Religion and natural disasters

[FionordeQuester]

If it helps at all, Jesus once said in one of his teachings that not all disasters are an expression of God's wrath, and used an incident where a tall building fell on a few people as an example. As for why...well, I do know that God will sometimes use hard times to strengthen us, so pehaps that's it? Who knows? It's not like I have access to all the knowledge he has, so I I can't say anything other than that he has a purpose for everything that happens. That may sound lame, but well, that's faith.

[nootkentensis]

This is kind of an extensive subject, but I'll try to sum it up. In regards to the bible. The "religion",or set of instructions given in the beginning, gave a very specific set of guidelines on how to keep the finely tuned planet in perfect working order. Most overlook the references to this by not understanding words like "defile", and "abomination". But none the less, everything on earth is affected by everything else, and mankind was told to guard and protect this perfect balance by not doing things that disrupt it, or allowing those things to take place. Mankind rejected these instructions, and the prophecies that followed after, foretold of the outcome that would follow as a result. The Creator does not punish the creation with natural disasters, but rather allows them to take place as a witness to mankind of what the results are of "going your own way", and disregarding the instructions given.

[FionordeQuester]

This is kind of an extensive subject, but I'll try to sum it up. In regards to the bible. The "religion",or set of instructions given in the beginning, gave a very specific set of guidelines on how to keep the finely tuned planet in perfect working order. Most overlook the references to this by not understanding words like "defile", and "abomination". But none the less, everything on earth is affected by everything else, and mankind was told to guard and protect this perfect balance by not doing things that disrupt it, or allowing those things to take place. Mankind rejected these instructions, and the prophecies that followed after, foretold of the outcome that would follow as a result. The Creator does not punish the creation with natural disasters, but rather allows them to take place as a witness to mankind of what the results are of "going your own way", and disregarding the instructions given.

So basically, the Earth is selling the results of Adam and Eve's disobedience?

[Snowy_One]

It's called original sin. Basically, because of Adam and Eve's disobedience, all of creation now suffers. None are worthy on their own merit to enter into Heaven and it is only by the grace of God that we can do so. For all have sinned and fallen short after all.

[NotPennysBoat]

Boy, you're gonna be a joy to have in that class.

Putting God on trial for human suffering, on human terms, is completely illogical. Asking things like "Why did God murder billions of people? Isn't he worse than Hitler?" is disingenuous. Murder isn't a verb which applies to God, in the same way it's not a verb that applies to an earthquake. Death isn't a tragedy from the divine perspective, because our time on earth is brutal and temporary anyway. For the faithful, death is--if anything--a positive transition. He doesn't kill (or allow death, or whatever you want to call it) out of malice or conspiracy or any prospect of personal gain, so the motive of murder is absent. And if anyone has the right to end a life, it's the entity which created and nourishes it (a concept which has no equivalent in the laws of mortal men.)

I'm not religious, but this "If God's so great, why do bad things happen" argument is as disingenuous and childish as asking "If doctors take oaths to Do No Harm, why are they always giving out painful injections?" I have my doubts that you are really that interested in a serious discussion here.

[dondon151]

Murder isn't a verb which applies to God, in the same way it's not a verb that applies to an earthquake.

yet according to the old and new testaments, god had a will, and he exercised that will to annihilate not only people, but entire towns.

Putting God on trial for human suffering, on human terms, is completely illogical. Asking things like "Why did God murder billions of people? Isn't he worse than Hitler?" is disingenuous.

what is disingenuous is the presupposition that god's motives cannot be questioned because they cannot be understood from a human perspective. that's just dodging the question, i.e. lazy argumentation.

And if anyone has the right to end a life, it's the entity which created and nourishes it (a concept which has no equivalent in the laws of mortal men.)

of course it does! a man and a woman have intercourse, and his sperm fertilizes her egg to form a zygote, which develops into a human and is born. do this man and woman have the right to end the life of their offspring? (abortion debaters, stay out of this one.)

[Hash Jar]

^No they don't. The religion I grew up with teaches that parents (just like God) have the right to do anything they want to their children, because it is their creation. Absolutely fucking ridiculous. This is directly from the bible btw, which teaches that a father (ignores women, lol) may kill his child if it is "fit".

The bible also states that humans are directly responsible for whatever happens on the earth. It states that we are supposed to take care of it and that the worse we do, the worse it will react. I'm surprised no one has brought that up. I actually agree with this teaching, because it's kind of true. We really need to take care of this planet better.

