Forums » The Lounge » Read Thread

Have you heard the teachings Joseph Smith?

I don't know whether to laugh or cry at the fact that this bot has somehow actually made an edutainment storygame here. Do other bots make storygames here too, or is this one special?

It happens a lot, we go through and purge them once a week or so. But they're not bots, Killa put in a Captcha for new accounts awhile ago. Only this doesn't stop Indians who, according to other Indians all do this wherever they can all day in exchange for some kind of drug that literally looks like a ball of shit.

That's too bad- I always thought that this site needed more air conditioning circuitry stories.

This is now another bible thread.
What do you guys think about the bible? Favorite verse?

Genesis 19:30-38

After the last Bible thread I was really hoping someone would attempt a game about Samson for the contest.

If not writting a more libreal take on the tower of babble.

Both happened!

Here's a more wholesome one this time:

Numbers 22:28: “Then the Lord opened the mouth of the donkey, and she said to Balaam, “What have I done to you, that you have struck me these three times?”

... So the bible literally had a talking donkey. ^_^

The best stories need a talking donkey. Shrek knew it, the bible knew it.

Exodus 4:24-26

 “At a lodging place on the way, the Lord met Moses and was about to kill him. But Zipporah took a flint knife, cut off her son’s foreskin and touched Moses’ feet with it. ‘Surely you are a bridegroom of blood to me,’ she said. So the Lord let him alone.”

I really do like the story of Queen Esther and the Purim holiday and I'm not sure why that's never been made into a movie. It has the "rags to riches" trope and then the rest is about foiling a genocidal plot, it's perfect.

Actually I'm not sure if this thread is for serious answers or just meming lol but I do think some of the stories are cool even if I'm not all that religious anymore. The psalms are good too, I mean just in a writing since as actual poems. My uncle always tells us that when he was in chemotherapy (he's fine now) he would read Psalm 91 every day just because it was so inspiring.

It's been made into at least two movies. The VeggieTales Esther, which is gud, and One Night With The King, which is like a romance novel you can go watch with your church lady friends.

Purim is by far the most fun Jewish holiday.

We didn't get genocided, we get to eat donuts, we get to wear costumes, and we are required to get drunk.

That amazing moment when betaband is in a thread full of faggotry but NOT the primary source.

My religion is less cringe than whatever yall have down in texas. 

Don't know where the actual Bible thread went, so I'm posting here.

As someone who didn't grow up reading the Bible, I'm currently reading the story of David and Saul and have read up to 2 Samuel 5. The thing is, I'm getting incredibly frustrated because the morality of the entire story seems totally ass-backwards.

Take Saul, who was killed "because thou obeyedst not the voice of the Lord, nor executedst his fierce wrath upon Amalek" (1 Samuel 28:18). Sure, he also tried to kill David multiple times, but that's not why God deposed him. He was deposed because he failed to utterly annihilate Amalek by leaving the king Agag and some livestock alive even though he "utterly destroyed all the people with the edge of the sword" (1 Samuel 15:8). Moreover, he immediately repented when Samuel told him of his sin ("Now therefore, I pray thee, pardon my sin, and turn again with me, that I may worship the Lord." (1 Samuel 15:25)) and gave Agag over to be killed. Meanwhile, compare this to David, who spent 1 Samuel 29 begging the heathen king of the Philistines to be able to fight against Israel alongside him. What is the greater sin here, failing to utterly annihilate an enemy of God or actively fighting alongside God's enemies? And yet David if the one that is "after [God's] own heart" (1 Samuel 13:14).

Even worse to me is David's constant virtue signaling. Not only does he refuse to kill Saul on multiple occasions where he had the opportunity, he kills the person who claimed to kill Saul in 2 Samuel 1 because Saul was "the Lord's anointed". I have read commentaries where the commentator says it is up to God to take care of his own anointed. Well have they considered that God can act through his human subjects? It reminds me of the story of the guy trapped on his roof in a flood:

A fellow was stuck on his rooftop in a flood. He was praying to God for help.

Soon a man in a rowboat came by and the fellow shouted to the man on the roof, “Jump in, I can save you.”

The stranded fellow shouted back, “No, it’s OK, I’m praying to God and he is going to save me.”

So the rowboat went on.

Then a motorboat came by. “The fellow in the motorboat shouted, “Jump in, I can save you.”

To this the stranded man said, “No thanks, I’m praying to God and he is going to save me. I have faith.”

So the motorboat went on.

Then a helicopter came by and the pilot shouted down, “Grab this rope and I will lift you to safety.”

To this the stranded man again replied, “No thanks, I’m praying to God and he is going to save me. I have faith.”

So the helicopter reluctantly flew away.

Soon the water rose above the rooftop and the man drowned. He went to Heaven. He finally got his chance to discuss this whole situation with God, at which point he exclaimed, “I had faith in you but you didn’t save me, you let me drown. I don’t understand why!”

To this God replied, “I sent you a rowboat and a motorboat and a helicopter, what more did you expect?”

Well, if the story of David and Saul is to be believed, this fellow was entirely in the right because we have to wait for God to do everything himself. Then David kills the men who killed the son of Saul, who had established a rival kingdom and waged war against David's kingdom for years saying, "how much more, when wicked men have slain a righteous person in his own house upon his bed? shall I not therefore now require his blood of your hand, and take you away from the earth?" (2 Samuel 4:11) Now apparently Saul's son is also a righteous man despite the fact that David had been at war with him for many years (2 Samuel 3:1), and presumably many innocent lives had been lost in the war. Saul's son was not even anointed by God, so there is not even the excuse that only God should deal with his own anointed people. Apparently, establishing a rival kingdom to God's chosen king makes you "a righteous man", but killing that traitor makes you a murderer worthy of death. Of course, despite killing these men for their "sins", David does not hesitate a moment to reap the rewards of their actions because that's what virtue signaling is all about. He immediately accepts his coronation in the next chapter.

Not to mention his taking of many wives and concubines in 2 Samuel 5 despite God's order for kings: "neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away" (Deuteronomy 17:17). If this is the man after God's own heart, I'm not sure if I'm a big fan of God's heart.

Most of the Psalms are attributed to David and the implication is he pursued a closer relationship and understanding of God through most of his life. But the story doesn't really shy away from his fuck ups either and like most major Biblical figures he is a deeply flawed character.

Hell, you haven't even gotten to Bathsheba yet.

It would probably be best to stop approaching these like you expect them to be dumbed down Sunday school morality tales designed for modern sensibilities. The intent of the writers was to relate a history of things that happened both good and bad. There's a lot of universal elements but also some where it helps to understand cultural context.

If a writer specifically takes a stance about some detail that doesn't compute to us, it was undoubtedly understood that way and for a reason by their contemporaries and probably audiences from most of the generations that followed.

People get this when reading literally anything else, but for some reason when it's the Bible they just go cross-eyed and flap their little hands and make confused seal noises like they've forgotten they're reading a thousands of years old story from a completely different culture.

 Most of the Psalms are attributed to David and the implication is he pursued a closer relationship and understanding of God through most of his life.

That doesn't make it less hypocritical for God to judge Saul on his one mistake which is far lesser than the mistakes committed by his own chosen king. God did not depose Saul because he didn't pursue a close relationship with God; indeed, up until the spirit of God left him in 1 Samuel 16, he's frequently mentioned to seek and worship the Lord. Instead, he was deposed because "he is turned back from following me, and hath not performed my commandments" (1 Samuel 15:11). God says this immediately after Samuel receives word that Saul spared Agag and some of the livestock of Amalek, and he consistently gives this as the reason for deposing Saul, not his closeness to God or any other reason. I know it is silly to call God a hypocrite, but that is how it comes off to me.

If a writer specifically takes a stance about some detail that doesn't compute to us, it was undoubtedly understood that way and for a reason by their contemporaries and probably audiences from most of the generations that followed.

Indeed, and since the Bible is supposedly the perfectly inspired words of God, the stance expressed by the narrator must also be the stance taken by God, and the understanding that is reached by contemporaries must be the understanding God wished for them to reach.

>Indeed, and since the Bible is supposedly the perfectly inspired words of God

This was not even the topic of discussion, literally no one was arguing this until you just now.

For one it's a pretty big assumption you're making and one that isn't even a belief shared by all Christians, and for another, it's not really God's problem if you choose to use your free will to approach a complex body of works that scholars and theologians have debated for centuries as a smug and intentionally small minded faggot who seemingly just expects every detail to be automatically prechewed and regurgitated into your gaping mouth hole.

I believe that the main difference between Saul and David is pretty much that David followed God’s direct orders and Saul disobeyed his direct orders. Neither of them did a stellar job actually following God’s Law, but then again, they are the first two kings coming after the times of the judges where Jephthah’s idea of pleasing Yahweh was to do human sacrifice.

David was definitely not a shining example of a ‘good Israelite’ but he tried. As for being a “man after God’s own heart,” I have always thought that the best interpretation of that was exemplified in the Psalm 119:97 when he says he loves God’s law. God’s law is the first place God revealed what he wanted humanity to be like (in part, of course. The law didn’t cover all of life), so it was the place people went to find out what God was like. It is also important to note that while David took refuge with the Philistines, he sacked Philistine towns not Israelites.

David is, however, a great warrior. He is not a great priest, theologian, and objectively not a great king or father (wait for Absalom’s shenanigans). The important thing in the story is not that David is a man to model a life after, but instead to see him interact with God.

Saul does get a rough deal, but kings seem to have a little less free will than ordinary people from my reading (Proverbs 21:1), but I don’t think a rant on my theology of free will of Bronze Age kings will make for an interesting read

I believe that the main difference between Saul and David is pretty much that David followed God’s direct orders and Saul disobeyed his direct orders.

That may be so, but one would think it doesn't need to be explicitly said that you shouldn't join with God's enemies. One would also think that there should be no distinction between what God has commanded in his commandments and what he commands directly to you, especially for such an egregious violation.

I have always thought that the best interpretation of that was exemplified in the Psalm 119:97 when he says he loves God’s law. God’s law is the first place God revealed what he wanted humanity to be like (in part, of course. The law didn’t cover all of life), so it was the place people went to find out what God was like.

 This seems to directly contradict his flagrant violations of God's law.

It is also important to note that while David took refuge with the Philistines, he sacked Philistine towns not Israelites.

He raided "the Geshurites, and the Gezrites, and the Amalekites", who I don't believe are Philistines. In 1 Samuel 29, the Philistine king brought David and his band to attack Israel. It was only through God's intercession by having the Philistine princes demand David to return that he did not shed Israelite blood that day, and even then he begged the king of the Philistines to stay. There's no indication that he was actually planning to backstab the Philistines, and if he did plan to do so, I have a hard time believing that God wouldn't let him go through with redeeming himself in such a way. 

The important thing in the story is not that David is a man to model a life after, but instead to see him interact with God.

All I have seen so far is God giving David everything he asks for and being exceedingly accommodating. I haven't seen David sacrifice anything for God. 

Saul does get a rough deal, but kings seem to have a little less free will than ordinary people from my reading (Proverbs 21:1)

Again, my issue is with the double standard. David was not king yet, but he was clearly next in line to the throne, so he's not exactly an ordinary person. 

If it helps soothe your hate boner, when you keep reading you'll find David's life has a lot of misery as his children rape and murder one another, and he gets to deal with some fun rebellions, including from his own children.

Just read up to the rebellion of Absalom. God, I hate David so much. Absalom sends thousands of young men to die fighting David, yet David still demands his generals not to touch a hair on his body. Thankfully, he doesn’t execute the ones who killed him this time. And moreover, how is this fucking adulterer and murderer the best man God could find to lead Israel? Every source I can find calls him the best king Israel ever had. I don’t give a fuck how great the rest of his rule is. In any other circumstance, he would be stoned under Mosaic law, but instead God coddles and protects him and makes his children take his punishment instead. How is that fair? How is God killing Bathsheba’s first child to atone for David’s sin any different than the Canaanites making child sacrifices to Moloch? And even if we overlook David’s gravely sinful nature, he isn’t even shown to be a good ruler. Absalom stands at David’s palace gates every day for 40 years, telling everyone that the king is too busy to see anyone, and apparently David doesn’t notice a thing? If he’s so completely oblivious to what is even going on outside his palace gates, how can he possibly be governing a kingdom? Sounds to me like David is too busy fucking his countless wives and concubines to take notice of external affairs. It’s truly an act of God that he still has loyalists when Absalom rebels. /rant

I know that everyone is tired of my rants against David, but this must be truly the cherry on top.

“21 The Lord rewarded me according to my righteousness: according to the cleanness of my hands hath he recompensed me.

22 For I have kept the ways of the Lord, and have not wickedly departed from my God.

23 For all his judgments were before me: and as for his statutes, I did not depart from them.

24 I was also upright before him, and have kept myself from mine iniquity.

25 Therefore the Lord hath recompensed me according to my righteousness; according to my cleanness in his eye sight.”

(2 Samuel 22)

This is truly rich coming from one of the most evil men I have read about in the Bible thus far, an adulterer and repeated murderer. Now he refuses to even acknowledge his iniquities and claims to be a righteous man with clean hands. Such utter bullshit. 

I mean it seems to me that he's acting exactly in the image of his god. I mean...

