Zone1 Another question to ponder.

[Meriweather]

Does it matter how he was seen? The issue is whether an unchanging god is compassionate and loving or a petty ass. It was once acceptable to buy and sell slaves like cattle. We now know that was wrong, and nothing can be said or done to make those actions acceptable. A changeable god might realize he had been wrong and make adjustments to his behavior. An unchanging god remains the same. All his actions must be judged the same. If it would be wrong to do those things today, it was wrong for him to do them then, regardless of what .people might have once thought about it.

Something to ponder, isn't it: An unchanging God creating an ever changing world where people can change their minds and their behavior. Or, even how they perceive the reality of God.

 

[TNHarley]

One. It depicts a different God with different attitudes towards us in comparison to the OT.

He went through rehab after he raped that teenager.

 

[ding]

Does it matter how he was seen? The issue is whether an unchanging god is compassionate and loving or a petty ass. It was once acceptable to buy and sell slaves like cattle. We now know that was wrong, and nothing can be said or done to make those actions acceptable. A changeable god might realize he had been wrong and make adjustments to his behavior. An unchanging god remains the same. All his actions must be judged the same. If it would be wrong to do those things today, it was wrong for him to do them then, regardless of what .people might have once thought about it.

Yes, it matters. It matters in how you read the passages. As a supposed deacon you should know that. Not believing in God isn't good enough for you. You don't want anyone to believe in God. You are a militant atheist through and through. Former deacon my ass.

 

[ding]

He went through rehab after he raped that teenager.

It's gas lighting attempts like that that reveal your unhappiness in life.

 

[ding]

One verse he's loving and compassionate, the next he's committing genocide over a minor transgression, turning a man to ass for daring to try to prevent and altar from tipping over and falling. Make the wrong symbols during worship get turned to ass. kill your only son to prove your devotion to him.

Why don't you walk me through your evidence for genocide and I'll show you what that account was really about. Because clearly you have no clue how to read these passages.

 

[TNHarley]

It's gas lighting attempts like that that reveal your unhappiness in life.

Poor ding. Still cant accept he gives his life to a genocidal, jealous, psychopath.

 

[TNHarley]

Why don't you walk me through your evidence for genocide and I'll show you what that account was really about. Because clearly you have no clue how to read these passages.

Gods word is a guessing game!

 

[TNHarley]

Lol why would God want his word to be left up to interpretation? It wasnt. People just make up the whole "allegory" and "you arent reading it right!" nonsense to justify all the BS.

 

[ding]

Poor ding. Still cant accept he gives his life to a genocidal, jealous, psychopath.

You are only proving my point that you are unhappy with your life. When small children act up it's because they are unhappy.

It's sad that this is what makes you happy.

 

[ding]

Gods word is a guessing game!

Does saying that make you happy?

 

[TNHarley]

You are only proving my point that you are unhappy with your life. When small children act up it's because they are unhappy.

It's sad that this is what makes you happy.

Ding cant go one post without gaslighting someone. Its sad.

 

[ding]

Lol why would God want his word to be left up to interpretation? It wasnt. People just make up the whole "allegory" and "you arent reading it right!" nonsense to justify all the BS.

Men wrote the bible, dummy.

 

[ding]

Ding cant go one post without gaslighting someone. Its sad.

I'm not the one attacking your beliefs. I'm defending my beliefs from your gas lighting.

 

[TNHarley]

Men wrote the bible, dummy.

That is supposed to be gods word.

 

[ding]

That is supposed to be gods word.

Google is your friend.

The Bible wasn't declared the "Word of God" at a single moment but evolved as books were recognized as divinely inspired, with Old Testament canon solidifying by the 1st century CE and the New Testament canon affirmed by Athanasius in 367 AD and later synods (like Carthage in 397 AD) before being finalized for Western Christianity at the Council of Trent in 1546, though early Christians treated New Testament writings as Scripture much earlier, around the 2nd century.
Old Testament (Hebrew Scriptures)

• Early Foundation: Books like the Torah (first five books) were accepted as Jewish canon by the 5th century BCE, with prophets' writings (Nevi'im) canonized by the 3rd century BCE.
• Jesus' Time: By the time of Jesus, the Hebrew Bible (our Old Testament) was largely established, with Jesus quoting from these texts.

New Testament

• Early Recognition: New Testament writings (Gospels, Epistles) were considered Scripture by the early 2nd century, with figures like Papias and the Epistle of Barnabas showing early acceptance.
• Athanasius's List (367 AD): Bishop Athanasius of Alexandria first listed the 27 books we now have in the New Testament as canonical in his Easter Letter, marking a major step towards our modern Bible.
• Official Acceptance: This list was affirmed at the Council of Hippo (393 AD) and the Council of Carthage (397 AD), solidifying the New Testament canon for the Western Church.

