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?

[tam]

Peace to you,

[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?

There is no difference - and I can guarantee you that most (perhaps all) children don't fully understand the concept of death, but they may understand the concept of getting hurt, and they do understand that their parents have told them not to do something. I also see no reason why the pair should not have had at least some understanding of what death was though... since they were not alive at one point, and then they were alive. Death would be the absence of life, the lack of being alive.


"Do not eat of that tree or you will die."

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'

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.

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 .

They did not "use" their bodies to sin; they sinned entirely of themselves (a sin of the spirit - the person they are - as opposed to a sin of the flesh).

Why assume that God made them bodies so they could suffer rather than that He did as He did to help them and/or their offspring - to hide them; to give them a covering; perhaps even to confine the sin and death to the flesh? Were they not already suffering in that they were afraid and trying to hide their shameful nakedness? Being naked was not sinful; their being naked exposed the sin that was now in them.

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?

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

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.

That is the erring pen of the scribes (in this case the translators) taking liberties with what is written:

Here is the greek, and in the link you can look up the meaning of the words which have been translated as 'coats' (garment, tunic, etc) and 'skins' (which can refer to either animal OR human skin).

https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/gen ... _conc_3021


And when clothing is mentioned, it has multiple meanings as well. Some are told to clothe themselves in humility; and again in Revelation, there is the white robe (which people are wearing and have made white in the blood of the lamb).

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.

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.


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

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?

So you just added that to the story to bring it more in line with your theology? Of course I agree that this is the wrong way of doing things. Why should we put any stock in a theology that is called "our" theology?

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.




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

[tam]

Peace to you,

.
I do not understand the appeal of comparing one's self to domestic sheep --

12 Characteristics of Sheep

1. Sheep are foolish I dont know what sheep would score in an animal IQ, but I think they would be close to the bottom of the scale. They seem to only know how to do one thing well " eat grass (and produce more grass-eating sheep).

Its possible to know little, yet not be foolish; but not if you are a sheep. They are so irrational. You watch them as they pause in front of a stream. They know they cant jump it or swim it. So what do they do? They jump in anyway!

2. Sheep are slow to learn Every shepherd will tell you countless stories about how sheep can be taught a very painful lesson, and yet fail to learn the painful lesson. A sheep may get caught in barbed wire trying to break through a fence. And the next day it will try it again, and again,

3. Sheep are unattractive Some animals may not be very bright, but make up for it with grace and elegance in their movement and actions. But sheep are so awkward, so lacking in agility and dignity. Although some shepherds may tell you differently, to most outside observers sheep are dirty, smelly, and ugly.

4. Sheep are demanding Ever watch a lamb suckle its mother? Almost as soon as it is born, it is violently sucking its mothers udders. And that insatiable demand never leaves them. They demand grass, grass, and more grass; day after day, and night after night. (Do they ever sleep?) And when snow is on the ground, they aggressively demand food from the shepherd. Just listen to them bleat if their troughs are empty even for a short time. And watch the life-or-death stampede when the shepherd appears.

5. Sheep are stubborn Have you ever tried to move a sheep? Its like trying to move an elephant. Ever watched a shepherd try to manoeuvre a sheep into a fold or a dip-tank. Its like trying to wrestle with a devil. Half a dozen sheep invaded my garden once. I thought it would be easy to hustle them out the wide gate again. But it was as if an electric shield (visible only to sheep) stretched across the gap. I could get them to go anywhere and everywhere, but through that gate.

6. Sheep are strong Ive watched the most macho of men beaten by sheep. You look at their skinny arms and legs and think easy. Next thing you are flat on your back or face down in the dirt. Ive been flattened by running sheep. It was like getting run over by a tank.

