God's violent ways

[OnceConvinced]

The god of the bible tends do deal with sin and evil in very violent ways. Ie, wiping out cities, sending floods, ordering violent deaths, ordering the slaying of animals for sacrifices, sending curses and plagues, etc.

Can you point out any instances in the bible where God deals with sin and evil in non-violent ways?

And I mean God here. Not Jesus.
And there are times God showed mercy and didn't deal with the sin and evil, sure. But when he did, were there non-violent methods used?

[William]

Tam: There is mention of the pair getting new bodies -
And the [LORD God] made for Adam and for his wife garments of skins and clothed them.

[tam]

Peace to you,

tam: Eve has greater pain in childbirth as a consequence (a natural consequence) of the different body she now possesses that has sin and death in it.

William: Why do you think that this addition to the story was left out of the story? There is no mention of the pair getting 'new bodies'

tam: There is mention of the pair getting new bodies - it is simply that scribes and teachers of the law have wrongly (Jeremiah 8:8) assumed that those garments of skin were animal skins.

And the [LORD God] made for Adam and for his wife garments of skins and clothed them.

William: I appreciate your sleight of hand use of wording,

There is no sleight of hand here, William. I gave you an accurate rendering of the text. Even showed you from the original Greek, and linked to the meaning of the words used. What you do with any of that is up to you of course.

but The Script you refer to only warns about people adding to the Script in order to create an false Script, and does not mention anything to do with the animal skins being the 'new bodies' the spirit pair covered their spiritual nature in, because they were embarrassed and ashamed of their spiritual nature...

A - I mentioned Jeremiah 8:8 only as support for my statement about the erring pen of the scribes. Christ also said "woe to you scribes" on various occasions.

B - I never said the pair was ashamed of their spiritual nature; I said their SIN was exposed: their disloyalty in having eaten from the TOKGB.

tam: They are not additions. Man is the one who assumed these were animal skins; they were not.

William: But It Is Written they were animal skins. There is therefore no presumption necessary.

It is not written that they were animal skins. Did you check out the link I provided? It is translated in a couple versions that they were animal skins; but the original language does not make that distinction.

• Since it was the GOD that provided the pair with the skins it is okay to think that the GOD also slaughtered the animals who had been wearing said skins.

tam: If that were true, sure it would be okay. In a perfect world, no animals need die for food or clothing, but this is not a perfect world (not since Adam allowed death to enter into this world). We were given animals for food, and animals were required as sacrifices as well.

William: And for clothing. Don't forget covering the nakedness with the skins and furs of animals. It is an ancient life-saving practice of Humankind.

Sure, but that has nothing to do with this long garment of skin.

So your argument swings to "Nature is not perfect and therefore unnatural because of this practice."?

No, I am making no statement about this at all.

and it was 'Adam" who made the world "imperfect"...

It is Adam who allowed sin and death into the world. You may accept or reject that as you choose; but that is from the text.

"Cursed is the ground because of you."

And,

"Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, so also death was passed on to all men, because all sinned." (Romans 5:12)

"For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God’s grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, [Jesus] Christ, abound to the many!" (Romans 5:14)

tam: So I have no reason to reject the 'animal skins' teaching except that it is not true.

William: I appreciate that you might believe that your particular support of one particular interpretation is "true" but all Jeremiah 8:8 points to is that I should be wary of such claims...it does not in itself support your position.

I never suggested that Jeremiah 8:8 lent support to understanding about the long garment of skin being this physical body. Jeremiah 8:8 speaks of the lying pen of the scribes.

tam: What matters is the TRUTH. Not our "own theology"; but the actual truth. Christ is the One who has said that He will lead His people into all truth. I cannot do that for you; you cannot do that for me; religion cannot do that for anyone. Only Christ can do that because only Christ KNOWS all truth, to be able to lead people INTO all truth.

William: Again, there is nothing in it which makes your interpretation 'The Truth' and any other as "not true" and that 'the Christ you know' is true whereas anyone who does not interpret Script the same way you do, then have to be regarded as "an evil pretender who is really called Satan" or some other similar type of demonizing.

