Should the bible carry a government health warning?

[trdsf]

I don't really think so.  That is, unless you're in the midst of a misapprehension and you believe the Bible is positively promoting slaughter, cannibalism and incest rather than simply reporting facts in the context of the story being told and message being given.  If that's the case, I'd recommend correcting your understanding rather than placing a warning on the cover a Bible simply because you've misunderstood something.

No, it's pretty clear that the god of the bible is a pretty unpleasant character.

²³Then 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!" ²⁴When 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….

Yup.  Some kids teased a guy for being bald, and god had forty two children mauled by bears.  Seems perfectly just and fair, hm?  Yeah, that's a really balanced and reasonable response to kids being kids.  What's your "context" for this?

[Odoital778412]

How does one know if one has 'misunderstood' something in the Bible???

The same way you would with any other piece of writing.  Granted, the Bible, being an ancient document, would be a bit different than just a run-of-the-mill writing from today, but the principles are the same.  You read it and attempt to comprehend its meaning using your understanding of the relevant word, taking into account the context, etc...  In terms of the Bible, the art & science of interpretation is called Hermeneutics.  It's used with a lot of literary texts, but especially with the Biblical documents.  I would recommend the following books:

Objectivity in Biblical Interpretation by Thomas Howe

Taking God At His Word: Why the Bible Is Knowable, Necessary, and Enough, and What That Means for You and Me by Kevin DeYoung

How to Read the Bible for all Its Worth by Gordon D. Fee and Douglas Stuart

I hope that helps.

[Odoital778412]

It comes through divine revelation, a special ability of only the most pious of Christians.

That would be an inaccurate view of what Christians generally believe.

[Odoital778412]

No, it's pretty clear that the god of the bible is a pretty unpleasant character.
Yup.  Some kids teased a guy for being bald, and god had forty two children mauled by bears.  Seems perfectly just and fair, hm?  Yeah, that's a really balanced and reasonable response to kids being kids.  What's your "context" for this?

Yeah, seen from a certain perspective, that would seem like a total over reaction and deeply immoral.  That is, if we were judging God as if He were a human being, rather than the author of life and all that has ever come into existence.  I suspect that my telling you that will do little to change your mind or provide a satisfying answer, but it is nonetheless, the essential piece of information that should change the perspective from which you make your judgment.

Obviously, whether you like the Christian God or want to have much to do with Him is another matter.  But simple honesty requires that we not attempt to treat two different beings with entirely different prerogatives as if they were the same.  Treating two vastly different beings with entirely different prerogatives as if they are not different beings with different prerogatives is what leads to such mistaken judgments.

A typical human being doesn't possess the legitimate authority and therefore the prerogative to take a life or have multiple people mauled or injured.  This is not the case with the Creator of human life and all that has ever come into existence.  As the Creator, He would have entirely different prerogatives.  Just as you have a natural right to destroy whatever you yourself create, so God possesses that same right or ability.  Not only that, but He would also have the right to sanction or punish bad behavior and could even choose death as His punishment of choice.  Indeed, if mankind as fallen and sinful, as the Bible proclaims, God would be justified in punishing and or wiping out all of humanity or all of His creation entirely.

Like I said, this may do nothing to change your mind or provide you a satisfying answer, but if you insist upon sitting in judgment over God as if He is not God, then you'll always come to a faulty conclusion.  In dealing with Christians or Christianity, you are much better off attempting to deal with it fairly.  This means that if you're going to take exception with something, then you need to understand it and present it in the way it is understood by your opponent or whoever you are taking it up with.  Doing otherwise is simply dishonest and unhelpful.

For example, it would do me no good to talk about atheists as the most immoral people on the planet.  Why?  Because it's generally not true, and it's certainly not how to see or understand themselves.  I'd be better off seeing and presenting the atheist as no more or less immoral than anyone else, including myself, unless I know the atheist personally and can somehow vouch for their moral behavior or lack of same.

In other words, if you're going to judge God, fine.  But judge Him, as God, rather than as if He were a man.  He's not, and misrepresenting Him in that way just isn't an honest or legitimate way to put forward an objection.

[aitm]

In terms of the Bible, the art & science of interpretation is called Hermeneutics.

