[Northern Soul]

That's actually quite untrue: only a few religions are of that sort of belief: or even believe in that sort of God:

Yeah - I should have said the Abrahamic faiths. Laziness! Sorry.

[shooz]

Perhaps they should do a bit more research?

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/09/14/us-iran-rock-idUSTRE78D3L520110914

[JohnBee]

This leads to such things as The Crusades, in which people killed thousands in the name of Christianity, and the sort of violence we now see amongst extremist Muslim groups.

Actually the crusades were in direct controversy with the Christian bible. Therefore, in reality, those who either lead or took part in them were apostates under the law of Christ.

Thinking that you are doing as you have been commanded by an all powerful being that may kill you but for which you will be rewarded is very different than doing something you think may kill you full stop.

Unbound statements such as these are rather difficult to substantiate. However, when we associate them with the accounts then they often lead to different conclusions.

It's that difference that leads people to do things that they otherwise would not.

Indeed, and I think that was always the driving point behind divine salvation. And that's where God would draw a line between right and wrong and invites all who are interested to come and take their stand on the issue.

Do you think Abraham would have made an altar to sacrifice his son if he hadn't thought God was telling him to do it?

I do not. Then again... do you think Abraham could have come to understand the value of what was to come by any other means? As strange it may seem, it would appear as though Abraham was able to received exactly what was needed in order for him to relate to the task that lay ahead of him.

You're going to have to explain why you feel my comment is ignorant - it's only polite.

It's quite simple really...

First off, not "all" religious people believe God favors them. Likewise, not "everyone" believes God is on their side. And finally... people don't "all" believe in a reward after death. And we know this as religious people can do wrong under God, which could in turn, lead to death less the hope of resurrection(see: eternal death).

[Northern Soul]

Actually the crusades were in direct controversy with the Christian bible. Therefore, in reality, those who either lead or took part in them were apostates under the law of Christ.

But of course maninstream members of most religions would claim that those that act, or acted in a way that is morally reprehensible were not 'true' believers.

There is plenty of evidence in the bible that God approves - and even helps - his followers to fight wars to glorify him - he slaughtered the first born male in all of Egypt to prove some kind of point, and he was not averse to slaughtering others based on their race - as I remember he gives the Ethiopians a pretty hard time.

If you are claiming that killing people of other faiths is not biblical, you need to explain in what way God was mistaken when he said this, from Deuteronomy 13, and tell me how you, a mere mortal, can tell that God was only joking. An explanation as to why an all-powerful deity would say such a thing if he didn't mean it would be useful to someone as ignorant as me, too.

6 If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying, “Let us go and worship other gods” (gods that neither you nor your ancestors have known, 7 gods of the peoples around you, whether near or far, from one end of the land to the other), 8 do not yield to them or listen to them. Show them no pity. Do not spare them or shield them. 9 You must certainly put them to death. Your hand must be the first in putting them to death, and then the hands of all the people.


Of course you will come back to me and tell me that this passage is from the Old Testament, as though that somehow means that it's not part of the Bible - perhaps you will tell me of the new covenant and the commandment to "love one another as I have loved you (as long as you believe in me and aren't Egyptian or Ethiopian)" In which case I will ask if God was wrong when he said that - are you bold enough to say your God was wrong, or are you - a mere mortal - going to make excuses for a being his followers believe to be all powerful and all knowing?

Or are we left with the idea that, actually, as this ignorant poster said, all the Abrahamic religions have bits in the their books that encourage people to behave appallingly?

Indeed, and I think that was always the driving point behind divine salvation. And that's where God would draw a line between right and wrong and invites all who are interested to come and take their stand on the issue.

I'm not sure God does draw that line. He behaves fairly badly throughout the Old Testament - the longest bit of the bible in terms of pages and time covered. Torturing the good and honest Job for a bet? Drowning all of creation for something he knew was going to happen? Demanding human sacrifice then changing his mind? Sending plagues? Sending bears to maul children for mocking a prophet for being bald? Murdering millions of people? Condoning rape? Condoning slavery?

