Fellow believers, if God manifested before us and said to hate gays and women, what would you do?

[More Than A Feeling]

In this hypothetical, it really is God (not the devil, or a hallucination), and he/she/it isn't kidding or trying to test us. This the real deal. The alternative is an instant trip to hell. Eternal suffering, straight out of the Old Testament. Would you obey?

[Xipe Totec]

1. I'd check for feet of clay n/t

[trixie]

2. I would rather be in hell

then with a bunch of bigots in heaven.

[bluesbassman]

3. When did you stop beating your wife? n/t

[More Than A Feeling]

4. I'm serious, what are if we are wrong?

What if God is like the Christianists say, and not like we say? To the Christianists, I would ask the opposite.

[bluesbassman]

10. I understand your question.

I just do not believe it is possible. I would have to ask why. Why would God, who provided the free gift of salvation, turn around and revoke it based on hate? This is the error that fundies make. They base their belief on works and a skewed view of scripture.

edit for spelling.

[More Than A Feeling]

12. How would I know? I'm not God.

Even if God manifested and said, "I hate the Bible, its a tool of evil, here's the real story.", I couldn't explain it any better than you.

[mzteris]

68. How can you even entertain such a notion?

IF there is a "GOD" - how can you possibly believe than 'man' is capable of interpreting GOD?

We put our anthropomorphic spin on it. We add our prejudices. We make sure to include our likes/dislikes/fears/desires - et voila.

I think this quote sums it up best: "You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image, when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do." Anne Lamott

[More Than A Feeling]

69. That's what this whole thread is about.

The idea I am exploring is that nobody actually has faith in God per se. What they have is faith in themselves that they know how to discover whether there is a God and what that God is like, and then faith in their own ideas of God. The method I chose to explore that was a hypothetical in which God turns out to be the complete opposite of what we thought, and then we have to choose whether we are really faithful to God, or only faithful if he/she/it is what we want God to be.

I like your Anne Lamott quote, and I have never understood it better than I do right now.

[durrrty libby]

5. No

[Meshuga]

6. No

Such God is not worthy of our worship

[Dr.Phool]

7. I'd go take a drug test.

Because I'd obviously be hallucinating.

[Hoosier]

8. start asking questions

n/t

[Bluerthanblue]

9. if the God I love is the kind of God that you describe,

and the kind of god that many strict fundamentalist- judeo/christian bibleworshipping people describe God to be- then by all means i'll burn in hell eternally- because to live in a 'heaven' that was filled with other spirit/souls who could embrace such a God would be eternal damnation, and hell for my own spirit.

I cannot be truly content, at peace, and fulfilled while knowing that others are suffering and being treated as 'less than' for no reason- or for reasons that are as foolish, and random as what is held up as the 'righteous standard'-

We might be told to 'hate'- but that isn't something we can truly control- We have to be 'taught' to hate- trained to hate- and trained to think that our own needs/wants/perspectives supersede everyone /thing else. Compassion and empathy, along with the inborn desire to live in community are traits that humans have to nurture, not stifle- and any 'God' that encourages us to go against that, is not my idea of worthy of worship- following- embracing.

blu

[kiahzero]

11. No, I'd just start looking for Sophia

And give the Demiurge a big "Fuck you."

[More Than A Feeling]

14. Ah, you're a gnostic!

Well played.:-)

What if it wasn't any kind of demiurge, just the real deal, one and only, no-other-Gods-before-Me Jehovah?

[kiahzero]

18. Hrm

How would I know that it wasn't a Demiurge?

However, assuming that it wasn't, I'd still give it a big old "Fuck you, you Calvanist son of a bitch."

[JerseygirlCT]

13. The contradiction in the question makes it meaningless

God couldn't ask us to hate. That wouldn't be God.

[More Than A Feeling]

15. You don't know that.

I'm a Christian, but the possibility exists that I could be wrong, and the Bible could be wrong. God and the depiction of God in the Bible could be two entirely different things.

