Protestantism

» HeadZenCards - Out of the Closet

In response to Out of the Closet posted by _Boanerges_:

B'oner's, you appear to want to change this thread from "Heaven is for Babies" or "the LORD GOD inspired his followers to murder infants and suckling at one time; does the LORD GOD ever change?" to bemoaning your necessary escape from Kansas because a butterfly's wings created tiny changes in the atmosphere that ultimately caused all those damm tornadoes.

Good to know that you are not personally insulted when we slam a non-existant God, but your uncomfortable laugh may mean that your shoes are too tight.

-- posted by HeadZenCards

» Brian Tubbs - Babies & Heaven

In response to Babies & Heaven posted by HeadZenCards:

I'm not changing the discussion, but obviously, this has several different dimensions to it. I'm just following one of those angles right now with the infants.

My time is limited this week in what I can do here in these forums. Sorry.

» Brian Tubbs - Life

In response to Infants posted by Migisi:
Migisi, you're being difficult again. That's not what I'm saying, and you know it. My comment was directed at the idea that people might look at the OT and then the doctrine of accountability - and think it's okay to start killing babies and young children. My comment was directed at that.

If you want a broader, more comprehensive statement on my part...
I believe it's morally wrong for any individual to unilaterally choose whether or not another individual lives or dies. This is why I'm opposed to abortion on demand, euthanasia, murder, etc.

There are only two entities that have the authority to decide whether another person lives or dies -- GOD and (in some limited, defined ways) Government.

The former (God) is obvious, and that's what this whole thread is about. Government's right to take life speaks to YOUR former occupation as a police officer. You were empowered - acting as an agent of the government - to take life if necessary to protect other lives. Government has the right to do this.

» Brian Tubbs - Application for Today

I believe I've made this point before, but I want to make it again. I believe it is reprehensible, evil, shameful, and inexcusable for any supposed follower of God to use the Old Testament to justify genocide or murder "in God's name" today.

I don't have the evidence in front of me, but I'm sure that many of the medieval Catholic crusaders justified their atrocities on what was contained in the Old Testament. That is reprehensible.

Taking the Bible as a whole, no Christian can legitimately or logically justify murder or genocide in God's name today. I realize that some may try, but they do not have biblical support for it - not if you take the Bible as a cohesive whole.

» HeadZenCards - Application for Today

In response to Application for Today posted by BrianTubbs:

It ALWAYS HAS BEEN REPREHENSIBLE, EVIL, SHAMEFUL AND INEXCUSABLE for anyone or any influence (to include the so-called LORD GOD) to inspire the utter destruction of infants and sucklings.

Once the LORD GOD inspired his followers to utterly destroy infants and sucklings, he became something that we, as civilized people, are to DISREGARD!

Later, in the fiction that is the Bible, we see this same LORD GOD impregnate a virgin, produce a son, and, as an example to parents for 2000 years now, allow his violent murder. The LORD GOD is consistently evil.

Trying to piece together a "cohesive whole" out of such fiction is the work of a lifetime, Brian, but no fearlessly honest person would buy your attempts to change the subject to "Don't worry; Babies who were traumatized by the LORD GOD get to Heaven."

Babies with bad parents do not get to go to heaven unless they go as slaves, Brian, if we are to keep in character with the LORD GOD in Biblical fiction.

Jesus did not grow out of his father's ways in the story either. In Revelation, Jesus will kill (with death) the children of that bad woman Jezebel.

So your point that it is bad for any supposed follower of God to use the OT to justify genocide applies to not only today and tomorrow, but YESTERDAY as well.

-- posted by HeadZenCards

» Migisi - Out of the Closet

In response to Out of the Closet posted by _Boanerges_:
.
Will be in Seattle on the 22nd.... who knows.. maybe we might be like two passing ships in the night
.
Oh no, Ollie. Another evangelist on the bus (or ferry)!! Hee hee.