[FionordeQuester]

^No they don't. The religion I grew up with teaches that parents (just like God) have the right to do anything they want to their children, because it is their creation. Absolutely fucking ridiculous. This is directly from the bible btw, which teaches that a father (ignores women, lol) may kill his child if it is "fit".

The bible also states that humans are directly responsible for whatever happens on the earth. It states that we are supposed to take care of it and that the worse we do, the worse it will react. I'm surprised no one has brought that up. I actually agree with this teaching, because it's kind of true. We really need to take care of this planet better.

Hmm, and where does it say that? Which book, which verses?

[Snowy_One]

Boy, you're gonna be a joy to have in that class.

Putting God on trial for human suffering, on human terms, is completely illogical. Asking things like "Why did God murder billions of people? Isn't he worse than Hitler?" is disingenuous. Murder isn't a verb which applies to God, in the same way it's not a verb that applies to an earthquake. Death isn't a tragedy from the divine perspective, because our time on earth is brutal and temporary anyway. For the faithful, death is--if anything--a positive transition. He doesn't kill (or allow death, or whatever you want to call it) out of malice or conspiracy or any prospect of personal gain, so the motive of murder is absent. And if anyone has the right to end a life, it's the entity which created and nourishes it (a concept which has no equivalent in the laws of mortal men.)

I'm not religious, but this "If God's so great, why do bad things happen" argument is as disingenuous and childish as asking "If doctors take oaths to Do No Harm, why are they always giving out painful injections?" I have my doubts that you are really that interested in a serious discussion here.

If evolution is true why isn't there just one ultimate species?

If doctors swear to do no harm, what about when they remove a limb?

If exercise burns weight, why am I fat?

If my mommy loves me and telling the truth is good, why did mommy ground me when I posted her weight on Facebook?

If sex is good, why are people so uppity about it?

If dogs are better than cats, why do people own cats?

I always chuckle a bit at questions like these as they usually show little more than a naive understanding of the situation and tend to assume the worst possible outcome instead of trying to actually think it through.

[Hash Jar]

Hmm, and where does it say that? Which book, which verses?

There are so many. Just read the bible damn it.

Exodus 21:17

English Standard Version (ESV)

17 “Whoever curses[a] his father or his mother shall be put to death.

Anyways, the bible also neglects women so much (sexism).

Proverbs 29:17

English Standard Version (ESV)

17 Discipline your son, and he will give you rest;

he will give delight to your heart.

Yeah.

[FionordeQuester]

Whoever curses his father or his mother shall be put to death.

Ah, see, that's what I thought you were referencing. I was just confused when you put "fit" in quotes, because I didn't remember that being a part of that. Anyways, you're misinterpreting it. I've talked to someone much more studied on this topic than me in the past, and what this is isn't an allowance for fathers or mothers to kill their children just because they don't stay in timeout or the like. All it means is that the kid can be taken to court, and THEN can be put to death if he gets a trial that proves that he disobeyed his parents...

And if that sounds insane, I'll tell you this. Never ONCE was anyone actually punished under this law. It was never meant to be taken so literally. All it was meant to be was a way of saying "disobedience is bad. Seriously". If it WAS meant to be taken literally, we'd still be living with rules like "Don't shave your beard a certain way", "You shall not boil a baby goat in it's mother's milk", or "Don't grab your husband's junk when he's fighting another man" (yes, someone actually went out of their way to make that a rule back then). Obviously these things are either arbitrary, odd, or unnecessary to us, but were of great significance to the Israelite culture they were made for...

Of course, the 10 Commandments should still be followed, don't get me wrong.

Discipline your son, and he will give you rest; he will give delight to your heart.

You're reading too much into this quote. It's like calling people sexist for saying "mankind".

Edited September 4, 2013 by FionordeQuester

[Hash Jar]

No I'm not. The Bible neglects women sooooo much, starting with the fact that Jesus is a man.

Anyway, there is a story in the old testament where the father is allowed to kill his son. Also, a man has his woman raped by a bunch of men to show her what's up. I'm not going to find them, because I know they exist, and I'm not here to try to teach you anything. Read the whole bible, or buy tapes and listen to it.

Why believe in a god who is based off of these things we don't need anymore? Obviously this god didn't know shit and was created by men.

Excuse the obscenity and offense. I'm not happy right now, please don't take this personally. It's about christianity, not you.

Edited September 4, 2013 by Hash Jar

[Espinosa]

Yeah, that Jesus apparently wasn't omniscient enough to know the ropes of gender equality. And he was rather mediocre as a proto-communist too, albeit still quite the innovative pioneer in this regard. I bet he had cis-bias too, but those Pauline fascist meanies just had to hide it from our view but I'm telling you and now you know.