(Oh yeah, it should be pointed out that God being immoral or evil doesn't make him any less God. There's no reason, as far as I can tell, for God to necessarily be good)

The three essential characteristics of God are that he is all-knowing, all-good, and all-powerful. You have to look outside the Bible for this, and engage a little bit with traditional monotheistic religious philosophy. 

A lot of arguments for the all-goodness of God stem from his authority to give moral commandments. Because God is all good, he has the moral authority to tell us how we ought to behave. The goodness of God is also a load-bearing assumption for the Christian tradition, where Jesus' sacrifice is required as an intermediary act to reconcile a world considered to be innately sinful with a deity that is innately perfect. 

 

None of this makes a lot of sense to me—and I was raised a tongue-speaking, hands-laying nut job, and have two pastors and a Sunday School teacher in the family. I hate to be the guy Mizal was talking about, but there is no reason whatsoever for All Powerful God to be compelled to sacrifice anything at all, be it himself in the flesh, his son if you're a nontrinitarian, or lambs, in order to do anything. Nor is there a logical reason for pain or evil to exist (I often hear the logically bereft argument that without these things there would be no free will. No, those people just lack imagination).

 

However, there is a reason for which God may have created such a catastrophically flawed universe, and one in which his meaningless sacrifice might be of some use (meaningless because he's all powerful, and thus has no need for it in order to redeem humanity). And that reason can be seen in the pages of the Old Testament: God would need to be a megalomaniac. Someone who designs the entire universe, and creates mankind, allows them to fall, and then sacrifices himself, raises himself from the dead, and redeems humanity, all in order to put on a show and be praised for it. Not because he's bound by some Constantine-universe rules about redemption. Not because he's incapable of looking on sin (he's ALL POWERFUL; by definition he has NO limitations, so the argument that a perfect deity cannot abide sin is ludicrous to me—although this reminds me of an interesting thing my philosophy 101 teacher said: "The question 'Can God create a rock he cannot lift?' is like asking, 'What is the color of Middle C?']).

 

No. The only thing that makes any logical sense, if the Bible were true, is that God did it all to stroke his own ego. To be praised by his creation. He's a jealous god, after all. But essentially, the entire thing is one big show. At any point God can snap his fingers and end it all, and put it exactly how he wants it. So it stands to reason that the only reason he doesn't do that is because he's enjoying himself (although such a mortal concept could hardly describe God, but that's probably about the closest thing that would translate to human language). And based upon scripture, it seems the entire thing centers around his desire to be told how amazing he is, and to feel that way.

 

Although even then we'd run into thorny issues: what kind of perfect being has needs of any kind? And that is why, to be frank, the notion of a perfect God makes little sense to me. Hell, the notion of a sentient God (in the sense we tend to thing of the word) makes little sense to me. A perfect God would be incomprehensible to creatures like us. Which makes it all the more weird that God is so very human in the Bible. So, either the Bible is made up or otherwise inaccurate, or God simply is neither all-powerful nor all good. And probably not all-knowing either. All these things, in my humblest opinion, should be replaced with MOST-knowing, MOST-good, and MOST-powerful. Or perhaps he could be one or two but not all three.

Also, while I understand the traditional views philosophers have had on the nature of God, and that most Christians share many of those views, I have to point out that terms like “Most High” are used in the Bible more than terms like “Infinitely High.” Moreover, we know that Lucifer and a full third of the angels rebelled. Presumably they would have known if God was all powerful, and so they would have known that rebellion was doomed to fail. So what’s the apologist argument for that? That the Devil, as super-human clever as he was, was simply mad? As were a full one third of the Hosts of Heaven? I find it more likely they rebelled because they knew it was possible they could win—which would make God most powerful rather than all powerful.

 

This would also conveniently solve all philosophical challenges to the rationality of his existence, including the problem of evil. One simple theological change solves every problem, but I feel like our own conceit keeps us from taking that obvious step.

This one seems like it might be more of a question than a rant or debate-bait, so I’ll take a stab at it.

There are those who believe that “satan” is more of a metaphor for all that opposes God, since nowhere is it given a name or definite personal characteristics. In that case, the angels that fell were simply following a Will or desires that were contrary to God’s will.

For those who do believe that satan was a literal angel who fell (usually specifically supported by the dragon in Revelation), then the idea isn’t that he thought he could beat God, but that in his pride, he couldn’t stand God. He took a position similar to one that you’ve put forward that God did it to ‘stroke his ego.’

Not so much a “debate-bait” as much as an interest in the topic and a desire to learn and figure these seeming paradoxes out, as many people throughout history have had.

 

Regarding Lucifer as a fallen angel (rather than a force, or as some Jews and a few Christians believe, an actual servant of God who fulfills a specific purpose, like a prosecutor in a court of law), there is one difference between Lucifer and God that in my opinion would prevent him from rebelling against God simply to stroke his own ego, and I’ve already mentioned it: he would have known the best case scenario was that it would end in his destruction. He would have known he had zero chance of winning. Unless, either God isn’t all powerful or Lucifer was not aware that he was all powerful (I find the latter difficult to believe). Or, I guess, you could say his rebellion was a cry for help, or he just hated God so much he rebelled knowing it was useless, other than to hurt God emotionally by getting others to follow him (this is close to what most Christians believe even if they haven’t fully articulated it in their heads; Satan wants you in Hell primarily to spite God). But then God, being all-knowing, would have seen that coming, which invites a bunch of other questions.

 

I still believe the simplest solution is to replace “all” with “most,” and I see no solid logical reason for anyone to resist that. It seems to me like Einstein resisting non-locality, or his contemporaries a couple decades later being unable to reject the concept of universal time. But I guess I’ve always been partial to ambiguity in my small exposure to philosophy, preferring things like Aristotle’s somewhat ambiguous but more useful golden mean to the more black and white attempts of other philosophers at finding a grand unified theory of ethics, or whatever the proper terminology is.

I think you misunderstood my reply. I meant, that the satan rebelled as a result of a belief that God was ruling simply as a means to stroking his ego. In his eyes, God was the one who was prideful, and a pretty observable fact in the real world is that people who are prideful resent other people being prideful whether perceived or actual. As for the temptation of humans, it seems pretty convoluted for the satan to deceive people to get them to go to Hell to hurt God, since he’s thrown into the lake of fire at the end of days. I think the logical explanation is that he would want to swell his ranks for the battle of Armageddon. Whether out of hope, spite, or just wanton destructiveness, who can tell? The Bible tends not to shed much light on the hopes and dreams of the satan. There is also the possibility of multiple satans (as the word is not a name or a proper noun) in which case *shrug*

As for God’s Omni qualities, the reason they are important is because while the Bible does not refer to them explicitly, they are heavily implied.

Every good act of giving and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father who made the heavenly lights; with him there is neither variation nor darkness caused by turning. (James 1:17 CJB)

This, I think pretty well implies that God is presented as Omnibenevolent. If that one doesn’t do it for you, there’s always 1 John 4:17 (God is love) and several verses describing God as “perfect,” though “perfect” doesn’t necessarily imply Omnibenevolence.

As for Omnipotence:

“Look, I am Adonai, the God of every living creature; is there anything too hard for me?“ (Jeremiah 32:27 CJB)

Of course, assuming that you take the stance of God being the creator of everything and only he, himself being eternal, his omnipotence becomes a matter of course. After all, shouldn’t someone who created the system be able to change anything in the system? The idea of God being the only uncreated being is also supported in the opening of John 1.

As for Omniscience:

Before God, nothing created is hidden, but all things are naked and open to the eyes of him to whom we must render an account. (Hebrews 4:13 CJB)

There are others about God knowing the future and God knowing people’s thoughts, but this was the least limited and most unambiguous in my eyes.

Of course, there isn’t anything concrete about these passages that forces someone to adopt Omni qualities for God, but it is difficult to reconcile a limited view of God with the Bible.

I also have a fondness for some ambiguity and mystery, but I’m pretty alright with these because there is certainly plenty to be found elsewhere.

Re: Omnibenevolence

 

“Every good act of giving and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father who made the heavenly lights;” but what about bad gifts? Of course, one might argue the next portion of the scripture prevents that: “with him there is neither variation nor darkness caused by turning.” Assuming this is an accurate translation, it is contradicted by the times he changed his mind, such as the case of Jonah. What does “variation” or “turning” even mean here? If it means he doesn’t change, then if he was equally good and evil, he’d be unchanging but also the cause of every good and perfect gift as well as every bad one.

 

As for perfection, why is omnibenevolence perfection? Aristotle might argue there are times when the mean is to be, well, mean.

 

Re: omnipotence

 

He asks the rhetorical question, but if God were imperfect, he could be subject to overestimating his own power. Or if he weren’t omniscient, he could mistakenly believe there is nothing he can’t do (however, since it could be argued that knowing something is doing something, then omnipotence ought to imply omniscience). If there truly was nothing too difficult for him, it would mean he had to have chosen evil and pain to exist, which then brings into question his omnibenevolence, or he didn’t know it would happen, which brings into question his omniscience.

 

Re: omniscience

 

The scripture you quoted does say “nothing created is hidden” and “all things are open” to the eyes of God, but it doesn’t specify when. If I’m a security guard looking at cameras, nothing that occurs on film is out of my power to see, but I only have access to a little bit of it at a time. I can always rewind the film, but nonetheless there would be a time limitation on my access of any particular piece of information. God may be subject to some similar limitation. And if he was not, he would not have a brain that could comprehend linear time and things related to mortal existence. For such a brain, past, present and future would be one, and free will would clearly not exist for any of his creatures, as only one possible path could be laid out for each (it’s a tired argument, but I’ve yet to see someone defeat it).

 

So, I’d say even with those scriptures there is room to posit that God is lacking in at least one of omniscience, omnipotence, or omnibenevolence. But again, if he is omnipotent, I feel that necessarily implies omniscience, although not necessarily omnibenevolence. And of course the universe itself is a strong argument against having all three, as it is horribly flawed compared to these ideals we are discussing.

I don't see any reason why we shouldn't assume that God is all-powerful if we take your stance that God is megalomaniacal. It could well be that God used his power to push Lucifer to rebel in order to have an antagonist that would make his righteousness shine more brightly by comparison. After all, God can hardly show how righteous he is without evil in the world. He does this often enough in the Scripture, where it says God "hardened" so-and-so's heart in order to make them do evil. For instance, in Exodus 7:3, God says, "But I will harden Pharaoh’s heart that I may multiply My signs and My wonders in the land of Egypt." For context, he is telling Moses to reason with Pharaoh to let the Israelites go, but God will make sure Pharaoh doesn't listen to reason. Other instances where God hardens the heart of Israel's enemies explicitly in order to show his own power include Deuteronomy 2:30 and Joshua 11:20.

Yes, this quite reasonable to me. But it would of course make omnibenevolence impossible.

This doesn't account for the epithet אל שדי, which is typically rendered as "God Almighty", which does imply a sense of omnipotence. 

There is no instance in the Bible where it says one third of angels fell. You're confusing the verse in Revelation pertaining to the War in Heaven with the verse in Revelation where one third of the stars are knocked from the sky. 

As for human conceit, I think it's equally conceited to say "hermeneutics are complicated, God must be a megalomaniac".

Haha, that’s pretty funny. Although, in the case of the flood, the Bible claims that everyone who was killed was irredeemably wicked, and in the case of children as shown in your image or even newborns, God visits the iniquity of the fathers on the children and the children's children, to the third and the fourth generation, so as long as they had sinful parents, grandparents, great grandparents, or great great grandparents, it’s okay. I guess that also answers my question about how it was okay for God to sacrifice David’s child for David’s iniquities. It’s good and righteous as long as God does the sacrificing. Going back to the comparison, David’s victims were no more wicked than him, and in the case of Uriah, he is not killed for any iniquities at all but to cover up David’s own wickedness.

Monstrous. If all this is true, I think the good guy might actually be Lucifer. A true champion of freedom and justice, fighting against the ultimate tyranny. (hmmm... maybe this would make an interesting story... of course in that case, the Bible would have to be biased propaganda to demonize him, preventing him from recruiting more rebels)

The Bible explicitly claims that its authors wrote it while under God's influence, so it's definitely written from a pro-God perspective, which by definition makes it propaganda. The question is whether or not it is truthful propaganda, and that is a matter of faith. However, what I wrote about God visiting the iniquity of the father up to the third and fourth generation is a direct quote of Exodus 20:5, Numbers 14:18, Deuteronomy 5:9, and I believe a few other places, so this is what God wants you to know about him. I am aware that Ezekiel later claims that this is no longer true in Ezekiel 18:20.

I have issues with some of the scriptures claiming the Bible is straight from God. For example, I often hear the scripture: “All scripture is God-breathed,” but nowhere in that passage does it specify specifically which books count as scripture. Islam has scripture too. Is the Qur’an God breathed? There is no table of contents within the passages of scripture. Hell, even protestants and catholics have different books in their versions of the Bible.

 

I would, however, find it much more interesting if there really was a war that could go either way, with the Bible being propaganda, for the purpose of getting support from souls. And maybe souls fuel Heavenly weapons or something, which God and his angels and Lucifer and his use against each other in the battle. Would make a good CYS.

