When is God going to get nice kind and shit...

When the Jews get more civilized and the Bible stops being all about ISRAEL STRONK.

>Genesis in particular makes use of anthropomorphic language and describes the thoughts and actions of god in human terms to make them more understandable to human minds.
>When they say that "God was angry" or that "God was offended" they're not literally describing Gods emotions as if he could be swayed by them
lolno, that is exactly what they're doing.

>It is a literary convention that was Common to the Jewish people.
It's a literary convention that was common to everyone.

Well jews wrote it. It's reflective of their psychology.

>whoever wrote the Bible had a case of autism
Are you saying God is /ourguy/?

OT """god""" (dog - coincidence?) is Demiurge

Holy mental gymnastics...

beautiful. Wow are the haters mad

if you're reading for the story you're reading wrong

How cozy 'tis to consider God 'goodness itself'-- a vast reduction of deity into a little abstract somthing we think that we can understand: human goodness. The whole point of having faith is in itself an acknowledgement that we have no idea what God 'is'-- we just trust, do the best we can, with here and there a cue. And note that 'faith' doesn't necessarily entail 'belief'. I mean, short of this or that opinion, what is there to believe in, actually? If youre a Jew you believe God cut a deal; if youre a Christian you believe Christ died and placed the burden of 'mankind' on his shoulders; if youre a Muslim you believe Mohammed received and recorded latterday knowledge of God exclusive to a brave new world. And that is all. Who presumes to interpret any of this? Oh, most everyone!

okay so how does this in any way make the petty tyranny of god in the old testament any less embarrassing?

demiurge is a deceiver

The first five books are incredibly boring. I remember around the moses bit there was like twenty pages giving crafting instructing

it's super fucking easy metaphor. Relational thinking isn't some crazy notion

Wait senpai didn't God make man in his image
>et creavit Deus hominem ad imaginem suam ad imaginem Dei
How does it go along with "God is unthinkable"?

It won't be bullying as long as you love him for it.

Where do you see "god is unthinkable?"

>inb4 presume not to judge the LORD your God

Okay for all you fedoras who don't get it

God is Goodness by Nature

Therefore he can't be tyrannical

This can't be questioned, as God is our Lord

Therefore we accept God is Goodness by Nature

It's not even ISRAEL STRONK, half the time they get soundly beaten and end up blatantly scrambling for a God-related excuse

I legitimately enjoyed most of it. When it comes to those details and the geographical descriptions that take ages, you've just got to accept that they're not big on drawing pictures and maps.

kek, I inb4ed just in time

Wonderfully keksome, dear fellow!

Pathetic

An ultimate good cannot just be an idea. It must be, in effect, a personality with consciousness and free will. The rain isn't morally good even though it makes the crops grow; a tornado that kills isn't morally evil--though it may be an evil for those in it's way. Happy and sad events, from birth to death, just happen, and we ascribe moral qualities to them as they suit us or don't. But true, objective good and evil, in order to BE good and evil, have to be aware and intentional. So an ultimate moral good must be conscious and free; it must be god.

You can always tell when somebody is a big fan of Dawkins () because they tend to make the same mistakes he does, which is to assume that Christians believe in an infinitely complex god because that's easier for them to argue against. They just refuse to understand the doctrine of divine simplicity.

>strange gods
>implying they weren't just worshipping the other gods in the Israelite pantheon which made Yahwehfags jealous

>An ultimate good cannot just be an idea.

But it is

This.

When you're done with the bible, OP, read up on some Christian gnosticism. The petty psychopathy of YHWH will be made more understandable.

>gnosticism
>mfw

Fucking plebeian.

trisagionseraph.tripod.com/Texts/Plotinus5.html

What mental gymnastics?

Bah. Youre an apologist, but no prophet. Consider: like Whitman you are 'made of multitudes' --simplicity, complexity, having absolutely nothing to do with this 'equation'. Given this, if you idealize (idolize) your God into an abstraction-- absolute goodness-- you account him far less in His being than I account even You in yours. Are you perhaps God? You reason as if you are. Personally, I suspect God has little use for reason, intelligence, 'design,' or whatever else men require in their attempts to figure things out. In other words, Divinity's either trumps (wow, card game image merely) or it very simply isn't.