Oh yeah we have all seen how that works. It's what commonly called, "cherry picking".

[stromboli]

Thank you for sharing this info about the god who is currently in vogue hereabouts. We have this thing called the big picture or the long view, whichever you want to call it. We've had numerous theists visit us with their version of religion- which changes from person to person, apparently- and "school" us on their beliefs.

Hermaneutics or cherry picking, same thing. I was a Christian for many years and attended 7 different sects in that time, because we were moving around. They all taught, in their words, "the whole bible" and they all taught different versions of the same book. You can't do that with a book that says something specifically and directly. Assemblies of God said that the only measure of spirituality is speaking in tongues and quoted Acts, free Will Baptists quote 1 Corinthians which points out it is essentially meaningless. Foursquare teaches "Prosperity Gospel" and maintained that people were sick because they were sinful, which wasn't a popular idea with my wife who has Multiple Sclerosis.

Simply put, you can lay down page after page of Iron Age scriptural BS but at the end it is just a bunch of words picked out by a group of men from a stack of manuscripts to reflect their particular set of beliefs. That is why we have a Wycliff bible, a Lutheran Bible and a King James bible and so on.

3 or 4 current historians, all non Christian, have published books that maintain that the divine Jesus was either purely myth or made up from an individual who claimed himself a Messianic.

Here. Have about 433 reasons your religion is BS.

http://www.kyroot.com/

Have a nice day.

[Mike Cl]

The same way you would with any other piece of writing.  Granted, the Bible, being an ancient document, would be a bit different than just a run-of-the-mill writing from today, but the principles are the same.  You read it and attempt to comprehend its meaning using your understanding of the relevant word, taking into account the context, etc...  In terms of the Bible, the art & science of interpretation is called Hermeneutics.  It's used with a lot of literary texts, but especially with the Biblical documents.  I would recommend the following books:

Objectivity in Biblical Interpretation by Thomas Howe

Taking God At His Word: Why the Bible Is Knowable, Necessary, and Enough, and What That Means for You and Me by Kevin DeYoung

How to Read the Bible for all Its Worth by Gordon D. Fee and Douglas Stuart

I hope that helps.

Thanks for the recommended reading.  When I do a serious study of the Bible, I use what is called 'textual criticism' first.  That is the study of the earliest of the extent NT that we have.  The attempt to determine what was written, and then compare it to all the surviving writings of the same document.  This is not about what was meant, but what was said.  And to collect all the various versions of that passage or part of the document one is studying.  That used to be called lower biblical textual criticism.  Then the next step would be 'higher' textual criticism and hermeneutics, or the effort to figure out what the original author meant.  From there one can then delve into the philosophical meanings, if any.  The study of pericopes is also of interest--sort of like looking at related passages and see how they fit together. 

When serious about it, I try to use books by authors who are clearly on both sides of the issue--and those in the middle, if  any exist.  Then I make up my own mind.

But I will recommend one book for you.  And it would take a great deal of courage for you to read it.  It is a very carefully thought out book and is highly (and I mean highly) footnoted so you can go to the sources for all of the authors primary sources.  It is On The Historicity Of Jesus (Why We Might Have Reason to Doubt), by Richard Carrier.   

[trdsf]

Yeah, seen from a certain perspective, that would seem like a total over reaction and deeply immoral.  That is, if we were judging God as if He were a human being, rather than the author of life and all that has ever come into existence.  I suspect that my telling you that will do little to change your mind or provide a satisfying answer, but it is nonetheless, the essential piece of information that should change the perspective from which you make your judgment.

I would argue that from any perspective, it's an overreaction and deeply immoral -- especially as an action taken by an entity claimed to be the font of all that's good.

Obviously, whether you like the Christian God or want to have much to do with Him is another matter.  But simple honesty requires that we not attempt to treat two different beings with entirely different prerogatives as if they were the same.  Treating two vastly different beings with entirely different prerogatives as if they are not different beings with different prerogatives is what leads to such mistaken judgments.