What counts as scripture obviously depends on your religion, but whatever it is, you should believe that your scripture is God-breathed since that's what it claims to be. If you believe that your holy book is written by some guy who lied about being inspired by God to write it, then what's to say the entire thing isn't made up? It's propaganda either way since we know what God wants us to know in the Bible whether it's through his breath or through his followers'. I personally don't like throwing God's omnipotence out the window since it throws too much of scripture into question and leaves everything a matter of speculation, in which case you're back to square one from a theological perspective. Putting God's benevolence into question leaves the Bible's narrative largely intact except for the descriptions of God's benevolence, which can be attributed as propaganda.

I don't think that's necessarily true. You don't have to believe that whoever wrote it lied in order to believe that the scripture isn't the literal word of God. Or, at least, that the word you're literally reading is spoken with pure and unaltered intent of the divine.

Most mystic, theological, and metaphysical study and practice, readily accepts that true and perfect knowledge of the world is an infinitely deep subject that most people will never have the time or understanding to achieve. Even right now you can have a doctorate in physics and practical sciences, and not only will you be readily aware that our perception of the world is incomplete, but you'll also be no closer to any of the "big questions", so to speak, about existence, than anybody else. Because the physical world is extremely narrow in scope and you simply can't be expected to make every decision based on it. You have to draw your own conclusions in this world, by necessity. The Soviets, ideologically, believed in nothing but science, but their beliefs about history and the world were informed by interpretation, not empirical testing, because you can't exactly rerun the past thousand years and boil down precisely what counts as capitalism and what aspects change. No one has that ability.

Jewish Kabbalah holds that Moses was the only man, out of everyone who ever fucking lived, to have achieved true knowledge of the world and God. And in doing so he became more holy instrument than man- Wants, needs, emotion, preconceived notions of knowledge, intuitions, most human behaviors were driven out of him, because all of those things were human flaws, which, while not even necessarily evil in themselves, would twist and contort the perception of information. And he spent days at the top of a mountain having visions of the incomprehensible in a state of mind utterly foreign to us. Anything written by anyone else is subject to mortal failures of bias and speculation. God is well aware of the very temporary and pragmatic nature of man. One might say that's even the primary things that these texts wrestle with. And you can tell by the way that the bible and its interpretation changes radically between books and testaments and even the varying branches of Judaism and Christianity, that the message changes by the nature of practical limitations of the medium. Not just the medium of language, but the medium of the human mind. Not everyone is ready or capable of achieving what Moses did- Full and absolute communication with the divine. Literally, no one else ever has been. I haven't exactly kept up with thought on the matter, but this is the perspective of most theologists since the medieval times, since a lot of kabbalistic beliefs were appropriated by the catholic metaphysics and disseminated throughout the more in-depth studies of Christian theology.

It would be pointless for an infinite being to waste the time of a temporary creature with knowledge that's only going to disappear with them when no one else can comprehend it, if you want to inspire change in an entire population of people over generations. What are bronze-age priest kings facing numerous political crises going to do with a scientifically accurate understanding of particle physics?  What is a society of mostly grain farmers going to do with laws that are fully explained and justified from beginning to end, where it takes such time to get to the point that they won't have time to work on their actual survival? Who would write down all that text, memorize that entire oral history to the letter, and pass on that message perfectly to each successive generation across all languages and cultures, without missing so much as a word? How would that message ever not die with the people who received it?

So the bible contains only the sharpest points, rendered loosely by God, with the abstraction necessary to make sense to a society alien to its descendants. The instructions to make an apple pie from scratch need not literally begin at the creation of the universe. Because the message was broad, most of its particulars are indeed lost to history.

Not encouraging the farming or eating of pigs made a lot of sense to complicated near-east bronze age civilizations that relied heavily on the accounting classes to keep taxes flowing, because pig herders had variable litters and herd sizes, didn't need to own much land to feed their animals, etc. and the industry created an underclass that could not be taxed effectively. Christianity entered a different civilization, founded under much different principles, cultural presuppositions, and circumstances, and so the rule was thrown out almost at the inception of the religion. It just made sense, and God, allegedly, was the author of both directives. Why would an omnipotent, all-knowing being command one thing and then another? Probably because needs change dramatically over time and distance, and so the guiding principles of a group must adapt. It was, in part, a kneejerk reaction of the radically different culture of Christianity entering the middle east through the roman empire that Islam formed.

The instruction can come from God, but the scripture is circumstantial. It comes from the people who wrote it, who received a specific edict under specific circumstances, that they filtered through a particular worldview. I don't think most modern practitioners of judeochristian religion have use for the labor and marriage laws of an ancient Levantese citystate, because their context is so absurdly alien that the simple and reasonable reaction is of course that that's not the part that informs their beliefs. But there are wider, guiding principles of humility, altruism, and decency that can be derived from the bible, and are consistent, recurring themes, that do inform the belief system of the average person, many of whom can naturally draw the conclusion, given all the context and history a modern educated person has, that some things about the bible must be some kind of compromise between total knowledge, total morality, and what an intrinsically limited person, in a chaotic world, upholding a flawed mortal society, can write down and expect people to believe and maintain through faith.

This probably doesn't apply exactly to most people who believe the bible, but just because most believers aren't prepared with the verbiage beyond "I don't think this is literally the word of God" when confronted with this argument, it hits on this kind of interpretation, particularly among protestants whose beliefs largely rely on the ecumenical scholarship's ability to roll with the punches of time, place, and differences in collective wisdom. 

I recognize that scripture is a product of the culture that wrote it. It's been repeated ad infinitum by others in this thread. However, it is also and more importantly the word of God, and nothing in your post contradicts that. In fact, you state that "the bible contains only the sharpest points, rendered loosely by God, with the abstraction necessary to make sense to a society alien to its descendants", so you agree that, at the end of the day, the words of the Bible are rendered by God. Just because God rendered those words to fit the circumstances of the people they were directed at doesn't stop them from being the words of God.

God commanding different things at different times for different peoples is not evidence that the Bible was written by people based on their own interpretations. In fact, it is stated in 2 Peter 1, "Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." Islam is not just a cultural reinterpretation of Christianity. Muslims believe that God gave them new commandments through a new prophet. If you believe that those commandments were merely human interpretations made to suit their own cultural sensitivites, you would be decried as a heretic by any true Muslim. The scripture, in all cases, claims to be the word of God, not the interpretation of man. If you don't believe that, then you shouldn't believe anything else written by the authors.

It doesn't stop them from being words of god, no. But, importantly, the bible is a static object that does not contain God speaking to the reader specifically about how a modern life should be lived, in nearly the same way that he opines to bronze age and prehistoric dudes about how bronze age and prehistoric lives should be lived. The priorities of God seem to change dramatically between the old and new testament, as dramatically as the civilizations themselves had changed, and you'll find in Jewish teachings they have drawn wildly different and yet wildly similar conclusions about existence and how life should be lived from the first texts as well. In God's empathy, his words were already clearly chosen specifically to fit the time and place they were written, so to speak. Much of it in the early days was oral, a medium that naturally wnd inevitably mutates with generations and added information. Demands for sacrifice and the rules surrounding them are indeed pretty meaningless to most modern practitioners of abrahmic religions. Theologically, most people today understand that giving him anything material probably means nothing to an infinite entity. But the context is important because God was emerging in a world where he was not the first or only god to most of these people. So the language and practice of sacrifice was important to communicate meaning to people for whom this was their only means of communing and beseeching the gods. Whether we should still be sacrificing is a subject of debate in Islam right now, enough that it pretty much is an interpretation of man. Because that's the barrier with all language. Even if you write down exactly what you're told like Peter said, (ignoring that he's specifically talking about prophecy) you are victim to a context where you have incomplete knowledge, you will be addressing people with incomplete knowledge and incorrect assumptions, and people will be forced to draw conclusions based on an utterly alien situation. The individual commands that make up an artificial intelligence do not understand why they relay specific parts of information to the rest of the code, but from a hollistic perspective the actions of the AI make sense, a complete picture.

 

I won't get into the syncretism here because the three big biblical takes have survived this long in distinction predominantly because they aren't cross-compatible, (With a handful of notable exceptions, but interesting minority religions aren't the topic at hand.) and because I'm mostly agnostic my perspective is skewed. But assuming a universalist perspective for the sake of argument, one of the big problems in the middle east and outer reaches of the east roman empire, was a certain incredulity, but also a lack of proper, complete, unified belief. What they were expected to believe by the state was a set of new comandments, yes, but also a wild reinterpretation of a minority religion that conflicted in many flagrant ways with present cultures and belief systems, which wasn't how this was supposed to work at all. Most "pagans" of the arabic-speaking world submitted to belief in Allah as king of other gods, rather than the one, only, and unknowable god. This is why Mohammed was given such stringent and oft-repeated rules to lay down about theology and the nature of monotheism right out the gate. Much of his instructions and commandments are culturally based, in a way foreign to many western people of the book, based on the context that he and most other people in what became the islamic world would have had to make sense of the world, by definition a biased and cultural lense with interpretations and presuppositions about the world that differ from others. That's why the split is so pronounced and contradictory, but common ground can still be found between believers about how they make sense of the world and view morality, because those are the common themes between them outside of the context-sensitive instructions given by god, which are rarely, if ever, elaborated on by the guy himself. For an idiosyncratic example, a jewish person can only guess at why, morally, they aren't supposed to eat pork. Even Maimonedes who provides a possible pragmatic explanation is not recieving this knowledge from revelation, but by intepretation. Incessant and elaborate study and familiarity with the word  so that moral knowledge can be made from interpreting the word of god is a key part of kabbalistic logic. One of its multiple facets is, in a way, making sense of the simple and unelaborate commandments of God and the complications that arise in following them, and this is a kind of spiritual practice that has been done by religions the world over as they change and shift beliefs into their modern shapes. To ask why, and determine which beliefs are and are not load-bearing to the kind of fanon surrounding the bible. And that will always change because the human situation is always changing as new knowledge of the world is incorporated. This happens basically all the time in Catholicism where popes, as living emissaries of God, continuuously contradict each other in aspects of dogma. Most recently in the rejection of purgatory and the idea they're floating about allowing priests to marry. But antisedentism or whatever it's called is another matter, that's also been around for quite some time and has formed over many such edicts. Which is also interesting.

 

But I dunno what I'm really saying this for anymore, it seems we differ significantly in what we view as valid belief here. You seem to be arguing that textual fundamentalism is the only religious interpretation consistent enough to be "real", because if one thing is subject to interpretation then everything else must be also. This does form a nice, static, straw-like entity for you to own on the internet. But most religions throughout history seem to believe, tacitly or not, that the opposite is true. That interpretation and using collective scholarship, the world, and the self to view the texts, are the proper way to read the bible because from a view of how humans simply process, understand and store information, that's the only way anything makes sense. When we write basically anything, we're using our by-definition incomplete thoughts and senses to pass on an impression of our impression through intellectual darkness. And this means that even with instruction from an entity with complete knowledge, important subtextual information is lost even to contemporary readers. Interpretation is necessary to understanding because that's literally what life is. That's all our brains do with any information. There's even funny vegetables you can eat that actively fuck with the interpretation your brain does automatically. That creates a very different picture of the reality you're in, separate from cultureb knowledge, and preconcieved notions. You get a bunch of raw, fucked input. Thank goodness our brains don't work like that all the time. Unless they have schizophrenia, but that's another matter.

But I dunno what I'm really saying this for anymore

Neither do I. As far as I can tell, nothing you have written contradicts anything that I have said. Yes, God has different priorities for different peoples living in different times. I have acknowledged this on numerous occasions. Just because parts of the Bible are no longer relevant to modern life doesn't mean God changes his mind on a dime, not that I think that's what you're suggesting. In fact, I'm not sure what your point is in that regard. Unless God sends down another prophet, there's no reason to believe his commands for us have changed. Yes, there are concepts that may be impossible to express in human languages, and that may leave parts of the Bible up for interpretation. However, most parts of the Bible are quite clear in their meaning, and in such cases, what is written should be held sacrosanct. For instance, 1 Samuel and 2 Samuel are almost entirely simple narration of events and God’s judgment and involvement in said events, and we should hold those to be the true course of said events if we are to believe that scripture is God-breathed.

Ah right, I remember now. We're making the same point in two different spirits. Most takes on the bible upheld by world religions, even very conservative ones, (aside from fundamentalism and other surface reads) readily accept that the human perspective is flawed and contradictory, even when perfectly instructed, and contains things and misremembered historical events that are not literally true but metaphorically sound. Even when perfectly instructed, (and it's safe to say that it isn't always, as much of the old testament is recorded from living memory of a wide variety of traditions, and which books qualified for the cut were widely debated when it was all being compiled.) these emanations are best understood through interpretation because they aren't universally applicable to religious understanding.

Oh wow. How original.

I feel like ignoring that God is alleged to have drowned thousands of two year olds is as irrational as anything a 12 year old has ever considered. It seems dishonest to ignore the ethical implications of such an act.

Of course, you could always say it's justified because he's God and everything he does is therefore automatically just. But if you do so, it's probably disingenuous to pretend you've put much intellectual effort in your own understanding of what's right and wrong—although I think it's fair to consider it as a position from which to explore the question, without necessarily accepting it as true or false. But if the problem of evil was such a clear and obvious thing to explain, philosophers and theologians wouldn't still be arguing over it.