The only person in this thread who has attempted to "demonize" another person is Willum, speaking to me. I have not done this to you (or to anyone else) so I am not sure why you are bringing this up to me.

Jokes aside, it is all very well believing that the Shepard's voice you hear is the one you want to hear, but how does that in itself equate to all others who do not hear that particular version of the Shepard's Voice therefore being false?

The way you word things William... how am I supposed to answer a question based on things I have never said? Christ does not have different versions of His voice. I do not even know what that is supposed to mean.

If indeed the interpretation of 'spirit bodies' being clothed in animal skin is true,

Do you mean to ask if the interpretation "spirits are clothed in physical bodies" is true?

Because Paul spoke of that, of us being spirits (the person we truly are) inside clay vessels (these bodies). Peter spoke of the tent of this body; that it would soon be cast aside.

do you suppose that spirits have bones - are skeletal-like - and that is how the Creator GOD created the creature Eve from one of the Creature Adam's ribs?
The interpretation you are currently arguing as being the truth, will have to explain that before I could contemplate it as a serious contender for being "The Truth" in relation to the Story as it is told.

(Just a quick clarification: I have never said that an interpretation of anything is "The Truth" because Christ is "The Truth". Things can be true or false, but you will not catch me referring to THE Truth as anything except Christ.)


Adam and Eve had actual bodies (with bones) - but those bodies did not have sin or death in them. Not at the start. The Garden is part of the spiritual realm, but Adam was first created outside the Garden and then brought into the garden (meaning he originally had a body that could move between the physical and the spiritual; just as the angels can do; just as Christ showed that He could do after his resurrection; just as we will be able to do if we are in the new body). And remember that Adam was created from the ground -before- there was sin and death in the world.

He simply had no sin or death in him (or his body) until after he ate from the tree of knowing good (meaning life) and bad (meaning death), at which point sin and death entered into him.


When Christ returns, we will put OFF this "long garment of skin" that has sin and death in it... and be changed in a twinkling (as Paul describes it) - into the new body (the white robe). We inherited the 'long garment of skin' from Adam and Eve... but will receive the "white robe" (the new body with life in it) from Christ.


It is full circle.


Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 197 by tam]

If a parent tells a child not to play in the street or they will get hit by a car (and die), is that a threat of violence from the parent or is that a warning about a natural consequence?
A more accurate analogy would be a parent telling a child not to play in the street or they will get hit by a car and die, then when it does play in the street the parent takes a car and runs down the child.

In no way would that be an accurate analogy, not unless God force-fed Adam and Eve from the TOKGB.

That part is completely irrelevant to the analogy.

[William]

William: Why do you think that this addition to the story was left out of the story? There is no mention of the pair getting 'new bodies'

tam: There is mention of the pair getting new bodies - it is simply that scribes and teachers of the law have wrongly (Jeremiah 8:8) assumed that those garments of skin were animal skins.

And the [LORD God] made for Adam and for his wife garments of skins and clothed them.

William: I appreciate your sleight of hand use of wording, but The Script you refer to only warns about people adding to the Script in order to create an false Script, and does not mention anything to do with the animal skins being the 'new bodies' the spirit pair covered their spiritual nature in, because they were embarrassed and ashamed of their spiritual nature...The best I can do is to include that idea as a possibility but then would have to wonder why it wasn't written that way, which gets us back to The Script you pointed to (Jeremiah 8:8) are you saying the biblical version is incorrect or that it is worded as should be but doesn't mean what it - at face value - 'should' mean?

tam: There is no sleight of hand here, William. I gave you an accurate rendering of the text. Even showed you from the original Greek, and linked to the meaning of the words used. What you do with any of that is up to you of course.

William: I am not under the impression that we are discussing an original Greek Mythology tam. If you could verify this through original Hebrew, it would still not take away the fact that we now have skinless naked entities eating forbidden fruit and hiding from their designer among Edens plant-life...

tam: A - I mentioned Jeremiah 8:8 only as support for my statement about the erring pen of the scribes. Christ also said "woe to you scribes" on various occasions.

