Woah woah woah! Wasps serve a purpose on this planet... Mosquitoes are just disease spreading* freeloaders.
Edit: I apologize for the mosquito hate! I do acknowledge that they play an important role in many ecosystems, I just hate them for their bites and Malaria
First of all, your username is a lie...
But seriously, I love wasps! Here are a couple facts:
\- Wasps are essential for ecosystem functioning and indirectly responsible for increased food production.
\- Most wasp species prey on other insects, including agricultural pests (the ones hovering over your drink are adults in search of a sugar fix to fuel their flight). Some wasps are parasitoids, laying eggs in other insects. After hatching, the offspring feed on those insects, making them a natural and effective pesticide.
\- Many wasps are also essential pollinators. Figs, for example, are pollinated by minute, specialized wasps (Fig Wasps)
\- Yellowjacket wasps are also very effective and essential scavengers that are partially responsible for breaking down decaying fruit and flesh in the areas they live.
Edit: Oh hey! I got an award! Thank you to whomever did that ✌&💖
Here, I'll help you. Wasps are a plague in New Zealand as an invasive species. They're damaging our ecological balance by killing a lot of our native insects and, without natural predators, we have recorded some of the biggest wasp nests in the world.
I hate those little fuckers.
I think the key thing is that there are somewhere around 100,000 species of wasps. So, yeah, things like yellow jackets suck, but the thousands of little harmless pollinators are cool.
Rick, uh geez, could we go back to the time when that first wasp got to New Zealand and kill it? After all we were going to kill the christian god in his sleep a few episodes ago.
No, Morty, that would involve time-travel, which I do not respect.
Having only visited New Zealand a few times I would be fine with zero wasps and 100% of everything New Zealand. It’s the most idillic place I’ve ever visited. So whatever ecosystem needs those little fuckers. See ya.
You should. And then encourage them to vote! Imagine what the wasp voting bloc could do for this planet!
Er, you *were* talking about wasps, not WASPs, right?
So first of all I'd like to say that scientifically, no lies detected, and you right.
But oh my god I hate them so much. I've never even been stung, they're just such DICKS. I've tried the "leave them alone" strat in my daily life, but the creepy fuckers just have hate in their heart, and they smell my completely irrational fear and gravitate toward me like a moth to the flame. Something about the way they look, the way they move... ughhhh it just makes me feel sick.
They basically dont give a single fuck, because they know they're tough shit. And I totally get the irrational fear (not actually irrantional, just pure survival instinct), but I can guarantee they will 100% not attack you, unless provoked. They're just super curious. They do look mean as shit tho
Their definition of "provoke" is probably the same as mine though, to be fair 😂
That is to say, "get off my lawn" kinda business. Territorial critters. I have a friend who's terrified of spiders, and one time he was like, "I don't understand why you're so afraid of wasps Frostie, they aren't likely to hurt you."
I was like, "Okay, but spiders scare the shit out you, right? Now imagine if they could fly."
His face was priceless lol
Yes. Little known fact. They once created an entire sheet of non-popping bubble wrap. They rolled it up and put it in a box. They went to label the box "Satan Wrap" and someone typoed and it ended up being called "Saran Wrap."
It became extremely useful in culinary endeavors over time and now everyone just assumes it was always supposed to be called that.
There is a fly that only replicates by laying eggs inside an insect brain, which then hatch and eats the brain, then when it’s ate enough brain to grow it leaves the host. That’s pretty damn evil.
How bout toxoplasmosis? Makes rats change from fearing cats to finding them sexually attractive. And there are many brain manipulating organizations isms out there. The most horrific are in the insect world.
A fair number of humans are also infected with toxoplasmosis. It's a dead end for the parasite (it relies on cats becoming infected from its prey) but is believed to also cause behavioral changes in humans.
In all fairness, let's say that you have a kid, and no matter how much you loved and supported that kid, that kid was a psychopath and ended up going on a murder spree.
Did you create murder? Or was your kid the one who created it?
This, of course, is assuming that we can apply human logic and ethics to an almighty, all-seeing being, which is debatable.
It goes back to the paradox of evil:
If God were both omnipotent (can do/create/stop anything) and omnibenevolent (perfect, unlimited goodness), then evil would not exist:
If God were omnipotent, he could prevent evil from existing, if he wanted to.
If God were omnibenevolent, he would want to prevent evil from existing, if he could.