Ok, so we're suppose to take it on faith that the Bible is right. Or if you don't believe in the Bible, you take the idea of God on faith But then its not God we have faith in, but a book, or an idea, and in our ability to know when something is from God. So don't we really just have faith in ourself and our ideas, not in the actually existing God, if he/she/it differs from our ideas?

In summary, you say that God couldn't do what I am suggesting. But you might be wrong, and if you are, isn't what you have faith in just your own idea, not an actual God? I'm in the same boat as you, and its not comfortable, but is there anything you or anyone could tell me that would negate this possibility?

[JerseygirlCT]

19. It wouldn't be God

I simply cannot conceive of it.

Are we positing another being, creator, who encourages hate? I suppose such could exist, although I don't believe that to be the case.

But the God I believe in would never ask us to hate. They're opposite.

In short, if some supernatural being appeared in front of me, and ordered me to begin hating gays and women, I'd be certain that being was not God.

I also don't think you can be ordered to begin "hating" someone. As Hammerstein said, "you've got to be carefully taught". And that's not how I'm made -- at least with the biases I'm aware of. I suppose there's plenty lurking within each of us.

[trotsky]

41. If you believe in the Christian god,

then you believe in a revealed god. It revealed itself to various persons throughout history and gave them information about its nature, inspiring them to write the text that formed the basis of your religion. You must, if you are to be intellectually honest and theologically consistent, allow for the possibility that your god could choose to reveal itself again, to you personally, and provide information that could contradict what you THINK you know about it. As a perfect example: Surely if we are to believe the story of Jesus, your god did a 180 on a number of issues (eye for an eye, etc.) that individuals at the time likely scoffed at, just like you - "I simply cannot conceive of god being that way."

[Evoman]

28. Excellent response....all of which is completely true.

I really respect you for admitting this.

[Az]

16. Goodness

Not a believer but just wanted to interject a thought. It is said that you cannot know the mind of God. This would seem to imply that you cannot know what is good or evil. You may have opinions or positions you have come to internalize regarding these notions but they are a far cry from the definitive definitions of Good and Evil as defined by God. Or so that is what I understand.

This raises the problem of what happens when you die and go to heaven. You now have to spend eternity at the feet of a being who's acts and motivations you cannot even begin to comprehend and who defines his own notions of good and evil beyond anything you can imagine. What happens if he likes something you don't? Just as an example consider that the bible is quite clear that God finds the smell of burning goat flesh (and other burnt offerings) to be pleasing. I don't know if you have ever smelt a burning goat but if that is what heaven smells like.... brimstone is suddenly taking on a much more pleasant option.

So if God's olfactory prefrences can differ so wildly from our own how can you know that spending eternity at the feet of an entity that is capable of condemning people for all manner of silly trifles (eating shell fish). I mean if your sense of good varies sufficiently from God's then your eternity at his feet may not be the pleasant experience you expect it to be.

[jbnow]

31. Being a believer doesn't mean

believing in the bible or any "holy" book or any teaching offered. That's believing in religion, not the same as believing in "god".

We can't know the mind of God. Hell, we hardly know our own. The most that we can do is know "God's" will for us in the moment...
That is not some external thing although external things can cue us.

We can't know that will for someone else or even what will be true for us in the next moment. In the story Moses was kept out of the promised land because he did what he was told to do earlier (strike the rock to get water) instead of what he was told the second time to get water from the rock. (Speak to it) A nice if irritating parable. Nothing by rote.

People are drawn to religion perhaps to find some certainty, the rituals, words or ways that are "right", that will reach God, that will save them, keep them safe, whatever.

Religion offers that but God doesn't.

But you never know what some one is here to do. Some right wing bigots might have come to be a right wing bigot in this world. I don't have to like them but it doesn't mean their soul isn't accomplishing what it came to do.