>oh shit he (You)'d me!
>and called out my dawkins fetish!
>better post some more self-satisfied flowery prose to prove my intelligence
>argument = won, QED

God "bullying" people for the "pettiest reasons" is a metaphor for God keeping an eye on the greater mission of salvation, while treating his creatures with the respect and dignity they deserve.

Gnosticism has always been a pagan-influenced, heretical invasion of Orthodox Christianity.

Nothing of the Gnostics is valid, nor should any of it be taken seriously.

>tfw prophet of God sets vicious bears on kids who made fun of his baldness

God's got his priorities in check

The text doesn't actually say that God killed the boys or that even Elisha summoned the bears to attack them. It may be that the story comes from a past recollection of a tragedy that provided a basis for a narrative that is not in the historical genre.

Eric Ziolkowski wrote in his study of this episode, "Perhaps a mauling incident near Bethel really happened, not as the supernatural result of a curse, or as a divine punishment, but as a natural calamity coinciding with Elisha's visit, of which this tale expresses a guilt-ridden recollection." Julie Parker likewise wrote, "Many scholars read 2 Kings 2:23-25 as a didactic story intended for a youthful audience. [The Old Testament scholar] John Gray suggests that this tale recalled a bygone disaster and was told by the locals 'to awe their children."

>23 Then he went up from there to Bethel; and as he was going up by the way, young lads came out from the city and mocked him and said to him, “Go up, you baldhead; go up, you baldhead!” 24 When he looked behind him and saw them, he cursed them in the name of the LORD. Then two female bears came out of the woods and tore up forty-two lads of their number. 25 And he went from there to Mount Carmel, and from there he returned to Samaria.

>t. assblasted catholic

I don't know what that's supposed to show me.

Jahahahahaha.
Indeed.

>curses the boys in the name of the lord
>couple of bear bitches show up to kill them
>Neither Yahweh nor his prophet caused that, it was just a scary story for kids. Or if it did happen Elisha took guilt over a freak accident.
I haven't seen this much spinning of what the Bible says into what you want it to say, since John Shelby Spong.

I don't know what you think it means to "curse" somebody but I'll defer to the experts.

biblestudytools.com/dictionary/curse/

>Prophetical curses were sometimes pronounced by holy men. Such curses are not the consequence of passion or revenge, they are predictions.

>Predictions
Im scared now.

He would've used a "prophecy" or prediction, or any other term for such mysticism that is used many times in the Pentateuch.

Your source of "curse" meaning "prophecy" is bullshit.

Why would the text have to explicitly declare that it was a prediction? You haven't provided any reasoning to believe the curse is a literal summoning of bears.

This ignores that his supposed "prediction" occurred right after the children insulted him. If the Lord is trying to teach his people to respect the prophets, using bears to kill 42 children is probably the most petty and inefficient way to do it.

But of course in a universe where all things are in control of Yahweh, freak accidents can still happen, whenever reflection on the fact that no evil occurs without God permitting it in order to bring a greater good proves to be too uncomfortable and embarrassing when applying it to the event at hand.

Your argument is evasive bunk.

>using bears to kill 42 children is probably the most petty and inefficient way to do it.

Which is a good reason to think it's not literal history. How could 2 bears realistically kill 42 kids? There's no mention of any sort of supernatural attributes.

Nice dodge.

The massacres occurred after the prophet "predicted" they'd reap the evil they sowed for calling him bald (as if that warranted a punishment). The fact that he cursed them in the name of the lord is an embarrassing reaction to being taunted by children. "Cursing" children isn't an appropriate way to teach children, even if resulting the bear mauling was just a "freak accident" (it wasn't, the lord is in control of all things).

I've always interpreted that as God creating man as both physical and spiritual beings, unlike the animals and plants, which are just physical. I could be wrong, though.

Then fine, if you want to go down the "metaphor" route, than the story is yet another useless and embarrassing metaphor. A petty and vindictive God needing to "straighten out" a petty and vindictive people, through petty and vindictive fables mixed in with pseudo-history.

But that path slanders the Bible, its writers, and ancient Israel as in need of fabricating such things.

They weren't merely mocking him for being bald. Elisha was probably a young man himself in this story, because after the incident he went on to live for at least fifty years, through the reign of four kings. Elisha may have been bald, not from age, but from a vow he took to serve the Lord (Acts 21:24 refers to a similar vow and corresponding head shaving). Therefore, the boys taunts about his baldness may have been directed toward his decision to serve the God of Israel. It also could have been on par with calling somebody an "idiot" regardless of his actual intelligence. Either way, the boys demonstrated profound lack of respect both for God and the prophets he sent.