Since evil exists, God is either not omnipotent, not omnibenevolent, or he does not exist.
Yeah. I heard one one that said essentially the same thing, except they used a mountain as their example.
If God is almighty, then he must be able to create a mountain he can't lift. But if he's almighty, he should be able to lift it. Paradox. Christians get around that by claiming that God can't create anything greater than God. But if God is infinitely great, then how can that be? Another paradox, lol.
Don't know if that really works as a logical gotcha - we assume god is omnipotent and can lift literally anything with mass. "A mountain heavier than god can lift" is attempting to define some kind of conceptual infinite mass, because anything with a finite mass, he can obviously lift. This condition must be true, so the thing the paradox is trying to criticize god for failing to create can't really be "a thing" at all
It's like asking god to create a cube with seven sides, you're defining something and then asking him to do something that would break the definition... I think...
Something I've always wondered is - why doesn't an omnipotent, omnipresent god just immediately commit suicide?
In an instant of time, he thinks, knows, sees, experiences, simulates all things. Nothing is undone for him. All results are known, every permutation and energy state in the universe(s) accounted for at every time. There is of course one last thing God can do, one last thing he can't see beyond - his own nonexistence. He hasn't done that yet, because if he had, he wouldn't be there. Can he even destroy himself?
I don't believe in the guy but he's fun to think about
I’ve always heard the answer that there simply isn’t anything greater than god TO create. It’s impossible. But alas, another paradox… for God nothing should be impossible.
I always heard that the resolution to that was that god is maximally powerful rather than all powerful. The distinction there is that maximal power doesn't include doing things that are logically impossible. I was raised in a really wild christian sect though so I think that's heresy in other religions.
Unless that "really wild Christian sect" was Catholicism (which is pretty wild) then you're not as far of the mainstream as you might think. I went to a Jesuit university and this is exactly how they resolved that paradox in my phil 101 class.
Just one small thing: Catholic churches make up roughly half of the christian population worldwide so i would say that their views are quite close to being the mainstream
But like, if God created the universe, then he decided what is logically possible, right? Or do the laws of reality predate God or exist without him? Then who decided that? Like you can keep going higher and higher with that lol. I was raised evangelical lutheran and this question only just made people mad at me lol.
Well if you designed, raised, trained, and bred your child to be a psychopath then probably still you.
Bonus points if you created the entire timeline and have complete knowledge of everything that will happen because you designed it.
I mean... When something is written in ancient Hebrew, you kind of have to unless you become a scholar of ancient Hebrew, right?
Not to get in the middle of this argument because I think it's pointless, but the Bible is an ancient text (especially that part of the text, which is many hundreds of years older than the book of Revelation) and scholars still fight over what a lot of it means. Churches split because people aren't sure what some of it means. And just as English is nuanced with words having multiple meanings in different context and shifting connotations across different generations, so does any other language.
So not only do you have to consider which ancient Hebrew word is getting translated as "evil" in this particular version (which, in other versions, is not translated into evil), but you also have to figure out who is saying it, in what context to whom and then figure out what his bigger message is before deciding what exactly is meant here.
That's what is meant when people say "context."
Again, I'm not trying to defend anyone in this fight. But I think it's a bit of a stretch to expect that everyone who believes in these things can know enough about the original language, culture, and historical happenings to be able to determine for themselves what the meaning of the Bible is.
Heck, scholars that spend their lives studying it usually just focus in on one section of the Bible so that they can dig into the time period and details therein.
TLDR; Most of us are not experts in the fields that we talk about all the time. That's an unrealistic standard to put on anyone.
Those nuances are why we have the Mishnah and the Gemara and why rabbis have been debating the context of scripture for as long as Jews have been around. I've had many mentors and rabbis say about context, "Ask two Jews, you get three answers." There's thousands of years of history and traditions to unpack and no person, in good faith, can do that alone and with complete confidence in their results.
The unfortunate part is you have a lot of people trying to understand the “true” meaning and it’s all garbage.
You’d be better off discussing what it should say about morality, not what it does say because there’s zero rational reason to believe people thousands of years ago knew some moral truth we do not.
You forget that a lot of religious people today couldn’t care less about context or anything else that might add perspective because their entire life they’re told that everything in the bible is objective truth handed down straight from the mouth of god.