In any event, unlike most edgelords, I'm actually interested in an answer to the question. I'm not one of those people who resents religion and God. I actually wish I was still a believer. I just need an intellectually satisfying reason to believe, and unfortunately, thus far deism is all I can justify based on the world as I see it.

As for the picture I posted (which was offensive, but also funny no matter how many babies got their feewings huwt), the very same snowflakes who get pissy about that sort of thing also share offensive memes mocking Islam, or some random Democrat. We’re all hypocrites here.

So, one of the first things to realize is that God does not have a code of ethics. Ethics are generally a system that ensures people can dispense some kind of consistent and fair judgments in their dealings with people. For a being that knows a person’s thoughts and futures, however, it would be unjust to do anything that wasn’t the absolute best outcome for the person in question. Thus, God’s treatment is personalized, and therefore, unpredictable.

Next is an extremely obvious point that I only bring up because it pertains directly to the flood. I forget the specific terms, and I don’t feel like digging up research for this, but there’s a difference between evil that people do, and evil that is definitely not caused by a person. You can potentially blame God that a family member got cancer, but unless you believe that people don’t have free will, you can’t really blame God if I torture and kill in my free time. You could maybe blame God that I have the option, but that’s a later point.

Another point is that there are most often, different interpretations of what is “good” being argued about. The idea that it’s morally reprehensible for God to drown babies (or toddlers, whatever) is kind of loaded with a few other assumptions that I’m gonna try to address. The first is, killing is bad sometimes. That’s true, but by the reading of the Bible, the reason that God was destroying the world was because they were consistently evil, they lived too long, and there were half angel giants terrorizing the world. It would be unjust to have children grow up alone in a world like this after drowning their parents.

Now, I do have basic pattern recognition, so I know that you’ll come back with the idea that God could’ve come up with something else. If that is truly the case, there are two positions you can take (probably more actually, but once again, I’m not doing research). The first is the Augustinian view that the babies already sinned, so they deserve it. The second is that there was some kind of good in what God did. Pretty much everyone who is a Christian and isn’t a total Augustine simp believes in an age of accountability before which, God shows mercy in the afterlife. This isn’t explicitly stated anywhere in the Bible, but there is quite a bit of evidence.

From the younger Israelites being spared their death in the wilderness so they could enter the promised land, to David being confident that he would see his dead baby when he died. The Bible certainly has enough precedent to believe that babies get the good afterlife. Additionally, Paul himself said, “to live is Christ and to die is gain.” So while the young children may not have had a chance at life and a choice to come over to God’s side, the fact is that most of them probably wouldn’t have, so they got the best they could’ve (disclaimer: this is all conjecture and may not represent the literal mind of God).

Now, addressing the fact that people have to choose between good and evil (I think somebody called it the burden of free will), I’m not sure if you really asked this, but I’m addressing it anyway because it’s freezing outside and I’m bored. First, I recommend everyone read the section of The Brothers Karamazov entitled “The Grand Inquisitor” if you have this same question. Of course, Dostoyevsky leaves it beautiful unanswered vocally, but poetically answered by Jesus’ actions. I’m gonna just trample all over that in muddy boots and explain it anyway. In the end, it’s implied that we have free will because God loves us, and because God loves us, it’s worth choosing rightly. In even less beautiful language, free will is itself, from God’s perspective a positive good, so he lets us choose freely, which does imply that we have to live in a world where evil is not just accessible, but also convenient enough that people would actually choose it.

The other thing people like to point out is that the world itself if bad. Now, I’m pretty sure everyone who’s honest will admit that the world is actually a mixed bag. Now, if I remember the City of God correctly, Augustine’s view was essentially that there has to be a balance of good and evil (suffering from here on out, not moral evil) so that people are more likely to both have hope that God is good, but also have something forcing them to acknowledge that they need God. While I don’t necessarily disagree, I also don’t think that it’s a sufficient explanation in and of itself. Personally, I like to combine that one with a point C.S. Lewis makes that many of the better virtues in humanity are really only visible in times of evil. There really isn’t any opportunity to show bravery in a world without disasters or magnanimity in a world where everyone has enough. This would lead me to believe that a world with suffering is better than one without.

Now, I can guarantee that I didn’t answer the question to your satisfaction (despite putting way too much effort in), and I am perfectly satisfied with that. There are two books of the Bible that really address this. Ecclesiastes is all about how life seems arbitrary and empty, yet it also concludes that wisdom and service of God are still the right thing to do. The second, of course, is Job. The entire book is a question of whether God is actually just if bad things happen to good people. God’s answer to Job, rather than justifying his actions, emphasizes the fact that God has the bigger picture and we don’t. If these books don’t give a direct answer, my direct answer certainly won’t hold any meaning to you. If you really are searching, I would recommend reading those books. Even if you’re not though, I’m always happy to spit in the wind.

I’m not proofreading this

You're trying very hard but this thread is unfortunately still a high school debate club and will remain that way indefinitely, no one who baits with the "God is evulz and mean" stance ever does it without ignoring the core points that are needed to have an discussion about an omnipotent Creator God in the first place. Little things like:

1) God is the creator
2) God is omnipotent

God can yeet a meteorite at the planet to remove a bunch of innocent bird lizards and make way for mammals, and then he can wait awhile and drown a bunch of babies too, this is not a moral issue anymore than letting Celicni get hit with a car is.

God as an omnipotent being knows "the day and the hour" of everyone's death from the beginning of time, and he also knows the results that will bring about, their exact thoughts and feelings experiencing it and what happens to them after. In this context death is a minor speedbump in eternity.

If we have trouble wrapping our minds around this, that's presumably because we're not omnipotent beings. (Although I do always find the idea of some random autist sticking out their lip and going "oh yeah, well I demand you EXPLAIN YOURSELF to my satisfaction, Mr. God, or you're not getting any prayers from me!" particularly funny.)

I mean, I paid a stranger to drug my dog and cut my her open with knives, I'm sure that sucked for her. Later I fed her some chicken (a bird had to die for this), and I frequently point a rectangular device at her for reasons she can't begin to comprehend, my ways are just inscrutable.

Malk's point about God being understood by definition to be all-knowing, all-good, and all-powerful is also a factor. You have to have that as a basis for discussion of the Abrahamaic God. Sure, you can say you mean a god that's actually evil; you can also describe a god that's a purple mongoose who contacts you on TikTok, but in both cases it's really hard to have a discussion when there's no agreement on what's being discussed.

Yeah, why my brain compels me to beat my head against brick walls is a mystery to me. Really, that makes me the bigger idiot

"You have to have that as a basis for discussion of the Abrahamaic God."

 

One issue non-believers have with that is that this nature of the Abramaic God appears at face value to have changed over time. If you read Genesis at face value, he can be interpreted as not being as OP as he was by the time we get to, say, Hebrews 4:13, and certainly not by the time we get to the end of Revelation. Unless, for example, he was just joking around when he asked Adam where he was, and all the other points in which he appears to demonstrate less than perfect characterization. Hence why some people argue that the real problem is the assumption that God is some infinitely perfect creature. Of course, we have apologetics and all that, as well as various dogma, in order to decide which verses require assuming they were colloquial or meant as some sort of lesson (Genesis 3:8-10) versus which ones are definitely straight forward and true (Hebrews 4:13).

My sleep schedule is fucked again and this thread is literally giving me a cringe headache so I'm not sure if I'll be able to keep this down to one thought and one point, but here is the thing. Theology has changed over time, of course. Just like all the other 'ologies. From the perspective of theology as a thing that's real, that makes it no different from the study of any other aspect of reality in that respect. The Abrahamic God introduced themselves to a people recording things from the perspective of bronze-age polytheist cults and nomad shamans. What does sacrifice mean to an infinite being? You may well ask why anyone prays if God is omniscient and knows what we want and what we're thankful for anyway. The reason these things matter in the bible is because that's the vocabulary, so to speak, that humans had at the time to comprehend and commune with the divine. The people who wrote the bible probably weren't moses, but they were people recording their memory of oral traditions of moses, (carefully kept, but oral traditions nonetheless) which came from a polytheistic world where the gods were limited, because that's what gods were in the understanding of people in the early age of civilization. They had no conception of the infinite or the omnipotent. This had to be established over and over again in less uncertain terms throughout the bible for this vision of Abrahamic theology to really crystallize. In the earliest possible days, the Israelites likely assumed there were other gods, and God was the mightiest. Most people simply don't believe in whatever the golden calf was these days, but that distinction wasn't really a thing in those days. The stance of early judaism was "Real or not, have no other gods before ME". That's partially why there's such an emphasis on him being "God of Israel", because, you see, that's kind of the thing. Back then, every citystate had a God, kind of like a religious Polandball. These days, we understand God to be the God of everything, not just an obscure city in the hot, sandy backwoods of the planet. But I think it demonstrates the clear difference in worldview and information that these people had- The neighbors of Jerusalem, the emperors of citystates to whom all their neighbors were subservient, referred to these emperors as kings of the cosmos, kings of the stars, the whole planet, and the very universe.

Using the framework of these capricious bronze age gods, based off of mere, flawed men, it kind of makes sense that when man puts the actions of something this unknowable to the limitations of language, they use a limited theological vocabulary. The "power level" of God changes according to how much he decides to intervene in the story to make his point. Writers describe God "changing his mind", despite being omniscient, in response to appeals from Moses. This doesn't mean it's necessarily inconsistent, it means the writers didn't know what they were witnessing because the infinite is truly unknowable. God can carefully choose what level of intervention is needed and not conflict with omnipotence, and he can choose to react differently to Moses because he can see his heart is in the right place of his own free will, without conflicting with omniscience. But the people who originally passed this down did not have any conception of this. It took a bunch of Grecian nerds hundreds, and the occassional thousand, years later to develop the vocabulary that eventually formed the modern theological understanding of the God of Abraham. Back then, when this all began, most of what they had was "I AM" and some pretty badass miracles to differentiate him from the gods of their neighbors

Those kinds of answers probably took hundreds of years for brilliant people to figure out. Absolutely genius people found ways to rationalize these things (although to date there are still problems yet to be solved, which may never be solved, as mentioned in this thread).

 

Three thousand years later, the simpler answer is this god was created by people, and became more complex as the minds who contemplated it did as well, and these brilliant people retconned various aspects of the belief system to explain possible inconsistencies or changes. Of course, that approach short circuits theology and related sub-discipline of metaphysics which focus on Abrahamic versions of God. And even if the entire thing is fantasy, the academic discipline itself has as much value as anything else. And if it's real, maybe God will be pleased with people taking an analytic approach to understanding him.

This was an excellent answer, and I appreciate your effort. Of course, as you predicted, it's not fully satisfying. However, there is one thing buried in here that's also in scripture, from 1 Corinthians 13:9-12:

 

 

For we know in part, and we prophesy in part.

But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.

When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.

For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.

 

 

So basically, it's the same reason suicide isn't rational: there's always a chance there's some purpose to life you haven't considered, or some joy waiting, and since you can't know the future, you can't make a fully educated decision on whether or not to blow your brains out. Likewise, there's always a chance there's some greater purpose which eludes our mortal perception. So God does have that one "Get out of 'You're Evil'" card there. Which leaves the final question:

Of the infinite logical possibilities, why one in which there is suffering? And you alluded to that too, as did the published paper I linked to earlier: this amount of suffering may simply be the best choice. Maybe some suffering makes it better?

Anyway, thank you for your great answer, unlike the answers some other people living the bovine existence like to give on this question.

>>>I just need an intellectually satisfying reason to believe

And it's definitely an obscure writing forums job to solve your personal problems on demand.

I wasn't asking for that. But as a Christian, it is your job.

You need a therapist.

I don't really care that much about it any more. I'm pretty content with basically being a pantheist or a deist. I'm only in this thread for mental masturbation and to accidentally learn something.

You might want to believe, but nobody in here is a missionary. You're making an appeal to people whom it is literally not their job. A Christian is not asked to justify their beliefs to you. A Christian is not expected to always have the tools or knowledge to come to some kind of socratic conclusion that makes sense to you. There is a reason this kind of task was traditionally separate from what was expected of the laymen. The task of the normal believer is predominantly to spread the word, both literally and through action as upstanding members of a loving community, or some shit like that. I think you'd be pretty hard pressed to find any religion on this planet, let alone in the judeo-christian sphere, that put any kind of moral onus on its own believers for other people who had been given the message but ultimately didn't believe. Your faith, or lack thereof, is your own prerogative. Literally no one has less input on the inside of your head than this subject in particular.

If you're not interested in discussion, you're free to ignore the thread rather than making inane remarks. But I can see that this thread is filled with mindless zealots who can't tolerate anyone who doesn't mindlessly agree with everything God does, so further discussion seems quite pointless. In any case, I have said my piece.

Lol, fag.

You're equally free to fuck off from CYS at any time. I'm not even sure what it is you do here exactly.

Funnily the last thing I remember from you before this thread was derailed for your bait and switch masturbation session was waving a Russian flag around, and then immediately slinking off saying you weren't going to defend your stance because you were just 2 edgy for us and arguing would be a "massive waste of your time."

You whine about the culture, you think the mods are idiots, and you're obviously not here for the games. So why do you keep coming back?

Okay, actually, I'm afraid the Council of Zealots has determined that you're not allowed to leave on this kind of parting shot, it's a bad habit you're developing.

