The Bible/Headscratchers: Difference between revisions

Line 58:

* Why no concrete explanation for when, how and why Satan had a [[Face Heel Turn]]? Satan was simply an agent to sort out the guilty back in the Old Testament, but in the New Testament he's suddenly become a [[Complete Monster]] responsible for sin in the first place, and the [[Big Bad]] of everything. No build-up whatsoever. Not to mention, saying he's the snake (who's more of a [[Trickster Archetype]] than pure evil) opens up more questions and plot holes. Did the writers [[Nothing Is Scarier|purposefully left it blank for you to imagine it?]] [[Viewers are Morons]]? Were they just unable to find a good enough villain, and go "let's make Satan evil." I really want to know.

** Bigger question might be why you're treating [[The Bible]] like it's a piece of fiction literature that was plotted out by a single source with one running plotline and foreshadowing.

** As to how, Satan likely turned someting during or after the earth's completion<ref>Job 38:4-7 infers that "''all'' the sons of God" were still good when God "founded the earth"</ref>. The reason why he (as the serpent) turned was because of [[Pride]]; he wanted to rule the earth instead of [[God]], and that's why he spitefully caused mankind to disobey God. Also, considering that the serpent is guilty of genocide on the ''entire human race'', I would consider him evil. He was the [[Big Bad]] since Genesis; Satan as "simply an agent to sort out the guilty" as seen in Job is only one interpretation that is not universally believed, others consider his actions there evil too. And no, Satan being the serpent doesn't open up any plot holes, you must be misunderstanding something. I will concede that it was rather late in [[The Bible]] (Revelation) that Satan was actually identified as the serpent, but considering Jesus and his followers considered Satan as evil and the [[Big Bad]] ''before'' Revelation was written, this was likely a common belief among Jews in the first century and before.

** As to how, Satan likely turned someting during or after the earth's completion.<ref>Job 38:4-7 infers that "''all'' the sons of God" were still good when God "founded the earth"</ref> The reason why he (as the serpent) turned was because of [[Pride]]; he wanted to rule the earth instead of [[God]], and that's why he spitefully caused mankind to disobey God. Also, considering that the serpent is guilty of genocide on the ''entire human race'', I would consider him evil. He was the [[Big Bad]] since Genesis; Satan as "simply an agent to sort out the guilty" as seen in Job is only one interpretation that is not universally believed, others consider his actions there evil too. And no, Satan being the serpent doesn't open up any plot holes, you must be misunderstanding something. I will concede that it was rather late in [[The Bible]] (Revelation) that Satan was actually identified as the serpent, but considering Jesus and his followers considered Satan as evil and the [[Big Bad]] ''before'' Revelation was written, this was likely a common belief among Jews in the first century and before.

*** Alright, but why would someone who already had a [[Face Heel Turn]] as the serpent in Genesis be an agent of God in Job? Why choose pride as a reason for his fall? It doesn't seem compelling. Not to mention, booting Adam and Eve out of the garden of Eden didn't really seem that evil-they lost their immortality, but would be capable of growing.

*** [[Sarcasm Mode|Uh, maybe because he]] ''[[Captain Obvious|wasn't]]'' an agent of God in Job? Like I said above, that is "only ''one interpretation'' that is ''not'' universally believed"; in other words, he was still acting as the [[Big Bad]] against God at that time. Read what I wrote above; I had already answered that question before you asked it. Anyway, what do you mean "why choose pride"? People don't consciously choose a reason to make a [[Face Heel Turn]]. He fell because he was envious of the worship of God and wanted some for himself, essentially becoming the [[Ur Example]] of [[A God Am I]]. And apparently you failed to grasp the implications and consequences of what happened to Adam and Eve. For one thing, robbing someone of their immortality is basically the same as, or ''worse'' than, committing murder. Additionally, the serpent's trickery ended up leading to sin and the [[Humans Are ~~Bastards~~]] trope, not to mention various defects and diseases. If someone doesn't see that as evil, then I sincerely hope I never meet them in person.