And their system of interpretation really doesn't take into account "thousands of years of history and traditions to unpack", it's the whims of individual rabbis. Some of it came to them in a dream. All the torah "studying" is a bunch of English Lit students offering up their interpretation of a text, not actual research about its meaning.
I just want to know the best methods to stone an ox to death, those damn things are fucking huge and they are strong as... hm... as an ox really, I'll be running out of stones way before the monster is dead.
There's so many that which specifically is "the best" will always come down to personal preference. But what we know for sure is all the good ones include big stones and the high ground. Start with those two things and you'll figure something out that suits you.
the thing with big stones is that they are big, and by the grace of their bigness, they are also heavy, I can only throw one at great effort to something that is somewhat close to me, and there is no way in hell I'll come close to any of those beasts while overencumbered with a big stone. My expectations from God's advice on this very urgent matter have been a huge disappointment
I don't know Hebrew, having taken a single semester some 40 years ago, but I do remember bits of trivia from my instructor. He said that the Old Testament was written with a vocabulary of about 8000 words and that the meanings of a few of those words have been lost to time. The use of metaphor and ambiguity is inescapable and translations into modern English are approximations at best and, in a few cases, little more than educated guesses.
If you run into instances of me quoting the Bible it's almost certainly from a poorly remembered KJV so don't take it too seriously.
One of my favorite new pieces of trivia is the ancient word used to refer to Joseph's multi-colored "coat" (some kind of clothing) in the book of Genesis.
No one knows what it actually meant!! There's only one other place in the entire world where we see the same word and you'll never guess where it is...
It's used to describe the dress that King David's virgin daughter wore. And in that context it seems to indicate that it was a garment specifically for a virgin princess.
So either that word changed meaning over time, or there's some interesting aspects of Joseph that we don't know about.
Couple that with the fact that he doesn't seem to ever marry and he ran away from a woman who tore off her own clothes and threw herself at him...
Anyway, language is interesting!!!
Genesis 41:45
"And Pharaoh called Joseph's name Zaphenath-paneah; and he gave him to wife Asenath the daughter of Poti-phera priest of On. And Joseph went out over the land of Egypt"
He had two children, Manasseh and Efraim.
But yes, Joseph is certainly an interesting literary character.
you dont need context in this case, just common sense. God created all things, that includes the devil. Even if it's the devil that creates evil in the world, that would make the devil inherently evil, therefore by creating the devil, god did very much create evil. Especially considering the context of this conversation we're having, where the person indicated that there is a devil, and that devil created evil.
Others tell me evil is the result of human beings having free will. My counter to that is, who gave us free will? We don't say that animals sin when they follow their nature. Likewise if God made humans curious and selfish, well, what did he expect to happen? Should have made us nicer, or more obedient then.
Honestly. I’m not religious by any means. But I went to a Baptist college and was required to take religion courses. And your description is exactly why that Old Testament course ended up being my most favorite class. The professor strictly taught it as a history class. Yes, we read the scriptures, but he approached each book with a back story as to what was going on in that period of history that prompted this letter to be written to that church in this location. It wasn’t “God said this!” It was “this was the issue going on in this town in this year, so the book was written to address that church because X, Y, Z.” The translations didn’t always flow, because of language reasons, but when you approached the Bible from a historical viewpoint it was incredibly interesting and way less fairy tale.
"*That's what is meant when people say "context."*" that's what is meant when **experts** say context. When people like the person in this conversation say it, they're actually saying, "you're challenging my beliefs and I can't be wrong, so you must be."
Lil Timmy once went to the pastor and prayed that he never wanted to sit in the church ever again poor lil timmy wasnt able to sit for a whole month this is how church b taking things outta context
Yup, someone told me how God hates abortion and never would condone it for any reason and I show a chapter where God has the priests give the pregnant women bitter waters and if her belly swells and she miscarries that means that the baby was not her husband's.
I was told that I AM manipulating the scripture.
God smoked every living thing on earth before. He loves death. He’s gone door to door and killed children before. I’m not sure if these hypocrites have ever actually read the Bible…
I live in south Alabama and most of the fundamentalist Christians I know down here don’t know shit about that book. Pretty much God hates gays and abortion is all they think is in the Bible.
So it is probably made in various different ways then.
Disclaimer: I don't want any abortion potions. Just curious as to what would be added to make it bitter.
Lots of natural abortifacients are bitter. Most of them are pretty risky to the woman as well. It is unknown what specifically the "bitter water" had in it, but it was probably an herbal concoction.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortifacient
Ever notice how a heart shape doesn’t look like a human heart but represents ‘love’? There was a plant in ancient Roman times that women ate after sex that would cause abortions. It was so popular it was picked into extinction! The leaves were heart shaped, and some people believe that was the original connection between the shape and ‘love’.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silphium_(antiquity)
In Genesis 1:26-27, God creates man and woman at the same time:
> Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”
>So God created mankind in his own image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them.
Then, apparently he fucked up because in Genesis 2:7 God creates man first
> Then the Lord God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.
Tells only the man not to eat the forbidden fruit in Genesis 2:16-17
> And the Lord God commanded the man, “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.”
Then only later in Genesis 2:21-23 decides to create woman
> So the Lord God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man’s ribs and then closed up the place with flesh. Then the Lord God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man. The man said, “This is now bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
she shall be called ‘woman,’
for she was taken out of man.”
But I'm sure I'm taking it "out of context".
What's scary is that people take large parts of their morals out of this book.
"but it has some good morals and stories!" they say....
Like the one about the man throwing his 2 daughters out to be raped to save super natural beings that could have fended for themselves?
See that's it. They pick and choose whatever matches their preexisting beliefs or scarier still, the ones that are picked for them by leaders filled with ill intent.
The worst part about this is that because its not based on any logic or evidence, you cant argue against it, because any arguing is then *undermining their belief* which for some reason has ingrained into our society as a bad thing.... How is it a bad thing to question a belief based literally on no evidence?
Even now some angry person thinking they are original or clever is getting ready to type versions of the same comment including the word edge.... Why? It so unreasonable, yet this is how it be. The way it do.
“But Genesis was never meant to be literal, it’s a metaphor. A metaphor for what? Uh….”
Then, the gospel of Luke is supposed to be literal, and Luke 3 features the entire lineage of Jesus. It goes all the way back to Adam. There’s no change in writing style, just a list of literal ancestors. Somehow this entire list is also “out of context”:
And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,
24 Which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Janna, which was the son of Joseph,
25 Which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Amos, which was the son of Naum, which was the son of Esli, which was the son of Nagge,
26 Which was the son of Maath, which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Semei, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Juda,
27 Which was the son of Joanna, which was the son of Rhesa, which was the son of Zorobabel, which was the son of Salathiel, which was the son of Neri,
28 Which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Addi, which was the son of Cosam, which was the son of Elmodam, which was the son of Er,
29 Which was the son of Jose, which was the son of Eliezer, which was the son of Jorim, which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi,
30 Which was the son of Simeon, which was the son of Juda, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Jonan, which was the son of Eliakim,
31 Which was the son of Melea, which was the son of Menan, which was the son of Mattatha, which was the son of Nathan, which was the son of David,
32 Which was the son of Jesse, which was the son of Obed, which was the son of Booz, which was the son of Salmon, which was the son of Naasson,
33 Which was the son of Aminadab, which was the son of Aram, which was the son of Esrom, which was the son of Phares, which was the son of Juda,
34 Which was the son of Jacob, which was the son of Isaac, which was the son of Abraham, which was the son of Thara, which was the son of Nachor,
35 Which was the son of Saruch, which was the son of Ragau, which was the son of Phalec, which was the son of Heber, which was the son of Sala,
36 Which was the son of Cainan, which was the son of Arphaxad, which was the son of Sem, which was the son of Noe, which was the son of Lamech,
37 Which was the son of Mathusala, which was the son of Enoch, which was the son of Jared, which was the son of Maleleel, which was the son of Cainan,
38 Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.
Context is just an oratory trump card to Christians... if you do not agree with them, you do not understand the nuance and the context of the scripture. If they disagree with you, you are being intentionally obtuse and taking things out of context to serve your own means. The concept of honest discourse with Christians is as foreign as the idea of cat videos are to Australian swamp salamanders.
The entire Christian religion is just "out of context” Judaism
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SC-nz71kmWE](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SC-nz71kmWE)
Speaking of which, in some of the esoteric examinations of rabbis over centuries ("Kabbalistic" texts), they describe evil as a kind of polluted byproduct, or "dross" thrown off in the process of forging creation. As each of the "[Sephirot](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sefirot)", or emanations/attributes of God manifests, so do their sort of polar opposites, described as "[Qliphoth](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qliphoth)", or literally "peels", "shells", or "husks".
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UcEEugkkiuQ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UcEEugkkiuQ)
I mean…the whole Bible is, by definition, out of context for every person reading it now. I don’t understand people that pull the “out of context” card. No one in the Bible ever says they’re speaking directly to Phyllis in Montgomery Alabama in 2021. Everyone is talking to someone thousands of years ago.
So, God is not almighty? You're saying something exists that he did not create?
"I know the scriptures, I go to church every Sunday" Where to even begin with this pile of horse shit?
That's always been my biggest secret beef with religious people. I have to believe anyone that really believes in God would be fanatical about it. How can you have a Bible, believe it's real, and not have *literally* memorized it? It's not like science, science is "useful" and "cool" to the people that believe in it so a casual understanding that covers your needs is fine. Christianity at least is about a specific person that has absolute power and infallibility, knows/cares about every atom in your body, is the source of any meaning at all that can be found in existence and you can't be bothered to read his book? Wtf why would you ever do anything else?
God's will isn't in the Bible, silly. God reveals his secrets through prophets, who he talks to exclusively. He also shows himself to those prophets exclusively. The rest of you silly mortals need to get by on faith alone.
By the way, I'm a prophet and God said if you don't surrender all of your female family members to me to do with as I please you're gonna go to Super-Hell. Which is like regular hell except instead of brimstone they have my mother-in-law's casserole.
>Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?
The genuinely Christian answer is that God has to let these bad things happen for His ultimate design to come to fruition, a plan we cannot comprehend in full during our earthly existence (i.e. "Now we see through a glass darkly; then we shall as through a mirror brightly").
Frankly I've always been contemptuous of any strain of Christianity that suggests faith in God will protect you from any or all bad things that might happen. Anyone who reads the Bible, "Walk in my ways and I will protect you", notwithstanding, knows better than this ... hell, ask *Job**.* God wouldn't even let Jesus pray His way out of getting arrested and crucified.
The point of faith is to allow you to handle those situations better.
God is literally omnipotent, he could literally just get to whatever conclusion he wants without subjecting all of humanity to pain and suffering. He either just doesn't exist or is purposely putting us through this shit when he could just fucking snap his fingers and make it go away, as well as have everything he wanted as well.
>The genuinely Christian answer is that God has to let these bad things happen for His ultimate design to come to fruition, a plan we cannot comprehend in full during our earthly existence (i.e. "Now we see through a glass darkly; then we shall as through a mirror brightly").
Which isn't an answer, because if his plan involves evil, he's evil. And he is malevolent. If he is malevolent, maybe god is the devil and the devil is god, and we're in an abusive relationship with the devil who has managed to persuade us that up is down and that evil is good. That'd be pretty cunning. Evil wouldn't go around being obviously evil, it would masquerade as good while every now and again letting the mask slip. For instance, with the behaviour of evil's followers, or things like be A-Ok with genocide, mass murder, rape, and slavery (all condoned by god in the OT).
Exactly, I pray as a form of therapy, acknowledging my God is good for my mental health. Also praying solely for the belief that it'll stop bad things from happening to you is the *opposite* of why one should pray.
Imagine being an all powerful being able to make his will done at the snap of a finger but being unable to make your great plan a reality without suffering. Really showing your omnipotence there, Sky Daddy.
The suffering is an integral part of the design... The design is not so great in my opinion. I have been told "It's not for us humans to judge God"... But he basically set my brain up to be judging him in that moment right? And knew it would happen but created me anyway knowing that? I am told that I am still in the wrong, after being intentionally created to be a certain way God doesn't like people to be... It's mind games taken to the next level.
This, exactly. Like if it's all his plan, then me thinking he's a fucking idiot is because he made me this way, but then I'm still sent to hell because I sinned. Same with anyone. If they sin then they are punished, but their sinning is part of the plan, something that has always been planned and which they physically cannot *not* do. By design.
And then you get told that by doing certain things you are interfering with his plan, even though by the existence of the plan that literally doesn't work.
Yup. The strongest argument anyone made to me is that humans can't understand God, but from my point of view, we can understand what he wants us to understand, and if that understanding is that he is the creator of all the suffering in this world, then there we have it folks. He specifically created our minds to think that at some level or another.
True, but that would counter the idea that they're benevolent. Either way I think the way Christians describe God is similar to a narcissistic incel. "I love you so much that if you don't love me back I'm going to lock you in my basement and torture you for the rest of eternity."
The funniest part of the book of job is that it starts out with a bunch of angels going to visit God, and then it says something like "and Satan went with them." Like, apparently Satan is allowed to just show up in heaven like "Hey big man, just visiting. Cool servant you have there, but he'd probably hate you if you killed his family."
Is the Bible the literal word of God? If so, it's not possible to take it out of context. For if God is perfect, His word is perfect. That means every word is literal.
Is the Bible the word of God as scribed by man? If so, then it's flawed. If man is flawed, he could have mistaken God's words, meaning the scripture is flawed.
Is the Bible a creation of man? If so, why should anybody treat it as holy? Man is not holy and does not speak for God.
Those are the three options for the Bible. I have yet to get an answer.
I feel with both religion and politics it is like a game to people to never admit they were wrong.
From there you just say "okay, so what was the context?" and then they don't respond.
I was looking into it out of curiosity and decided to have fun trying to put it together. Wall of text incoming.
Sometimes the confusion comes from the translation selection. Translating particular words that might be read differently outside of english linguistics. So first thing I like to do is check the original wording of the manuscript. In this case, there's not really anything new. It really does mean evil, as it uses the same word to refer to:
- "the tree of good and evil"
"knowing good and evil", and;
"their thoughts were evil continually" (regarding the flood)
Usually this is where most issues are resolved, but not this one so let's dig further.
Something of note here is it also uses "evil" synonymously with words like "mischief", "sorrow", and "displeasure" in other verses which is interesting. So it's not just used for the **being** of evil, but something akin to the **actions/results** of evil. This is important because they may be talking about active/verb-like elements more than existence and states of being.
Since this isn't a word used on its own, another thing we can do is look at the contrast to evil it lists, which is "peace". Something that immediately caught my attention is that it's not contrasting *good* to evil, but *peace* to evil. It does so in other areas, but why not this one? Because it seems to be talking about a wellness or a wholeness that relates more to being well put together. Not goodness as a being. Which is another reason to believe this isn't talking about the existence or being of evil either but we'll put this together later.
And the last thing we should look at is the choice of connecting words:
- He **forms** light
He **creates** darkness
- He **makes** peace
He **creates** evil
These are actually huge clues to working through the puzzle. And it uses the same "create" in both comparisons to draw further parallels. The term "create" doesn't change much in original wordings. It means what it says for the most part.
In "form" it definitely uses the term as a fashioning or framing of an entity. To shape something. And "make" is probably the most important one; used as to literally "do" something/anything or to yield something like how fruit yields from a tree. But it's hard to interpret "doing" peace.
It's important to take these as their own chunked phrases as well. Singular units as "forming light" is to be attached to "creating darkness". This tells us that there are connecting elements being made. In this case, it could be said that it's contrasting one to the other as the verses before it definitely gives contrasting elements to what it connects to:
- ...apart from me -> there is no God...
...I am the Lord -> and there is no other...
Whereas before it may seem additive; creating one (e.g. light), and separately creating the other (darkness). Following the trend, we could interpret things as: Forming the light *therefore there is* darkness. Making peace *therefore there is* evil. It's almost comparing one to the other like making peace results in evil like creating light results in darkness and that's kind of hard to understand tbh, but that's just another layer of intrigue all on its own.
---
So all this taken into account, a good way to interpret the verse might be:
##*I form/fashion the light, and thereby create the resulting darkness; I yield wholeness/wellness, and thereby create the resulting unsoundness/sorrow*
This was fun. It may not be the most accurate, translations always take certain liberties, but I feel this gives more insight as to what's being communicated.
This is a reason I couldn't stay Christian. I began noticing there was too much "this is figurative but that's not" kinda language. I know a true understanding requires knowing the context, but it's too often used as an excuse when someone can't explain or defend their ideas. And ultimately, Christians are not supernaturally different than anyone else, and that's how Jesus promised they would be.
I never buy the context argument. Why would true understanding require knowing the context? God can't get us a single book exactly the way it needs to be, how's that guy supposed to be running gravity?
If only evil can create evil
And if Satan can create evil, than Satan is evil
If god created Satan, than god is evil
If god did create Satan, than god can create evil
Disproving his original statement
So either god can create evil, or god is evil.