If you're going to make this kind of post (again), you must at least list the names of these mindless zealots everywhere, overflowing the thread who had nothing worthwhile to contribute but just all banded together with their angry hive insect droning to chase you out of your personal wank space. You know we don't tolerate bullying on CYS and so of course we want to resolve this immediately.

:)

@HelpfulConnoisseur

You have 24 hours.

Ah, so this is the post that lead to our Helpful's demise.

With that, a new martyr has been born! Dying for everyone’s sins all over.

Checkmate, atheists. 

How can scientists explain this?

Dude, it's not that complicated. If you want to understand the character of the God of The Bible then pick up a dang Bible and start reading it instead of nuking your brain cells trying to find some obscure philosophical link on the internet that will lead you to the holy grail of truth. Otherwise, I suggest you leave your mom's basement and start talking to real-life people who are actually qualified to answer the questions you're asking.

Centuries of writings from people who devoted their lives to understanding and articulating this stuff, even with multiple choice across three major world religions, but Flux remains tormented by the loss of his cherished faith if random forum goers can't provide sufficient LOGIC on their lunch breaks.


....oh but fine I'll edit in a relevant Augustine quote since Petros brought him up.
"For understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore, do not seek to understand in order to believe, but believe so that you may understand.”

Git gud scrub.

Read it front to back multiple times. As I said before, I came from a tongue-speaking, hands-laying, psychotic cult version of Christianity in which God "speaks" to you and people prophesy over you. It will be hard to find someone who was more deeply invested in Christianity than I was.

If you say something insulting in a thread on the internet, Helpcon believes you're an unthinking retard who can't possibly conceive of any counters to his Based Points™.

You could also justify Gnosticism! Just sayin', heresy is funny!

I mean, you already walked yourself through all the logical prerequisites, trying to talk yourself out of the critical assumptions of Omnipotence and Omnibenevolence. Dudes far more philosophical than us coping with the reality-nihilism of latestage ancient greek metaphysics found a suitably "intellectually satisfying" answer in separation from the worldly god and the real one.

I'm not sure why gibbons or sunrises exist in a world shaped by a sadistic demiurge, but that's silly feelings talk and I just don't think that's logical enough for this discussion.

The main point of discussing these things on an internet forum, as far as I can tell, is entertainment. And if someone points out something you hadn't considered along the way, it just makes it better.

Did you mean to reply to this post with that, or? Feels like there's different topics happening here

If you've been in non-threaded view this whole time, I am going to kill you.

I meant that in response to you bringing up Gnosticism. I haven't really considered it or researched it much, other than the bare minimum necessary to get an A in Phil 101 (which is basically one or two sentences), and I'm finding it pretty interesting because you brought it up.

Milton already did that you fucking retard

Milton never made a CYOA game out of it, did he?

You are fucking stupid.

Actually, never mind. I’m actually envious of you. I remember back when I just started reading Behe and Dembski too. I wish that I would have remained intellectually dishonest. Losing your cherished faith is torment.

Ha, Dumb ski

lol

-10

You are still being dishonest.  Your reasoning is just bad, really bad, and you are not as intellectual as you like to think you are.

And you base that on what? Care to justify anything you said? Based on the context (the names I dropped), I was referring to Chris' Young Earth Creationism vs real science. Only someone lying to themselves or a complete dumbass rejects evolution.

I don't really need to justify anything to you, and I never really wanted to get in the middle of this.  Malk, Sent, and Mizal have all provided well reasoned answers.

what Chris said was just funny.

But I base my statement on your illogical and obtuse reasoning that you provided in your own posts. The questions you pose are childish at best, and your own conclusions don't follow rational reasoning. The fact that you want to name drop when basic reasoning escapes you demonstrates that you think you are being intellectual in your approach when in fact you are not.  In truth, you justified what I said, but you lack the insight to analyze you own statements. I honestly hope someday you figure it out.

I wasn't "name dropping" for any other reason than to point out that apologetics is denial. Typically Christians start on that path by reading those guys (or maybe they start with Hovind, then graduate to ID). That is all that was about. That would have been clear if you knew who I was referencing. And you have again not justified anything you said. Nor can you, because it's retard speak. This question is STILL being explored and discussed by philosophers, even if it's not all that popular due to it being a somewhat futile exercise. It is not some solved issue. No one knows the answers. People simply have preferences for which unsatisfactory one(s) they prefer.

The man who can hold onto his faith during times of hardship is ten times stronger than the man who throws it away after reading some shit a few guys wrote.

My world history professor used to say something similar to that when a flat earth creationist got butthurt regarding evolution. He'd say, "Is your faith so weak that it's threatened by a universe in which the variation of species is the result of evolution by natural selection?"

It's not like you can't remain Christian and stop rejecting science, after all. Kenneth Miller, the guy who destroyed Behe in that court case regarding teaching ID, didn't abandon his faith, after all. Still very much a believer and practicing Catholic.

I'm not sure whether to be offended by or laugh at your assumption that me being a Christian = me choosing to reject science.

I could be mistaking you for someone else.

Considering I'm a recently born again Christian who views most of the Old Testament as metaphorical rather than literal and accepts the fact that the Earth is much, much, MUCH older than 5000 years old, yeah, you just might be.

Then at the risk of being a fag, sorry for mistaking you.

You were waving your fag flag high well before this, dw.

The last creationist we had on this site was a twelvie who stopped using the site before like 2016. Who even the fuck were you suspecting?

Some dude started spouting off about genetics and claiming it disproved evolution a few months ago. I clearly don't remember who, but I do recall seeing some tried and true IDiot arguments.

Did this involve polar bears?

No idea. All I remembered was getting super triggered at someone bascially arguing the entirety of the scientific community is full of dumbasses and crooks. The irony is not lost on me.

I don't remember this at all, but with as little activity as the forum usually has it's hard to believe everyone else would have too. Since you seem really confused on other things like "who is Chris", I'll wait and see if anybody else has any memory of this thing you're going on about.

Ah, found it. What follows is more cringe. Read at your own risk.

It was Camelon, and it was just one post and one reply. Also, it was two years ago, not a few months ago. Getting old... Anyway, it must have been the C in the names that confused me. I am surprised at how mellow I responded, because I remember seething over the fact that the post was ripped off of some Institute of Creation Research article, but the article was, as per usual for that site, deceptive as fuck (not mad at Camelon at the time, but rather ICR).

Camelon's post in the thread: "In 2002 when 614,000 base pairs surrounding the site were sequenced and found no other similarities with ape chromosomes 2A or 2B."

Institute of Creation Research article: "In 2002, 614,000 bases of DNA surrounding the fusion site were fully sequenced, revealing that the alleged fusion sequence was in the middle of a gene originally classified as a pseudogene because there was not yet any known function for it."

Meanwhile, the paper that the Institute of Creation Research sited for the claim that Human Chromosome 2 is not a fused chromosome starts with: "Human chromosome 2 was formed by the head-to-head fusion of two ancestral chromosomes that remained separate in other primates." They literally took a paper and essentially argued directly against what it said. It gets a lot worse than that, if you actually read it.

 

Most annoying is that the author of the IDiot paper is arguing that we should expect a pristine and perfect telomere. Why the hell would a fused telomere be perfectly intact?

So this was the person I confused for Chris. And there was no asshole discussion, despite my jimmies being rustled somethin' fierce. I must have grown more immature since then.

It's funny because you're a ridiculous pseud and the fact that you're talking about Behe and Dembski shows that the depth of your philosophical inquiry is ridiculously shallow. The fact that you came from the most retarded kind of Christian background makes sense, because you're posting a lot of retarded shit in this thread. You've never engaged with anything aside from the most memeable and the most simplistic forms of American Protestantism which is why you and the gay Nazi whose name I forget are both laughable imbeciles. The fact that you're accusing Chris of being a YEC demonstrates the degree to which early exposure to retarded shit is floating in your blood stream like lead paint. You strike me as the kind of person who thinks Christopher Hitchens was a cogent philosopher.

That's a lot of assumptions based on very little. I'm discussing generic 'Murican Christianity because that is what is most prevalent today. Damn near every poster in this thread is pretending to be some well-read genius, and I suspect maybe one or two have actually had some post-secondary training beyond Phil 101 on the relevant topics. Especially considering the most frequent answer to the questions in this thread regarding them is to insert ones head into ones ass and ignore the issue entirely. And as I have pointed out already, the people who are experts in the relevant fields are still debating the issue.

No, you're discussing "generic 'Murican Christianity" because you're a pseud and you can only attack the most retarded people on the planet without getting a rebuttal that requires you to think and argue your point. 

You're also definitely not a part of any ongoing conversation within the broader field. I can tell because of the childishness of your position as well as your unfamiliarity with basic religious philosophy. You haven't managed to produce an argument that Maimonides didn't anticipate ~1800 years ago. It would be far more difficult to go hurr religion bad god fake if you had engaged with any substantive religious tradition, but you haven't, because this is at best a masturbatory exercise for you, and at worst a Reddit karma r/atheism fishing scheme. 

So traditional Christians are the most retarded people on the planet?

As for whatever ancient philosopher you want to bring up, again, if the problem is solved, why are philosophers still publishing about the problem of evil? Is your argument that modern philosophers are just stupid? Nice name drop, by the way.

Lastly, the problem of evil isn't even the main problem with a literal interpretation of the Bible. Physics is. Noah's flood is simply impossible. The only solution is magic. And then we have to posit a perfect God who designs his laws and then, due to perhaps a lack of foresight, has to go and violate the laws he made. And now you have to say that a large portion of America's founding fathers were all also retarded edgelords with poor training in philosophy and religion since they seemed to hold the view that a God intervening in his creation with miracles that violate his own design is a retarded one. So how do we decide which of the "names" we want to drop were the wise ones?

(Oh yeah, obviously I side with the Aristotelian side on the the argument regarding God doing anything that "changes" anything at all. And no, I'm not claiming to be some well read dude. But their argument is compelling to me, which is why I imagine that God probably isn't a perfect creature. And oh yeah, before you even say it, yes I'm aware of the argument that miracles aren't miracles at all, but natural, planned events that happen rarely, like how in a closed time-like loop in general relativity you can have influence on the past from the future without messing up causality. I believe that was already mentioned in this discussion.)

Traditional Christians aren't the most retarded people on the planet, you're the most retarded person on the planet you're not smart enough to understand that your upbringing doesn't represent the normative views of Christians or the Christian tradition. And I "name dropped" Maimonides because Mishneh Torah and Guide to the Perplexed have huge sections devoted to the pitfalls of literalist interpretation. Maimonides held that the text was wholly divinely inspired, but contained within it mysteries and "spoke in the language of man"; that is, it was communicated to human beings through Moses, and thus limited by human speech. His diagnostic for when a passage of Torah contains a mystery that requires further interpretation is when it is in contradiction with reason. The mode of discourse and religious understanding that you're arguing against was already being demonstrated as retarded 1800 years ago. Also, Maimonides was medieval, not ancient. 

"A large portion of America's founding fathers were all also retarded edgelords" yup! I sure will. I'm sure Thomas Jefferson found hs torturous interpretation of the divine very helpful in justifying raping children that he was the legal owner of. 

You're the only one who seems attached to a literalist interpretation of the Bible, here. I know that it's hard to accept that the backwoods pastor who took your virginity was retrograde in his theology, but literalism hasn't been fashionable for actual millennia. 

Also, the problem of evil isn't some hotly debated thing in modern philosophy. In fact, a quick JSTOR search just now shows that there are very few works on the Problem of Evil published in the 21st century, largely because it's fucking played out. In fact, the only one to come out in this current decade was from Don Thursen's An Introduction to Christian Faith and Practice, and it was a work of apologetics that would make you seethe and dilate. 

It's played out. It's not solved.

Eslami & Egonsson, "Progress on the Problem of Evil." International Journal of Philosophical Studies 29 (2):221-235 (2021).

McFarland, "The Problem with Evil." Theology Today, Volume 74 Issue 4, January 2018.

Pihlström, "Why there should be no argument from evil: remarks on recognition, antitheodicy, and impossible forgiveness." International Journal of Philosophy and Theology, 2016.

Luis Cordeiro-Rodrigues, and Pao-Shen Ho, "Religion, Animals, and the Problem of Evil: A Decolonial Approach from Relational Ontology." Religions, 2022.

Holmen, "Action and the problem of evil." International Journal of Philosophy and Theology, 2015.

 

I don't feel like doing any more searching for you. The topic is alive and well. Do I get to call you retarded now for incorrectly assuming philosophers no longer had interest in the topic? Do I get to say you're a pseud with no real understanding of the topic? Anyway, Jefferson being scum doesn't mean he or his peers were retards. If he was, then I suppose Hume must have been a retard as well. Along with Aristotle. And I suppose any philosopher that doesn't share your particular preferences.

 

If you weren't a weepy little bitch, you would just do it :) 

A few articles doesn't make an "alive and well" topic of conversation. Try to get into any post-graduate program and reference the problem of evil on your letter of intent. I'll give you, though, that people are still talking about it. Not in at all the ways that braindead internet debatelords do, however. The Eslami and Egonsson article is advancing the Moral Progress Approach, which seems to hold that evil exists in the world so that the world can get better. It is an incredibly iterative article, only slightly derivating from other greater good style arguments.  The idea that people are in Parisian salons debating The Existence of God TM, Voltaire-style, only exists in your cum-damaged brain. 

