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?

[Zzyzx]

.

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.

Grandiose claims that cannot be substantiated with verifiable evidence have no legitimate place in honorable debate.

This is not a podium to preach ones religious opinions.

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.

Have any of the thousands of proposed gods stopped the commission of murders?

But what if there were whole nations that were killing the innocent in their countries.

Does this apply to modern Israel? Iran?

Who will stand up for the innocent then? God did.

During the Holocaust? Where was god?

He brought judgment on these groups of people that were violating the rights of innocent. Defending the innocent is an act of mercy.

Yup, supposedly flooded the whole Earth to the tops of mountains to get rid of evil people. How well did that remove evil from Earth?

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.

Of course, those newborn infants killed in destruction of cities and in flooding the Earth were NOT INNOCENT, they were guilty and evil, nasty babies.

What kind of anarchy would have taken place if God did not punish the evil doer?

What verifiable evidence indicates that any gods punished evil doers? There are TALES of such things happening long ago and far away. Anything recent? Mass killers punished by gods?

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.

Where was the mercy for infants and children supposedly killed in the flood?

God is the Great judge and He will judge all the evil doers.

So say tales with threats and promises. Have the tales been shown to be truthful and accurate? By whom? Where?

But it the judgement on these evil doers that makes this world a bearable place to live.

Some societies make a bearable place for citizens. No gods required.

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.

I am NOT assured by your words. Talk is cheap.

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

Babble. Offspring of righteous can be evil. Evil people can go unpunished.


If any positions I held required presenting ridiculous statements or arguments, I would 1) keep quiet, and 2) find a different position that did not require me to compromise reason and integrity.

[William]

[Replying to post 1 by OnceConvinced]

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.

William: Yes. I think it is reasonable to acknowledge that before Man and his inventions of ideas of GOD(s), the environment already existed and had its naturally built in violent Nature, so any GOD ideas should include that side of things, or they come across as being a bit unrealistic alongside Nature.

So it is reasonable to accept that;

IF there is a creator or creators responsible for creating said environment.
THEN A GOD-idea with violent tendencies would seem more Natural, under the circumstances.

OnceConvinced: 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.

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?

OnceConvinced: And there are times God showed mercy and didn't deal with the sin and evil, sure.

William: Perhaps a sign that he wasn't the big bad devil his actions sometimes portrayed him as...he had a light within his Darkness?

I personally need to pay heed to these probabilities...rather than throw them to one side as 'nothing important'.

OnceConvinced: But when he did, were there non-violent methods used?

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

[tam]

Peace to you,

I had not responded to the OP, so...

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?

Well, we could start with the very first story from Genesis, with Adam and Eve. God commits no violence against them due to their sin - their own actions cause their harm. God uses no violence. He simply casts them out of the Garden (to just the earth).


The ground/earth is cursed because of what Adam did ("cursed is the ground because of you"); 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. And the fact that Adam and Eve are now going to die is a natural consequence of their having eaten of death (eating from the tree of knowing good/life and bad/death). You will note that the warning was not, "If you eat of the TOKGB, I will kill you..." No, the warning was, "If you eat of the TOKGB, you will die."




**


God also does not handle the sin of murder with violence, after Cain murders his brother Abel. In fact, God puts a mark on Cain which ensures no one else kills Cain either.




So those are two examples from just the first two stories.




Peace again to you!

[Willum]

[Replying to post 181 by tam]

Well, we could start with the very first story from Genesis, with Adam and Eve. God commits no violence against them due to their sin

I am working on a way to explain this to you (and everyone):

If A&E were created perfect and sinless, they could not sin.
Or they could not sin and know they were doing evil. Like a toddler playing with a gun.

Therefore the entire concept of original sin and the Garden story is flawed, and so, false.

[William]

tam: Well, we could start with the very first story from Genesis, with Adam and Eve. God commits no violence against them due to their sin - their own actions cause their harm. God uses no violence. He simply casts them out of the Garden (to just the earth).