The Concept of "Word of God"

• Divine Origin: The idea stems from Jewish prophets' claims ("Thus says the LORD") and New Testament passages like 2 Timothy 3:16 ("All scripture is God-breathed").
• Process, Not Event: It was a gradual process where communities recognized writings as authoritative, culminating in official church decisions on which books to include.

In essence, while the Bible's books were collected over centuries, the formal designation of the entire collection as the definitive "Word of God" solidified in the late 4th century and was later affirmed by councils, though the belief in its divine nature existed much earlier.

 

[ding]

Does it matter how he was seen? The issue is whether an unchanging god is compassionate and loving or a petty ass. It was once acceptable to buy and sell slaves like cattle. We now know that was wrong, and nothing can be said or done to make those actions acceptable. A changeable god might realize he had been wrong and make adjustments to his behavior. An unchanging god remains the same. All his actions must be judged the same. If it would be wrong to do those things today, it was wrong for him to do them then, regardless of what .people might have once thought about it.

Let's get Huston Smith's opinion on this. He's a renowned expert on world religions. Not a militant atheist pretending he was a former deacon.

Huston Smith did not typically describe the God of the Old Testament (OT) as "cruel"; rather, he generally sought to understand and present the essence of different religious traditions, emphasizing their shared human concerns and transcendent realities. His approach to the problem of evil and suffering was to minimize it by asserting that evil is ultimately unreal within the divine totality, or to view the world as perfect within a larger, divine context.
Instead of focusing on the perceived cruelty of the OT God, the sources indicate that Smith's broader philosophical and theological views included:

• Religious Pluralism: Smith believed that all major faith traditions, despite their surface differences, share fundamental themes and ultimately point toward the same "Ultimate Reality". He argued for understanding each religion on its own terms and celebrating their diversity.
• Rejection of Literalism: Smith was skeptical of rigid biblical literalism, suggesting that scripture, particularly narratives, could be interpreted allegorically to find deeper meaning, a view he noted was shared by some church fathers.
• Problem of Evil: When addressing the problem of evil, he did not attribute it to God's cruelty but rather suggested that:
  • Evil is a result of human free will and the "original sin" of self-centeredness and egotism built into the human condition.
  • Suffering can be an educational process ("soul-making") that helps humans develop moral virtues, a view drawing on Irenaean theodicy.
• Divine Transcendence: Smith emphasized that the divine is fundamentally inexpressible and "completely beyond us," which means all human descriptions of God (including those in scripture) are fallible and inadequate.

In essence, Smith's philosophical framework led him to reinterpret or move beyond the interpretations that see the OT God as cruel, focusing instead on the underlying spiritual lessons and the transcendent nature of the divine.

 

[TNHarley]

Divine Origin: The idea stems from Jewish prophets' claims ("Thus says the LORD") and New Testament passages like 2 Timothy 3:16 ("All scripture is God-breathed").

yes, thank you.

 

[TNHarley]

Rejection of Literalism

AKA just make stuff up. The dinggered way.

 

[ding]

yes, thank you.

You're welcome. Now lets get Huston Smith opinion on embellishment in the OT.

Huston Smith did not typically use the term "embellishment" in a dismissive sense regarding the Old Testament (OT) but rather viewed biblical stories through the lens of symbolism and "sacred myth," prioritizing their meaning over strict historical factuality. He was critical of what he called "fact fundamentalism," which insists that something must be factually or literally true to be considered true at all.

Huston Smith's View on Biblical Narrative and Embellishment

• Meaning over Factuality: For Smith, the meaning conveyed through a story was far more important than its historical or factual accuracy. He believed reducing all faiths to mere historical facts or ethical principles would strip them of their rich particulars, beauty, and mystery.
• Symbolic Interpretation: Smith contended that the key to unlocking the truths of religious texts, including the Bible, is through symbolism. He saw statements and narratives as symbolic metaphors that point to a deeper, universal truth or "Ultimate Reality" beyond literal description.
• "Sacred Myth": He used terms like "sacred myth" to refer to certain stories in the Hebrew Bible (e.g., the Genesis creation stories and miracle accounts), not to imply they were false, but that they were powerful storytelling mediums for expressing a "wider bandwidth of historical truth". This "fact-fiction intercourse" allows for great truths to be communicated through narrative.
• Critique of Modernity: Smith was critical of the modern scientific mindset, which often assumes that truth is only what can be empirically verified (fact). He argued this narrow, "scientistic" outlook misses the multi-layered nature of reality and the profound, non-material truths found in traditional religious accounts.

In summary, he would likely consider what others might call "embellishment" as the essential, symbolic language necessary for communicating the profound spiritual and moral truths of the Old Testament narratives.

 

[ding]

AKA just make stuff up. The dinggered way.

Actually I'm using the brain God gave me to interpret passages in a way that makes sense. Whereas you dismiss everything as fairy-tales because you lack the intellectual capacity to do anything more.