It's all in the Bible. There are even rules on how much domestic violence is ok. Where, exactly, does God draw a line between right and wrong?

Then again... do you think Abraham could have come to understand the value of what was to come by any other means? As strange it may seem, it would appear as though Abraham was able to received exactly what was needed in order for him to relate to the task that lay ahead of him.

I'm not omnipotent, or all knowing. But I can think of better ways to achieve almost anything than making a man believe I was going to force him to murder his own son. Can't you? Of course, if I *was* all-powerful and all-knowing, I could just make anyone think and do anything I liked, without "preparing" them with some form of mental torture.

I know that as a literary device this is interesting because God murders his own son later on - or at least arranges for him to be murdered. But that again was unecessary. If you're all powerful, and all-knowing, you can forgive sins without murdering anyone. If you *do* have to murder your son, it begs the question as to who is making you. Who told God, or required of him, that he murder his son? Or was it just something he decided he had to do, for himself?

First off, not "all" religious people believe God favors them. Likewise, not "everyone" believes God is on their side. And finally... people don't "all" believe in a reward after death. And we know this as religious people can do wrong under God, which could in turn, lead to death less the hope of resurrection(see: eternal death).

If you don't believe that God favours his believers over everyone else, then you're not reading the bible properly - or you are choosing to selectively believe it. I corrected my earlier assertion that belief in reward after death is universal to all religions, and said that I was referring to the Abrahamic faiths (Judaism, Christianity, Islam) although I'm sure that idea is found in other beliefs too.

[normhead]

Following the old testament doesn't make you Christian... those are pre-Christian texts.

God is never wrong, those who do the interpreting for him often are... until he starts speaking directly to us we don't know. So tell me. Why does the all powerfull God , just not go on TV and tell us what he thinks. Why does he leave people fighting about what he says?

See, the thing is, most people, the Abrahmic faiths excluded, understand that God is not a person, that his speaking to people is metaphorical.. that he is much larger than what Christianity is able to concieve, and that the kind of discrimination concieved by the Abrahamic faiths is impossible. The "God is all powerful and can do whatever he wants" is just "my dad is bigger and stronger than your dad." taken to it's logical extention.

The thing is that people who call themselves Christain need to understand is that professing Christianity means nothing...and gives you no special insight into life, or any special ability to interpret the ways of the great mystery

It appeals to a certain type of people... those who really believe beating their children is a good thing... but a large portion of humanity sees Christianity for what it is, the extention of the beliefs of a small tribe of people, incapable of defending themselves, who needed to believe there was a god who could protect them, who needed to believe they were in some way chosen and special, who essentaillly had to be vicious and ruthless to the extreme to make their way in the world. There is no evidence that the god of Abraham has ever done anything... people have looked at events from the past and claimed that things happened and that god has a hand in them. People also claim that god punished New Orleans for being so set against God's law. People can make up anything they want and clam "god did this or god did that" That some people consider such fantasies fact, is of much amusemant to much of humanity. At least it would be amusing if it weren't for the endless barbaric acts committed in their god's name.

As a general observation I might add, these are really insecure people for the most part. People who don't know if their doing the right thing, and want someone to tell them. Not having your own consience is a terrible thing.

If you don't believe that God favours his believers over everyone else, then you're not reading the bible properly - or you are choosing to selectively believe it.

This is exactly the seed of discrimination that leads to abuses of power, racism, religious wars... etc. If God discrimiates, then if we discriminate, we are being like him and will be rewarded. I couldn't have laid out the Christain's inherent belief in religious intolerance more clearly, thanks for that.