William: And I replied to that already, Tam. I appreciate that you might believe that your particular support of one particular interpretation is "true" but all Jeremiah 8:8 points to is that I should be wary of such claims...it does not in itself support your position.

tam: B - I never said the pair was ashamed of their spiritual nature; I said their SIN was exposed: their disloyalty in having eaten from the TOKGB

William:Well the mythology certainly give the reader the impression that shame was involved, but whatever...it does not distract from the main point being made, which is that the script is questionable at face value. Your additional interpretations making it even more so.

tam: It is not written that they were animal skins. Did you check out the link I provided? It is translated in a couple versions that they were animal skins; but the original language does not make that distinction.

William: Tam. If they were without flesh, how was it possible for them to eat anything, let alone forbidden fruit?

tam: If that were true, sure it would be okay. In a perfect world, no animals need die for food or clothing, but this is not a perfect world (not since Adam allowed death to enter into this world). We were given animals for food, and animals were required as sacrifices as well.

William: And for clothing. Don't forget covering the nakedness with the skins and furs of animals. It is an ancient life-saving practice of Humankind.

Sure, but that has nothing to do with this long garment of skin.

William: Apparently for the male, it was even longer than necessary, so the practice of cutting that bit off, became a standard thing even to this day.
The Greeks had a strange fixation of foreskins...oh sorry - it isn't Greeks mythology being discussed here now is it...Greek Mythology tends to follow story-lines far better and needs far less interpretation/reinvention than Hebrew Mythology does at the hands of Christians.

tam: What matters is the TRUTH. Not our "own theology"; but the actual truth. Christ is the One who has said that He will lead His people into all truth. I cannot do that for you; you cannot do that for me; religion cannot do that for anyone. Only Christ can do that because only Christ KNOWS all truth, to be able to lead people INTO all truth.

William: Again, there is nothing in it which makes your interpretation 'The Truth' and any other as "not true" and that 'the Christ you know' is true whereas anyone who does not interpret Script the same way you do, then have to be regarded as "an evil pretender who is really called Satan" or some other similar type of demonizing.

tam: The only person in this thread who has attempted to "demonize" another person is Willum, speaking to me. I have not done this to you (or to anyone else) so I am not sure why you are bringing this up to me.

William: But dear tam! Christianity itself has a long history of demonizing...its just a thing that happens with Mythology, Hebrew, Greek or any other for that matter. Even Adam is demonized. I guess it simply comes through the nature of the Human Psyche coupled by the fact that the situation we are all in is rather violent, I would suppose...my comment had more to do with the competitive nature of varying sects believing - as you do - that their preferred interpretation is "The Truth" which naturally demonizes anything which contradicts their preferred interpretation.

Jeremiah 8:8 - the script that you offered as some tentative support for your position, simply tells me that interpretations can be wrong and the script itself does nothing to verify that the interpretation you personally support is right.

William: Jokes aside, it is all very well believing that the Shepard's voice you hear is the one you want to hear, but how does that in itself equate to all others who do not hear that particular version of the Shepard's Voice therefore being false?

tam:The way you word things William... how am I supposed to answer a question based on things I have never said? Christ does not have different versions of His voice. I do not even know what that is supposed to mean.

William: It means the same thing as Jeremiah 8:8 points out.
Just because you think you are hearing 'the Shepard's voice' through your favored interpretation of the Script, does not mean that you are 'in the truth' while everyone else who does not interpret the script in the same way, is not.
Jesus acknowledges that many will be deceived by those who come in his name attributing their words as being 'Of/From' the Christ...so this is what I am referring to Surely you can know what that is supposed to mean?

William:If indeed the interpretation of 'spirit bodies' being clothed in animal skin is true, do you suppose that spirits have bones - are skeletal-like - and that is how the Creator GOD created the creature Eve from one of the Creature Adam's ribs?
The interpretation you are currently arguing as being the truth, will have to explain that before I could contemplate it as a serious contender for being "The Truth" in relation to the Story as it is told.

tam: Do you mean to ask if the interpretation "spirits are clothed in physical bodies" is true?