[Esau of Isaac]

I'm not religious, but this "If God's so great, why do bad things happen" argument is as disingenuous and childish as asking "If doctors take oaths to Do No Harm, why are they always giving out painful injections?"

The common argument you're speaking of doesn't always specifically disagree with any one specific religion but with the oft-mentioned and worshiped infinitely knowledgeable and infinitely benevolent God. The idea of an omnipotent, omnibenevolent, omniscient being existing alongside a world where strife is present is necessarily impossible. Thus we must conclude that God must be lacking in one or all of these categories.

The notion that God is infinitely loving in the first place is entirely at odds with the contract-centric roots of Christianity.

[Espinosa]

To me these three (+omnipresence for a healthy pantheistic view of the world I guess) together actually ring a bell because one who is good and bearing boundless gnosis (knowing, as well as knowing what is good) would then know the purpose of the things we fail to decipher and provide explanaton for (and we fall short and fail in general, not only there).

I wonder if people even try to ponder about the 'love of God' more these days. I guess you could pick (to argue against) the belief that God is this sentimental bearded old man in the skies who tears up whenever a heterosexual couple marries and clenches fists when the same happens with godless sodomites, to quote Sir Phelps, and your discourse could have some value considering many people in the West, somehow, do envisage this picture with some variations. But you're unlikely to find this interpretation anywhere in serious traditional theology where the divine is seen as a Mind, formless and not prone to emotions, because emotions are passions and passion form the basis for affliction. More pantheistic visions are possible (god(-s) everywhere).

That said, there's little to no confusion about the meaning of suffering in esoteric Christianity. That the latter is an area anyone with a limited mind influenced by modern scientism can successfully understand is questionable at best, so if you're unhappy about the social influence mainstream Christians project in contemporary society (and I imagine one would be) and want to express your dissatisfaction with that while reinforcing your sense of intellectual worth - Olwen got his logic degree so you should too - then it's probably best that you continue picking apart the belief systems of grannies and the people who haven't done any reading beyond the really sentimental brochures. Otherwise, it's two people talking in different languages at best or mice tickling an elephant at worst; I don't recommend the latter relation by all means because sense of credibility is a genuinely useful thing (with a healthy dose of self-irony), I think.

[FionordeQuester]

No I'm not. The Bible neglects women sooooo much, starting with the fact that Jesus is a man.

Should he have been a transvestite then?

Read the whole bible, or buy tapes and listen to it.

I did. And I still have no recollection of what you're talking about.

Anyway, there is a story in the old testament where the father is allowed to kill his son.

Hmm...if you're talking about Abraham and his son Isaac, that was only a test, the end of which has God specifically telling him NOT to kill his son. And if you read up on God punishing Israel, he specifically chastises the citizens for sacrificing their own children to pagan God's.

Also, a man has his woman raped by a bunch of men to show her what's up.

Again, I've read the Bible, and I have NO clue what you're talking about. The closest thing I can think of is when just before Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed, and Lot was all "hey, I don't want you raping these men I just took in as guests...you want my daughters instead?". However, the Bible never actually says that Lot was a righteous man. In fact, considering he chose to let himself and his family live in a town that was literally described as "exceedingly sinful", and doesn't seem to have done a very good job of guiding his family (I mean, c,mon, his own fricken daughters RAPE him!), it actually paints him in a rather negative light IMO.

I'm not going to find them, because I know they exist, and I'm not here to try to teach you anything.

I do not take offense, don't you worry. But considering that I have indeed read the entire Bible, and still don't remember what you're talking about, I'm afraid we're at a bit of an impasse.

Why believe in a god who is based off of these things we don't need anymore?

What exactly is he based off of that we don't need? Murder, adultery, cruelty, lies, vanity, arrogance, all of these things are stuff we struggle with just as much now as the ancient cavemen did.

Obviously this god didn't know shit and was created by men. Excuse the obscenity and offense. I'm not happy right now, please don't take this personally. It's about christianity, not you.

Ah man, that stinks. What's got you down?

But you're unlikely to find this interpretation anywhere in serious traditional theology where the divine is seen as a Mind, formless and not prone to emotions, because emotions are passions and passion form the basis for affliction. More pantheistic visions are possible (god(-s) everywhere).

Just so everyone else knows, Christianity does not support the notion that God is an emotionless being, if that's what this guy was trying to say. There are numerous references to God being enraged, saddened, and glad with the behavior of various people in the Bible.