Jesus, man or myth, was pretty kind and accepting with few exceptions. (Still don't get why he killed the fig tree) The group that he was pretty harsh with was the powerful republicans/preachers (OK Pharisees, not republicans) of his time. REALLY harsh, they are the ones that got all the "Woe unto thee" and he called them serpents,vipers, asked how can they could escape damnation. That was for...well all the hypocrisy, greed and deeds we see them do today. He just bashed them.(Matthew 23:29-39 and Luke 11:37-54)

There is nowhere he bashes gays or regular sinners, but he really bashes them. So we can tell ourselves when he get very judgmental and angry at this administration "Well it is the Christ like thing to do"

[More Than A Feeling]

43. This statement contradicts itself

We can't know the mind of God. Hell, we hardly know our own. The most that we can do is know "God's" will for us in the moment...

Isn't God's will for us part of the mind of God, which you say we can't know?

That's believing in religion, not the same as believing in "god".

Part of religion is theology which means the study of God. I don't see the distinction you are making. What I am saying is that any idea we have about God, might be just that, an idea, with no relation to the actual God as God exists. That goes for whether the idea comes out of organized religion, or its one you came up with yourself.

[Agnomen]

17. Check myself into nearest psych ward

Hallucinations indicate schizophrenia.

[Realityhack]

81. I second that one n/t

[morningglory]

20. Before I told God to kiss my a$$, I would ask him why he made those

people gay in the first place.

[Az]

21. A key question to this issue

Is homosexuality a person expressing their natural desires? Or is it some sort of choice?

[Ian David]

22. It is not the existence or POWER of a "god" that makes them worthy of being worshipped

It is how they choose to use that power-- for good or for evil.

This is why The Book of Job alone is sufficient to prove that even if god exists, he is an immoral asshole and probably has a gambling problem as well.

Also, it is the utmost hubris to assume that any being whose power we cannot explain simply must be super-natural in origin, because we humans simply know everything naturally possible.

Send me back to the Stone Age with an ATV, a Taser and a cigarette lighter, and I could be a "god."

"Hallowed are The Ori! Those who reject the path to enlightenment must be destroyed."

See:

Ori (Stargate)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ori_(Stargate)

[Goblinmonger]

26. Book of Job + Story of Lot =

God is one enormous prick.

I like the "gambling problem" concept. What's wrong with a little side bet with Satan?

[Az]

27. The thing I get a kick out of concerning Satan is

That in these stories here is this fallen angel that knows... this bears repeating... knows God personally and he thinks he can pull one over on him. And this is the brightest of the angels? Eeesh.

[kiahzero]

30. Keep in mind that Job was in the Hebrew scriptures

Satan was The Adversary - the angel whose role it was to challenge mankind; essentially a heavenly prosecutor.

[Ian David]

32. No game is any fun without at least a decent computer-generated AI opponent. n/t

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

23. Since God is within each of us

and a part of us all, I can't see this happening. That would be like my hand telling my foot that the hand hated it. As for hell--that is created by the ego or small self--shrouding ourselves from That Which is All. We only need to strip away the veils to find Peace.

[More Than A Feeling]

24. That's interesting, is it the same God in each of us, or different? n/t

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

34. Well, let's see

Let's use an analogy. Most folks here would agree that each thing is made up of atoms, right? And these atoms are not static, but are moving, especially the electrons! So, one could say, everything is movement, or vibration. Is the vibration to same in all things, or different? Obviously each object is different, but what of the vibratory nature of atoms? When you have answered that question to your satisfaction, you have the answer to your question. No, God isn't exactly vibrations, but the essence behind vibration, you could say-as I said at the outset, this is an analogy.

[struggle4progress]

25. Duh! Argue against it, of course, and try to explain why it's a bad idea.

[Ian David]

33. Good idea! It wouldn't be the first time "god" has been forced to change his mind.

In fact, "god" has even "repented of his evil."

It's not a surprise that someone stupid enough to "design" lemurs without lips would need us mere mortals to occasionally tell him what an idiot he is.

