Evil Bible

misposted...

For some reason this is not posting as a direct reply to the original post. Finally got it posted where I was trying to put in on the 5th try!

While I just glanced at the web site & it likely contains some useful information, it is certainly not shy about using polarized language such as ‘Evil.’

Some take on the role of being extreme to bring attention to an issue. They are intellectual bomb throwers in a sense, serving a useful purpose to shake things up. We are in a period of considerable paradigm change, moving from the Piscean era to the Aquarian one & there are many beliefs changing. While they choose to make their points in a forceful way that isn’t concerned about showing deference (They aren’t required to do so.) to the religion they are discussing it is their right to discuss this in whatever manner they choose. They are making the exact same points that many serious Christian scholars who have taken issue w/ literalism & absolutism have for centuries, albeit w/o a concern for being diplomatic about it.

It is our right to take whatever we want from it. If one is overly offended, however, it might be useful to explore why what others say is an issue for us. The flip side of our having the right to have whatever beliefs we choose is letting others have whatever beliefs they want & this means ones that WE DON’T AGREE WITH.

Many Christian scholars who are proponents of their religion have discussed the same issues w/ the Bible’s text in the context of these being problematic & not consistent w/ contemporary Christian values or even basic human rights or morality. One such proponent of his faith who is currently taking issue w/ biblical literalism is former Episcopalian Bishop John Shelby Spong who has a site & books about how his chosen religion needs to openly update its beliefs, moving past a literal interpretation of the Bible. Spong & many others have discussed this for centuries.

Literalism in religion generates the highly problematic situation of regarding their particular belief as the one true & only valid belief, despite the simple fact that there have always been various competing & contradictory factions in this religion. Just in Protestant Christianity there are vast differences in beliefs. When one puts the other major faction of Christianity in the mix, Catholicism, even more differences abound. Some of these differences are very substantial.

Some texts as seen as the infallible direct word of God or Jesus, yet others are dismissed although it is seldom discussed how it is determined what is to be taken literally & what is OK to discard or ignore or how one is supposed to go about this process of taking some texts as absolutely infallible, yet ignoring others. Until this religion’s leaders address this openly many will continue to have considerable issues w/ these inconsistencies.

Originally Posted by Summerland

...So who were the sons of god? Were they angels? What else could they have been unless they were aliens?

We have very distinct categories for nonphysical beings. While we’ve long accepted via religion that some nonphysical beings (angels) were beneficial & automatically OK, our view of other nonphysical beings often is loaded w/ various fears or desires such as wanting to be saved by others.

It is likely that there is less difference between categories of nonphysical beings than we’ve constructed for them. We consider some AAs or AMs in a certain way, as we get channeled messages via organized religion’s prophets & New Age’s channels, but are these beings really more special because they are in contact w/ us than all others at the same dimensional level? Nope. They are just the ones who are in contact w/ us.

Angels, AAs, Ascended Masters, God, & ETs- http://www.spiritualforums.com/vb/sh...898#post207898


Many ancient legends discuss beings who visited Earth & donated their DNA to earthly females by way of intercourse. While ancient peoples viewed all those who came from above as Gods, it is likely they were ETs. Those who are still living on isolated islands in a primitive manner have thought airplanes were God-like, even though this isn’t correct.

Eric Von Daniken has written about this possibility.
http://www.google.com/search?client=...UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

Interesting, the site author casts out the idea of God and His standard is proclaimed 'evil'.
My only question is, evil by what standard?
So far as I can tell, his/her own subjective opinion(ironically borrowed Christian standards) and customised to personal whim.
Bit of a worn out cleche for mine..
.

Its simple sprinter.

God created everything right? That means evil too. Evil i guess would mean anything against the bibles "rules".

SO put down that shellfish and testify!!! *** waves arms in the air LOL

Originally Posted by sprinter

Interesting, the site author casts out the idea of God and His standard is proclaimed 'evil'.
My only question is, evil by what standard?
So far as I can tell, his/her own subjective opinion(ironically borrowed Christian standards) and customised to personal whim.
Bit of a worn out cleche for mine..
.

I wouldn't say that their standard is borrowed from christian ideals. Christian ideals derive from the ten commandments of the old testament.

The Code of Hammurabi and the Egyptian Book of the Dead both pre-date the ten commandments and contain the ethics that was later borrowed by the writers of the bible, which is presently associated with Judeo-christian ideals.

Yes, there are portions of the bible that clearly express human ethics, and these portions are religiously understood to be conveyed by the old testament tribal diety named "Yahweh". The problem is that these ethics are at variance with the systematically unethical behavior of said tribal diety and his followers.

For the most part, ethics are an intrinsic aspect of "human nature", it is just that they are suppressed or ignored when they are felt to be at variance with a perceived authority (be it a "God", Society, etc).

Ironically, it is likely the formation of aspects of society (large numbers of people living in close proximity to one another) that hastened the evolution of human ethics. Now the values of society (money, power, status, position, etc) and the perceived authority of that is ascribed to it, tend to compel people to suppress their inherent ethics.

The same occurred in antiquity, with the perceived authority of various "gods".

For a better understanding of how directives from a perceived authority can supplant one's own ethics, see the documentary entitled, The Human Behavior Experiments.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0822813/

Originally Posted by LIFE

I wouldn't say that their standard is borrowed from christian ideals. Christian ideals derive from the ten commandments of the old testament.

The Code of Hammurabi and the Egyptian Book of the Dead both pre-date the ten commandments and contain the ethics that was later borrowed by the writers of the bible, which is presently associated with Judeo-christian ideals.

Yes, there are portions of the bible that clearly express human ethics, and these portions are religiously understood to be conveyed by the old testament tribal diety named "Yahweh". The problem is that these ethics are at variance with the systematically unethical behavior of said tribal diety and his followers.

For the most part, ethics are an intrinsic aspect of "human nature", it is just that they are suppressed or ignored when they are felt to be at variance with a perceived authority (be it a "God", Society, etc).

Ironically, it is likely the formation of aspects of society (large numbers of people living in close proximity to one another) that hastened the evolution of human ethics. Now the values of society (money, power, status, position, etc) and the perceived authority of that is ascribed to it, tend to compel people to suppress their inherent ethics.

The same occurred in antiquity, with the perceived authority of various "gods".

For a better understanding of how directives from a perceived authority can supplant one's own ethics, see the documentary entitled, The Human Behavior Experiments.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0822813/

Appreciate the suggestion, although I think it would be a safe bet that the author did not derive the foundation of their values from either the (law) code of Hammurabi or the Egyptian book of the dead.

"ethics are an intrinsic part of human nature"
Ever asked yourself why would that be so?
It's not exactly a survival skill, in fact ethics can put people in dangerous or comprimising positions quite regularly, certainly no mechanism for any (real) evolution of non physical ethics.

Agree that people ignore/suppress their natural ethical urges when pressured to conform to the particular social values of the society they live in. Although, I notice societal values change rapidly, morals/ethic compulsion remains the same.

Still the problem persists, subjective values/ethics are hardly a subsitute for objective ones.

Originally Posted by Time

Its simple sprinter.

God created everything right? That means evil too. Evil i guess would mean anything against the bibles "rules".

SO put down that shellfish and testify!!! *** waves arms in the air LOL

Can you just explain how God created (evil), so we're on the same page.

Was it 2 cups of malice and one of spite or the other way round? What day did he create it?

You can pick up some real nasty extras in shellfish these days,, mercury levels, bio-toxins and all that other jazz,,, don't invite me to that party!

Originally Posted by sprinter

Can you just explain how God created (evil), so we're on the same page.

"I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things." - Isaiah 45:7