Because Paul spoke of that, of us being spirits (the person we truly are) inside clay vessels (these bodies). Peter spoke of the tent of this body; that it would soon be cast aside.

William: No. I get that. I am specifically questioning your interpretation of Adam and Eves bodies prior to them partaking of the forbidden fruit.

tam: (Just a quick clarification: I have never said that an interpretation of anything is "The Truth" because Christ is "The Truth". Things can be true or false, but you will not catch me referring to THE Truth as anything except Christ.)

William: What I would be able to catch is the idea that your believe your interpretation of the Christ is the correct one to adopt as "The Truth". If you are saying "No it should not be regarded as The Truth" but as a possibly correct interpretation like all other interpretations, then I accept that.

tam: Adam and Eve had actual bodies (with bones) - but those bodies did not have sin or death in them. Not at the start. The Garden is part of the spiritual realm, but Adam was first created outside the Garden and then brought into the garden (meaning he originally had a body that could move between the physical and the spiritual; just as the angels can do; just as Christ showed that He could do after his resurrection; just as we will be able to do if we are in the new body). And remember that Adam was created from the ground -before- there was sin and death in the world.

William: So are you saying that the world and the dirt of the world was not physical, but of the metaphysical?
And that essentially Adam and Eves curiosity in relation to sorting knowledge into categories of 'good' and 'evil' caused an aspect of the Metaphysical Universe to become corrupted and this is why - what we call "The Physical Universe" came into existence?

tam: He simply had no sin or death in him (or his body) until after he ate from the tree of knowing good (meaning life) and bad (meaning death), at which point sin and death entered into him.


When Christ returns, we will put OFF this "long garment of skin" that has sin and death in it... and be changed in a twinkling (as Paul describes it) - into the new body (the white robe). We inherited the 'long garment of skin' from Adam and Eve... but will receive the "white robe" (the new body with life in it) from Christ.


It is full circle.

William: The only thing in that which causes me to wonder, is that the 'skin' which will eventually be cast off, was a creation of their creator.
But we can get into that in more detail after you clarify what you mean in relation to my questions above.
In regard to your "Playing in The Traffic" analogy tam, I wrote a small story of how I interpret said analogy in relation to the story ...but for now I will refrain from posting it...

[Clownboat]

[Replying to OnceConvinced]

Maybe I was not clear, so let me say it like this.

The fact that there is not anarchy on the Earth is one of the God's gift's that he gives to every human on this planet.

The "Violent ways" that you say God engages in is His justice which the souls of those who were killed cry out for. Imagine in this country if murders were left on the streets. They are not once they are caught so they will not kill again. If you do not think this is a good thing just spend a few days in a maximum security prison for a few days.

But what if there were whole nations that were killing the innocent in their countries. Who will stand up for the innocent then? God did. He brought judgment on these groups of people that were violating the rights of innocent. Defending the innocent is an act of mercy.

This whole view that God is violent is predicated on the view that the people that these people groups were innocent of any wrongdoing when in fact they had killed thousands. What kind of anarchy would have taken place if God did not punish the evil doer?

The very issue that you sight as evidence that is suppose to validate your claim of how violent God is does nothing but point to the mercy of God on those that these murderous people killed.

God is the Great judge and He will judge all the evil doers. But it the judgement on these evil doers that makes this world a bearable place to live. Whenever the innocent are being exploited and harmed, you can be assured that God's time clock is ticking and at His appointed time He will bring judgment.

Proverbs 11:21 "Be assured, an evil person will not go unpunished, but the offspring of the righteous will be delivered."

You sure make a lot of claims about your god and what it does here in this post.
Can you point to one modern time that your god intervended, show how it intervened and explain how you can tell your god was behind it?

I must ask because you credit a god concept for things that I acknowledge societies doing. I fear you are just pretending that a god concept is behind what societies have done, thus this request.