Keep in mind that before this incident Elisha had just miraculously cleansed Jerichos water supply and now began an approximately ten-mile walk uphill to Bethel. If the boys came from Jericho, they saw firsthand that Elisha was a prophet of God, and they still chose to mock him. If they came from Bethel, then they probably represented the pagan elements of that city.

Imagine 40 adolescents having a mini holy crusade against you as you walk by yourself across a desolate area. You would rightly be nervous because such a large group cause you serious harm. These were not innocent kids.

The 'demiurge' as people describe him is Satan. Satan is real, but the OT god was not Satan. The kingdom of Israel was chosen, just as Mary was chosen, and Muhammad and Moses were chosen to receive a message. No more, no less.

>Demiurge is Satan
Craziest sounding shit in the thread, most logical shit in the thread, if one takes into account the fact that for christianity nature is evil-in-itself.

The idea of God creating nature is ridiculous. It HAS to be female. Mother earth, mother nature... MOTHER. It is chaos, it is volubility, it is unpredictability, it is the inefable. It is female.

This sounds very interesting. I'll have to reread the Holy Bible knowing this. Have any other things like this to share? I really appreciate it.

>rereading the Bible based on the staggering wisdom you got from Veeky Forums posts
I'd recommend seeking out some actual published criticism, user. Your mind might be blown.

Any recommendations for some published criticism?

You're looking for books that might help you understand scripture? This might be what you're looking for.

>all the american literalists replying to this as if it's outrageous and novel

Yeah it's kind of bizarre. It's biblical scholarship 101, put the text into historical context.

>putting an idol on the Bible

In what religion is god a nice guy? Kinda counter productive to the whole growth aspect.

The Christian God is as good as can be. The problem is that we're like children. You know how sometimes kids will get angry at their parents for not letting them stay up really late on a school night? The kids don't think it will harm them but the parents know it will, and the parents forcing the kid to go to bed might seem cruel or punishing from the child's perspective but it was ultimately for the best.

I can't tell if you're still trying to dodge the implication that God and Elisha willfully set bears on the children

It sounds like you're moving into "it happened but they deserved it" territory

The Christian god is the same god as the Jewish god and the Muslim god. He is the God of the ones who believe in God, the only one, the most high.

He does things in various ways. Sometimes he full-scale kills entire peoples and sometimes he sends one guy down with an ability.

I'm explaining the actions within the story itself. If instead I was defending Bilbo's actions in choosing to spare Gollum in the Hobbit you couldn't then make the leap that I was saying Middle Earth is a real place.

>Muslim god
Common misconception, only Episcopalians worship the same god as Muslims, Catholics and Orthodox Christians don't.

The Pope says otherwise.

He hasn't; he can't, this is official church doctrine, unchangeable even if Francis spoke infallibly.

In Catholic teachings Islam isn't even a Abrahamic religion unlike Judaism.

TOP KEK.

“But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place among whom are the Muslims: these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day.”
Second Vatican Council, Lumen Gentium 16, November 21, 1964

usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/ecumenical-and-interreligious/interreligious/islam/vatican-council-and-papal-statements-on-islam.cfm

The god of the Old Testament is plainly not the same god in the New Testament. He's just a bog-standard Iron Age patron deity. He's fickle, jealous and vengeful, just like any pagan god. He even demands sacrificial offerings FFS.

Some theologians suggest he is really Saturn, which is an idea that certainly fits. It explains the cruelty, patriarchalism and authoritarianism at a stroke. There is also some Qabalistic evidence to support this.

Oh, and Jesus is really Mithras, a Persian sun god. So take the New Testament with a pinch of salt too.

Yeah I think this is important to understand. God in the way the jews conceived him was more or less a Lovecraft monster. Alien, inhuman, and terrifying beyond belief. Calling god angry is like saying there's a raging storm in a way. You're dealing with raw terrifying power.

You can see that more directly depicted in his angels -- terrifying interlocked wheels covered in eyes and burning, seven winged demigods shielding the world from god's searing light, genuinely lovecraftian shit.

The biblical god is abstract and worthy of awe -- old school awe, beautiful and terrifying all at once.

