? Does anybody think that God can kill but not cure? And should God kill or cure? Most people are naturally more favorable to cuing than killing. What are you trying to prove? Let's cut to the chase. Everybody knows that traditional Christianity adopted the Hebrew Bible as a context for understanding the role of Jesus, who was a Jew whom Christians claim to be the Jewish Messiah. The Hebrew Bible is a collection of writings by many different authors with different agendas written and edited over many centuries. It is well known that Yahweh is often portrayed in the Torah as a warrior/despot deity in the pre-Axial Age mold of Zeus, Marduk, Indra, Baal, etc. Isn't that a shame? I think so. Does that mean that's the way God really is. I think not. Should people still believe in that God despite how He's portrayed in the OT? I do. Does this mean Christians need to throw the Bible out the window and follow some half-baked snake oil salesman who tells us he is god? (I'm referring to you, not Jesus. I think not .Was Paul correct in telling us Jesus was sent as a sacrificial lamb to die for our sins? I think not. Do Christians have to accept Paul's sacrificial atonement theory? I don't think so. Do you think you're convincing anybody of anything? I think not. Give it a rest! End of conversation!

 

Interesting stuff. I'm not a Christian, or anything, but I think Jesus' message of peace and love was and still is, revolutionary. Times were tough for the "Hibaru" then, and everybody Jewish hoped the millenial end days were at hand. Jesus wasn't the first or last who claimed to be the messiah. The Romans, according to my brother who always confirms such things, executed another guy roughly a year later in basically the same situation.

David Koresh and the Branch Davidians in Waco, Texas, were still arguing the point in the early 1990s. Was David Koresh the second coming of Christ, or what? SOS. For me, the simplest understanding of Christ sets him apart from the old gods, like Yaweh, et.al. I don't have any apology for all that came after Jesus, or Mohamed for that matter. People will always fall all over each other when the charismatic leader dies, trying to decide who is boss over whom.

 

I recognize that the bible and God promote a lot of killing.

That is why I condemn Christianity and their ways as well as their God that kills instead of curing. IOW, he takes the satanic moral low ground instead of taking the moral high ground of curing.

Regards
DL

 

Does your version kill or cure those who end in hell.

As to your overall advice of my laying off.

Only an immoral person would give that advise given the harm that your religion continues to do against women and gays.

I live by the Golden Rule. You should try it.

Regards
DL

 

Some of his message was indeed as you state. Much of it is immoral though.
This link shows some of those immoral tenets. My own two pet peeves are Jesus' no divorce and his substitutionary punishment policies. I ask many Christians to argue for the positions shown Jesus taking, but they always run for the hills the moment I ask that of them, showing that they do not seem to be able to show those moral tenets from Jesus as moral.

If you wish to try, come on down.



Regards
DL

 

Hell is a metaphor for a bad attitude that separates sinners from God. And that's the point. It's a metaphor. You claim to know about those. And yet you choose to take it literally, and then rail against Christians for believing in it. But not all Christians are literalists. Progressive Christians take an historical/metaphorical approach to the Bible. I'm attracted by Jesus' message of peace, love and understanding, especially for society's rejects and the least advantaged. I consider the core of his message.to be love of God and neighbor, and use that and the methodology of the Jesus seminar to judge which teachings and interpretations concerning him are authentic. Your moralism reminds me of the Pharisees, and seems equally ineffective in getting your message across. The same could be said of Peter Breitbart, the secular humanist Jew from Sussex University who made the video you provide for us.

 

Given his dogmatic approach, I would agree with lots of Breitbart. But, I'm long tired of smarmy youngsters using their
mediocre understandings to make bombastic and criminally one-sided attacks. It ain't that hard. As he gets older, and maybe smarter, he may begin the hard task of balancing antithetical ideas, then decide if he has anything worthwhile to say. He sounds more like a movie critic than a thinker of any kind.

 

Hmm. If Hell is a metaphor, is the god that the metaphoric hell can separate you from a metaphor, too?

 

The anthropomorphic image of God probably is. I think of God as, among other things, a felt presence of a Higher Power accounting for the integrated complexity of the universe, our sense of ultimate meaning, and the summation of human idealism. But as I've said before, God is a great mystery, so human understandings of God are likely to be inadequate.

 

Indeed. And as such, peoples' love for the god is comparable to their love of a great mystery novel.