[Clownboat]

Sheep are a prey species, and their only defense is to flee. Sheep display an intensely gregarious social instinct that allows them to bond closely to other sheep and preferentially to related flock members. Flock mentality movements protect individuals from predators.
https://www.merckvetmanual.com/behavior ... r-of-sheep

It is no surprise that a religion would encourage its members (victims to some) to be sheep!
Being proud of this sheep mentality causes me to shake my head though. It's like saying, "look how susceptible I am, because being like a sheep is good"!

What religion does is not the same thing as what Christ does. Nowhere does Christ suggest or encourage His sheep to 'become lost; to be stubborn; to be susceptible or gullible; or to be victims', etc.

In fact, He tells His sheep to be on the lookout for those who would mislead us; to watch out for false prophets and false christs; to test even those who claim to be apostles (but who are false) - and NOT to listen to them.


The comparison of the Shepherd to the sheep that Christ (the Good Shepherd) made was as I posted above: His sheep follow Him (the Good Shepherd) and listen to His voice; He calls them (even by name) and they come to Him. He leads His sheep to life, to streams of living water; and He feeds His sheep as well.




The fact that the sheep often display the characteristics in Z's big long list does not mean that Christ has encouraged them to display all those characteristics. Nor does being in a flock keep the sheep alive - it just seems that way to some; that the wolves might not get to them as long as they are part of some big flock (of which there are many different flocks with many different shepherds; only one of whom is the Good Shepherd). Unfortunately, too many seem to forget that the wolves are wearing sheep's clothing.


Being in Christ is what keeps us alive. The wolves and other predators are out there, yes, but they cannot kill us as long as we are listening to the voice of the Good Shepherd, following and obeying Him. No one can snatch His sheep out of His hand.

Peace again to you,
your servant and a xxxx of Christ,
tammy

I'm sorry Tam, but all this sheep talk should be embaressing. Like I said, religions make it into a trait that shoud be celebrated and even defended as we now see.

In reality, it is just a mechanism that helps to self indoctrinate IMO. People that think for themselves are less likely to fall for a religion I would imagine. People made in to sheep, make for the next good Muslim.

Again, it's like saying, "look how susceptible I am, because being like a sheep is good"!

Tam, why not seek to be a shephard? I think I know why such a thought would be discrouraged in religious circles.

[tam]

Peace to you,

Sheep are a prey species, and their only defense is to flee. Sheep display an intensely gregarious social instinct that allows them to bond closely to other sheep and preferentially to related flock members. Flock mentality movements protect individuals from predators.
https://www.merckvetmanual.com/behavior ... r-of-sheep

It is no surprise that a religion would encourage its members (victims to some) to be sheep!
Being proud of this sheep mentality causes me to shake my head though. It's like saying, "look how susceptible I am, because being like a sheep is good"!

What religion does is not the same thing as what Christ does. Nowhere does Christ suggest or encourage His sheep to 'become lost; to be stubborn; to be susceptible or gullible; or to be victims', etc.

In fact, He tells His sheep to be on the lookout for those who would mislead us; to watch out for false prophets and false christs; to test even those who claim to be apostles (but who are false) - and NOT to listen to them.


The comparison of the Shepherd to the sheep that Christ (the Good Shepherd) made was as I posted above: His sheep follow Him (the Good Shepherd) and listen to His voice; He calls them (even by name) and they come to Him. He leads His sheep to life, to streams of living water; and He feeds His sheep as well.




The fact that the sheep often display the characteristics in Z's big long list does not mean that Christ has encouraged them to display all those characteristics. Nor does being in a flock keep the sheep alive - it just seems that way to some; that the wolves might not get to them as long as they are part of some big flock (of which there are many different flocks with many different shepherds; only one of whom is the Good Shepherd). Unfortunately, too many seem to forget that the wolves are wearing sheep's clothing.


Being in Christ is what keeps us alive. The wolves and other predators are out there, yes, but they cannot kill us as long as we are listening to the voice of the Good Shepherd, following and obeying Him. No one can snatch His sheep out of His hand.

Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

I'm sorry Tam, but all this sheep talk should be embaressing. Like I said, religions make it into a trait that shoud be celebrated and even defended as we now see.

And like I said,

"What religion does is not the same as what Christ does."