The Rodrigues and Shen Ho article isn't actually a work of philosophy, it's just decolonial garbage about how the suffering of animals can be justified as an excuse to bring us into communion with animals. I stopped reading once I realized it was Afro-Communitarianism, that is a garbage school of thought that I've managed to avoid all this time and I'm not going to start now. 

I can tell you haven't read these a) because it's clear that you don't read, and b) because the Holmen article isn't actually about the classical problem of evil, it's about whether human beings can act in an intentionally evil manner, and is irrelevant to our discussion. Lol. Moreover, Holmen begins his introduction by saying "doctrines of perfection no longer function as final arbiters for serious ontological discussions," basically confirming that the classic formulation of the problem of evil is totally played out. Sure, it's not solved, insofar as very little is ever conclusively solved, but you'd be a retard to suggest that this is a lively topic of conversation. And you are a retard, which is why you're doing it. 

 

I read a couple of them in the time since I posted. I was especially interested in Pihlström's. Did you think in fifteen minutes I was going to read all of these? I found so many simply by searching journal titles. The issue with evil is not solved. It isn't. It is obvious that the main arguments regarding the topic have been put forth for eons. That's not the problem, retard, and it's precisely why YOU ARE in fact the retard here. The problem is that in the thousands of years this problem has been hashed out, NO ONE has really solved it. And even now, including in a couple of those articles I hastily posted, people are discussing both the problem itself, and the ways in which philosophers approach the problem.

I mean if I weren't exceptionally lazy I could post hundreds. I mean christ, you act like I put effort into that. The fact remains that philosophers are discussing the problem. Some tangentially, some with respect to how the issue should be approached, some directly. Denying that is just going to make you look stupid if someone decides to actually put in the effort and cross-search every peer reviewed philosophy journal with a phrase like "the problem of evil."

Locking this so you can't do a gay little edit while i'm formulating a response

are you fucking kidding me. You posted a second paragraph while I was posting this. God you are a gay little bitch 

No need, I'll just post here. "Hotly debated" was your addition to the topic. All I said is that it's not solved and philosophers are still discussing it. That's clearly a fact.

Here, this might make you happy: editing is simply to condense thoughts or prevent the discussion from having twenty horizontal characters.

Now this is the Malk the forum has been missing. Thread has been derailed to shit for weeks but at least now it's an entertaining derail.

Eldem, Umut, and Beşir Özgür Nayır. “Ethics and Technology: An Analysis of Rick and Morty.” Open Philosophy, vol. 5, no. 1, 2021, pp. 1–16, https://doi.org/10.1515/opphil-2020-0155.

Muniowski, Łukasz. “‘Stealing Stuff Is About the Stuff, Not the Stealing’: Rick and Morty and Narrative Instability.” Polish Journal for American Studies : Yearbook of the Polish Association for American Studies, vol. 14, 2020, pp. 83–139.

Lucas Miranda. “The Self Is Dead – Alienation and Nihilism in Rick and Morty.” Class, Race and Corporate Power.

Rosebud, Ben-Oni. “Poet Wrestling with Rick & Morty but Mostly Rick.” Mississippi Review, vol. 45, no. 3, 2018, pp. 7–8.

___________________________________________

There are also a dearth of scholarly articles about Rick and Morty. Apparently, I have institutional access to 227 of them. That doesn't make it a priority for mainstream academic discourse. 

It's never going to be solved, it can't be emprically solved. It can, however, be made irrelevant. There are also still people arguing about the Ship of Theseus or the fucking Trolley Problem, that doesn't mean that they're philosophically relevant either. The problem of evil is a thought terminating cliche because nothing novel is being said about it, and it's also why you sound like an assmad freshman with a 3.1. 

Pihlström's article isn't a discussion I've seen much. Did you read it? Is that old hat, too? (Not rhetorical; when I spend time reading journals, it's physics or medical/biology journals, not philosophical ones)

Regardless, your answer to the question appears to be "We can't answer the question therefore you're a gay retard." I'm glad that you're now admitting that no one has some flawless theodicy.

Actually it's your posting that makes you a gay retard, and that seems obvious to everyone but you.

Only guy you seem to have gotten along with in here in the last three weeks is the one that loves to eat Putin's ass.

I try to be nice to people usually.

"no U"

As long as there are two people on this earth there will be two different interpretations of what is or isn't "evil", and God is beyond that level of petty squabbling. His ethics and why or how He does the things He does can't be fathomed by us, and trying to put human labels like "good" or "bad" on God is an exercise in futility. God is not good. God is not bad. God Is.

Psalm 107:1 begs to differ on your third to last sentence. But this is a fair point. Still, it's a fun topic to read about and discuss, futile or not.

The Psalms were written with the purpose of praising God; of course the Psalmist, a devout follower of God, would consider God good.

Malk already pointed it out but the fact you're using terms like "Generic Murican Christianity" and "Traditional Christians" to describe YEC and Charismatic antics really says a lot.


I'm not sure who "damn near everyone" is supppsed to be either considering for weeks the thread has just been hijacked into an insufferable autists wonderland for you and HCon with only occasional protests from Petros and others at this cringe display.

As of 2019, per Gallup, about 40% of Americans believe the Biblical story of the creation of humans, and that they have remained unchanged since their beginning. And among those who attend weekly church services, 68% believe the Biblical account of the creation of humanity in our present form. It seems that isn't the type of Christian the people here are, but generally the ones who go to church every week tend to believe God made humanity as they are, despite the numerous extinct human species we know existed.

 

You're right about the second part. I just forgot about CYS's culture.

Because this is already a dumpster fire anyway, and I’m okay with the possible consequences. I’ll just point out that there’s nothing about being a tongue-talker that makes you deny science. The only scientific objection that I’m aware of is that it happens in the word association parts of the brain instead of the speech part, which is fine theologically because it’s not supposed to be the human’s ideas anyway.

There’s also the argument that it doesn’t form any kind of coherent sentence structure, which also doesn’t bother me. Would someone expect “tongues of angels” to follow the same rules or structure as human linguistics?

There’s also the idea that it’s a form of religious mania, but most of the time I use it is outside of religious services.

At work right now, but didn't Paul write a whole book calling the Corinthians gay and retarded? The actual use in church services is what he referred to of course so whatever.

I know I've come across an article at some point breaking down all mentions of tongues in ways I thought was useful, I'll see if I can dig it up again later.

"Pursue love, and earnestly desire the spiritual gifts, especially that you may prophesy. For one who speaks in a tongue speaks not to men but to God; for no one understands him, but he utters mysteries in the Spirit. On the other hand, the one who prophesies speaks to people for their upbuilding and encouragement and consolation. The one who speaks in a tongue builds up himself, but the one who prophesies builds up the church. Now I want you all to speak in tongues, but even more to prophesy. The one who prophesies is greater than the one who speaks in tongues, unless someone interprets, so that the church may be built up.

"Now, brothers, if I come to you speaking in tongues, how will I benefit you unless I bring you some revelation or knowledge or prophecy or teaching?" - 1 Corinthians 14:1-6 ESV

 

I read that as "Speak in tongues on your own time."

You sound insane.

That’s fair

+1 nicely said

You say you hate David, but if you actually had strong feelings about Davis, you’d read Wrath of the Edomite

Looks interesting. I’ll give it a read some time.

Who's Davis?

Jefferson Davis, president of the Confederate States of America

Of course. Silly me. ^_^

Addie Elizabeth Davis the first woman to be ordained as a Southern Baptist pastor

I will also note that neither of the responses thus far have addressed the virtue signalling of killing the people who helped enact God's plan of elevating David to the throne because they're "murderers". If killing evil men makes them murderers, then ordering their execution also makes David himself a murderer.

I’m pretty sure the reason Mizal and I didn’t address everything you said is because I believe neither of us is actually trying to defend David’s actions as a person, only to point out that the purpose of every Bible character doesn’t have to be to provide a great role model. Your issues with David as a person (especially as a murderer) are probably valid. The fact is that God’s actions, even in the Bible, don’t always treat people consistently or ‘justly.’ I think it would be reasonable to expect that from a God who claims to know everything. The book of Job is forty some odd chapters discussing the idea that God sometimes seems unjust. I definitely appreciate the concerning light that being “unequal” puts God’s actions into, but the fact is that if you stick with a worldview where God gives people free will and God knows the future, stuff gets messy. I assume you’re reading this more for informational value than for some kind of religious search, but if you were, I would reiterate what Mizal said in that there’s no easy Sunday school answers, especially when it comes to the sections on the history of Israel.

This, and also because Malk said last night that he'd be making some kind of effort post on the subject, and he's the one working on the relevant degree.

Normally I really am happy to discuss any of this stuff because they really are some pretty complex and fascinating stories with a lot going on between the lines, and it's fun to puzzle out the historical details and the things lost in translation.

But it gets really tiresome when the usual kinds of internet people are clearly not interested in the same things and just want do the most cynical and surface level reading possible and then make demands that everyone else go the extra mile to think for them. And it seems overnight the goal posts have already been shifted from "I don't like/understand the actions of this character" to something else entirely anyway.

This began life as a larger effortpost, but as Miz said, doing the extra mile in thinking about things for Reddit atheists is the worst kind of psychic torment, so consider this the truncated remains of an effortpost. 

Your problem seems to be that you're engaging with the Bible like it's a contemporary novel. The ass-backwards morality of the story, as you say, is actually a consequence of the fact that you're reading a collection of documents that are thousands of years old and produced by a time and place that are totally alien to ours. 

You've successfully identified that David is a privileged character. Put bluntly, he's held to a different standard than Saul, because he matters. Davidic monarchy was key to the poltiical legitimacy of the people who produced the Deuteronomist canon; that is, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, and Samuel. One of the common themes in the Deuteronomist's work is that it emphasizes the importance of the covenantal relationship of the God Yahweh with Israel, of which the Davidic patrilineal line is a key pillar. So David gets a pass because he matters more. One of the things you'll have to get your head aorund is some people literally are just better by virtue of their selection by God, which is totally arbitrary, and the reasons are not explained. That's just a feature of the genre of ancient literature you're reading. David is frequently a naughty boy, which you've also identified, but that doesn't really matter for his status; he's a legendary patriarch of the culture that produced these books, he's selected by God, it doesn't really matter if he misses the mark a few times. 

Saul's son is a righteous man despite fighting against David. In basically every ancient culture, if your dad goes to war, you also go to war; patrlineal loyalty is everywhere in the Bible, all inheritence was patrilineal, God's relationship with Israel is partially represented by the passing on of father to son in David's line. It would be impossible for Saul's son to be righteous and not fight David. 

Also, your twee snarking about whether God should do this or that is sort of inappropriate to the text, considering as God directly communicates with mortals in these books. It is perfectly reasonable to live in the age of miracles and expect God to make his will known. He kills people directly all the fucking time. 

Unless you throw a foreskin at him. Then he'll let you off. ^_^

Reddit tier response ^_^ 

What, you didn't see the last bible thread? Everyone knows that the best defense against God's wrath is to start chucking foreskins at him.

Exodus 4:24-26

And it came to pass on the way, at the encampment, that the Lord met Moses and sought to kill him. Then Zipporah took a sharp stone and cut off the foreskin of her son and cast it at his feet, and said, “Surely you are a husband of blood to me!”  So He let him go. Then she said, “You are a husband of blood!”—because of the circumcision.

It's in this bible thread too ^-^

Oh yeah ^_^

I meant to post this weeks ago, I'm surprised no one else did. Sent truly has prepared for every circumstance.

First of all, I resent the accusation that I'm a Reddit atheist. I despise them as much as the next person. If I were a Reddit atheist, I would dismiss the entire story as a tale made up by the Israeli monarchy to justify their political legitimacy, which in fact seems to be what you're doing. I have never heard of a faithful Christian other than mizal who considers the Bible to be anything other than the perfectly inspired words of God. The verses I usually see cited as evidence are 2 Peter 1:20-21 and 2 Timothy 3:16. They seem pretty clear and unambiguous that all scripture comes from God, and of course God's words are perfect and timeless. The morality of the story should therefore also conform to that of God and not that of ancient Israelite culture, which is frequently shown to be in conflict with God.

One of the things you'll have to get your head aorund is some people literally are just better by virtue of their selection by God, which is totally arbitrary, and the reasons are not explained.

In this case, it's pretty clearly stated that God chose David because he has a heart after God's own, which is precisely why I'm so critical of his actions. It suggests that his actions are approved by God as morally correct, especially the actions for which he never repents and which God doesn't admonish him for such as killing those aforementioned people who merely execute God's plan.

Saul's son is a righteous man despite fighting against David. In basically every ancient culture, if your dad goes to war, you also go to war; patrlineal loyalty is everywhere in the Bible, all inheritence was patrilineal, God's relationship with Israel is partially represented by the passing on of father to son in David's line. It would be impossible for Saul's son to be righteous and not fight David. 

Saul was dead. Ishbosheth was not fighting for or alongside his father; he was fighting for his own place as his successor, which is entirely self-serving. A righteous man that is loyal to God would honor his choice of successor, which overrides any sort of traditional succession system. Nor is it possible to claim that Ishbosheth was avenging his father's death considering he was not killed by David or David's people, and in fact David executed the person who purported to kill his father, even though his father would have deserved it. The last sentence is clearly false, since Saul's other son, Jonathan, was a righteous man and would certainly not have fought David if he was still alive.

