God Loves a Good Mind Game

this God is very local

Published on August 18, 2008 By greywar In Religion

The Bible has some wonderful stuff in it but if you are looking for moral or ethical help I would suggest avoiding Genesis like the plague.

The first recorded instance of setting someone up for ethical failure:

15 The LORD God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it. 16 And the LORD God commanded the man, "You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die."

Also note the first instance of a deity telling an outright lie to man up there when he tells them that they will die from eating the fruit. Imagine their surprise when they ate it and didn’t die but rather figured out that they were naked (the horror!) :

she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it. 7 Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves.

Followed closely by over-the-top cruelty to Eve (keep in mind that God already lied about the penalty for eating the fruit and apparently has now decided that knowledge of good and evil is just not painful enough) :

16 To the woman he said,
       "I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing;
       with pain you will give birth to children.
       Your desire will be for your husband,
       and he will rule over you."

Why was God so pissed (and why did he lie about the tree) ? Well obviously it was because he didn’t want them to start eating from the trees that God and his peers (apparently he has peers in the garden) wanted to keep for their own:

And the LORD God said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever." (a good point to keep in mind is that this passage with it’s attendant implications is the progenitor of many aspects of modern would-be “hermeticists” - GW)

God follows up his ethical misdirection here by randomly promoting sibling rivalry when Adam’s sons bring him part of the food they have worked so hard to make. Apparently God is a meatetarian:

3 In the course of time Cain brought some of the fruits of the soil as an offering to the LORD. 4 But Abel brought fat portions from some of the firstborn of his flock. The LORD looked with favor on Abel and his offering, 5 but on Cain and his offering he did not look with favor.

At this point it is important to note that the God of Genesis is not an omniscient God in any manner and that there are apparently other men in Nod that God did not create:

Today you are driving me from the land, and I will be hidden from your presence; I will be a restless wanderer on the earth, and whoever finds me will kill me."

Who will kill him then? God’s creations at this point number Adam, Eve, Cain, and the now dead Abel. The Noddites were apparently already there from some other God (perhaps one of God’s buddies who hang out with him in the Garden eating fruits of knowledge and life while knocking back some brewskies?).

This brings us to one of the bigger conflicts in the “early” bible… Who is the Lamech’s family? Note that I don’t just mean there are two people ambiguously named Lamech here but rather that there are two lineages for the exact same Lamech. Was he of the house of Cain (the cursed) or of Adam. We are about 3 pages into the bible and it is a train wreck of consistency:

Cain lay with his wife, and she became pregnant and gave birth to Enoch. Cain was then building a city, and he named it after his son Enoch. 18 To Enoch was born Irad, and Irad was the father of Mehujael, and Mehujael was the father of Methushael, and Methushael was the father of Lamech.

So Cain was the head of Lamech’s family? Wait for it:

(ok I am abbreviating here):

Adam’s line:

Adam – Seth- Enosh- Kenan – Mahalalel – Jared – Enoch – Methuselah – Lamech – Noah

Since the narrative runs that Noah was a nice guy we can assume that Cain’s Lamech didn’t father him since that Lamech is a vengeful ass (then again God in this version is also a vengeful ass so maybe that just makes Lamech ibn Cain “godly”):

23 Lamech said to his wives,
       "Adah and Zillah, listen to me;
       wives of Lamech, hear my words.
       I have killed ^[y] a man for wounding me,
       a young man for injuring me.

I wonder if he ever killed a man for snoring?

Keep in mind that at this point we are only up to Genesis 5! God needs a new proofreader. If I make it through these classes without an aneurism that really will be a miracle.

Comments (Page 4)

lulapilgrim

on Oct 28, 2008

LULA POSTS: # 34

Of Muslims, there is nothing to bash ThinkALoud? Really? How about talking truth...Muslims behead their enemies, terrorize non-combatants, fly airplanes into buildings, shoot nuns in the back, and are presently kidnapping bishops and killing them, burning Catholic Chruches to the ground, and legally murder those who wish to convert from their religion.

These I would not bash for I do not bash period....but I do condemn them...100%.

It is the Qur'an from which these Muslims get their direction to commit these awful crimes is it not?

I'm doing my level best to tell the truth, not cast stones. All I'm saying is if we take seriously the words of the Qur'an itself and how they are used by jihadists, then it is clearly their inspiration and guidebook; the motivating force of the jihad movement. Don't get me wrong though....are there peaceful Muslims? ...Of course...but neither they nor we can ignore the jihadist's many clear statements or trapess around on tippy-toes watching our every word (or cartoon) just becasue we might offend sensibilities.

tHINK aLOUD # 38

that is what i meant when i said .. why not do it yourself. If you did you would realize that all what you said and all what those terroists do IS AGAINST WHAT QURA'N says !!!!!

lula posts #44

Didn't Muhammad, the Prophet of Islam, repeatedly emphasize that there was nothing better or holier for his followers to do besides the act of becoming a Muslim than jihad warfare?

Didn't Mohammad teach to offer non-Muslims only three choices: conversion, subjugation or death?

These teachings aren't marginal doctrines or historical relics....they are still taught in mainstream Islam, repeatedly affirmed in the Qur'an, the Hadith, the example of Mohammad and Islamic law.

Thinkaloud posts:

and Jihad, unfairly maligned word, means Struggle in the way of Allah. read what scholars said about that and you will realize that "jihad warfare" is the least important part of that struggle.

JIhad warfare may be the least important part of that struggle to you and others, but tell that to the 5,000 families from peoples all over the world that were killed in 9/11.

Some people in Denmark ran some cartoons of Muhammad and the result was Muslim violence around the world. Which raises the question why do so many Muslims react so violently to non-violence. Is it nature or nurture? No, I'd say its somewhere within the teachings of Islam. Did you at any time publicly condemn the violence that Muslims wreaked upon others over these cartoons or do you think they were justified in that somewhere in Islam or the Qur'an it says that Muhammad's photo is not to be shown?

and you still say no one condemned them!!!! they didnt condemn them lula ... they criminalized them, they tried them in absentia and they sentenced them to death for their actions ... there not here .... but we ignored all that .... they then turned on us ... now you blaming the muslims for "not condemning them" !!!!

know your facts first before you speak please.

Throughout this discussion, you are trying to convince that Islam and the Qur'an is not the problem...that I've got it all greatly misunderstood....what I must then ask is if all these violent acts are only a misinterpretation of Islam, and it is truly as you say that these acts have been condemned, then we need to know why this extreme radicalism of Islam has been allowed to take place.

In short, what seems to matter is the identity and criminalization of the transgressors, not the nature of the transgression.

lulapilgrim

on Oct 28, 2008

LULA POSTS:

Here's an example of Muhammad vs Christ...."Blessed are you when men revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account. Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven." St.Matt. 5:11

"And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter." Qur'an 2:191

THINKALOUD posts:

Great !!!! why didnt you mention the verses before and after it and the people they refer to as "them" .... (PS: persecution is not a correct translation of the word 'Fitnah' ... its correct meaning is spreading animosity by falshood to both sides)

but even this single out-of-context verse gives you a hint of the rule: the people who caused this "Fitnah", which is worse than murder, and who drove you out of your homes ... those .. i.e "them" you should slay and kill to regain your homes and eliminate that 'Fitnah'.

now: read verses 190 and then 192 ... and i am sure you did ... but you intentionally ignored them.... and you will know that God is telling Muslims .. dont surrender to defeat .. fight back .... and that FOR TO KNOW is a fundamental principle in Islam. If attacked personally or your property, you have the right to defend yourself and restore your land and homes. Anything wrong with that Lula? isnt that what we call "property rights" here?

but you present it as a command to just slay and kill !!!!

I certainly understand how frustrating it is when people take Biblical verses out of context, so I do appreciate your criticism of me in this regard. Having said that, I have indeed read all 3 verses 190, 191 and 192, including those from a borrowed copy of the Qur'an from a friend.

You say that the word "persecution" is not the correct translation for "Fitnah" which led me to research where I had seen the word "fitnah" before this discussion. It came up in a discussion of whether Muslims should force others to accept Islam with consideration of Qur'an 2:256, "There is no complusion in religion", combined with the quote from 9:29 and 8:39, "And fight them until there is no more fitnah (disbelief and polytheism; ie worshipping others besides Allah), and the religion will all be for Allah alone in the whole world. Evidently this verse is known as the Verse of the Sword which abrogates the verses which says there is no compulsion to become Muslim.

This of course ties in with Qur'an 2:191 which I initially wrote: "And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter" and my point still stands whether "peresecution" is the correct translation or not.

Here are all 3 verses..Qur'an 2:190-193.

Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits, for Allah loveth not transgressors. And slay them wherever ye catch them, and turn them from where they have turned you out; for tumult and oppression (persecution) are worse than slaughter: but fight them not at the Sacred Mosque, unless they (first) fight you there; but if they fight you, slay them. Such is the reward of those who supress them (infidels). But if they cease, Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful. And fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah; but if they cease, Let there be no hostility except to those who practice oppression (the wicked).

Of course no one has a problem with fighting in self defense. But here, there is a change from self-defense. The command to fight against "those who fight you" until "there prevail justice and faith in Allah" (or "until religion is for Allah" in a more literal translation) indicates when Muslims should stop fighting against unbelievers: not when a peace treaty has been concluded or when negotiations have settled disputed issues, but when Allah's religion prevails.

Throughout history, Muslim theologians have understood this to refer to Islamic law being institutied over a society. Verse 193 commands much more than defensive warfare. It says Muslims must fight until "the religion is Allah's" that is until Allah alone is worshipped. Later Islamic law based on this development in the doctrrine of jihad warfare during Muhammad's career, would offer non_muslims 3 options...conversion to Islam,,,,subjugation as inferiors under Islamic Law,,,,,or death.

THINKALOUD POSTS:

Great !!!! why didnt you mention the verses before and after it and the people they refer to as "them" ....

oK, I have now taken all 3 verses into account and they further my point....they distinguish the "them" ...they are 2 groups of people Muslims must fight...."against them who start the fighting against you (Muslims) and against all those who worship others along with Allah...

This understanding of Islamic doctrines of warfare against unbelievers (infidels) as stated in the Qur'an isn't limited to only those in the lunatic fringe, the Wahhabi sect of Saudi Arabia and other al-Queda jihadists. As I read it, if someone rejects Islam, it is the duty of Islam to fight him until either he is killed or until he declares his submission.

lulapilgrim

on Oct 28, 2008

LW POSTS:

There are extreme radicals in every group, lula, religious or not. We don't control the actions of others, we cannot, but we CAN and DO punish them when they are caught.

The same holds true for Islam,

LW,

There has never been any agreement that there are extreme radicals from all groups throughout the world. That's not the point.

It is indisputably true that when Catholics, Jews and Protestants (and most other religions for that matter) are offended by something that they find disagreeable, they almost never take to the streets killing innocent people, nor do they make pledges to God of violence. The fact and difference is that Muslims do....take the Denmark cartoons of Muhammad for example.

Nowhere in Christianity or the Holy Bible is there a martial tradition or doctrine of warfare against unbelievers. In Islam the situation is quite different. The Qur'an exhorts believers to fight unbelievers. The commands taken at face value, are open-ended and universal.

Of the Holy Bible, while Christians see an unfolding of God's Revelation in language that is symbolic, allegorical, historical, poetic and yes, sometimes literal, Islam is literal and the jihad passages in theQur'an are anything but a dead letter.

Lula posts:

LW POSTS:

Allowed to take place, hmm?

Yes, thanks to this discussion, this is the first I've heard about Muslims wanting to convict the evil doers, it's just that they all got away and are in Europe, etc. Aside from ThinkALoud's report, I haven't ever seen (in general )Muslim public outrage over all this violence, have you?

Even if it as ThinkALoud says that "jihad warfare" is the least important part of that struggle, the fact is that radical Islam Jihadists number in the millions and that number is growing steadily .....they are out and about committing violence around the world ....why?

Some say it's because of America's support for Israel.....or becasue America is a wretched, depraved culture....or becasue America has troops in Muslim lands wanting to occupy them...or becasue America is the "Great Satan".

But even so, these aren't the main reasons behind the jihadists' attacks against innocent people. Even if all these things were somehow brought to a halt or fixed, innocent people would still be attacked and killed.

What do they want and what is the reason why we never, ever hear public apologies from the Islamic leaders for the horrific things these radicals do?

Is Iranian President Ahmadinejad to be taken seriously and literally when he called for Islam to rule the world? He said, "We must believe in the fact that Islam is not confined to geographical borders, ethnic groups, and nations. It's a universal ideology that leads the world to justice. We don't shy away from declaring that Islam is ready to rule the world."

So the present Iranian president is calling on Muslims to kill in the name of Allah...and you know what...no where do I hear Muslim voices condemn him or deny that killing innocent people (infidels) is part of the plan for world domination.

lulapilgrim

on Oct 30, 2008

First of all. Christians have a similar belief, that in order for Jesus to make his promised comeback, ALL must be converted...(except for the Jews, of course. There's a special place in hell for them, right?) Violence can take many forms, lula, and doesn't always have to take a physical form.

Christ is coming back the second time as the Final Judge at the end of the world. No one knows the date or time when....only that.... as sure as the sun comes up tomorrow .....that He's coming.

We Christians are called to teach every one, all peoples, including Jews and Muslims) all that Christ taught until the end of the world and God through the Holy Spirit does His thing as far as the conversion and subsequent Baptism goes. People either accept or reject. In Christianity, it's not that ALL will be converted and certainly not by force as Islam does.

ThinkAloud

on Oct 31, 2008

The command to fight against "those who fight you" until "there prevail justice and faith in Allah" (or "until religion is for Allah" in a more literal translation) indicates when Muslims should stop fighting against unbelievers: not when a peace treaty has been concluded or when negotiations have settled disputed issues, but when Allah's religion prevails

it seems you are more interested in misrepresenting the facts than discussing them.

First you admit that you go by "literal" translation.!!!!! i cant tell you how many times i laugh when i read something in Arabic and think of what happens if someone "literally" translated it into English. Sometimes you get something that is really sooo funny .. true translation MUST reflect the meaning Lula ... not literal.

second .. and this is amazing ... you stop in your discussion of the 3 verses at the end of YOUR highlighted portion... why didn tyou highlight the rest of it?

it says clearly "if they stop (the aggression) ... there should not be aggression except toward the unjust.

exactly why you trying to hide the facts Lula??? i am really amazed at your insistence on hiding the facts of what Qura'n say.

you dont have to believe in it Lula.... but you have no right to misrepresent what it says ... even it was a book written by any one ..let alone by God.

Later Islamic law based on this development in the doctrrine of jihad warfare during Muhammad's career, would offer non_muslims 3 options...conversion to Islam,,,,subjugation as inferiors under Islamic Law,,,,,or death.

amazing ... amazing ... then please explain to me and to the whole world how christians and Jews still live and prosper in all those Muslim counries i mentioned before?????

all these misinformation is only in your head Lula... honest to God ... i am telling you the truth about that ... only in your head.

they distinguish the "them" ...they are 2 groups of people Muslims must fight...."against them who start the fighting against you (Muslims) and against all those who worship others along with Allah...

my goodness !!!! where did you get that from? ... Lula .. this is not the Bible ... no matter what God is inspiring you to write that .. you cant introduce things into what Qura'n say. What other group? how did you split "them" into "two of them" ....

no Lula .. the 3 verses were about certain people who had a treaty with Muslims ... and vioted it ... there were no other reason to fight. at the end of v:193 it says if "they" stop ... no more aggression ... it didnt say if "they did not believe" ....

Don mix and match different verses from different contexts together .... it is not up to you or me ... the language has its rules and meaning .. and the book has its context .... no inspirational insertion or flipping is allowed ...

can you really do this with an article in a newspaper????? you are amazing in your effort to spread the falsehood about what you read .... not good Lula ... Jusus will be very upset with you if you dont stop this intentional spreading of falsehoods.

ThinkAloud

on Oct 31, 2008

they are out and about committing violence around the world ....why?

great question .... did you ever heard it being discussed in the media???? even here I (and very few others) have and no one ... no one is willing to accept the obvious.

what is that "obvious"?

First let me tell you what it is "NOT"

- It is not spreading islam as you and others claim... Islam doesnt need anyone to spread it ... it spreads itself ... by Qura'n and by it alone. have you ever heard of muslims invading india, pakistan?indonesia? ... they dont even speak Arabic ... you got my point ... even Turkey ....

- It is not that they "hate our way of life" ... what a joke that is being believed by sooooo many for sooo long. They "love" "our way of life" ... have you ever visit their countries and see how they imitate us in everything ... even baggy pants and happy meals .... except when it comes to religion ... they hold on it by their teath ... really .. they love our way of life and they ignore our bad behavior ... or try to restrict it at least.

-it is not even Israel ... pakistan, India, Indonesia ...even Iraq and to great extent "Saudia Arabia" never cared anyway ... only few countries like Egypt and Syria care about that (they care because Israel is next to them and impact them directly)

-It was never the myth that "they hate the Jews" ... they never did ... really Lula... even Egypt and Syria have problems with Israel not with the "Jews"... jews lived in those two countries for centuries with no problem whatsoever... till Israel took part of palastine

now to that "obvious" reason...

It is Our Policies and presence on their land supporting their dictators against their people.... and controlling their resources....

that is the reason Lula...

let me explain it more to you ..

remember when i said that they started their violence in their own lands? ... they did that trying to overthrow their dictators so they free themselves and get control of their resources to the benefit of their own people....

they failed in that ... you know why? ... because WE helped their dictator discover their activities and their contacts and their cells ..

they realized that they are not against their dictators only ... they are against us too ...

enters Ben-laden/Alzawahiri and Alqaeda who clearly said "the west with USA leadership are the main problem"...

that is when in 1995-1996 they Actually declared war ... itold you that already ...

now ... you know why? .... believe it or not ... that is why.

if we get out of there ... start being fair to them and to Israel ... the whole movement i.e terrorism ... will disappear in a flash ...

but we say "never surrender" as if it is our right to be there and control their land and their resources !!!!!

We kicked "England" from our land ... We even helped (and in the process trained) Ben-Laden/Alzawahiri to kick the USSR from Afghanistan ... remember that??? ... they are just using the lessons against us now ...

amazing ... isnt it lula ... this life has amazing twists and turns ...

or as you may agree with me ... it is all His paln ... and He is sometimes mysterious ... isnt He lula?

ThinkAloud

on Oct 31, 2008

Even if all these things were somehow brought to a halt or fixed, innocent people would still be attacked and killed.

just like that? .. you are certain of this ?... no doubt in your mind? ... you are God who knows how people will behave in the future....?

just a reminder ... this terrorism was not there before ... for centuries ... but it is here now ...

do you know it got started Lula? ... i dont think you even have a clue.

since you dont read ,,,, i will tell you a little.

up to and untill 1967 ... they all (the Arabs mainly) believed that Nasser and Egypt will take care of all those dictators and occupiers ... and he succeded to a great extent .... by mid-1960's all foreign forces were out of all Arab countries except Saudia... even our largest base in the area (wheelis .. i think it was called) in Libya was evacuauted.

then came the 1967 war and Nasser/Egypt were neutralized ... the PLO started with Yasser Arafat ... and the rest is history.

There is a very small point that occured shortly after 1956 when UK/France/Israel attacked Egypt ... and for many reasons the US sided with Egypt and forced them out.

After the dust settled ... Nasser opposed the "Baghdad Pact" promoted by Eisenhower ... he honestly said to the USA ... dont do like what england and france did to us .. we take your revolution and system as a model .. help me get this area developed and we are your best defense against the USSR (and that was the purpose of the prorpposed pact)... he went on to say ... if you oppose me ... you will get the Islamists ..... it is your choice ...Me ... your friend or the Islamists ... and they have no friends ... he knew them .. he was with them till he discovered what they really want to do .. he left them and started his own movement. they even tried to kill him twice in 1954 and 1963

those Islamists ... are what we call terrorists now ...before Nasser/Egypt were neutralized they had no good reason for their methods (championed by the Muslim Brotherhood) .. after that they have all the cards to convince the extremists and the desperates...

again ... it is amazing that Nasser knew who the players were ...

we didnt believe him and ... we got what he said we will get.

and you still say ... they will continue even if those problems disppear ... i dont think so ... if the problem disappears ... they will disappear ... they are a symptom of the problem not a cause...

ThinkAloud

on Oct 31, 2008

they did ... you didnt and do not hear them ... of course ... you really expect our media to tell you that?

Nasser did ... and we helped get rid of him ... we even got rid od saddam who was holding that Madjad (hey .. i just coined a name for him here.... i retain the copy rights to it ) behind his borders .... now you know why many who knew the area opposed that war that YOU supported.....

sometimes you have to chose between a real enemy and an annoying neighbor ....

Egypt/Saudia hated saddam and Khumini all the same ... and they adviced your buddy W. of the disaster if we get rid of him .. Bush I, and Clinton both listened .... but W.??? NOOOO he was told by God that he is commanded to do it .... and here we are lula

.... here we are ... rehasing a history that you never knew ... but "they" ... the people you say never object or condemn ...

you know what ... after a while when someone is sooo arogant and doesnt listen ... people give up ...

their attitude now is this : ... you ssked for it .... now deal with it

we were the reason for their rise ... (nasser/egypt neutralization)

we trained them and showed them that they can defeat a superpower

we ignored the warnings from Mubark about the danger

and made it worse by invading one more country that had no hand in 9/11

All of them condemned the 9/11 attacks ... with no exception even Iran ... helped us in afghanistan ....

then what did we do after that? invade another country there...

Amazing.... Truly amazing ... stupidity that is !!!!!!

you know what Lula .. this is my last comment on this subject ... it is no use with you and the people who think along the same theme ...

didnt i tell you .... sometimes you just give up ....

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!