Hey, at least you're judging based on the facts of what the Bible says. God is who He is. He's not campaigning. You disagree with Him, but at least it's really Him.

Of course, that puts you in the same position as Job. You want to judge God. You want to put him on trial. You disagree with Him.

And if you have the opportunity to question Him directly, you'll say the same thing Job said.

[–] samus12345@lemm.ee 6 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

I'm judging a fictional character based on how he's characterized by the book he appears in. There may be a higher power, but the god of the Bible certainly ain't it.

[–] Melatonin@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 23 hours ago* (last edited 23 hours ago) (1 children)

Certainly? You have a better candidate? Baal? Molech? Satan, perhaps?

You do you; pick a side, deny the battle, anything you choose.

I'm quite seriously suggesting that the God of the Bible, and specifically the Christian God, is is the most perfect God that could be imagined, and yet wholly unexpected as He is revealed. The God of the Bible soothes no one. He ruffles everyone's feathers. He is pure perfect and exacting. Yet there is love and mercy there.

Now, His followers have done a lot to screw up that presentation. But that's as it always has been. In the Old Testament, in Jesus's day, and now, the people of God - even those with direct divine revelation - have been misrepresenting Him.

Joshua 24:15 NIV

But if serving the Lord seems undesirable to you, then choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your ancestors served beyond the Euphrates, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land you are living. [Or the gods of reason, science, and unbelief?] But as for me and my household, we will serve the Lord.”

[–] samus12345@lemm.ee 4 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

Certainly. Any candidate that doesn't have a traceable origin as being created by people would be a good start, which all the religions of the world do.

I’m quite seriously suggesting that the God of the Bible, and specifically the Christian God, is is the most perfect God that could be imagined

Yes, that's what people of every religion say about their god. I'm guessing your parents are Christian?

[–] Melatonin@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 19 hours ago* (last edited 19 hours ago) (1 children)

"Traceable origin...as being created by people." You've set quite a high bar for yourself, but I assume you would consider your traceability as.....

Yes, nominally Christian. Raised in USA, fed cornbread and gospel music, prayin' at baseball games.

[–] samus12345@lemm.ee 1 points 15 hours ago

Here's an example of traceability. If the god of the bible were real, eternal, unchanging, etc., there would be no historical record of him being just another god in a pantheon until someone decided to make him THE god. This is just one example of many and you can do this with any god in any religion - there's nothing notably special about Yahwah aside from how popular his worship became.

I asked because it's especially suspicious if you have been raised from birth to believe in a god, even if it wasn't a main focus. My intention isn't to dissuade you from believing - I couldn't do that even if I wanted to - but just to encourage you to see Christianity objectively, looking at its history and how it compares with other religions. If you choose to have faith regardless, that's fine, and in fact is stronger than if you never questioned it at all. I just always prefer that people make an informed decision on things.

[–] Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

And if you have the opportunity to question Him directly, you’ll say the same thing Job said.

That would be what, "Why are you so weirdly obsessed with Leviathan?" after Job 41?

[–] Melatonin@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 1 day ago

Haha, Leviathan was certainly the "big bad" in Job. I don't know what creature was being referred to (maybe a species of large crocodile?) but yes, he gets a lot of air time.

No, I meant Job 42:3, "Surely I spoke of things I did not understand, things too wonderful for me to know."

[–] FrostBlazer@lemm.ee 4 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

I would add that not every author is writing unbiased in the Bible. We know now for instance that some books near the end of the Bible attributed to Paul may not have been written by him, but by some of the people under Paul in the early church. So adding parts about women not holding positions of authority within the Church more or less served to cement their own positions and authority for the early-Christians that were formalizing the religion.

[–] Maeve@midwest.social 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Yep. That's addressed in books the Council left out.

[–] FrostBlazer@lemm.ee 0 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

From my perspective, the Bible should have continued to been written forward, and included pieces of the issues Christians sought to address in their current times. I think an updated one would have spoken of the poorly of the actions taken by the church and followers alike through the ages, and would have followed people trying to do good in hard times.

[–] Maeve@midwest.social 1 points 21 hours ago

Well there's been more written, but you have to seek it. "If you seek me withall your heart, soul, mind, you will find me." It's usually in other religions or what we would call the occult. And people showed us and are still showing us, but people read one thing or a few and dismiss it because we are so conditioned to the box, we have a hard time understanding parables. For instance, people think astrology and tarot refer to externals. They refer to internals. I've been trying to learn for decades and only am just beginning to see differently! And I was dragged to some of the most hateful churches as a child. So I had a grudge for a long time. That was my choice. Now I don't. Btw religion is about the internal, too. And you can tell a tree by the fruit it bears. And the fruit of the Spirit is: love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self control; for such there is no law.