[struggle4progress]

35. Calling the other party "stupid" is a poor argument technique.

[trotsky]

37. Blasphemy: A victimless crime.

What other party?

[struggle4progress]

48. Since I am not a solipsist, there is always at least Another. And since ...

... I am not omniscient, I have (in fact) only a limited knowledge of who that Another is.

Whether there are multiple Others, it is nevertheless true that I really interact only with one Another at a time.

Perhaps the right question to ask, in every interaction with Another, is: How do I encounter that Another?

Various answers are possible. For example, I could approach Another as either "You" or as "Thou," a distinction that the Quakers carried in English longer than other Americans but that today survives only in liturgical language, where its original meaning has therefore been lost. One option, I suppose, is ridicule: I have certainly been guilty of it at times, but it is a crime against the Spirit of Love, and it prevents the embracing of Another.

[trotsky]

54. That's nice.

When you have some evidence of this "Another" existing apart from your mind, let me know.

[struggle4progress]

61. You argue I should be a solipsist?

[Ian David]

39. Anyone who creates an animal that eats fruit, and has to turn its face up to the sky...

each time it does so because that animal doesn't have any lips to keep the juice from falling out of its mouth, isn't a very "intelligent designer."

So, if someone "intelligently designed" the lemur, they are, in fact, stupid.

If "god" wants to argue the point personally with me, I'll start by apologizing for insulting him. But until he manifests himself to me, I stand by my assessment that any diety designing a lipless lemur is a moron.

[struggle4progress]

49. If the lemurs complain to you of their plight on this account, let us know.

[Ian David]

56. Did I mention that their digestive tract is so short, that they can't efficiently digest their food?

If lemurs could talk, they'd surely complain about the lack of lips and the constant diarrhea.

[struggle4progress]

62. Is this from your extensive communications with lemurs?

[More Than A Feeling]

47. What if its non-negotiable? n/t

[struggle4progress]

51. Your hypotheticals seem to me a pointless exercise casting no light

whatsoever. If you want to say that such an event has happened to you, or has happened to someone you know, then give us the details for discussion.

Otherwise, I regard the conversation you want as something like knocking a stick against a broken jar: it not only accomplishes nothing useful, it does not even make a pleasing noise.

I have told you what I think I should do, confronted with such an experience. And, to clarify matters further, let me say that should I find myself unable to argue in such circumstances, then I ought to visit a psychiatrist.

[More Than A Feeling]

55. Then I'll tell you what the point is.

The point is that we would be very disturbed if God doesn't conform to our ideas about God. Indeed, all the stuff about worshipping God, and having faith in God might go right out the window, if God turned out to want something from us that we regarded as immoral. I'd refuse, and so would other believers who have commented on this thread. So the question then becomes, is it really God we love and worship, or merely our ideas about God? Don't we first have to have faith in ourselves that we actually can discover what is true about God? All of this smacks of idolatry to me, but is there any way short of God doing what I have suggested for us to avoid it?

[Evoman]

29. I would put out a cigarette on God's chest, like in terminator.

Okay..I don't smoke, but it would be cool. And then god would probably kick my ass. But I can't hate gay people! I mean, how could you force yourself to hate something that you don't hate?

And what would this gods heaven be like, anyways?

[bryant69]

36. That's a little like asking what if Black were White

Black is by definition Black - God is, in my opinion a loving God by definition. I'd assume it was not a godly message but a counterfiet of Satan.

But of course that's not the point. The point is that Christians are supposadly motivated by a fear of hell and so would choose to hate Gays everytime. It's a bit like the choice presented Huck Finn in the middle of Huckleberry Finn (well, near the end). By his culture and by his morality the right thing to do is to betray Jim. But he doesn't. He chooses to go to hell rather than betray his friend. And I would hope that in that situation, I would do the same.

Bryant

[bloom]

38. I thought that some people thought that God did say essentially that.

For one thing - there is how Eve is portrayed - as if she is on the side of evil.