Edited September 5, 2013 by FionordeQuester

[Hash Jar]

I know I said I wouldn't reply, but I feel better today.

"If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her."

If a women cheats she is to be stoned by the way. The bible is so not sexist. And yes god should be genderless, imo.

"When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment."

Just what the hell is that. I can't find the rape story now, but my brother knows the passage, I'll ask him later. God very much likes rape (especially when it is in his name). Also, he doesn't give a damn about women's rights as shown by all the times that women are more severely punished than men.

Edit-Its is a joke website.

http://www.landoverbaptist.net/showthread.php?t=4419

Don't click on that link if you don't want to see some shit. These people discuss why the raping of a women is not so bad, for her. This is what christianity does.

By the way, I'm sure none of you are one of these people. I just ran into this and I had to share. I felt some real hate just now.

Edited September 5, 2013 by Hash Jar

[pinkbubblegum]

http://www.landoverbaptist.net/showthread.php?t=4419

Don't click on that link if you don't want to see some shit. These people discuss why the raping of a women is not so bad, for her. This is what christianity does.

I'm sorry but I really just have to mention that this website is satire. After a bit of research (aka 5 minutes on Google) I got this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landover_Baptist_Church

Edited September 5, 2013 by pinkbubblegum

[Espinosa]

It can be no surprise that atheism and absurdly pretentious "critical thinking" springing out of a decadent "religious" culture will be of the same (low) level.

[pinkbubblegum]

It can be no surprise that atheism and absurdly pretentious "critical thinking" springing out of a decadent "religious" culture will be of the same (low) level.

That may be true, but to assume that a good majority of Christians actually do think this way is rather far from the truth. In my experience at least. Just because people turn to faith and religion for guidance doesn't necessarily mean that all who do have whacked out moral compasses. In my opinion, to effectively utilize teachings of religion (or anything that can be learned for that matter) would be to analyze said knowledge and see if and how implementing them would benefit the individual and those around them. Religion should go in hand with common sense.

To generalize like this just feels all too jaded :c

Edited September 5, 2013 by pinkbubblegum

[dondon151]

It can be no surprise that atheism and absurdly pretentious "critical thinking" springing out of a decadent "religious" culture will be of the same (low) level.

what's wrong with atheism? or perhaps i'm just not following.

In my opinion, to effectively utilize teachings of religion (or anything that can be learned for that matter) would be to analyze said knowledge and see if and how implementing them would benefit the individual and those around them. Religion should go in hand with common sense.

that would just be tailoring a given religion to one's own beliefs. i would be fine with that, but if such liberal alterations are to be condoned, then there should be no reason for anyone to identify with a certain denomination. the fact that people do indicates that they share a dogmatic, non-analytic belief in their religion.

Edited September 5, 2013 by dondon151

[pinkbubblegum]

but if such liberal alterations are to be condoned, then there should be no reason for anyone to identify with a certain denomination.

I'm not so sure though... Isn't this what priests do? Read scriptures and find a way to make it resound with people's everyday lives? Make it easier to see how people can apply things in the bible, without necessarily having to follow it to a tee and stone people who say otherwise? (Or maybe my church is just one of those "neo-hippie-liberal churches", like someone on that forum said haha)

To a more extreme extent, I'd think religious schisms exist because people do this. If this really was the case, religions that divert in one way or another from each other, despite originating from supposedly the same source shouldn't be a thing, but they are. People choose what they believe, what they want to do with this belief and how they want to implement it. It's not a very far-fetched idea, is it...?

As for people who have a "dogmatic, non-analytic belief in their religion", I can only really speak of my personal experience, but I find people like these quite few and far in-between. They do exist, and more often than not, they have a reason for believing this way (Times of hardship where their only real pillar of strength came from religion, for one) which is understandable, but they're not what I'd think to be the majority of a religious populace...? They're just very vocal of their beliefs.

Edited September 5, 2013 by pinkbubblegum

[Hash Jar]

I'm sorry but I really just have to mention that this website is satire. After a bit of research (aka 5 minutes on Google) I got this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landover_Baptist_Church

Thanks. I just didn't bother to find out, because it kind of scared me.

[Hash Jar]

As for people who have a "dogmatic, non-analytic belief in their religion", I can only really speak of my personal experience, but I find people like these quite few and far in-between. They do exist, and more often than not, they have a reason for believing this way (Times of hardship where their only real pillar of strength came from religion, for one) which is understandable, but they're not what I'd think to be the majority of a religious populace...? They're just very vocal of their beliefs.

You obviously haven't met the right religious people. There are 10s, if not 100s, of christian religions. Adventism, I can tell you, is one such religion.