Look at the Religious Society of Friends, also Christains, specificly Barclay's Apology , available on line, and you will find all the above arguemnts for the discriminating god refuted in understandable terms (if you understand old English). There's isn't even agreement among Christians on many of the idea's above. Much less, grounds to assume God favours his own people. It's fairy tales, written for the simple minded. "When the perfect has come, that which is imperfect will pass away. Now you see through a veil vaguely, but then you will see with the full light of day." Written scripture is part of the veil, not part of the light. I use Christian terms only to illustrate my points in language you might understand, a foriegn thought process left over from my early training, but completely incapable of describing reality as I see it now. Don't try and pull that "you have to use the Bible to justify yourself "stuff on me. You have to use the Bible to talk to fundamentalist Christians becasue they won't listen to anything else. It's a reflection on them, not me or what I see.

[JohnBee]

But of course maninstream members of most religions would claim that those that act, or acted in a way that is morally reprehensible were not 'true' believers.

Correct, and they are right in doing so, as this very behavior was both prophesied and warned against by Jesus.

There is plenty of evidence in the bible that God approves - and even helps - his followers to fight wars to glorify him... ...Of course you will come back to me and tell me that this passage is from the Old Testament, as though that somehow means that it's not part of the Bible - perhaps you will tell me of the new covenant and the commandment to "love one another as I have loved you (as long as you believe in me and aren't Egyptian or Ethiopian)" In which case I will ask if God was wrong when he said that - are you bold enough to say your God was wrong, or are you - a mere mortal - going to make excuses for a being his followers believe to be all powerful and all knowing?

TBH. I'm not sure if anyone ever glorified God in killing someone. However, I think it's important to highlight that the referenced activities in your comment did not fall under the laws of Christianity(as mentioned). Though.. I find the notion that you would mention(later on) the inherent problems of selective reasoning with regards to the bible, only to find the dismissal of the new covenant to be somewhat perplexing.

At any rate, in agreement with your own criticism, I'd encourage you to consider the entire historical framework leading up to, and into, the law of Christ rather than the Mosaic Laws exclusively.

I'm not sure God does draw that line.

I think the pattern was consistent from beginning to end. ie. We find God drawing a line with Adam and Eve(dividing good and bad), which seems maintained throughout the bible up until the appearance of Christ. At which point, a new covenant presenting humans with the choice of good and bad(SEE: taking a stand) is reached and humans fall under the Laws of Christ(Christianity), which then places Jesus as a proxy between humans and God(In a nutshell).

Where, exactly, does God draw a line between right and wrong?

Setting Job aside for a moment, I think you're confusing two very different set of terms in your presentation;

1) The definition of objective moral values(good and bad) and 2) The legal consequences following God's dealings with imperfect humans.

And that is to say that killing(for example) even when issued by God, could never be called good. Which has no bearing on the destruction preceding the fulfillment of human salvation with reference to His moral laws, and so it appears as though you've confused those two condition.

However, in returning to Job, I would add that the bet(as you yourself put it) was not only for the salvation of humanity itself, but would also put an end to the ongoing issue that the arrangement between God and human was not worth saving. Though despite all this, I think its worth pointing-out that it was before the court of God(or bet as you put it) that Satan challenged the protection of Job by God as He requested that He remove it and grant him the authority to prove he was right before the court of the angels. Which may not seem like a worthy cause to suffer for at first glance, though something tells me that the circumstances would have made the challenge unavoidable under the binding word of God.

Having said that, I think its worth mentioning that God was not in favor of the ways of the Israelites as He went on to criticize there ways(slavery etc) and drawing a line between His ways and their ways.

I'm not omnipotent, or all knowing. But I can think of better ways to achieve almost anything than making a man believe I was going to force him to murder his own son. Can't you? Of course, if I *was* all-powerful and all-knowing, I could just make anyone think and do anything I liked, without "preparing" them with some form of mental torture.

Based on the account, I'd say he was not tortured at all. In fact... it would appear as though both Abraham and his son were confident(faith) that God could be trusted. Which likely played a major role in their reactions on matters. Though, I think the outstanding aspect of this account is where God knew exactly what was needed(conditioning) in order to get the job done. Which is consistent with other accounts where God used experiences to condition those he dealt with throughout bible history(ie. Jonah and the city of Nineveh ect).

Who told God, or required of him, that he murder his son? Or was it just something he decided he had to do, for himself?