-- posted by Migisi

» Migisi - Life

In response to Life posted by BrianTubbs:
.
Who me? 'Difficult' ~again~? Never! (wink). Actually, I was just confused by your response. Note the question mark?
.
This is why I'm opposed to abortion on demand, euthanasia, murder, etc.
.
But apparently not against war and the collateral deaths of innocent people, including kids.
.
You were empowered - acting as an agent of the government - to take life if necessary to protect other lives.
.
As an agent of government, I did NOT have any authority whatsoever to slaughter innocent children (or innocent adults, for that matter). Nor do you, as an agent of God. Give it a try and see what happens to you.

-- posted by Migisi

» HeadZenCards - Out of the Closet

.
Unfortunately, I will be out of town that week. That's my story and I'm sticking to it.
.
Maybe I've got that LORD GOD all wrong.
.
Perhaps he did not advise his followers to kill infants. Maybe that part of the Bible is not true.
.
If that part of the Bible is not true, then maybe the WHOLE THING is not true.
.
Is this the spot that Brian is stuck on?
.
It would be more courageous to say that the LORD GOD would NEVER inspire murder and that the OT story was just violent fiction.
.
After all, healthy human beings would not LISTEN or TAKE THE ADVICE of ANY HUMAN BEING who advises other human beings to utterly destroy infants and sucklings.

-- posted by HeadZenCards

» paper_turtle - Who's yer Daddy...(Migisi)

In response to Who's yer Daddy... posted by Migisi:
.
Sorry I missed this previously.

you wrote:
The POV that the Bible God is an ogre comes directly from the same Bible you read (unless we're reading very different versions). I didn't create those verses in my mind. Somebody else did. Now, I'm positive someone could counter those ogre verses with loving benevolent quotes from God in the Book. But that would mean the Bible contradicts itself about the nature of God - or that God has extreme mood swings, changes his mind, is unpredictable, or there are two (or more) different Gods.
.
It seems to me you're expressing a very absolutist, all or nothing POV. Do you take this same approach in every area of your life, with all the people in your life. I highly doubt that you do. The Bible is a compliation of separate narratives composed at different times, by different people. Therefore how could it *not* be contradictory? If the Bible had been written/composed by just one person and it contained all these contradictions, then I would assume it was the work of a crazy person. But that's not the case.
.
We all filter incoming information through our own perceptual lens, and therefore we are all subject to confirmation bias (also BTW sometimes referred to as conformation bias). We look for things which confirm what we already know/believe. The authors of the books of the Bible were no different. Whatever inpsiration they had was filtered through their own lens. They rejected what did not fit in with their preconceptions and emphasizd what did fit.
.
We all do this, every day, with everything we encounter.
.
How does one know man-made doctrine from the God-made? When the Bible says, "the LORD GOD said", don't you believe God said it? If not, how do you decide what to believe and what to discard?
.
I believe God is just and loving. I do not believe in the ogre God. I have seen, in my own life and in the lives of others, that pursuing what is loving leads to peace, personal growth, understanding, community, and joyfulness. I believe that the actions, ideas, and ways of being which promote these things are from God. I believe that God neither judges nor condemns anyone. We are ***all*** his children. We are all brothers and sisters.
.
Therefore, anything which does not lead to peace, personal growth, understanding, community, and joyfulness--whether in the Bible or the doctrines of a church, or an individual, is not from God. If it does not promote the health and well-being of the entire person (and everything implied by mind, body, or spirit) it is not from God. It is instead from the egoic mind of human beings who want only to prevail over another.
.
Curious. What relationship do you percieve to have with your God? In your mind, is God like a parent, husband, brother, sister? A best friend? Is God male or female? Does its identity change depending on your needs or mood at the moment?
.
God is spirit. His beingness contains male and female. I usually refer to God as "he" out of long-standing habit, but I do not think of God as male. His beingness does not change, but his means of interacting with me changes according to circumstance. When I need comfort, I receive it. When I need a challenge, that's what I get. Sometimes what I need is a good laugh. He "speaks" through the things I see, through the people in my life, through my thoughts, through my art and writing. He has never, ever, thundered, threatened, or lectured me. He has never frightened or bullied me. I do not believe in hell. He wants me to figure things out for myself. He doesn't want fear or slavery.
.
.
I wrote:
People do this with people all the time--and that's just fine. Jane thinks John is a jerk, but Mary things he's damn near perfect. They're both looking at the same person but they see something, experience something, entirely different.
.
You responded:
Well, frankly, I think Mary's in denial about John's shortcomings and she's created a perfect John in her mind. Just as I think some believers are in denial about the dark side of their Bible God, and have created a perfect God in their minds.
.
LOL (re John & Mary). It *could* be the other way around, though. Maybe Mary doesn't like John for reasons that have nothing to do with John. Maybe John belongs to a church or political group that Mary doesn't like. Maybe Mary looks at John and sees parts of herself she doesn't like, and rejects John rather than doing the hard work of changing herself.
.
I think confirmation bias applies here, as well.
.
Regarding reading the Bible, I didn't mean to imply you didn't understand. I was thinking that many people read the Bible without having a clue what it really means. And I think those who favor a literalist reading of the Bible very often don't even see the various layers of meaning beneath the literal one.
.
And, implicit within a literalist POV is that words or passages can have only one meaning or one intent. Further, literalists tend to think that the authors of the books of the Bible should have told its readers how and what to think/feel, rather than figuring it out for themselves in the light of their own knowledge, wisdom and/or experience. While you do not, as a whole, seem to favor a purely literalist approach, IMHO you are, within the context of this particular topic, opreating from a literalist POV.
.
Where did you and they learn about the Christian God--but from the Book?
.
I never went to church until I was in my teens. What I learned about God I got from what my parents told me, and what I observed in the lives of those who professed to believe in God. As you may recall my having said before, my mother was/is a Christian and my father was/is an agnostic. My mother's church does not believe in prosletizing, so when she talked to be about God, she was always very careful to say "This is what I believe, but others may believe differently." When I was four and five years old my mother worked as a housekeeper for a family of Orthodox Jews. I spent a lot of time in that household, talking with a man I referred to as "Grandpa" and observing their practices.
.
I sort of stumbled into the Bible at about the age of 11 or 12 because I had read a Bible quote in another book I was reading. I started with the Psalms (because that was the source of the quote), then explored Proverbs, and eventually the New Testament. I didn't become a serious student of the Bible until I was nearly 30.
.
Its true that what I heard from others about God most likely reflected, in some form or other, what is found in the Bible. But I managed to live the first twenty years of my life without ever hearing about the ogre God, hell, or the doctrine of end times. Even those who began going to church in childhood are often not *really* exposed to the Bible until middle childhood--and then its usually the Gospels.
.
Sorry--I didn't mean for this to be so long. There's still more I could say, but I think this is a good place to stop.
.
peace and love,
Paper Turtle

-- posted by paper_turtle

» Migisi - Who's yer Daddy...(Migisi)

In response to Who's yer Daddy...(Migisi) posted by paper_turtle:
.
It seems to me you're expressing a very absolutist, all or nothing POV. Do you take this same approach in every area of your life, with all the people in your life.
.
Admittedly, I do have an absolutist POV regarding ogres, abusers, and murderers. They are NOT in my life. I don't permit them to be.
.
The Bible is a compliation of separate narratives composed at different times, by different people. Therefore how could it *not* be contradictory?
.
I agree. Different ~people~ wrote the stories at different times. Now, let's say that 5 of 6 writers (just for example) depict God's nature as a vengeful, oppressive ogre and ruthless killer in their narrations. Could you logically discount, refute, or ignore the 5 in favor of least held view?
.
If the Bible had been written/composed by just one person and it contained all these contradictions, then I would assume it was the work of a crazy person. But that's not the case.
.
Agree. We would indeed have good cause to question the author's sanity. If, as many Christians claim, the Bible is the literal and inerrant 'Word of God' -from- God, dictated -by- God through the hands of selected individuals, God-breathed (per Paul), God-inspired, etc.... it would mean that God is its sole author. I too "would assume it was the work of a crazy person".
.
... Whatever inpsiration they had was filtered through their own lens. They rejected what did not fit in with their preconceptions and emphasizd what did fit... We all do this, every day, with everything we encounter.
.
I've been saying this all along. So, how can anyone claim that the Bible is 'God's absolute truth' when its authors 'filtered - rejected - emphasized' events and ideas to fit their own personal lens and preconceptions? Where did and do ideas and preconceptions originate, exist, and take shape but in the MIND.
.
I believe God is just and loving. I do not believe in the ogre God.
.
I'd prefer to believe this about God too. Biblical evidence conflicts. Where did you get your ideas of a just and loving God (not that I object to them)? Did you extract and combine ideas from other faith systems? I'm just curious how you arrived at your belief. I'm not challenging it.
.
I have seen, in my own life and in the lives of others, that pursuing what is loving leads to peace, personal growth, understanding, community, and joyfulness. I believe that the actions, ideas, and ways of being which promote these things are from God.
.
I believe they are from YOU. You've learned that behaving/thinking lovingly brings you pleasure on many levels, while the non-loving methods haven't. If only everyone learned this, the world would be a much better place, ay? If you prefer to attribute this to God rather than yourself, I'm okay with it.
.
I believe that God neither judges nor condemns anyone. We are ***all*** his children. We are all brothers and sisters.
.
The Bible disagrees with you.
.
... If it does not promote the health and well-being of the entire person (and everything implied by mind, body, or spirit) it is not from God. It is instead from the egoic mind of human beings who want only to prevail over another.
.
If what is NOT loving is from the human mind, why isn't what IS loving also from the human mind? Why must love originate from some entity or place outside and separate from the human mind?
.
God is spirit. His beingness contains male and female. I usually refer to God as "he" out of long-standing habit, but I do not think of God as male. His beingness does not change, but his means of interacting with me changes according to circumstance. When I need comfort, I receive it. When I need a challenge, that's what I get. Sometimes what I need is a good laugh. He "speaks" through the things I see, through the people in my life, through my thoughts, through my art and writing. He has never, ever, thundered, threatened, or lectured me. He has never frightened or bullied me. I do not believe in hell. He wants me to figure things out for myself. He doesn't want fear or slavery.
.
You are a good God, Paper.
.
Regarding reading the Bible, I didn't mean to imply you didn't understand. I was thinking that many people read the Bible without having a clue what it really means. And I think those who favor a literalist reading of the Bible very often don't even see the various layers of meaning beneath the literal one.
.
So, we can interpret the Bible any way we wish. We can take it to mean something other than what it says. It may mean one thing to one person, but if someone else doesn't see it that way, he has no clue what it really means? Who's the decider?
.
... rather than figuring it out for themselves in the light of their own knowledge, wisdom and/or experience. While you do not, as a whole, seem to favor a purely literalist approach, IMHO you are, within the context of this particular topic, opreating from a literalist POV.
.
When I read the narratives that God commanded the extermination of whole cultures - the slaughter of the elderly, women, children, livestock, anything that breathes, etc., yes, I take that literally. And there IS historical evidence that it actually occurred. Is there another way to interpret and soften those verses?
.
Its true that what I heard from others about God most likely reflected, in some form or other, what is found in the Bible. But I managed to live the first twenty years of my life without ever hearing about the ogre God, hell, or the doctrine of end times. Even those who began going to church in childhood are often not *really* exposed to the Bible until middle childhood--and then its usually the Gospels.
.
Of course we don't want to frighten our little ones with horrific OT stories about the ogre child-killing God, so we spoon feed them angels and loving Jesus. Some Christians never grow up beyond that, and they don't want to.
.
.
I'm expecting company any minute. Gotta go. Have a great day!

-- posted by Migisi