7. Sheep are straying Perhaps the main reason Scripture chooses sheep to characterize us, more than any other animal, is because of its well-deserved reputation for straying (Isa. 53:6) and getting lost (Lk. 15:3ff). So many times I was out in the middle of nowhere when I would come across a sheep " miles from anyone and anything " and totally unconcerned. I would look up on a cliff and there was a sheep out on a lethal ledge. Other times, when fishing miles from anywhere, I would come across ditches and bogs with the decaying remains of a wandering sheep, and Id think, How did that get out here?

8. Sheep are unpredictable If you travel along the roads of the Scottish Highlands you will soon learn to expect the unexpected. You look ahead on a quiet piece of long straight road with no cars. You spy sheep in the distance on the side of the road. They watch you driving along towards them. Hundreds of yards pass. You are almost level. Well, they arent going to cross the road now, are they? Screeeeeech! Well, what do you know!

9. Sheep are copycats OK, bit of a mix of metaphors here, but I think you get my point. When one sheep decides to start running, they all decide to start running. If you were able to ask one, Why did you start running? it would say, Well, because he started running. The next would say the same. And the next one. And when you got to the last sheep he would just say, I dunno.

10. Sheep are restless It always puzzled me how little sheep slept. I would be in my study at midnight, look out, and there they were still eating grass. And no matter what time I arose in the morning " 3am or 5am " they would still be eating grass. Other times, there would be a beautiful summer evening when everything was still and quiet and you would come across a field full of sprinting sheep (usually due to the Scottish midges " look it up on Google). I once heard that for sheep to lie down they need freedom from fear, freedom from friction with others, freedom from hunger, and freedom from pests and parasites. From what Ive seen, that combination is very rare.

11. Sheep are dependent Some animals can cope and thrive without any close supervision. Not sheep. They are very dependent on their shepherd. They cannot live without him (or her).

12. Sheep are the same everywhere Ive been in a number of different countries in my life and enjoyed the many cultural differences. But sheep are the one constant " in character if not in looks. The American sheep is the same as the African sheep (see 1-11 above), which is the same as the Asian sheep, which is the same as

So do you only accept comparisons that are flattering? Or can you acknowledge an apt comparison, even if you do not find it very flattering?


Personally, I think the characteristics of sheep reveals the great patience and love that the Good Shepherd has for His sheep.


Peace again to you!

[tam]

Peace to you,

Peace to you!

[Replying to post 158 by marco]

The calling of his sheep to him is a confused metaphor. What aspect of sheep is appropriate: their wool or their mutton? A metaphor has meaning if the constituent parts make sense.

That they listen to the voice of their Shepherd and come to Him when He calls them:

(I don't know how to post videos, sorry; if a moderator could fix that for me that would be great).

I like the first video because the analogy is apt in that the sheep respond only to their shepherd's voice. Not to the voice of a stranger. But I particularly like this second one (it did in fact make me tear up just a bit). I don't see any way that the sheep can SEE their shepherd through the mist; they are coming to him because they HEAR his voice calling them to come to Him.

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

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

[William]

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, 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: 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.

• 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.
So your argument swings to "Nature is not perfect and therefore unnatural because of this practice."? and it was 'Adam" who made the world "imperfect"...


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.

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.

If this is the basis of your argument, then it is the fallacy of The One True Script-man...opps - I meant - "Scotsman." To Be Sure to Be Sure...lets not forget the Irish!

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?

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.

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 184 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.

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 189 by tam]

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

Which is just the same as other men making different assumptions. The correct ones always seem to be those which help shore up a prior belief.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 184 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.

I agree, that does seem like Yahweh alright.
Yahweh destroyed an entire planet because in his omniscience, he couldn't see that the Nephelim were dominating the world...
Among other things.

[William]

William: We ought think through our favorite theological interpretations before committing to them and declaring them "The Truth"

[tam]

Peace to you,

[Replying to post 184 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.

God did not force feed Adam and Eve from the TOKGB.

[Tcg]

Peace to you,

[Replying to post 184 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.

God did not force feed Adam and Eve from the TOKGB.

It's not complicated, tam. Who created the TOKGB?


Tcg