My guess is that the outcome was likely the best alternative under the terms of the situation on all sides of the equation(ie. Heaven, earth and the rules that bind them). And that's not to say someone may feel as though things couldn't have been done differently, though without knowing all of the details, it is unlikely that we could posit anything more than a blind guess.

Having said that... there seems to be a great deal of value following the implications of Jesus coming to earth and dying for humanity if/when you think about it. And so, I'm lead to believe that such things were likely the culmination of God's will being done rather than that of a direct decision making process. IOW. the fulfillment of terms needed to meet all the requirements of a given problem(SEE: God's will).

If you don't believe that God favours his believers over everyone else, then you're not reading the bible properly - or you are choosing to selectively believe it. I corrected my earlier assertion that belief in reward after death is universal to all religions, and said that I was referring to the Abrahamic faiths (Judaism, Christianity, Islam) although I'm sure that idea is found in other beliefs too.

Though I can't comment on other doctrines, I think it goes without saying that the Christian bible makes it rather clear that salvation and finding favor in God's eyes are a product of ongoing work and dedication. Which remains consistent throughout bible history as we find even God's people, remained subject to falling out of His favor as they deviated from their righteous course into wickedness. And so again... I would simply reiterate that it was your initial comment(which made use of classic stereotyping) that was inappropriate to the charge and in need of correction as it implied that ALL believers were the same when they are clearly not.

PS. Although I'm sure you have plenty of areas to address on this particular topic, I have to say(unfortunately) that I really don't have the time needed to entertain religious discussions atm. Though, I do hope my comments satisfied your request for a polite explanation on matters.

Sincerely,
JohnB

[Northern Soul]

PS. Although I'm sure you have plenty of areas to address on this particular topic, I have to say(unfortunately) that I really don't have the time needed to entertain religious discussions atm. Though, I do hope my comments satisfied your request for a polite explanation on matters.

Sincerely,
JohnB

Thanks for replying. Sadly your post raises yet more questions, such as:

My guess is that the outcome was likely the best alternative under the terms of the situation on all sides of the equation(ie. Heaven, earth and the rules that bind them).

Who made the rules? Is there a higher power than God, who makes rules he must follow?

[Ash]

Who made the rules? Is there a higher power than God, who makes rules he must follow?

There is nothing beyond the word. Unfortunately, there will never be an end to the 'why' and 'how' questions because of our limited understanding.

And all too commonly when there's a thread about Islam, it becomes a bash on Christianity.
Comes back to this classic epic thread: Islamophobia in Europe: Banning Minarets - PentaxForums.com

[Ash]

Of course, if I *was* all-powerful and all-knowing, I could just make anyone think and do anything I liked, without "preparing" them with some form of mental torture.

God may have the power to do so, but then He may as well just made robotic brains for us all to think the same way and not sin or stray. God doesn't prevent all suffering (Phillip Yancey explains this quite well in his book "Where is God when it hurts?") and it may seem cruel to us for Him to challenge us with temptations/trials/tribulations. Things like these go beyond our comprehension at the time of trouble, but in hindsight we may come to realise the virtue in having to go through those trials to come out where we are today - stronger, more convicted and understanding, as well as more loving.

[Ash]

If you don't believe that God favours his believers over everyone else, then you're not reading the bible properly

Perhaps this goes the other way. How should we interpret 2 Peter 3:9? "The Lord isn't really being slow about his promise, as some people think. No, he is being patient for your sake. He does not want anyone to be destroyed, but wants everyone to repent." (my emphasis)

If you want more on this non-distinction of God's offer for eternal life, this is a good commentary with lots of biblical references pointing to the same conclusion: NOT WILLING THAT ANY SHOULD PERISH

[russell2pi]

There is nothing beyond the word. Unfortunately, there will never be an end to the 'why' and 'how' questions because of our limited understanding.

An interesting quote -- because it comes very close to what I would say as an athiest / agnostic. Only, I would draw the line before one gets to some arbitrary "word".