A typical human being doesn't possess the legitimate authority and therefore the prerogative to take a life or have multiple people mauled or injured.  This is not the case with the Creator of human life and all that has ever come into existence.  As the Creator, He would have entirely different prerogatives.  Just as you have a natural right to destroy whatever you yourself create, so God possesses that same right or ability.  Not only that, but He would also have the right to sanction or punish bad behavior and could even choose death as His punishment of choice.  Indeed, if mankind as fallen and sinful, as the Bible proclaims, God would be justified in punishing and or wiping out all of humanity or all of His creation entirely.

So if god does something, even if it's something that any rational person would agree is an evil act if a human did it, then it's okay.

I simply cannot accept this premise.  You're saying that any transgression, no matter how slight, can draw any punishment, no matter how severe, and that's all right so long as your god does it.  How does this not outrage you?

Let's say I create a painting that is universally hailed as a great masterpiece, an invaluable addition to world culture, up there on the level of the Mona Lisa.  If I destroyed it because of one negative review, am I in my rights, or am I doing wrong?  By the standards you set up here, I'm completely within my rights and world culture has no cause whatsoever to complain about it.

This is also a total surrender of any idea that there are moral absolutes.  There are no moral absolutes if the rules don't apply to your god, too.  If there's something they don't apply to, they're not absolute.  Period.

Like I said, this may do nothing to change your mind or provide you a satisfying answer, but if you insist upon sitting in judgment over God as if He is not God, then you'll always come to a faulty conclusion.  In dealing with Christians or Christianity, you are much better off attempting to deal with it fairly.  This means that if you're going to take exception with something, then you need to understand it and present it in the way it is understood by your opponent or whoever you are taking it up with.  Doing otherwise is simply dishonest and unhelpful.

For example, it would do me no good to talk about atheists as the most immoral people on the planet.  Why?  Because it's generally not true, and it's certainly not how to see or understand themselves.  I'd be better off seeing and presenting the atheist as no more or less immoral than anyone else, including myself, unless I know the atheist personally and can somehow vouch for their moral behavior or lack of same.

In other words, if you're going to judge God, fine.  But judge Him, as God, rather than as if He were a man.  He's not, and misrepresenting Him in that way just isn't an honest or legitimate way to put forward an objection.

I'm not misrepresenting anything, I'm just reporting the words on the page.

What value is there in looking to this god as an example, or as a source of good, or as any sort of moral authority?  At best, you're describing someone utterly irrelevant to humanity since he's useless as a moral guide -- "do as I say and not as I do" is hypocrisy of the highest order.  I have every right to expect better from something that's supposed to be better than me.

You aren't describing a font of life and goodness.  You're describing a capricious, hypocritical tyrant and monster.

[Odoital778412]

Oh yeah we have all seen how that works. It's what commonly called, "cherry picking".

Um, no, it's a field used to evaluate and understand literature all of the time.  It has nothing to do with cherry-picking.  The intent is to attempt to understand any piece of literature in the way it was intended to be understood.  You should look into that field.  Actually knowing something about it might disabused you of your current erroneous understanding.  If you're actually interested, those books would be extremely helpful.

[Odoital778412]

Thank you for sharing this info about the god who is currently in vogue hereabouts. We have this thing called the big picture or the long view, whichever you want to call it. We've had numerous theists visit us with their version of religion- which changes from person to person, apparently- and "school" us on their beliefs.

I’m sure you’ve had many theists visit, and probably all of them had various levels of knowledge and understanding.  I’m also sure that they had various levels of ignorance and misunderstanding.  Be careful not to judge any religion based on the mixed knowledge, understanding, and behavior of its professed followers.  The way to judge any religion is to deal with its founder and what are the core or bedrock teachings from the sacred text(s), not according to the unbeliever, but according the historic teachings and doctrines of the religion itself.

Hermaneutics or cherry picking, same thing. I was a Christian for many years and attended 7 different sects in that time, because we were moving around. They all taught, in their words, "the whole bible" and they all taught different versions of the same book. You can't do that with a book that says something specifically and directly. Assemblies of God said that the only measure of spirituality is speaking in tongues and quoted Acts, free Will Baptists quote 1 Corinthians which points out it is essentially meaningless. Foursquare teaches "Prosperity Gospel" and maintained that people were sick because they were sinful, which wasn't a popular idea with my wife who has Multiple Sclerosis.