You can read the rest of what I said in the post you quoted. Most everything you have just now repeated was already addressed in that post.





Peace again to you.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to Clownboat]

You sure make a lot of claims about your god and what it does here in this post.
Can you point to one modern time that your god intervened, show how it intervened and explain how you can tell your god was behind it?

I must ask because you credit a god concept for things that I acknowledge societies doing. I fear you are just pretending that a god concept is behind what societies have done, thus this request.

Society is not capable of producing a stable society safe society without very strict and freedom restraining laws. James Madison wrote in the the federalist Federalist No. 51.

“If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external or internal controls on government would be necessary.�

Jim Nelson Black in his book When Nations Die. "When we look at three thousand years of history, we observe that civilizations rise but eventually fall and die. The history of the world is the history of nations that are conquered by other nations or collapse into anarchy."

This is the way of man left on his own account always decays into anarchy.

There are many reasons for the decline and fall of a nation, but an important (and often overlooked) reason is its abandonment of religion. Russell Kirk has said that the roots of "culture" come from the "cult." In other words, culture (cult-ure) is based upon some form of religious or spiritual worldview. Egypt was a religious society founded on the worship of nature gods and goddesses. Greece and Rome had their pantheon of pagan deities. And the list of nations in India, China, and other parts of the globe all demonstrate the principle that civilization arises from religion.

And the opposite is also true. When the traditional beliefs of a nation erode, the nation dies. Religion provides the set of standards that govern a nation. Historian Will Durant said, "There is no significant example in history, before our time, of a society successfully maintaining moral life without the aid of religion." (Jim Nelson Black, When Nations Die (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale, 1994)

Civilization cannot survive without religion, why cannot nations survive without religion.

Nation states themselves are an example.

You can even see this in our country as this country drifts farther from its religious roots. Laws have had to become stricter to keep those in this society safer.

[OnceConvinced]

[Replying to post 178 by EarthScienceguy]

There are ways of dealing with criminals without the need for violence. Prisons is one of them.

But I'm sure a god would be able to come up with numerous ways to deal with the problem of evil that don't involve violence. Don't you think that a god could do that?

But there are extremes when it comes to violence.

For instance, if a bunch of kids mock one of God's people by calling him names would you deem it fine for God to send a bear to tear them all apart?

Are you okay with that type of violence?

What about if a man violated the Sabbath law. Would you advocate the stoning to death of that person?

It's all very well to say that evil needs to be dealt with and that sometimes it requires violent methods but it's not always necessary to use violent methods.

If we were to apply that type of reasoning to say raising children, we'd end up thrown in prison. Or worse have some of your godly violence unleashed upon us.

In modern society we are now taught that violence is not the way to deal with bad people. Why is God so primitive in his methods?

[OnceConvinced]

William: How do we tell the difference? How do we know that Jesus isn't The Representative of the 'good' side of the GOD? Isn't that what comes across when all the pieces are fitted together?
Can it not be read into the story that the GOD became tired of the same old same old and Humans going about not listening anyway, no matter how violent one got about it?
Is Jesus not an attempt at an answer?
Are we now not informed that the world is a far less violent place to live in than it ever has been?
Why does Jesus not at least get credit for some of that process?
Why does Jesus have to be separated from this older idea of GOD?

Until it can be shown beyond a shadow of a doubt that Jesus is representing God then I don't see why he should be included in this topic.

William: The best he could do was use the lest violent method available to him. Is that not good enough?

So are you saying God is limited?

God chose to unleash a bear to tear apart a bunch of children. Was there not a less violent method he could have used to teach them and others respect?

He ordered a man stoned to death for picking up sticks on the sabbath. You don't think he could have used a less violent method to deal with that person? To teach him and others a lesson for working on the sabbath?

What about with the great flood. Was there not a less violent method he could have used? Like just wiping everyone out of existance with a spoken word? He could bring things into existance with a spoken word, so why not speak them out of existance?

I find it hard to believe that an all knowing all powerful god's only methods at his disposal are violent ones. He sounds like a very human creation made by violent and primitive humans who believed violent and primitive methods were the best ones to use.