Basically, science is asking questions that can potentially be answered, philosophy is asking questions that cannot, and theology is spouting random answers to them and decreeing those answers to be authoritative.

Dumbing it down a shade, I like to say, philosophy is the art of asking pointless questions, and theology is the art of giving pointless answers.

Anyway, off on a tangent again. Back to your quote. I agree, there comes a point where we reach the limited capacity of what we can possibly understand. Then we are faced with a choice -- we can be happy to accept that certain things are unknowable (scientist), we can struggle futilely to understand them (philospher) or we can accept the mis-transcribed random ravings of a possibly historical lunatic ("the word" of religion), and, for bonus points, kill countless people defending that against the conflicting mis-transcribed random ravings of a different historical lunatic..

[Ash]

Theology is a man-made 'science' or study of the inexplicable God. There are many ways to describe what's in the Bible so that different people can relate to it, and I guess that's why there is theology. The way I see it, theology in itself may be pointless, but God (and His word) is infinitely pertinent to us.

We all have to accept our limited understanding of life, we can't not accept it - as such we either appreciate that there is some amazing (supernatural?) miracle that keeps the intricacies of cell physiology (for example) functioning such that plants and animals exist without needing our cerebral input to keep them alive/thriving, or we call it chance/evolutionary magic.

Here's a short and sweet answer to the scientist/evolutionist argument against God: Get Your Own Dirt!

Finally, belief in one faith or another does not implicate a believer to the atrocities carried out by fellow 'believers' in the past. Faith alone is insufficient (James 2:24).
But as usual with these threads, we're veering way off course from the original posting. It's about the FBI stereotyping muslims as violent. Truth is generally muslims are not, although the Qur'an itself is not as reassuring...

[russell2pi]

We all have to accept our limited understanding of life, we can't not accept it - as such we either appreciate that there is some amazing (supernatural?) miracle that keeps the intricacies of cell physiology (for example) functioning such that plants and animals exist without needing our cerebral input to keep them alive/thriving, or we call it chance/evolutionary magic.

I agree with you...and if religion only meant acknowledging that there are many amazing and unexplainable aspects of the Universe, I would be religious. It's all the other nonsense that's the problem. Why can't we be happy, as you say, to accept our limited understanding, and let that be the end of it?

[Northern Soul]

And all too commonly when there's a thread about Islam, it becomes a bash on Christianity.

I am happy to 'bash' any belief system based on faith. I just know most about Christianity

[Northern Soul]

God may have the power to do so, but then He may as well just made robotic brains for us all to think the same way and not sin or stray. God doesn't prevent all suffering (Phillip Yancey explains this quite well in his book "Where is God when it hurts?") and it may seem cruel to us for Him to challenge us with temptations/trials/tribulations. Things like these go beyond our comprehension at the time of trouble, but in hindsight we may come to realise the virtue in having to go through those trials to come out where we are today - stronger, more convicted and understanding, as well as more loving.

Ah - suffering as a means of making people stronger - that hateful old chestnut.

Do you think the millions of people who have watched their children starve to death before starving to death themselves think that their suffering - which may ultimately wipes out their entire family line - is virtuous?

Do you think the people who die of horrible diseases caused by viruses, ticks, fleas and so on - animals all created by God - think their suffering is virtuous?

Do you think the people scrabbling around in the ruins after earthquake and tsunami, trying to find their friends and relatives, are being ennobled by their suffering?

No doubt you will say that it's beyond our comprehension, but it isn't. Those are horrible things to happen to anyone - and things that God chooses to have happen. I he didn't want them to happen, they wouldn't happen, if he is who you say he is. So we can only conclude that he either actively wants them to happen, doesn't care - or is unable to prevent them.

Whichever way you look at it, there is no "virtue' in them.

If you woke up to find you and your loved ones had been transported to the middle of drought stricken Africa, with nothing other than the clothes you stood in and your faith, would you think "Praise the Lord, for I shall get some benefit from this 'trial' which will lead to the death of all of us"?