Then there was the case in the OT where raping the daughters was ok. Sounds like hate to me.

Paul didn't seem to think much of women and people who see the Bible as being the word of God are essentially saying that God said those things.


Jesus said something about hating your family and following him.



I don't know exactly what all was said about Gays - but God supposedly destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah- so what does that say?



Liberal people seem to have a better idea of God than what the Bible does. Which is nice.


I like ayeshahaqqiqa's ideas. "That would be like my hand telling my foot that the hand hated it." Of course people don't always like all the parts of themselves.

[Evoman]

46. Some very good points nt

[muriel_volestrangler]

40. Similar question: If God told you to sacrifice your son, would you do it?

The Old Testament and Koran both teach that it would be the correct thing to do. I'm not aware that the New Testament specifically supersedes this example of 'righteousness'.

Thankfully, all those here on DU from Abrahamic religions seem to have more enlightened ideas than their holy books.

[Brentos]

44. I think that may be somewhat out of context...

And I don't believe he would ask us. Jesus has shown us the Law incarnate, and I could never see him asking that.

Back to the story at hand...

In that story, the pagan cultures of the time used to sacrifice their children to their God (they would pass through the fire, generally Moloch worship, I think). God asked Abraham to do what followers of other Gods would do. He dutifully goes about doing it, as abhorrent as it is to us, it was a bit more normalized then. God realizes that this is a religious man, willing to listen to his God, and at the end shows him that he does *not* need to sacrifice his son (God will do that later), as he is a loving God.

In fact, God never even asks for any of the sacrificial system. That came from the pagan cultures and was probably added into the Pentateuch during the temple period.

[muriel_volestrangler]

53. So you too think parts of the Bible are forgeries

That is, nothing to do with God. As I said, DUers know better than to trust their holy books.

[Brentos]

58. Not forgeries....

But add-ons. That is why Jesus had to clarify things. Also the prophets.

For a concrete example that still continues to this day, the Jewish people would (and still do) gather once a year to update the law (now days the Torah itself is locked down, but that is what the other writings are for). Now, one could never subtract from the Law, so one would have to add to the scroll. This is why you will see laws where god states conflicting points: in Exodus 20:24-26 as one example:

24 " 'Make an altar of earth for me and sacrifice on it your burnt offerings and fellowship offerings, your sheep and goats and your cattle. Wherever I cause my name to be honored, I will come to you and bless you. 25 If you make an altar of stones for me, do not build it with dressed stones, for you will defile it if you use a tool on it. 26 And do not go up to my altar on steps, lest your nakedness be exposed on it.'

Here is a case where you can see the evolution of the Law. God (or possibly man) gave a commandment that was written down, "Make an altar of earth... Then, the very next bit says, "If you make an alter of stones..." One doesn't logically follow the other if you are giving Law. The law here isn't "You must drive 55 MPH". then add, "But if you drive faster, only go up to 75MPH".

This is one example of the evidence of how the Bible is put together. Also, the Bible admits that Joshua (at least) added to the Law, so we know, even based on internal consistency, that the Law codes were added to at some point. Many biblical scholars believe much of the law codes were added during and after the exile. This would generally be the "Priestly" source if you follow the different source theories.

In summary, Bible scholars say that the Bible has been added to, the Bible tells us that the Bible has been added to, the prophets and Jesus tell us what was meant by that which had become confused. Unfortunately, the churches and church doctrines prefer to cherry pick instead of understanding the full message, thus leading to lots of really yucky stuff in organized religion (which Christianity was never really meant to be, based on the teachings of Jesus).

[muriel_volestrangler]

59. You call that 'god stating conflicting points'

and I can see how that can be interpreted as a later addition. But your earlier point was that there were sections of the Bible that claimed to be from God, but weren't:

In fact, God never even asks for any of the sacrificial system. That came from the pagan cultures and was probably added into the Pentateuch during the temple period.