It is perfectly reasonable to live in the age of miracles and expect God to make his will known.

I assume you're talking about my response to Petros regarding direct orders vs. the law. God made his will known through direct communication and through his law. I continue not to see how Saul failing to fully follow through on a single direct order is worse than David going completely against God's law and God's people for a full year.

I guess you could add me to the list of Christians who don't believe the bible is entirely the word of god.

"In this case, it's pretty clearly stated that God chose David because he has a heart after God's own, which is precisely why I'm so critical of his actions. It suggests that his actions are approved by God as morally correct, especially the actions for which he never repents and which God doesn't admonish him for such as killing those aforementioned people who merely execute God's plan."

 The Bible is all over the place with David and punishing his actions. God's morals in this time are also very flexible. I assume this is because these stories were not found all in one place or written in the same period. Different times would have had different morals and different uses for David's stories, therefore there could be parts of the original story that are excluded from the bible altogether. I myself would think that any killing, including war, would be against God's will, yet he himself often "demands" the killing and war. The killing of ish-bosheth is not punished because the men "killed a righteous man in an unjust way". By your logic that David is a man after God's own heart, we can conclude that God agreed with this decision.

"Saul was dead. Ishbosheth was not fighting for or alongside his father; he was fighting for his own place as his successor, which is entirely self-serving. A righteous man that is loyal to God would honor his choice of successor, which overrides any sort of traditional succession system. Nor is it possible to claim that Ishbosheth was avenging his father's death considering he was not killed by David or David's people, and in fact David executed the person who purported to kill his father, even though his father would have deserved it. The last sentence is clearly false, since Saul's other son, Jonathan, was a righteous man and would certainly not have fought David if he was still alive."

 If we could all look in the book of second Samuel 2:8 and beyond for the relevant information, you will see that it was not in fact ish-bosheth that declared war on David and claimed he was king of Israel, but general Abner. After the attempted betrayal and eventual death of Abner, ish-bosheth almost immediately wanted to peacefully step down. The men killed ish-bosheth because they assumed it would happen anyway and that they would be rewarded for doing it ahead of time. David was not going to kill saul's son and had them killed for "high treason". No honor or such was involved, so you are absolutely correct, though ish-bosheth was not fully a young man being led astray, as he was 40 years old, so I suppose ambition was a factor for both him and Abner.

 "I assume you're talking about my response to Petros regarding direct orders vs. the law. God made his will known through direct communication and through his law. I continue not to see how Saul failing to fully follow through on a single direct order is worse than David going completely against God's law and God's people for a full year."

 I hate to assume, but by one single order, do you mean the Amalekites and their possessions? I guess that could be seen as where saul's mistakes started, but it certainly was not the only thing he did to go against god. I agree with you about his laws, but the lord was on the side of David, so we can assume that anything in this particular time period was either God's command or an action from David that God supported. Of course, we could not see how one sin would outweigh the other since morals and such were different and probably not measured by the quantity of the actions committed, but whether those actions went against god's specific commands. I realize this last paragraph is weak, but it is the best I could come up with.

Not going to get into the religious theory.  But I grew up in a Christian household and went to faith formation classes for 10 years, and I've never met anyone who considers the bible to be the divinely inspired words of god.  Some even think it was intended to be metaphoric.  I'm sure there are plenty of Christians who do believe that, but definitely not all of them.

Out of curiosity, do you mean they believed the entire Bible is a metaphor? I’m curious, because I’ve been called a literalist, but I think it’s obvious that certain parts are intended to be metaphor (prophesy and poetry)

Yeah, there's obviously some metaphorical language and it's frequently marked as such, plus there's a LOT of poetry. But I don't think anyone can seriously claim the entire thing is a metaphor....I'd have an easier time going with every word being 100% divinely inspired directly by God, conveniently in the King James English.

No human authors are coordinating to write only in metaphor across thousands of years, nor were they going to be cynical enough to deliberately fictionalize their history with God or disbelieve in miracles.

I think the people I'm thinking of meant some of the bible is literal and some is metaphoric, but took as metaphoric some of the things a lot of people generally see as literal.  Like I think they thought some of Jesus's miracles were metaphoric.  I could be misremembering though.

I feel like if any of it is true, it is more likely that God visited people in some form or another, or sent angels on his behalf, and then flawed men and women wrote about the stories their great grandfathers told them about God visiting them. And then centuries later those texts were collected and sorted, giving us the ultimate telephone game between God and humanity.

 

As for why God would allow his “Word” to be so tainted, maybe all he ever cared about was some messages he gave, and the need to have the “One True Word of God” is simply a human conceit. Of course, this pulls so far away from traditional Christian theology that it flies through the barrier of heresy at the speed of sound. But what if God really is only concerned about the important stuff? Who cares about shellfish. Maybe God just didn’t want his people to eat food that might kill them, and over the years the regulations evolved to what we have now?

 

Of course, then you’re left with the impossible task of deciding what really is God’s Word and what is man-made fluff. BUT, that is nothing new, as we already have done that with things like the Council of Nicaea (where the divinity of Jesus was argued) and the writing of the KJV. In that case, as a Christian that ought to even more dramatically emphasize the RELATIONSHIP aspect over the religion aspect of Christianity.

Leviticus 20:15–16 “ ‘If a man has sexual relations with an animal, he is to be put to death, and you must kill the animal."

Poor Ryder's cat. Hasn't it suffered enough?

Arguaby, after the things Ryder's cat has experienced, who's to say this isn't the best outcome?

Good point. Mercy kill.

Even worms!

- Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.

Now that’s sustainable growth

Alright, so was it ever mentioned why exactly Goliath was so freakishly tall? Was he supposed to be some decedent of the fallen angels (the Nephlim).

Plus he had a few brothers who were also giants, you don't hear about them as much though. The Philistines should have just shelled out the coin to hire all of them as mercs.

They were all descendants at some guy named Anak who was a giant. That wasn’t ever addressed that I know of. The flood wiped out all the Nephilim, and according to the book of Enoch, all the Watchers were imprisoned under the Earth, so I assume there weren’t any more hybrids running around. Not 100% on that though

Some people think he was only between seven to nine feet tall, which is unnatural but isn't unheard of. In fact, I think there might be people taller than that currently alive. Could've been a genetic disorder.

And the Bible never specifically called him a Nephilim, no. Not that I know of anyway

e: Ah, the tallest man alive is around eight foot. So no, not taller

There's no exact record of how tall he was because of the way cubits and spans were kind of a fuzzy measurement. But also a pretty normal dude who was over six feet tall and built today would be considered enormous by Bronze Age standards, and so he could've easily been just basketball player height.

The "sons of Anak" or the Anakim (not to be mistaken for an emo fag who hates sand) were reported to Moses by the spies he sent to be living in Canaan and were one of the reasons the Israelites originally pussed out on taking the land, and after that mentioned a few other times during the conquest. The guys making the report were like whoa, must be descendants of the Niphilim. But again there's no way to know whether they were just a culture of unusually tall dudes who had been living pretty well being referred to as the "giants".

I think it's just a feature of the kind of literature the Bible is. It's set in the distant past, way beyond living memory for any of the writers, based on oral stories, about the most important guy ever, or at least a top river. Goliath is huge for the same reason that guys in the Iliad can lift boulders no modern man can lift, and Beowulf can rip a mfs head off with his bare hands. I don't really think there needs to be a further explanation tbh, it smacks of history channel talk.  

He could have just had gigantism also 

History channel? We're talking about the Bible here dummy, not Skinwalker Ranch.

Try reading the Jewish version of the Old Testament, for extra interest. Or the Wycliffe Middle English one. Both are great. The former because Christianity depends upon the virgin birth (most versions of it anyway), and in the New Testament, Isaiah 7:14 is quoted as prophesying the virgin birth. But in the Jewish version, that isn't what it says at all. It says "young woman." A very interesting difference in translation.

 

Christian version:" Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel." - NIV

 

Jewish version: "Therefore the Lord Himself shall give you a sign: behold, the young woman shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel." - JPS

 

As for the Wycliffe Bible (again, the Middle English version), it's just a lot of fun to read in and of itself. Trying to decipher Middle English is a lot of fun. And best of all, if you read that version of the Bible, you'll learn that the Ebonics use of the work "axe" instead of "ask," such as in, "Let me axe you a question," was actually proper English at one point.

 

In particular: "For whi, axe thou the formere generacioun, and seke thou diligentli the mynde of fadris. For we ben men of yistirdai, and `kunnen not; for oure daies ben as schadewe on the erthe." In modern English, this is, "Ask the former generation and find out what their ancestors learned, for we were born only yesterday and know nothing, and our days on earth are but a shadow."

 

Here is the Wyfliffe Bible (Middle English), Book of Job, where the above quote came from.

The noun that means "young woman" in the original Hebrew is עַלְמָה which has the lexical senses of both "virgin" and "young woman". It is most commonly translated into english as "virgin", "maiden", and "young woman".

 

You're correct that the normative Jewish view reads, and has historically read,  that line as "young woman".

 

I kind of lean more towards it meaning young woman bc it's a feminine antipode to עלם which means sormthing like "pubescent male". 

I go by the JPS. Don't really read Hebrew. I know a couple words, but that's about it.

 

As an aside, there's also a Catholic version of the Bible, which has extra books and other additions, including some more chapters in Daniel in which he slays a dragon, Game of Thrones style: feeding it sabotaged cakes which cause its stomach to burst open.

Alma is a fairly common girls name in the Hebrew speaking world. The primary association (in modern context) is definitly is not of a virgin but rather an unmarried young woman (which in the Torah would be a virgin incedentally but not explicitly).

You gotta pay the troll toll if you want this bro's hole.

This rhyme reminds me of Dave Grohl.

This thread is too much, I'm going for a stroll.

Well make sure you don't leave behind your bowl.

Can't stop now, I'm on a roll.

No wait, watch out for that mole!

Yes, there is a mole hole up on the knoll.

Well every knoll hole is a goal for moles.

Yes, especially if it is at the North Pole

This thread makes me wish more people used birth control.

This thread has made me find God because no natural process can create retards as faggy as this.

I appreciate the sum up.

Yet I'm relieved to find the thread contains no actual fellatio, reddit, or Mormons.

If the topic had really been Mormons there would have been much more harmony here.

My guess is that if the topic would have been fellatio, the thread would have at least been entertaining.

And if the topic included Reddit, well... we'd know who's a fag.

Some of these posts sure are as long as bibles.

I'm not sure who to commend.

I think mizal, malk, and Sent are safe bets. Them being smart individuals that do great things all the time around here.

Hmmm, I also commended Petros's stuff as well. 

Yes, yes, keep up the good work you all. 

Fluxion has to tell me whose side he is on first. Helpful is obviously wrong despite having big posts. I mean, he's banned! You don't get banned around here unless you're wrong and all. 

This thread is such a dumpster fire you actually lose by effort posting here. The only commendation should go to Enterpride imo.

I figured that if people were going to post so much, there should be some award. I mean, when the site gets bigger, people will be able to cash in all of their points and commendations for merch. Oh, or even awards such as being moderator for a day.

 

Yes, I'm looking towards the future. Maybe even God and Jesus themselves will grace us with their presence in that far-off future and give answers to life's many unknown questions.

I have lost IQ points by posting in  this thread, but through my zealotry and fanatical crusading I have cemented my place in Jannah, mashallah. 

I am so aggressively Arkansan that I can’t figure out how the inflection is supposed to sound when you end a sentence with “you all.”

Nowadays, everyone uses ya'll (or y'all). Verbally and in text. However, I find it more offensive when used verbally. 

Hey. :(

Texans and southern people can use it. Cowboys and stuff. A gym bro can get away with it because they're already ripped and dripping with testosterone. But not some scrawny glasses wearing bushy-beard guy typing away on a laptop with arms scrawnier than even mine! Or some valley girl, or city New York girl. No!

You're fine to use it, mizal. Because you shoot and hunt animals. Real rough and tough Texan. 

Y’all is one thing, but older people around here use y’uns quite a bit.

Do they have a cup that they spit in?

Most people just spit in bottles and throw them out next to the highway. It’s a great time

When I have completed my coup the only acceptable forms of plural address will be أنتم and אתם

As long as I still am in a favorable position somewhere..

Well as long as I'm here, you'll always be in a favorable position.

Banned? I'm on the side of agnostics who wish they were believers. And I think it's a bit suspect to belittle a fundamentalist because you're an "enlightened" believer who only accepts it as metaphorical, when you're arbitrarily picking your particular beliefs as much as they are.

Moo.

Glad you didn't lump Mormons in with Christians.

But this made me think. The really hardline atheists are a small minority, overrepresented in academia and noisy on the internet. No one can complain about them without it being career suicide. They have higher rates of ACTUAL suicide, depression, and I wouldn't be surprised if there was some childhood trauma that made them bitterly contrarian to the natural human order.

Atheists: the trannies of the religious world?