William: Do threats of violence (you shall surely die) count?
And what about the act of cursing Eve and consequently all women with the violence of childbirth?
And what of the clothing their creator made for them? Was violence not involved?

And removing limbs from serpents?

This reality experience has its share of violence, so it stands to reason that ideas of creators would also have these included, and have their violent ways.

There is no doubt that the GOD as portrayed had violent tendencies. Own it.

[tam]

Peace to you William,

tam: Well, we could start with the very first story from Genesis, with Adam and Eve. God commits no violence against them due to their sin - their own actions cause their harm. God uses no violence. He simply casts them out of the Garden (to just the earth).

William: Do threats of violence (you shall surely die) count?

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?

And what about the act of cursing Eve and consequently all women with the violence of childbirth?

I addressed to that in my previous post:

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.

And what of the clothing their creator made for them? Was violence not involved?

The "clothing" is the body that they were given (which we currently inhabit and which we inherited from Adam and Eve) - the long garment of skin. No violence was involved; no animals were harmed or killed. It was not an animal skin; it was this body that we have.

Just as the new body that will be given is also described as clothing: the white robe (the new body, the spirit body)

And removing limbs from serpents?

Nothing in the story states that limbs were removed from serpents. And the "serpent" in the garden is a seraph; an angel; a spirit being (a dragon; drakon). We can see this from what the Adversary is described as being: that ancient serpent; the dragon.


He seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil, or Satan, and bound him for a thousand years. Rev 20:2




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

[Willum]

[Replying to post 184 by tam]

Your post is incomprehensible, apparently non-sequitur, could you please elucidate?

[tam]

[Replying to post 184 by tam]

Your post is incomprehensible, apparently non-sequitur, could you please elucidate?

Could you elucidate? What don't you understand?



Peace again to you.

[William]

[Replying to post 184 by ]

William: Do threats of violence (you shall surely die) count?

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?

William: So are you saying that the cars represent death?
A parent has something in which to show the children. What about sin did the Creator Entity parent show his children?
there appear to be a great difference between the story told and you analogy of parents warning their children about the dangers of traffic.
What about the warning tells the children of the garden that it is natural consequence? Do you think that the pair had an understanding of what death was?

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' and how can the old bodies be subjected to the 'natural consequences of pain and suffering?
What you are saying here is that the pair used their original bodies to 'sin' and therefore, because those original bodies could not suffer pain and death- but could be used to sin with - the Creator Entity took them out of their original bodies and placed them into bodies which could suffer pain and death .
That is quite a process undertaken which is not even mentioned in the story...yet I see how such would have to be added in order for the theology to 'make sense'.
It also shows that the GOD would indeed resort to violet tendencies, to get his point across.

tam: The "clothing" is the body that they were given (which we currently inhabit and which we inherited from Adam and Eve) - the long garment of skin. No violence was involved; no animals were harmed or killed. It was not an animal skin; it was this body that we have.

Just as the new body that will be given is also described as clothing: the white robe (the new body, the spirit body)

William: Again, why all these additions to a story which quite clearly does not mention these extra details?
There are plenty of bible versions which say that the garments the Creator Entity made for the pair, came from the 'skins of animals' which implies that the animals had to die a violent death.
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: Nothing in the story states that limbs were removed from serpents.

William: Wait what? So are we to agree then that adding things to the story to make it appear more in line with our theology, is the wrong way to do things?

[Willum]

[Replying to post 184 by tam]

Your post is incomprehensible, apparently non-sequitur, could you please elucidate?

Could you elucidate? What don't you understand?
Peace again to you.

It wasn't that long. All of it.
Actually I ask, because I don't think you can. I think you are flailing and have no way to back up your statement, so you rely on cognitive dissonance, hoping no one will call you on it.

That, interestingly is one of the tactics we would expect from the Satanially inspired, not the Divine, oddly