*** [[Sarcasm Mode|Uh, maybe because he]] ''[[Captain Obvious|wasn't]]'' an agent of God in Job? Like I said above, that is "only ''one interpretation'' that is ''not'' universally believed"; in other words, he was still acting as the [[Big Bad]] against God at that time. Read what I wrote above; I had already answered that question before you asked it. Anyway, what do you mean "why choose pride"? People don't consciously choose a reason to make a [[Face Heel Turn]]. He fell because he was envious of the worship of God and wanted some for himself, essentially becoming the [[Ur Example]] of [[A God Am I]]. And apparently you failed to grasp the implications and consequences of what happened to Adam and Eve. For one thing, robbing someone of their immortality is basically the same as, or ''worse'' than, committing murder. Additionally, the serpent's trickery ended up leading to sin and the [[Humans Are the Real Monsters]] trope, not to mention various defects and diseases. If someone doesn't see that as evil, then I sincerely hope I never meet them in person.

**** If God opposed Satan (which was a title applied to many entities, divine and human) then he wouldn't gloat to Satan or give express permission to the extent that was given. And, even more, if Satan wasn't an agent of God then there was no obligation for Satan to follow the rules that God set.

**** Opposing Satan has nothing to do with gloating or giving permission. God gave permission to Satan to prove a point, namely that Job would serve God under any circumstance. And Satan followed God's rules not because he was an agent of God, but because ''God is more powerful than him''.

Line 120:

** (1) No, a "test" does not always refer to a simulacrum/model, [[You Keep Using That Word|or what you say it does]]. (2) God did ''not'' know that they would violate his prohibition. (3) God really, ''really'', '''''really''''' doesn't like being disobeyed, which is why they died. (4) As to the answer to your question, its purpose was a symbol of God's right as Creator to tell humans what was right and wrong and expect them to comply.

*** (3) [[Critical Research Failure|They died?]] Oh yeah, at least eight hundred years after they were supposed to die according to God. If God doesn't like being disobeyed as much as you claim, why not kill them and start over as he did with the Flood later on? (2) How can God have an [[Omniscient Morality License]] (as you claim in 4) if he isn't omniscient? [[Reverse Psychology]] would kick in eventually even if the Serpent hadn't, and God would know that.

*** (3) Considering that they otherwise would have had a form of [[Immortality]], it makes no difference whether they died immediately or hundreds of years later. The point is that their death was a consequence of eating from the tree, and had they not done so, they would still be living today. Also, killing them immediately would make it seem like God was afraid of humans making their own decisions about deciding what was right or wrong, and that Satan was at least partially right. Most people don't read between the lines to realize that what Satan was ''really'' trying to do was question God's right to rule over humans and angels, and God let humans live and [[Humans Are ~~Bastards~~|screw themselves over]] so everyone would realize what happens [[Vetinari Job Security|when God is not in control]]. (2) & (4) Okay, I misapplied the trope, but the points still stand. What God has is more like a "Creator Morality License".

*** (3) Considering that they otherwise would have had a form of [[Immortality]], it makes no difference whether they died immediately or hundreds of years later. The point is that their death was a consequence of eating from the tree, and had they not done so, they would still be living today. Also, killing them immediately would make it seem like God was afraid of humans making their own decisions about deciding what was right or wrong, and that Satan was at least partially right. Most people don't read between the lines to realize that what Satan was ''really'' trying to do was question God's right to rule over humans and angels, and God let humans live and [[Humans Are the Real Monsters|screw themselves over]] so everyone would realize what happens [[Vetinari Job Security|when God is not in control]]. (2) & (4) Okay, I misapplied the trope, but the points still stand. What God has is more like a "Creator Morality License".

* Something confuses me. As far as I understand Genesis, one of the reasons God banished Adam and Eve from the garden was that now that they ate from the tree of knowledge, they would become like god if they ate from the tree of immortality. But he never forbade them to do that in the first place. So, what would he have done if they had eaten from the tree of immortality before the tree of knowledge?

** Who knows? Perhaps the idea is that the tree of life would only work so long as they kept eating it, and thus so long as they listened to God, they would live forever.