There are frequent sections where the Bible does say God wants sacrifices, in (apparently) God's own words; your excerpt from Exodus is an example. If the Bible claims to be quoting God's words, but you believe it isn't, then surely that section is a forgery, in your eyes?

[Brentos]

60. Yes.

Yes, I can accept that definition of others inserting their own bits as the voice of God. I may have to re-think my example about the sacrificial system in total, though, I may have mis-spoke on that specific example as I thougth about it, but the basic point is correct. I studied that last year and need to brush up on it.

So, to answer your questions, yes, there are sections in the Bible written as if from God that the Bible and scholars tell us are not actually from God (if you are a believer) or shouldn't be attributed to the God Yahweh (if you don't believe).

[struggle4progress]

45. "... Others have argued that binding Isaac was an instance of Abraham's failure; that he blew it,

he should have talked back. Right after this story, the Torah tells us that Sarah died; midrash holds that she died as soon as she heard what Abraham had been willing to do, because her horror was so great. The Talmud states that a command by a prophet in God's name to uproot God's law should not be obeyed; maybe Abraham wasn't supposed to obey because God's instruction here clearly goes against halakhah. Rabbi Shlomo Riskin has suggested that God was unhappy with Abraham for his eagerness to obey the command to slaughter Isaac, and that's why God never spoke to him again after the Akedah ..."
Rosh Hashanah Sermon
http://velveteenrabbi.blogs.com/blog/2004/09/rosh_hashanah_s.html

It's rather tiresome to hear, in this forum, over and over and over again, such rigid misinterpretations of old texts, provided primarily for the purpose of ridiculing the text ...

[Brentos]

50. Thanks!

That is an interesting interpretation that I had not seen. I'll study it.

[muriel_volestrangler]

52. "Rigid misinterpretations"? It's the straightforward text

That rabbi then has to cast doubt on its authenticity to get a 'nice' meaning of the story:

In that case, what do we do with the angel's statement, "For now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son from Me?" It's that since that gives us trouble. Biblical scholar Tikva Frymer-Kensky believes we can translate the line differently: "Indeed I know you are a God-fearer-but (now) you have not held back your son from me." In other words, "Abraham, I know you're righteous, so why didn't you act like it?"

The angel who speaks up at the end of the story doesn't seem to take these nuances into account. Then again, our tradition regards angels as essentially single-minded. They don't grapple with the yetzer ha-tov and yetzer ha-ra, the good and evil inclinations, as we do; they can't know the capacity of a human heart. Angels exist to obey; they don't wrestle with questions like "what did God really mean by that?" In Judaism, angels are literalists.

Some scholars have also argued that the end of the story, which is written in a different style from the rest of it, might be a later addition: it might have been added after the fall of the Temple. Without the second angel's tidy little speech, the story is much more ambiguous. That last paragraph might be the first-ever commentary on the original story; just one so old that it's been incorporated into the text itself.

Seems it's not just me ridiculing the text - the rabbi does it too.

And let's just remind ourselves of what that angel says:

15 The angel of the LORD called to Abraham from heaven a second time 16 and said, "I swear by myself, declares the LORD, that because you have done this and have not withheld your son, your only son, 17 I will surely bless you and make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and as the sand on the seashore. Your descendants will take possession of the cities of their enemies, 18 and through your offspring all nations on earth will be blessed, because you have obeyed me."

That's a pretty funny way for God to show he's "unhappy with Abraham". Faced with a story like that, the best thing to do is say it's bogus - which is what Rabbi Rachel does, so that the remaining part is 'ambiguous'. Trying to paint Abraham's life as a problem after that is a stretch - he prospers, has more children , "and the LORD had blessed him in every way". Sarah died when Isaac was 37 - it's another stretch to say that is "as soon as she heard what Abraham had been willing to do", given that Isaac is called a 'boy' or 'lad' in the story.

As I said, sensible people know it's better to follow human morality than take the word of a holy book.