Unrelated to the point of this post, but a very interesting footnote:

Taoism is a difficult thing to get numbers on because religion in China isn't quite the same, but Taoism also isn't quite the same as religion. Buddhism, Taoism, and Confucianism are all mutually exclusive philosophies and each one has religious aspects (taoism and buddhism particularly) but they're called "The three great teachings" because the chinese considered all of them to be based and would just incorporate them into its tapestry of philosophies rather than just oust them, because the state has, for the most part throughout Chinese history, been considered a secular and even morally ambiguous entity that is just a natural force of the organization of life. That's why it's basically the oldest continuous national identity in the world by an absurd margin. And that's also why the largest concentration of atheists in the world is the urban-industrial Chinese population, because they effectively believe in nothing but the state anymore because their previous ideas were seen as pre-modern and Communism was sold to them as the ideology that would catch them up with the west after the century of humiliation. Now Communism seems to be taking kind of a backburner to Confucian Legalism in an intensely boiled-down form because they don't want to acknowledge the part of Confucius's writings that says the people should overthrow unjust societies.

Anyway, the thing about Buddhism and Taoism is that they both are and are not "Chinese Religion". Chinese mythology and folk religion was a thing throughout their whole deal, and when Taoism was invented it was considered a pretty philosophically based religious viewpoint but simultaneously didn't conflict with, nor have any need to replace preexisting religious beliefs. So people of many different religious beliefs (as "paganism", really most ancient religions, didn't exactly have things like canon or things to keep every story straight, so there was rarely ever really one "Zeus" for example, but rather a ton of overlapping myths and rituals and things) adopted the Tao, which generated more religious texts about Taoism, but also meant that this further elaboration on Taoism was now inextricably linked to this increasingly elaborate perspective. The same process happened with Buddhism basically everywhere and in all kinds of different flavors, but traditional Chinese polytheism actually basically survives in the form of Mahayana Buddhism, which incorporates so much wacky wild shit that wasn't in the source material (even though, contrary to the more atheistic interpretations sold to modern Americans and Chinese, the original texts surrounding Gautama weren't exactly absent of gods, miracles, and supernatural occurrences) though many believers still differentiate between gods and buddhas, depending on beliefs I'm not familiar with because it's literally a subject miles wide across so many different chinese locales and so impossibly deep with huge esoteric texts and local gods, buddhas, and practices. Buddhism is insane how it does this, across so many different regions. It has like whole different mythology depending on whether you look at it through the lense of China, Tibet, Indonesia or Myanmar, because they're all totally different places.

So yeah, like... It's very difficult to really get a good read on how many taoists there are because it's like going to a religious survey and asking somebody if they're Stoicists. The Stoics themselves when they were a new and contemporary philosophy in ancient Greece, had their own ideosyncratic religious ideas about how the world worked and what God was, but not every Stoic believed that and certainly not everyone living a Stoic lifestyle today does. Somebody might be a philosophical stoic, but on a survey specifically about religion, they're a lot more likely to view themselves as Christian or Muslim and check that box rather than call themselves a stoic specifically above all their other things, even if they believe the mystical and theological parts of stoicism. And Taoism is a lot like that.

And as a philosophy pretty unique to China and its neighbours, like. Religion there has a different kind of meaning. It occupies a different philosophical headspace, because the state is separate from it rather than dependent on it, which is very different from how it's been in a lot of the world and the west particularly. I would recommend reading the Xi'an Stele or listening to it on youtube, to give you a picture of just how wildly different religion was treated there in comparison to other parts of the world. You could send a scholar to the emperor or a high official and make your case, and like. He wouldn't really convert, because why pledge yourself to just one thing unless you're a clergyoid? You have an empire to run. But he could be like, "Wow, this is pretty based and unpretentious. Go forth and disseminate this message." and you could then kind of spread your religion with imperial endorsement, even if on paper it would conflict with other things. (Though I'm not sure how totally exclusive the established orthodoxy of Nestorianism was by the time it reached China. It was already anathema to catholicism by then.) The point being, like, if religion is the lense you view the world through, asking somebody in China what religion they are is a bit like asking which one of the multiple flippy lenses on their jeweller's glasses they most identify with. And for a lot of the ones who aren't irreligious Statists, it still wouldn't be Taoism for the aforementioned reasons, even if they are for all intents and purposes practicing Taoists. And also if someone says they're Buddhist or Hindu, those guys could be using any number of the lenses from an entire goddamn phoropter.

I feel so much smarter after reading this.

I feel...twice as smart?

A double-post! You've been touched by a goblin.

I wrote an essay on the integration of Chinese deities into Buddhism for one of my classes on Chinese history. Here it is for anyone interested. I got a B+.

During the Tang Dynasty an influx of immigrants and traders from the west brought new ideas, goods, and religions to the Chinese people.The Early Tang dynasty’s tolerance of foreigners and new ideas allowed the Tang Dynasty to become the most important cultural center in the world, a society in which followers of traditional Chinese folk religions and Taosim lived alongside Buddhists, Jews, and Zoroastrians. The wealthy elite of the Tang Dynasty prized imported goods and art, causing Chinese artists to be influenced by the aesthetics of western artwork. The combination of a multicultural society with various religions and an influx of western art led to the popularization of the Guanyin Bodhisattva, a Chinese religious figure exalted by both Chinese Buddhists and Taoists, which combined an Indian Mahayana Buddhist figure with the legend of a local Chinese deity. As the Tang Dynasty reached its end, it began to suppress non Taoist religious iconography, however the originally Buddhist symbol of Guanyin remained popular and was deemed to be Chinese, avoiding the suppression that plagued other Buddhist symbols. For centuries after the initial popularization of Guanyin as a deity, hundreds of depictions of the deity were carved in the Dazu Rock Carvings. These unique sculptures represent the Chinese tradition of adopting foreign beliefs, synthesizing the beliefs with local customs, and maintaining an adherence to Confucian values.

A Bodhisattva in Budhism is one who has achieved enlightenment, but delays their departure into nirvana out of a desire to help others reach enlightenment. The Guanyin Bodhisattva is but one of many Bodhisattvas in the Buddhist mythos. Originating in India as the Bodhisattva Avalokiteshvara, the tales of Avalokiteshvara reached China during the introduction of Buddhism in the Han Dynasty (206-220 CE). There, the name Avalokiteshvara was translated to Guanyin. Originally appearing as a male Bodhisattva (as in the Indian tradition of Buddhism only males can achieve enlightenment), the Chinese version of Guanyin was transformed into a female figure in the next few centuries. “As early as 483–493 CE an emperor had a vision of a feminine GuanYin” (Wang).
The feminization of Guanyin has no one explanation but there are many factors that could have led to Guanyin’s status as a woman. “Guan Yin traditions are clearly rooted in Buddhist goddesses such as Tara, archaic shamanic Chinese goddesses such as The Queen Mother of the West, and Daoist goddess such as Ma Tzu” (Wang). Most notable of these deities is The Queen Mother of the West, 西王母, who is described as the most important female deity in China prior to the feminization of Guanyin (Wang). From the Han Dynasty onward, Confucianism played a much larger role in Chinese society than the Daoist religion. In Daoism there is a separation between the female Yin and the masculine Yang, both Yin and Yang are positive forces that need to be in balance. In contrast to Daoism’s views on women, Confucius describes women as being strictly lower than men, as most clearly stated in Analects 17.25 “Of all people, girls and servants are the most difficult to behave to. If you are familiar with them, they lose their humility. If you maintain a reserve towards them, they are discontented” (Legge, 150). Due to the adoption of Confucianism as the state ideology of China during the Han Dynasty and the dynasties that followed, the influence of Taoist gender roles diminished. “despite women’s stronger roles in Daoism, and ancient traditions such as the Queen Mother of the West, their needs went largely unmet until they were filled by Guan Yin” (Wang). It is possible that Buddhism, despite the misogynistic original tradition of Buddhism in which women were “taught to detest their bodies and could only hope to be escape Hell by being reborn a man” (Wang), replaced Daoism as the philosophy of gender equity. The adoption of the female Guanyin influenced by Daoism and folk religions, and ignoring the explicitly misogynistic rules of Buddhism which would have prevented a female Guanyin from being created, exemplifies the Chinese philosophy of appropriating ideas from other cultures and using them in new ways to fit within traditional values.

The Guanyin’s popularity was greatly increased during the early Tang Dynasty due to the rapid expanse and state acceptance of Buddhism. The Tang Dynasty’s ring of peace and prosperity obtained through the silk road brought many traders and travelers from Central and Southeast Asia to China, especially to the populous Tang capital Chang’an. Despite the continuation of Confucianism as the state ideology, these traders and travelers enjoyed “an atmosphere of rare religious tolerance” (Sullivan 133). Monks from the west travelled to China to spread their religions, and Buddhism quickly gained more followers. “Never before had buddhism stood so high in Chinese history” (133). Among the new Chinese followers were many people of wealth who sponsored the construction of Buddhist art and temples, further spreading its influence, and the influence of the Chinese-Buddhist deity Guanyi. Among these wealthy Buddhists was Wu Zetian, who would become the first female emperor of China, subverting traditional confucian policies of the state. However, this period of religious tolerance and Buddhist popularity did not last. Due to the Arab conquest of the Tang Dynasty’s territory in Central Asia, the prosperity of the empire dwindled. “As so often happens in history, China became less tolerant as its power declined” (135). Due to the belief that foreign religions were corrupting confucian society, the Tang Dynasty enforced a ban on foreign faiths, including Buddhism. Guanyin is unique in that it was not considered to be a Buddhist deity, but rather a native Chinese goddess, “Of all the imported Buddhist deities. [Guanyin] is the only one who has succeeded in becoming a genuine Chinese goddess. So much so that many Chinese... are not even aware of her Buddhist origin” (Yu, 223-224). Beyond the culture of appropriating ideas from other cultures, the Chinese adoption of Guanyin as a native Chinese deity represents the domestication of foreign ideas into Chinese culture, changing them from their original form into something originally Chinese. This practice continues today with China’s adoption of “communism with Chinese characteristics”.

During the Tang Dynasty’s period of religious tolerance, a project was started in the Dazu region of China. Many statues of Buddhist figures were carved into the mountains and caves of Dazu, a site known today as the Dazu Rock Carvings. While it started as a Buddhist religious site, after the fall of the Tang Dynasty many confucian and Taoist carvings were also created (UNESCO). While religious tolerance was not restored to China following the fall of the Tang Dynasty, during the Song Dynasty (960-1279 CE) a reemergence of esoteric Buddhism developed. Buddhism, Taoism, and Confucianism were simultaneously taught within China, due in large part to the efforts of scholars who endorsed the idea that goodness can be found through the unification of the three philosophies (Zhao,19). However, Confucianism remained the dominant force in this new unified ideology.

“Guitang Jushi stood for the unification which Confucianism stayed in centre while Buddhism and Daoism served as assistants... and claimed that a lay Buddhist should hold the Confucian classics as the guide of life although they might live a Buddhist life,” (19).

Within the northern mountains of Dazu are hundreds of carvings of Guanyi alongside various Buddhist and Taoist deities as well as carvings depicting Confucius and his students. These carvings often contain acts or descriptions of virtuous filial piety, one of the core doctrines of Confucianism. The hundreds of depictions of an altered Buddhist figure among traditional Daoist deities in service of Confucianism is the culmination of many generations working together to make a concept Chinese.

While the Guanyin Bodhisattva is present in many Asian countries, the level of change the deity received in China is unparalleled. While other cultures may add or reject elements of other cultures, China alters the idea to fit Chinese values. The Guanyin carvings among Confucian and Daoist carvings within the Dazu Rock Carvings is a perfect demonstration of how China adopts ideas and turns them into something Chinese, adding the new sinicized version into the Chinese identity.

Sources:

“Dazu Rock Carvings.” UNESCO, United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization, https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/912/.

Legge, James. The Chinese Classics: With a Translation, Critical and Exegetical Notes, Prolegomena, and Copious Indexes. London, Trübner, 1861.

Sullivan, Michael. Arts of China [AC], 6th edition. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2018.

Wang Minqin. “Guan Yin.” Encyclopedia of Psychology and Religion, edited by David A. Leeming, Kathryn Madden, Stanton Marlan, Springer, Boston, MA., 2010 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-71802-6_792

Yü, Chün-fang. Kuan-yin: The Chinese Transformation of Avalokiteshvara. Columbia University Press, 2001.

Zhao, Zhou. The Unified Three Teachings in the Rock Carvings of the Song Dynasty in Chongqing and Sichuan. 2010. Heidelberg University, PhD dissertation. Core, https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/32581588.pdf.

"It seems like the natural human behavior is to believe in the divine in some form or another."

It makes more sense to chalk that up to the human instinct for pattern and agency recognition. Kind of like seeing faces and shapes in clouds or stars.

You're like a Reddit neckbeard typing "um, actually" on his Cheeto dust stained keyboard. It's actually insufferable. We get it, you think you're smart.

How thrice-blest
Our lot, that, in this space of human life.
Our ears have heard the Holy Law proclaimed.
He that has seen the Light, no darkness dwells
Within his soul. Who shall describe the peace
Of that pure land where this true Light doth dwell
And the clouds, I just noticed
One of them looks like a duck, hahaa holy shit
That's amazing.

--some Japanese monk

I like how this simple third worlder bot post turned into a glorious holy war that resulted in someone getting banned.

Just like the Crusades!