Line 256:

** Here is a bit better explination, your best friend is being badly treated by this bully and you can help them out, will you only help them out or will you want to see the bully punished for badly treating your friend?

*** Punish the bully, yes. Punish the bully's family, his employees' families, his neighbor's families, rather than the bully himself? That'd just make ''me'' a lot worse than the bully.

**** You guys don't seem to know how racism works. It's a ''system'' everyone is complicit, especially the Upper class merchants and farm lords (think sharecropping [[[[Older Than You Think]] 500 years early) and the prissy soon to be Pharaoh kids. These people were evil. And as anyone would tell you in the american South (for example) it's pretty powerful,, that whole nation had the sin on its hands, the fact that he didn't level the bastards and instead left them off easy to repent is a sign of his mercy.

**** You guys don't seem to know how racism works. It's a ''system'' everyone is complicit, especially the Upper class merchants and farm lords (think sharecropping [[Older Than You Think]] 500 years early) and the prissy soon to be Pharaoh kids. These people were evil. And as anyone would tell you in the american South (for example) it's pretty powerful,, that whole nation had the sin on its hands, the fact that he didn't level the bastards and instead left them off easy to repent is a sign of his mercy.

***** You fail to understand that history has repeatedly shown the "slavery" present in Exodus to be so drastically different from what was present in America that it's not even able to be defined accurately as "slavery". In fact the closest that Ancient Egypt at ANY of the possible times of the account practiced was hiring labor and soldiers from neighboring areas. And then we have that the Pharoah didn't have any problem meeting several times with a representative of the people. And then we have the effect the plagues would have had. Total economic collapse. A fate worse than death and a complete humiliation of the WORLD SUPERPOWER OF THE TIME. To give no comment on that the Pharoah was COMPLETELY WILLING half the time to AGREE TO LETTING THEM GO, and so wasn't [[Complete Monster|purely evil]].

***** And not to mention killing all of the first-born sons, including young infants. [[Sarcasm Mode|Because people are born 'racist'...]]

Line 345:

== Sin & Death ==

* Something that doesn't sit well with me is the passage "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life" (John 3:16), which has been called Christianity in a nutshell. My problem is that since God is all powerful, if it is possible for him to forgive sins through his son's death it should be possible for him to do it without it. Thus, the message that is intended to portray God as infinitely loving of the world comes off making him look like a jerk for requiring Jesus's sacrifice to do it.

** And yet if god is jesus it makes him look like a dude who would make a human aspect of himslef, prech to us dirlecty rather than the "lord over and shoot lasers" thing and then let us kill him, it makes him look a lot nicer and us [[Humans Are ~~Bastards~~|a lot worse.]]

** And yet if god is jesus it makes him look like a dude who would make a human aspect of himslef, prech to us dirlecty rather than the "lord over and shoot lasers" thing and then let us kill him, it makes him look a lot nicer and us [[Humans Are the Real Monsters|a lot worse.]]

** Your premise overlooks a few things. It is written that the wages of sin is death, which God pretty much said from the get-go. Man sinned anyway, and continues to do so to this very day. It's terminal in every sense of the word. Jesus' death was necessary because for sinners, [[Redemption Equals Death]] (sort of). Jesus didn't have any of that on his record to redeem, so his was the only one that could do anything to save everyone else. Besides, God choosing mankind over His own Son should send a pretty powerful message as far as the lengths to which He's willing in order to go to help us.

*** The problem is that he didn't ''have'' to choose to punish ''anyone''. He's God, and therefore the final authority. If he decides that people should be forgiven, he can do it, with no "wages of sin" necessary.

Line 372:

********** But that ''infinitely good'' God freely commits the SAME actions. Yet it's not sin. Double standards are more immoral than breaking a promise that's causing suffering.