[FionordeQuester]

"If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her."

Ah, yeah, forgot about that one! Yeah, see, that's actually a faulty translation. See, the original Hebrew translates to something like "lay hands on her", which of course can imply either forced or consensual sex. So when you quote this, what you're actually doing is quoting what is clearly a faulty translation. What it's supposed to be is either what I said, or "seduced" instead (as some translations have used). So it's, "if the guy laid hands on her before she got married, he had to marry her and never divorce her".

If a women cheats she is to be stoned by the way. The bible is so not sexist.

And so are men. How is it sexist if it goes both ways?

And yes god should be genderless, imo.

Well, we were made in his image, so perhaps he though he would appear too cold or aloof if he didn't come in the form Jesus came in.

"When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment."

One thing you have to realize here is that a lot of the laws God made for the people of Israel at that time were made specifically for their culture at the time. At the time period the laws were crafted, polygamy was not only seen as normal, but all kinds of practices like "selling her to foreigners" and getting yourself concubines was actually in use at the time, way before God ever entered the picture. So provisions like having to treat her as a daughter if she marries the guy's son and treating her the same way you treat your new wife are actually much more radical than you may think for that time period...

And before you write this off as an overly liberal viewpoint of what was really meant, Jesus himself said that the laws in the Old Testament were lacking, when one of the Pharisees asked him about divorce. His response?

“Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, permitted you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery.”

So Jesus himself is saying that just following the Old Testament laws didn't make you right with him. Because of this, I naturally assume that laws that allowed for selling your daughter into slavery was made not from what God thought was good and noble, but from what he made because of the hardness of men's hearts.

And remember, even then he had trouble getting his people to follow him! Despite everything he did, from making food rain from the sky, to splitting the Ocean in half, to helping them win a conga line of normally unwinnable fights, and everything else, he STILL had to decimate a large chunk of their population because of the evil they did! He even says at multiple points that he's preserved their society not because of their righteousness, but because of his mercy, and the promise he made to Abraham.

Just what the hell is that. I can't find the rape story now, but my brother knows the passage, I'll ask him later. God very much likes rape (especially when it is in his name). Also, he doesn't give a damn about women's rights as shown by all the times that women are more severely punished than men.

Women being punished more severely then men was a sign of the immorality of the time, not a sign of God's viewpoint. Like I said, while it doesn't seem like it to us today, his promotion of women's rights in the law above was actually radical for the time...

Actually, there's a rather cool little story in Numbers 27, Verses 1-11 that contains a story of someone's five daughters securing female rights...

Then came the daughters of Zelophehad the son of Hepher, the son of Gilead, the son of Machir, the son of Manasseh, from the families of Manasseh the son of Joseph; and these were the names of his daughters: Mahlah, Noah, Hoglah, Milcah, and Tirzah. 2 And they stood before Moses, before Eleazar the priest, and before the leaders and all the congregation, by the doorway of the tabernacle of meeting, saying: 3 “Our father died in the wilderness; but he was not in the company of those who gathered together against the Lord, in company with Korah, but he died in his own sin; and he had no sons. 4 Why should the name of our father be removed from among his family because he had no son? Give us a possession among our father’s brothers.”

5 So Moses brought their case before the Lord.

6 And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying: 7 “The daughters of Zelophehad speak what is right; you shall surely give them a possession of inheritance among their father’s brothers, and cause the inheritance of their father to pass to them. 8 And you shall speak to the children of Israel, saying: ‘If a man dies and has no son, then you shall cause his inheritance to pass to his daughter. 9 If he has no daughter, then you shall give his inheritance to his brothers. 10 If he has no brothers, then you shall give his inheritance to his father’s brothers. 11 And if his father has no brothers, then you shall give his inheritance to the relative closest to him in his family, and he shall possess it.’” And it shall be to the children of Israel a statute of judgment, just as the Lord commanded Moses.

EDIT: Anyways, about the rape story, I think I might know what you're talking about? Are you talking about Ezekiel 23, where God spent an entire Chapter on how he would punish two extremely wicked women? This one here?

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ezekiel%2023&version=NKJV

If so, first of all, it doesn't necessarily imply that the two are going to be raped (though I can see how you would infer it). And even if it did, it's clearly not meant to be taken literally, as it even says right at the beginning...

Samaria is Oholah, and Jerusalem is Oholibah.

So basically, those two women were simply used as symbols to represent Jerusalem and Samaria, whom God described as nations who "chased after other lovers".

Edited September 5, 2013 by FionordeQuester