Simply put, you can lay down page after page of Iron Age scriptural BS but at the end it is just a bunch of words picked out by a group of men from a stack of manuscripts to reflect their particular set of beliefs. That is why we have a Wycliff bible, a Lutheran Bible and a King James bible and so on.

Hermeneutics is not “cherry picking”.  It is a systematic way to arrive at the most objective and accurate understanding of the texts in their various genre, context, intent, etc… .  For example:

There are four different types of biblical hermeneutics, literal, moral, allegorical (spiritual) and anagogical.

Literal
Encyclopaedia Britannica states that literal analysis means “a biblical text is to be deciphered according to the ‘plain meaning’ expressed by its linguistic construction and historical context.” The intention of the authors is believed to correspond to the literal meaning. Literal hermeneutics is often associated with the verbal inspiration of the Bible.

Moral
Moral interpretation searches for moral lessons which can be understood from writings within the Bible. Allegories are often placed in this category. This can be seen in the Epistle of Barnabas, which explains the dietary laws by stating which meats are forbidden but is interpreted as forbidding immorality with animals.

Allegorical
Allegorical interpretation states that biblical narratives has a second level of reference that is more than the people, events and things that are explicitly mentioned. One type of allegorical interpretation is known as typological, where the key figures, events, and establishments of the Old Testament are viewed as “types”. In the New Testament this can also include foreshadowing of people, objects, and events. According to this theory readings like Noah’s Ark could be understood by using the Ark as a “type” of Christian church that God expected from the start.

Anagogical
This type of interpretation is more often known as mystical interpretation. It purports to explain the events of the Bible and how they relate to or predict what the future holds. This is evident in the Jewish Kabbalah, which attempts to reveal the mystical significance of the numerical values of Hebrew words and letters.

And of course, these are just categories within hermeneutics, but there is nothing about them that is consistent with “cherry picking”.  The field of hermeneutics is concerned with exactly the opposite, which is to say, avoiding things like “cherry picking”.

And are you saying that because there is variation in understanding and therefore, application, that the Bible doesn’t teach anything in particular?  I would guess that most of the churches you mentioned believed that God existed?  They probably also believed that Jesus Christ was God incarnate who came to die for and pay for the sins of mankind?  I’m guessing that they all probably also believed that he was born of a virgin and lived a sinless life?  I’m thinking maybe they also believed that if people repented of their sin and accepted or trusted in the blood sacrifice of Jesus Christ, that they could be “saved” and spend eternity in Heaven when they died?  My point is simply that in terms of the salient details or the “core teachings” of Christianity, there was probably widespread agreement, regardless of how many other tangential issues they might disagree on.  Is that possible?

3 or 4 current historians, all non Christian, have published books that maintain that the divine Jesus was either purely myth or made up from an individual who claimed himself a Messianic.

Right…and the fact that the other 30 or 40 thousand historians across the world don’t generally find this claim historically supportable just doesn’t matter?  I agree and am aware that there are a few scholars who hold the view that you speak of, but they are a tiny fraction of the scholars in their field and are largely dismissed even by other secular scholars.  They may provide a good way for you to rationalize your rejection of Christ, but in terms of the truth about reality, I don’t think I’d be too quick to adopt that view.

Here. Have about 433 reasons your religion is BS.

http://www.kyroot.com/

Have a nice day.

I will look at your reasons when I have more time, but the fact that I saw ‘Jesus Seminar’ doesn’t give me a lot of hope.  Their so-called “scholarship” has been debunked for nearly 20 years, and they are generally not taken very seriously these days, apart from those that are hostile to Christianity.  If you’re seeking the truth about any particular aspect of Christianity, there are better places to go.  I will say though that this looks like another aggregate site for largely rhetorical objections to the Christian faith.  Just scanning the page, I can tell you that everything I’ve seen so far has been thoroughly answered and debunked over the years, though I’m not aware of an aggregate site I can send you to for all 433 specifics.  I can recommend 50+ book titles and significant scholarly treatments as well, if you’re interested?

You have a nice day too!