******** One way I've heard it explained is that Hell, being separation from God, isn't so much an extension of God's wrath as it is the void left when you completely reject God (see the "unforgivable sin" IJBM on here). It's not really God saying "screw you, here's eternal pain," it's more like "Wish you were here, but I can't help you if you won't accept My help." (I should mention my personal theology is fairly lenient when it comes to Heaven; the way I see it, you pretty much have to try to get into Hell, because otherwise, you'd be right about the disproportionate thing.)

********* Although, since God created the entire ~~universe -- including~~ Heaven and ~~Hell -- that~~ means He also created the conditions that would prevail for anyone separated from His presence. If Hell is a burning lake of fire, then God created that burning lake of fire as a "default" state for existence when not in His presence. One could argue that God ''could'' have created a default sans-Gods-presence state for the Universe that was considerably more comfy than Hell.

********* Although, since God created the entire universe—including Heaven and Hell—that means He also created the conditions that would prevail for anyone separated from His presence. If Hell is a burning lake of fire, then God created that burning lake of fire as a "default" state for existence when not in His presence. One could argue that God ''could'' have created a default sans-Gods-presence state for the Universe that was considerably more comfy than Hell.

********** Do some research befored conplaining ok. According to the bible god created hell AFTER satan rebellion(NOT during during the creation period!) to be satan prison, then satan supposedly trick humanity into eating the forbidden fruit which allow humans to understand the difference between good and evil which then allowed humans to go to hell too.

* Another way of seeing it would be this: Righteousness is having a connection, or an understanding, with God. Sinning means that that connection is broken. The link is re-established through redemption. Heaven is being permanently connected to God. Hell is being permanently severed from God. If you accept these statements, Heaven and Hell take on the nature of natural continuations of already existing states, rather than reward and punishment. If you choose to do things that distance you from God, you stay distanced from God.

Line 382:

** The Bible says laying with another man. This means anal sex, or so I understand. Anal Sex makes it alot easier to contract diseases than vaginal sex (it causes tears in the flesh you wouldn't know where there, and they would get infected). In a society without modern medicine and treatment, such a thing would be really, really bad and would likley be contagious. So for at least in the camp of Israel, it was banned for sanitary reasons, much like many theorize not eating pig/shellfish was.

** Here's what I think: A) His rules say no sex outside of marriage, B) The rules say marriage is a "man and woman becoming one flesh". Since homosexuals can't get married in the Biblical sense, than having sex would be a sin.

*** But if "no sex outside of marriage" is indeed one of God's rules, then King Solomon was guilty of breaking that rule 400 times. There was no indication in the Old Testament that Solomon's 400 ~~concubines -- whom~~ he never ~~married -- were~~ considered in any way a violation of God's rules.

*** But if "no sex outside of marriage" is indeed one of God's rules, then King Solomon was guilty of breaking that rule 400 times. There was no indication in the Old Testament that Solomon's 400 concubines—whom he never married—were considered in any way a violation of God's rules.

**** Not per se, but many of these were foreign and they led Solomon away from God and into idolatry. God punished Solomon by breaking up his kingdom, leaving only the tribes of Judah and Benjamin to Rehoboam (Solomon's son and successor).

** being homosexual is not a sin, but homosexual sex is a sin

Line 487:

** Its a metaphor for unbelievers saying that they believe, when in reality, they bare no fruit. Also note that the fig tree had bared leaves, but not fruit, which is odd because figs grow both at the same time.

** His disciples point out to him that it's not the right season for figs, so Jesus' decision is still oddly petty. And even so, why the curse? Should we kill unbelievers?

** ** There is the undeniable fact nothing is known of where Jesus went and what he did betwen ages ~~13-30~~. This has allowed extra-biblical myths to rise to suggest he went everywhere between Glastonbury and Japan in a quest for wisdom. Now let's propose he went to India and encountered Budddhists. Or the Buddhists came to him - Palestine was at the crossroads of trading caravans, so this is not improbable. We know Buddhism left a firm presence as far west as Afghanistan: its missionaires and believers must therefore have penetrated further, maybe as far as Roman Palestine. The fig tree is important in Buddhist legend. In cursing the fig tree to wither, is Jesus therefore denouncing a rival religion as having no substance - no "fruit"? If he had spent time travelling and exploring other religions - and he had seventeen years to do this in - Jesus may have encountered the Buddhist religion but found it lacking in some ways and not to be compared with his innate Abrahamic monotheism. Hence the parable comes down to us, but with its original context lost.