That is if you take that shit seriously lmao religion in my 2017 I don't think so *fart*

I kind of like Old Testament, angry God. I don't know, I guess it emphasizes humbling oneself more or something. Yes he was a jerk sometimes, but it was really a "I scratch your back you scratch mine" situation; he was more ready to give people powers and send down angels and stuff.

You don't understand what your copying and pasting, that doesn't say anything other than "Muslims claim to worship the same god".

The Catechism then goes on to explain why Islam isn't a faith of Abraham.

That's probably more accurate than most would think. It's very hard for us to forget what we know of God today and look at God from the perspective of the people living at the very beginning of salvation history. If you think of the entire bible or 'salvation history' as a single novel it makes a little more sense. We have read the entire thing, we know how the story ends, but the people of Genesis have only just cracked the book open. They don't know how the story goes yet and they're just being introduced to the main protagonist.

It explains why we see an evolution of beliefs among the Jews, particularly in regards to suffering. In the beginning they purely a punishment of sin but by the time Job was written people started to really question that because over time they began to learn more of Gods nature.

>In the beginning they purely a punishment of sin

In the beginning suffering was purely a punishment for sin*

>god has to be nice

this is why Christianity is the weakest abrahamic religion

Please read further
“The Church has also a high regard for the Muslims. They worship God, who is one, living and subsistent, merciful and almighty, the Creator of heaven and earth (Cf. St. Gregory VII, Letter III, 21 to Anazir [Al-Nasir], King of Mauretania PL, 148.451A.), who has spoken to men"
And here's John Paul II
“Faith in God, professed by the spiritual descendants of Abraham–Christians, Muslims and Jews–when it is lived sincerely, when it penetrates life, is a certain foundation of the dignity, brotherhood and freedom of men and a principle of uprightness for moral conduct and life in society. And there is more: as a result of this faith in God the Creator and transcendent, one man finds himself at the summit of creation."
You say the Catholic Church worships a different god and does not consider Islam Abrahamic. Yet Popes - and the official position of the Catholic Church - have said Muslims worship the same god, and consider them part of the Abrahamic religions.
>inb4 not my Pope

In Islam all the richness of God's self-revelation, which constitutes the heritage of the Old and New Testaments, has definitely been set aside. He is ultimately a God outside of the World, a God who is only Majesty, never Emmanuel, God-with-us. Islam is not a religion of redemption. There is no room for the Cross and the Resurrection.

The faith of Abraham would be the trustee of the promise made to the patriarchs called to prepare for that day when God would gather all his children into the unity of the Church and its liturgical traditions.

Above all, the poor and humble of the Lord… as Sarah, Rebecca, Miriam, Deborah, Hannah, Judith, and Esther… The purest figure among them is Mary.

>You don't understand what your copying and pasting

Out of all three holy books, the Koran is the one that treats the prophets the most respectfully.
It recognizes Jesus as the messiah, and reveres Mary who is sinless and perpetually virgin. It is closer to Christianity than Christianity is to Judaism. Your personal opinions on the matter don't change the Church's view.

Those are quotes from the catechist.

Why don't we ask the Saints and Doctors of the Church for their opinions?

>Whoever does not embrace the Catholic Christian faith is lost, like your false prophet Muhammad.
>We profess Christ to be truly God and your prophet to be a precursor of the Antichrist and other profane doctrine
>Any cult which denies the divinity of Christ, does not profess the existence of the Holy Trinity, refutes baptism, defames Christians, and derogates the priesthood, we consider to be damned
>Muhammed lacked in everything, he took to bestial and barbaric means. God placates his anger and destroys this pestilence from the earth.
>the Antichrist, Mohammed was his precursor – the prophet of Satan, father of the sons of haughtiness

And the current church released other principles revoking those as official doctrine. Why is that so hard for you to understand, tard? Don't like showing some Christian hospitality to people that worship the same God as you do? Can't follow the orders of the leader of your religion?

>revoking official doctrine
>catholic

>not my pope

The Catholic Church can't change or revoke official doctrine, Its literally theologically impossible.

What you posted isn't even Church statements; they have no lasting authority. Your entire argument has boiled down to "I don't care what Popes or the Church say, the Church says this because I want it to".

>Saints have no lasting authority
>The catechist aren't Church statements
Wewlad

holy fucking reddit, quit fagging it up and just say what you have to say.

>saints have more authority than the Pope
you sound like a heretic honestly

>The Pope is infallible outside his office

All the statements were made in exercise of his office as leader of all Christians.