[struggle4progress]

63. Have you noticed that in 22:1-2 ".. G-d said .. Take .. your son .. and sacrifice him .."

and never speaks again in the chapter: in 22:11-12 ".. the angel .. said .. 'Lay not .. hands on the boy!'" and Abraham desists, at which point the blessing comes?

And following this incident, the beginning of the next chapter is ".. and Sarah died .." The interpretation you consider a stretch is a very old interpretation. Your objection to this follows from what you consider significant in the text and want to examine closely -- namely, reported ages. Very well: you may choose what you think it important, and I will choose what I think important, and we will disagree.

[muriel_volestrangler]

65. "Following this incident" - with other stuff in between

that is,

19 Then Abraham returned to his servants, and they set off together for Beersheba. And Abraham stayed in Beersheba.

20 Some time later Abraham was told, "Milcah is also a mother; she has borne sons to your brother Nahor: 21 Uz the firstborn, Buz his brother, Kemuel (the father of Aram), 22 Kesed, Hazo, Pildash, Jidlaph and Bethuel." 23 Bethuel became the father of Rebekah. Milcah bore these eight sons to Abraham's brother Nahor. 24 His concubine, whose name was Reumah, also had sons: Tebah, Gaham, Tahash and Maacah.

1 Sarah lived to be a hundred and twenty-seven years old. 2 She died at Kiriath Arba (that is, Hebron) in the land of Canaan, and Abraham went to mourn for Sarah and to weep over her.

We've got that "some time later" in there. More importantly, we know Isaac was 37 when his mother died. A 'boy' of 37? Face it, there's significant time between the near sacrifice and Sarah dying in the story.

The blessing specifically says it was because he was willing to sacrifice his son. You can't pretend it was for not sacrificing him. The message of the book is that God wanted Abraham to obey him however repulsive the thing he was asked to do. Whether that was the intention of the original author can be debated.

[struggle4progress]

67. I see little point in arguing interpretation with you, since what we really want ..

to obtain by interpretation differs.

If you want to argue literally, a technique for which I have little use, you should at least do something better than quote "Some time later" from a translator: the Hebraic text, according to those who know, is famously indifferent to time. This "some time later" is more commonly rendered as "it came to pass" which, according to some commentators, has a certain emotional overtone in the original.

You want to argue by literal reading. This, however, is not in keeping with the extensive tradition around such texts:

... Abaye taught regarding the verse, G-d has spoken once; twice have I heard this(Psalm 62:12), that one biblical verse may convey many different teachings ... http://www.icmidrash.org/livingt/nwiov.htm

... When "The Red Tent" was first released, Diamant was asked by the Catholic chaplain at Mount Holyoke College, "How did you have the audacity to do this to the Bible?" Diamant told the Peninsula Temple Beth El crowd her answer: "It is my birthright. My audacity is the Jewish approach to Scripture. I approach the Bible as the heir to this tradition of Midrash. Every word of Torah has 700 faces and 600 meanings. There is no one correct interpretation as Jews have made up stories contradictory for centuries" ... http://www.jewishsf.com/content/2-0-/module/displaystory/story_id/15793/edition_id/308/format/html/displaystory.html

[Evoman]

71. You can interpret the bible in so many ways, that it becomes absolutely fucking meaningless.

Honestly, writing should be clear...especially if its a book on how to live your life. Instead of interpeting, misinterpreting, superinterpreting and backwardsinterpreting something that seems pretty fucking straight forward, I say just throw the bible in the garbage where it belongs.

I've been trying to find a word to describe what liberal christians do regarding the bible, and I finally found it......SPIN.

Its spin. Its taking something that pretty straightforward, and bending it backwards and turning it on its head so that it fits what you would like it to say. I know that you all mean well...you don't want god to be the kind of being who would ask someone to kill their son. You don't want to believe that god could possibly hate homosexuals or commit genocide. But its just not logical...its not logical to take some parts literally, to ignore other parts, and then point to a few phrases that agree with your ideology and say, "See, god is good".