 

No. The Great Mystery that is God is hardly anything like a great mystery novel, except that we don't know the ending. Cutting God down to size, are we?You took the phrase out of context. Is there any theologian who wouldn't say God is a great mystery? Some put it in different words:" God is "wholly other"( Rudolph Otto); or as the Muslim's say of Allah:" Being ONE in His Unique, Unequalled, Unknowable and Ineffable Absolute Essence"; or as the Hindu philosopher Shankara put it: "Thou before whom all words recall." And did I say God is nothing but a great mystery? So why are you so determined to twist my words? Everything I've said about God is my working concept of the god of my limited understanding, not to be confused with a complete, adequate picture of God as (S)he is. You asked if God is a metaphor. I tried to answer, as best I could. It is exactly the purpose of metaphor to communicate truths that are difficult to express literally in ordinary language.

 

No, but anything you say about the god is compromised by your admission that the god is a great mystery. As such, there is nothing you or anyone past or present can say about the god that goes beyond simple opinion; an opinion based on the opinions of others. You are free to love what you claim remains a great mystery to you.

So far, it's a great mystery novel written by men. You've simply decided to refer to it as nonfiction, and to embellish the plot and characters as you see fit.

 

The idea that something is largely unknown doesn't mean nothing at all important can be known about it. Of course anything I say about God is my opinion. I thougt that goes without saying on a discussion forum. So is anything I say about any subject, such as political issues like Donald Trump or gun control. That's the best we humans can do. I submit that some opinions are better or less informed or dumber than others. Readers can judge for themselves which fall under which categories. People who believe in God may do so for a variety of reasons. Christian and Muslim tradition agree that God shows his existence by the integrated complexity of the universe and the intuitive sense ingrained in the minds of humans. Reason may persuade others, while Protestant fundamentalists put their faith in revelation through scripture and others rely on personal experiences of the numinous. I'm an Okie existentialist or fideist, regarding God as a choice or commitment, or as Luther put it, a "joyful bet". But I'm not into the Kierkegaard style "leap of faith". Mine is more of a hop--an educated bet in light of available scientific and historical evidence, logic, experience, and intuition. And yes, I consider opinions of others, provided they are convincing and consistent with available evidence. Saint Thomas Aquinas cuts more ice with me than Pat Robertson.

Science is also based ultimately on opinion--i.e., the consensus judgements of other scientists based on rigorous testing of systematically gathered empirical evidence. I regard it as the gold standard of human knowledge. There are a number of things scientists believe in but admit they don't completely understand--gravity for example. But they understand it enough to keep us from jumping off the roofs of tall buildings. Many scientists believe in M-theory, positing multiple universes. Yet there is no empirical evidence that any of these exist, nor any prospect of obtaining such evidence. Shall we sneer at them, and say there is nothing they cans say about M-theory that goes beyond opinion? Or shall we look at what they say and why in forming our own views about reality?

What an interesting digression from the main point relating to a false assertion that "my religion" believes in a God who kills people and sends them to hell. Whatever mysteries surround God, I can say quite confidently that my religion doesn't believe such things. Nobody in my Sunday school or various religious fellowships holds those beliefs, and certainly I don't either. There's an old comedy routine featuring a guy who turns into a raving maniac any time somebody mentions the word "Niagra Falls" because of a bad experience he had on his honeymoon. Sometimes I get the feeling that something similar happens on these forums when anybody mentions the term "God".

 

Fideism and "little bits of faith" or some version of Pascal's wager are incompatible. Kierkegaard's existential faith is the only "reasonable" modern faith, as Mr. Spock might say.

In the middle ages, people didn't need "faith." They breathed God in and breathed him Out. They feared him in their sleep. Today, faith without proofs and reason are the rock that religions stand on.

 

I disagree. I like to make educated bets. Kierkegaard's leap may be exhilarating for those who like an adrenaline rush, but I have confidence in human reason, experience and intuitive faculties to do a better job in narrowing the odds than just shooting craps. Of course, I could be wrong, but that's my operating assumption. As for Pascal's wager, he was betting on his fate in an afterlife. I don't believe in an afterlife. my bet is on the nature of reality itself.

 

I agree with you on Pascal, but not Kierkegaard. You're reading too much Ayn Rand. Fear, loathing, and more fear accompany the step to faith for K. He too was concerned about the choices he would make to lead his life. He was morose, and I don't know if he believed in an afterlife or not. "Melancholia" was the pandemic mental illness of the time, with Northern Europe at the center. In his "Journals" he wrote: "Imagine Christianity as a fortress. The gates were lowered, and the world conquered." I don't feel exhilaration or adrenaline rushing.