** ** There is the undeniable fact nothing is known of where Jesus went and what he did betwen ages 13–30. This has allowed extra-biblical myths to rise to suggest he went everywhere between Glastonbury and Japan in a quest for wisdom. Now let's propose he went to India and encountered Budddhists. Or the Buddhists came to him - Palestine was at the crossroads of trading caravans, so this is not improbable. We know Buddhism left a firm presence as far west as Afghanistan: its missionaires and believers must therefore have penetrated further, maybe as far as Roman Palestine. The fig tree is important in Buddhist legend. In cursing the fig tree to wither, is Jesus therefore denouncing a rival religion as having no substance - no "fruit"? If he had spent time travelling and exploring other religions - and he had seventeen years to do this in - Jesus may have encountered the Buddhist religion but found it lacking in some ways and not to be compared with his innate Abrahamic monotheism. Hence the parable comes down to us, but with its original context lost.

* Where did God get his own persona or ego (in the Freudian sense also known as individuality, not the ego in the sense of pride) anyway? Don't give immortality arguments: if he lacked his own genesis he has no one or nothing to learn from, which means he should lack a personal ego and remain a part of a chaotic id (You should know that learning requires stimuli, have you ever read in deep silence a massive book while blindfolded?). And the Bible accurately portrays God not as a Brahman -esque collective unconscious, but something which has its own ego (I Am The Lord Thy God, Thou Shall Not Worship Other Gods Besides Me). Having an ego means having an individuality, ergo, the entire universe should not contain anything which he doesn't want in the first place. Also, if he has his own ego, won't his own ego be obliterated by the multiversal management?

** Magic? Although its possible that there is another force that drives him which is why he (or she) is unable to break some rules. The bible doesn't meantion this, but the bible doesn't meantion a lot of things. Also, since there are "other gods" he could have modeled himself after them, if they came before him.

Line 521:

** The time bwteen Delilah's betrayal is never mentioned. It's likely that they happened many years apart, during which time Samson would have fallen back to being madly in love with her and forgotten past greivances. Still, he's definitely holding th [[Idiot Ball]].

** Samson makes a lot more sense when I imagine him as Lenny from ''[[Memento]]''...

* What bugs me a bit is that for all the claims about God's omnipotence and omniscience floating about (including on this page)...the Bible itself seems to do a poor job to back them up. Sure, He's ''immensely'' powerful and, presumably, ~~knowledgeable -- creating~~ Heaven and Earth is no small feat just for starters. But ''infinitely'' so? Setting aside the fact that that would be hard to actually demonstrate, He sure doesn't seem to ''act'' the part very convincingly...

* What bugs me a bit is that for all the claims about God's omnipotence and omniscience floating about (including on this page)...the Bible itself seems to do a poor job to back them up. Sure, He's ''immensely'' powerful and, presumably, knowledgeable—creating Heaven and Earth is no small feat just for starters. But ''infinitely'' so? Setting aside the fact that that would be hard to actually demonstrate, He sure doesn't seem to ''act'' the part very convincingly...

** Well, the infinite clause is assumed since he created, well, everything (assuming of course he exists). He/They/It's the essence that brought forth all existence with Heaven, Hell, Physical Reality, etc., so he had to be infinite otherwise philisophically we'd be right back at the same problem of the "first domino" (you can't go back an infinite amount of dominoes, otherwise the chain would never start). Perhaps in literary tradition the bible isn't the best way to show God's Infinite ways. It all depends on how you look at it.

Line 589:

***** Isn't that taking the verse a bit out of context and stretching it because how could anybody use that verse to justify the N.T canon? Also at the time it was written the scriptures were already completed as the Old Testament canon or the Jewish tanakh.

* Am I the only one who doesn't get why people say that the serpent is evil? Okay, so the serpent decides to trick humanity into eating the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge. Humans learn what good and evil are, and get out. Alright, I understand that the serpent is crafty. But ''why'' is this regarded as a [[Moral Event Horizon]] on the serpent's behalf? Sure, the serpent got them booted out and supposedly created death, but he basically gave humanity free will, and the capability to truly think. And ''grow.'' At its very worst, the serpent comes off as a [[Well-Intentioned Extremist]]. Why do people associate that with [[Big Bad]] material? It seemed more like the serpent is a [[Designated Villain]], and not the same guy who'd become [[A God Am I|Sa]][[Complete Monster|tan.]]

** Um, for one thing, the serpent did ''not'' give humanity free will or teach them good and evil. If humanity didn't have free will beforehand, it would have been impossible for them to eat from the Tree of Knowledge. And how is tricking humanity into dying ''not'' a [[Moral Event Horizon]]? Also, don't forget that with death also came sin and the [[Humans Are Flawed]] and [[Humans Are Bastards]] tropes.

** Um, for one thing, the serpent did ''not'' give humanity free will or teach them good and evil. If humanity didn't have free will beforehand, it would have been impossible for them to eat from the Tree of Knowledge. And how is tricking humanity into dying ''not'' a [[Moral Event Horizon]]? Also, don't forget that with death also came sin and the [[Humans Are Flawed]] and [[Humans Are the Real Monsters|Humans Are Bastards]] tropes.

* How does the law saying "don't boil a goat in its mother's milk" get interpreted to mean "don't have meat and dairy at the same meal"? It seems pretty obvious to me that the intended meaning is "boiling an animal in it's own mother's milk is cruel and unusual, don't do this cruel and unusual thing to your animals".

** The goat was almost surely intended to be killed before being dunked in the boiling milk, and then eaten when it was done cooking. The authors of the Talmud, where the "don't mix meat and dairy" rule comes from, might have reasoned along these lines: 1. "Boy, the Torah sure considers goat boiling to be bad! That same admonition against boiling a young goat in its mother's milk appears ''three'' separate times." 2. "That means it must have had some great cultural significance, like maybe it was a common practice for some of the neighboring tribes that the Israelites wanted to distance themselves from." 3. "Therefore, it can't ''just'' be about baby goats and their mother's milk, it must be hidden code for a far more general prohibition."

Line 632:

* Do you have proof that it's gone through "billions of mistranslations"? Cite sources. And no, "it's been around so long that it ''must'' have been significantly altered" doesn't count as a source.

** The main indication that it's been through mistranslations is that there are so many different ~~versions -- I~~ can think of NIV, NCV, NLT, RCV, ASV, KJV, NKJV, CEV, ESV, and ISV off the top of my head. Not all of these can be correct simultaneously.

** The main indication that it's been through mistranslations is that there are so many different versions—I can think of NIV, NCV, NLT, RCV, ASV, KJV, NKJV, CEV, ESV, and ISV off the top of my head. Not all of these can be correct simultaneously.

*** I was referring more to the extant Hebrew and Greek texts. We still have those, and so can compare current translations to see if they hold up. There's nothing to indicate that the Hebrew and Greek texts that we currently have deviate significantly from the originals (and being able to prove otherwise would necessitate having access to the originals anyway, so the whole argument has no real ground to stand on in the first place).

*** Obviously you have no knowledge of the subject matter, then. The english translations of the Bible are notoriously for being utter parodies of the original hebrew and greek verses.

Line 642:

** 1- Such view points are not supported by the Bible (which doesn't even have a true notion of Satan; again, it's just an epiphet for numerous entities, some of them now thought to be '''human''') and 2- It seems a rather horrendous view point, since it just propagates the [[Black and White Insanity]] that christian sects are infamous for.

~~-----~~----

----

And on a different note from one lecture on such questions,

Line 649:

[[Category:Literature/Headscratchers]]

[[Category:~~{{BASEPAGENAME}}~~]]

[[Category:The Bible]]

[[Category:{{SUBPAGENAME}}]]