[Odoital778412]

Thanks for the recommended reading.  When I do a serious study of the Bible, I use what is called 'textual criticism' first.  That is the study of the earliest of the extent NT that we have.  The attempt to determine what was written, and then compare it to all the surviving writings of the same document.  This is not about what was meant, but what was said.  And to collect all the various versions of that passage or part of the document one is studying.  That used to be called lower biblical textual criticism.  Then the next step would be 'higher' textual criticism and hermeneutics, or the effort to figure out what the original author meant.  From there one can then delve into the philosophical meanings, if any.  The study of pericopes is also of interest--sort of like looking at related passages and see how they fit together. 

When serious about it, I try to use books by authors who are clearly on both sides of the issue--and those in the middle, if  any exist.  Then I make up my own mind.

But I will recommend one book for you.  And it would take a great deal of courage for you to read it.  It is a very carefully thought out book and is highly (and I mean highly) footnoted so you can go to the sources for all of the authors primary sources.  It is On The Historicity Of Jesus (Why We Might Have Reason to Doubt), by Richard Carrier.   

Why would it take courage for me to read something by Richard Carrier?  I'm aware of the book and very familiar with Richard Carrier, as I've seen several of his debates.  I'm not the least bit threatened by the content of Carrier's book, especially since the great majority of his book's content has been variously addressed by William Lane Craig, Gary Habermas, Craig Blomberg, Craig A. Evans, Michael Licona, J. Ed Komoszewski, Robert Bowman, Michael J. Kruger, N.T. Wright, and others.  You can probably find some of the stuff on the internet.  But lots of people have addressed it.  Are you aware of that?

[Odoital778412]

I would argue that from any perspective, it's an overreaction and deeply immoral -- especially as an action taken by an entity claimed to be the font of all that's good.

From any perspective?  How so?  You’re saying that God wouldn’t have the right to punish His own creation for a crime against Him?  That would be truly odd.  It still appears that you’re pretending that God is a mere human with the prerogatives that a human being would have.  It also appears that you’re suggesting that God must respond to some moral law that is outside of Himself rather than acting in harmony with His perfectly just nature.  Obviously, you wouldn’t find the action you described as “perfectly just”, but that’s because any human being would find any other human being ordering or carrying out such a thing to be immoral.  God is not a human being.  He is the author of life itself.  If He decided to do away with all life, that would be His right.  We only have life because of His action.  Why is He under any obligation to continue to sustain what He’s created?

So if god does something, even if it's something that any rational person would agree is an evil act if a human did it, then it's okay.

In a lot of cases, that would be true, because God has entirely different prerogatives than human beings do.  The kind of being you are and your relationship with the thing, person, or event in question has a serious bearing on what is and what is not permitted.  For example, parents can act in ways with their children in ways that strangers cannot.  Government agents such as police have the authority to take actions against citizens that other people do not.  Doctors have the prerogative or authority to do things to their patient that other people do not.  Governments and their representative agents (i.e. judges) can even legitimately order the punishment and even death of those proven guilty of very serious crimes.  People can act in all sorts of ways that are unique to their position or status relative to the party they are acting toward or against.  This is not unusual.  God, as the creator of all that has ever come into existence, would have the ultimate set of prerogatives or the authority to take all kinds of action consistent with His nature.  That doesn’t mean He can do absolutely anything, but it does mean that He would possess the legitimate right or authority to take all kinds of action against or toward His creation that you or any other human being would not.  Since God is perfect and has set down laws or rules for His creation to follow, disobeying or contravening His law would constitute a crime against Him.  As such, He would be entirely justified and indeed required by His nature to mete out justice for the crimes committed.

I simply cannot accept this premise.

It would probably be more accurate to use the word “will not”.  You can do anything that it is possible for you to do, but your willingness to do those things is really the matter in question.  I suspect that it’s your willingness rather than ability that is truly preventing you from accepting the premise.

You're saying that any transgression, no matter how slight, can draw any punishment, no matter how severe, and that's all right so long as your God does it.

No, I probably wouldn’t put it precisely like that.  But could He choose physical death for any punishment or prelude to punishment, sure.  In other words, since He created you, He could choose to end your physical existence whenever He sees fit.  Having said that, it’s unlikely that your punishment in any afterlife, which will be the primary time for receiving punishment, for a slight transgression would be as bad as someone else who had committed a more serious crime.

How does this not outrage you?

For the same reason that normal people exercising their legitimate authority doesn’t outrage me.  I don’t get outraged with a judge sentences a criminal to life in prison for murder.  I get more outraged when I see a child rapist get put away for 3 years and then let back out onto the streets.  As the author of all human life, God would possess the right and legitimate authority to punish all breaking of His law.  And keep in mind, it’s not as though there are people walking around who’ve only committed a single sin or breaking of God’s law that is the equivalent of spitting on the sidewalk or littering.  No, the list of crimes for every human being of any significant age is probably in the multiple thousands or millions, if I’m being conservative.  How many times have you lied, lusted, or done other things that are wrong even by your own standards?  We don’t even live up to our own standards perfectly, to say nothing of God’s.  If God is just, do you expect him to not punish people for the crimes they commit?  If He is just, how can he not punish contravention of His law?  Before you answer that, remember that human beings are the ground of the moral law or what is right and wrong, and therefore cannot be compared to God in this way.

Let's say I create a painting that is universally hailed as a great masterpiece, an invaluable addition to world culture, up there on the level of the Mona Lisa.  If I destroyed it because of one negative review, am I in my rights, or am I doing wrong?  By the standards you set up here, I'm completely within my rights and world culture has no cause whatsoever to complain about it.

Well, let’s try stating it differently.  You’re saying that because an artist creates and sublime work of art, they lose their rights to their own work merely because it was done well?  Who is anyone to tell the artist what his threshold for deciding to destroy or scrap his own work of art should be?  It seems to me that if you created it, then you have a right to do whatever you want with your own work & property.  However, keep in mind that God’s ownership of His creation goes even deeper than the example you gave suggests.  For example, did the artist create the ground He’s standing on, the air he’s breathing, the clothes he’s wearing, the blood that flowing through his veins, the brush he’s using, the canvas he’s painting on, or the paints he’s applying?  Or did he just buy a brush, paints and a canvas from some other person and apply this material that he didn’t create in order to create something new and perhaps better?  Has he not simply added value, thereby taking ownership, to something that already existed by arranging it (i.e. the paints on the surface of the canvas) in a novel or more beautiful way?  This is a far different thing than what God has done.  He’s created all that has ever come into being and is responsible for sustaining the very laws of nature that allow it to continue in its existence.  So yeah, I’d say He has the legitimate right to do what He will with that which belongs to Him, which is…absolutely everything.

This is also a total surrender of any idea that there are moral absolutes.  There are no moral absolutes if the rules don't apply to your god, too.  If there's something they don't apply to, they're not absolute.  Period.

How so?  You’re saying that because a judge can lock a criminal up for years and I cannot do that, that there are no legitimate laws or punishments for the breaking of those laws?  That seems to be what you’re saying.  It sounds as if you’re saying, if God does not have to abide by human prerogatives and human levels of authority, then moral absolutes don’t exist.  Honestly, that simply doesn’t make sense.  I’ve already demonstrated that the nature of who you are in your position relative to whatever you’re dealing with gives you certain prerogatives, and I gave several examples.  As the creator of all that has ever come into existence, God would have the maximum level of authority that could be had by any entity of any kind and certainly far more authority that any human being or even the entire mass of humanity itself.  After all, they are His, whether they want or choose to acknowledge that fact or not.  I don’t think God’s authority does anything to undermine His own nature and thus does nothing to undermine the moral law or moral absolutes.

I'm not misrepresenting anything, I'm just reporting the words on the page.

I’m not suggesting that you’re misrepresenting the story.  I’m suggesting that you’re misrepresenting God, if you’re suggesting that he must somehow be saddled with only human authority and prerogatives rather than the authority and prerogatives He would naturally have as the creator of all that has ever come into existence.  You cannot treat God as if He were a mere man, and then still pretend to be talking about God.  It’s not honest, and it’s entirely unhelpful at getting at the truth of any particular situation or thing.

What value is there in looking to this god as an example, or as a source of good, or as any sort of moral authority?  At best, you're describing someone utterly irrelevant to humanity since he's useless as a moral guide -- "do as I say and not as I do" is hypocrisy of the highest order.  I have every right to expect better from something that's supposed to be better than me.

Those questions only make sense if you’re still treating God as a man rather than as God.  If you can’t or won’t see the difference between a human being and the creator of all that ever came into existence and what differences that would NECESSARILY create in terms of authority and prerogatives, there’s not a lot I’m going to be able to do to help you.  I’ve given multiple examples.  I hope they’ve helped.  If not, I guess you’re out of luck.

You aren't describing a font of life and goodness.  You're describing a capricious, hypocritical tyrant and monster.

No, God is accountable to His own nature.  He simply has higher levels of authority to carry out punishments and other acts than do any human beings.  God must act consistent with His nature and is therefore in harmony with the moral law.  For God to act immorally, he must violate His own nature, which isn’t possible.  In terms of breaking the moral law, that is only possible for us because we are imperfect and are responding to a law that is not derived or grounded in us.  In other words, we are not the source of the moral law, we are the creatures to whom it applies.  God is the source of the moral law itself and therefore always acts in harmony with it or His own nature, which is the ground or source of morality.  So there is no capriciousness, since God is bound to act in accordance with or is accountable to His own nature.  There is no hypocrisy because He’s not telling any legitimate authority not to punish criminals.  He may tell illegitimate authorities not to take it upon themselves to punish criminals.  Or he may tell someone not to take the life of a person innocent of any crimes against the person desirous of taking that life.  But of course, there are no human beings who are innocent of crimes against God.  And there is no tyranny because there is no injustice being carried out by God.  God is justified in punishing criminals, and since all human beings are guilty of crimes against him and all will eventually be judge, apart from those who are willing to accept His pardon in Jesus Christ; there is no unjust use of His power or authority.  Monster?  I think not.  More like a judge who has stepped down from the judge’s seat and offered to take the criminals punishment on Himself, as an act of mercy and sacrifice out of love for that which He created.  If people weren’t so locked in their rebellion, hatred, and misunderstanding of God; they would see the beauty and the de-merited favor He’s lavished upon His creation while under NO obligation to do so.

[Mike Cl]

Why would it take courage for me to read something by Richard Carrier?  I'm aware of the book and very familiar with Richard Carrier, as I've seen several of his debates.  I'm not the least bit threatened by the content of Carrier's book, especially since the great majority of his book's content has been variously addressed by William Lane Craig, Gary Habermas, Craig Blomberg, Craig A. Evans, Michael Licona, J. Ed Komoszewski, Robert Bowman, Michael J. Kruger, N.T. Wright, and others.  You can probably find some of the stuff on the internet.  But lots of people have addressed it.  Are you aware of that?

Why courage?  Because most people don't like investigating ideas they don't like or approve of.  And most Christians who have visited this board since I've been here have been drive-by types.  If that does not apply to you, then good.  I have found much of that 'stuff' on the internet.  I have read some criticisms and evaluations of his book, but not all that you mentioned.  I'll get to them as time goes by.  I find Carrier's book to be the most complete that I have read on the subject so far.  Robert M. Price and Wells wrote excellent books on the same subject--but Carrier does the best job, in my opinion, to date.  I've read it through and am now going into more detail in some of the areas I find most interesting.  Have you read it?

[Desdinova]

A typical human being doesn't possess the legitimate authority and therefore the prerogative to take a life or have multiple people mauled or injured.  This is not the case with the Creator of human life and all that has ever come into existence.  As the Creator, He would have entirely different prerogatives.  Just as you have a natural right to destroy whatever you yourself create, so God possesses that same right or ability.  Not only that, but He would also have the right to sanction or punish bad behavior and could even choose death as His punishment of choice.  Indeed, if mankind as fallen and sinful, as the Bible proclaims, God would be justified in punishing and or wiping out all of humanity or all of His creation entirely.

So, using this logic it would be perfectly acceptable to kill my son.  I created him, so I can kill him.  Makes perfect fucking sense.  Especially if he has taken to laying with other men.  The bible is nothing more than a set of fairy tales written by man to control man.  In fact as far as fairy tales go, it's really not that good.  I prefer Goldilocks, or even Hansel and Gretel.  Christians are such deluded creatures.

[1liesalot]

Here is an interesting new video about whether or not you would vote for God if He stood for office.

https://youtu.be/HIxSeiqyGXQ