Whats the point of it all, anyways? That god is such a asshole that he commissions a book that is contradictory and confusing and makes no sense? Isn't it just easier to realize that it is a book of stories written by people who were in many ways morally and intellectually inferior to modern humans? Even Jesus, the celebrated "liberal" son of god says some pretty stupid shit. All in all, I don't see why any body would even BOTHER to interpret the bible. Your better off reading a textbook.

[struggle4progress]

74. You seem to use this topic to focus rage: "garbage" "spin" "asshole" "inferior" "shit"

I don't know where the rage comes from, but perhaps you should think about something that makes you happier?

[Evoman]

75. I'm angry because I ran out of bibles to throw into the garbage

and I have no more money to buy anymore.

[struggle4progress]

76. I knew we could brighten your mood.

:D

[dsc]

42. I honestly don't know what I would do

I grew up in a fairly conservative religious tradition. It was so hard for me to come to terms with the idea that I could be both Christian and gay. I really prayed on it. I really wanted to change. I even looked into a conversion therapy. For over a decade I stayed out of churches other than while singing in choruses. Eventually I figured out that I was made gay and that he wouldn't send me to Hell for it.

You ask a very interesting and provacative question. I have spent many a night pondering similar ones. I know I might be wrong. It might, despite all my feelings and evidence to the contrary, be that I have somehow chosen to be gay. If that is the case, then I guess I am screwed. I would love to be more certain.

I gave up on God once due to what his followers told me. I was wrong to have done so.

[Lerkfish]

57. I'd say hello to hell, I think.

I would not worship a God that requires hatred.

because pretty much I've been living my life the opposite of that, so if that were the requirement, I'd be going to hell anyhow.

[Evoman]

64. If your going to hell, you might as well try to give god a kick in the nards.

For being a dick.

[Lerkfish]

70. under that scenario, yes, but I don't agree with that scenario

under the conditions of the OP, I would refuse to hate on his orders...however, as the play title says "your arm's too short to box with God".
I doubt I'd get anywhere close to any vital areas.

:)

[jgraz]

78. God has nards?

I see a whole new branch of theology opening up.

[Danger Mouse]

66. I'd say....

...warm up the fires for me! And hopefully I'd have a lot of my fellow DUer's roasting to keep me company.
Only love is worth having. A god devoid of love is little better than a devil.

[nemo137]

72. That goes totally against the idea of "God" as I think most Christians here understand it.

Since most of us seem to be operating under John's idea the God is love. It's one of those inconceivables, like what if fresh water at sea level didn't freeze at 0 c? I think I'd have to agree with the poster above, who said something along the lines of he'd rather follow the law of love than serve a god that hateful.

[More Than A Feeling]

73. That's right, it does, but is it really inconceivable?

I'm just wondering if we are really serious about having faith in God, or if we only have faith in God, if God turns out to be the way we like. There is no rule that says God has to be anything like we think he/she/it is, is there?

[nemo137]

77. There is no rule that Gd has to turn out the way we like.

But, on the other hand, how do we even know? If we believe in an incorporeal, extratemporal God, what would we make of a corporeal being in out time appearing to tell us something specific about who we should hate?

Questions like this, though, are why I've been moving away from the idea of a personal god.

[zonmoy]

79. ordered to hate by a evil monster that calls itself god

I would rather hate the evil monster then fellow gays. maybe if I am lucky I can either hate him enough or make others hate him enough to destroy him.

[StrongbadTehAwesome]

80. I suppose I'd have to say, "Sorry, can't hate myself,

that's the way you made me."

Edited to add: on BOTH counts.

[More Than A Feeling]

82. OT: love your screenname

Sounds like a barbarian warlord for the IM age!:thumbsup:

[SPKrazy]

83. I Guess I'd burn in hell or something

I don't have any beliefs that a higher power would say such a thing

but if it did, I'd have to say "fuck off"

I won't treat people like that.

:shrug: