If God is a sadist.............

[scorpia]

Yeah, I've seen Biblical references to God being angry and vengeful. Usually when someone sets themselves against him or his people, or his people do wrong. But hey I'll admit I'm not the best Biblical scholar. I've read it, but I can't remember each reference on the spot.

So I'd like to know, is there any reference to God actually enjoying people suffering? After all, the God in the OT is often angry, heck even Jesus can be. Then again I don't always see anger as wrong, least of all when it comes from a judge.

[Cathar1950]

Maybe the writers were sadists?
Maybe he just got bad press?
Maybe that is how they thought?

[scorpia]

Potayto, Potaato.

There is a difference, you realise.

That's what I had been doing. But I find that we can best explain and illuminate god's character, if we realize that he doesn't exist, and every story about god merely reflects the social, political, and psychologhical needs of the community that invents him.

Yeah, the ones who liked to go to other countries and worship idols of wood and stone, fertility rituals, yes, the Bible is clearly recognising their need for this and is supporting what these people want.

Right.

I hate to be the one to inform you of this, but fascism has been tried and found not to be a just system. BTW, the best two words to describe YHWH's punishments are "arbitrary" and "capricious". Yes, our (largely secular) justice systems are far far ahead of any of the theocratic systems.

And yet Saddam Hussein was killed for his crimes

Are you talking about the Rahab of Jashua 2? Not exactly a protofeminist, is she?

So?

Ah, that's a new definition of the word "fair" of which I was previously unaware.

Eye for an eye is fair, isn't it?

Yes, I know you are serious. That's why I'm so scared of religious maniacs.

You blame the religious when people of all kinds support punishing children?

(Okay, maybe the "kick in the face" thing was a bit extreme, but sometimes kids have to disciplined, just smacked one or whatever)

It's perverse that you advocate a morality of extreme, unrestrained violence,
and then blame some secular straw-man for incidents of violence in our own society.

A. I am not blaming secular people for this. There are religious people who don't restrain their kids as well.

B. This "violence" I advocate is punishment and vengeance. What did the taxi driver do to the girls? Unless there is some sort of grievance that I am unaware of, there is no resaon for the attack that I advocate. It is vengefulness and punishment I advocate. Not violence that a teen would commit because they are bored.

[juliod]

And yet Saddam Hussein was killed for his crimes

Another thing to internalize: we are all going to die. His punishment is no worse than what we will all recieve. And if his religion is the true one, he's up there enjoying his 72 virgins right now.

Are you talking about the Rahab of Jashua 2? Not exactly a protofeminist, is she?

So?

You were advancing her as a woman who contributed to religious choices. Joshua 2 says no such thing.

Eye for an eye is fair, isn't it?

You are aware, aren't you, that Jesus specifically repudiated this position?

DanZ

[Goat]

And yet Saddam Hussein was killed for his crimes

Another thing to internalize: we are all going to die. His punishment is no worse than what we will all recieve. And if his religion is the true one, he's up there enjoying his 72 virgins right now.

Are you talking about the Rahab of Jashua 2? Not exactly a protofeminist, is she?

So?

You were advancing her as a woman who contributed to religious choices. Joshua 2 says no such thing.

Eye for an eye is fair, isn't it?

You are aware, aren't you, that Jesus specifically repudiated this position?

DanZ

For that matter, the concept among the scholars about that in the time was that it was a rule against over punishement.

Basically.. no more than the value of an eye for an eye, and no more than the value of a tooth for a tooth. The punishment will have to fit the crime,and no large r than.

[scorpia]

Another thing to internalize: we are all going to die. His punishment is no worse than what we will all recieve. And if his religion is the true one, he's up there enjoying his 72 virgins right now.

So why do you care if tehre's a God up there who may or may not be angry enough to kill, and people around who would worship him?

You were advancing her as a woman who contributed to religious choices. Joshua 2 says no such thing.

Did she survive or didn't she? Who did she join? If she joined the Isrealites then why didn't anyone else? Why did she survive? If she was stuck with teh same beliefs as everyone else and she was as choiceless as you make out everyone was at that time, and since God was to kill the Amorites, why did she survive?

You are aware, aren't you, that Jesus specifically repudiated this position?

Yes, and I've thought about it ages ago; turning the other cheek is a good method for trying to confuse some wrong-doer and convince them what they are doing is wrong, which makes it a good suggestion. But it doesn't work the same way all the time; some people never change no matter how nice you are to them. What are you going to do then? What if it were a murderer, they might change and see the err of their ways, or they might continue the way they were before. Keep on turning the other cheek all the time, and you may end up suffering for it. So while it is a good plan A, it isn't something I'd stick to forever.

Add to that although you may want to defend yourself against someone, a more practical solution than playing the hero is to play submissive while at the same time call the cops and get them to sort it out. (Or turn the other cheek and let God decide the judement of the wrong-doer). But eventually once the wrong-doer is caught you end up facing each other in court (or on jugdement day) and there the wrong-doer's punishment is decided. A victim can demand vengeance there, can he or she not? Can't a victim rage and show how upset they are, or aren't they allowed to be human? Humans feel anger and vengeance and a desire to punish those who wrong them. These are human emotions aren't they? Why don't you feel them?

But when the wrong-doer gets punished accordingly, but the victim gets to be "matyred", without getting his or her hands dirty, while the law deals with the wrong-doer since it has the right to. In other words, let yourself keep a clear concience yet feel secure as well that the wrong-doer has been dealt with because someone with more knowledge and understanding can fix it up for you. Why should someone go out and punish the wicked when there are people trained for it? If there were no cops, or no God, then yes, I would have to take matters into my own hands, but since God's there, why presume I have the right to play vigilante?

[The Nice Centurion]

Well, there we may have to disagree. Anger is wrong coming from a judge; in fact it is perhaps the worst thing for a judge to be - judges are ideally impartial, cautious, understanding and rational. Anger is an emotion which impedes a judge's ability to be impartial, cautious, understanding or rational.

Not always. A person can be angry yet still be rational.

Everytime I get angry I tend to remember the probably most famous klingon proverb;

"Revenge is a dish best served cold."

And next thing that than comes to my mind is always:
"The klingons are not so dumb after all!"