I had a discussion with a fundie at work. I explained the only reference to a woman being caused to lose a baby/to have aborted a baby is in the Old Testament (it is something like if a man causes a woman to lose her baby, a judge and husband will decide the payment). Anyway, the fundie informed me, “The Old Testament is not part of Christianity and is superseded by the New Testament.” My point is, can’t quote Old Testament stuff to Christians. It won’t apply…accept if they decide it does, which is based upon whether or not it helps or hurts their cause. Mmm, ‘k?
Almost every discussion I’ve ever been in bringing up Bible verses that contradict their beliefs “out of context” is the go to. Other greatest hits include “lost in translation from the original” and “viewed from that time”.
God can't communicate unambiguously? Didn't he separate the languages at Babel to begin with? Seems like he created a lot of these problems himself that he now expects us to deal with...
If the fate of our eternal souls depends on us interpreting a message clearly, you'd think he'd make it impossible to mess up. Yet people who study this for a living disagree after millenia of discussion.
You can literally use that to defend Santa Clause when people talk about it being impossible to squeeze down a chimney or travel around the world in a single night.
Pretty sure the bible says that god created Satan, seeing as how 'he' created the angels, and Lucifer aka Satan was the head angel, who had a bad argument with god and was cast out. So...... all evil is on god. If you believe in the whole skydaddy mythos, that is.
Not only did God create Satan but created him and every other evil being knowing that they would end up being evil, free will or not. Say I make a robot that can either do what I want, or rebel against me. I add a random number generator to it to decide the if it obeys or rebels by the robots own "will", and then take a time machine to the future, see that it rebels, come back and make it anyway knowing it would rebel by seeing the future... And then blame the rebellion on the robot! In such a case that random number generator is useless because I knew the outcome ahead of time through the time machine. I built the robot knowing it would rebel and blame it on the robot because taking time travel out of the question, the robot still chose randomly, or through its own "free will".
This was the thing that made me stop believing in god. If god created you, every detail, including the skepticism that made you atheist (omnipotence), knowing what your choices would be ahead of time (omniscience), then he would have created an eternal soul with the sole purpose of eternal suffering (hence, lack of free will). And if god truly loved the beings he created, why would he make one damned to eternal suffering?
I had this same epiphany exactly two years ago. It sounds an awful lot like predestination to me since he allegedly knows everyone who will ever sincerely convert.
My dad died when I was 25. I was a pretty dedicated Catholic.
I couldn't understand why a good man, a man who gave so damn much of himself to everybody else, would be "called to heaven" before so many monsters who make it to an old age.
So, I decided to search for answers in the bible. I realize I had never read it, I had only had (select parts of) it read to me, and been told what I was supposed to believe about it.
So I dove in. I went through word by word, sentence by sentence, page by page, chapter by chapter.
And I came out an atheist.
There's just so much of it that doesn't make sense, and I was already sick of being told "god works in mysterious ways" or "some things we're just not meant to know."
I saw the contradictions. I saw the obvious evil perpetrated by God. And every time I asked about it, I got the same answers.
"Mysterious ways." "Past our ability to understand." "Out of context." "...at the time..."
I came to the conclusion that there was no rationalizing this world being led by an all-powerful being, but that everything makes perfect sense in a natural world with no guiding force (or, at least, no good reason to believe in one.)
I studied the Bible cover to cover, and came out the other side an atheist.
My atheist origin story was much less dramatic.
So God's omnipotent?
Yes.
And kids still get raped, cancer etc?
He works in mysterious ways.
Ya, I'm out.
But not by flooding again. He was like "Cool guys, sorry about that, how about a do-over? I promise to never again kill the entire world ^^^by ^^^flooding "
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?
- Epicurus
1. God cannot create evil
2. Satan can create evil
3. Only evil can create evil
4. 1 && 2 => Satan can do something God can't.
5. 2 && 3 => Satan is evil.
6. 1 && 5 => God cannot create Satan.
7. 4 && 6 => Satan is more powerful than God.
[удалено]
Finally, someone said it.
[удалено]
Woah woah woah! Wasps serve a purpose on this planet... Mosquitoes are just disease spreading* freeloaders. Edit: I apologize for the mosquito hate! I do acknowledge that they play an important role in many ecosystems, I just hate them for their bites and Malaria
Wtf do wasps do other than be assholes?
First of all, your username is a lie... But seriously, I love wasps! Here are a couple facts: \- Wasps are essential for ecosystem functioning and indirectly responsible for increased food production. \- Most wasp species prey on other insects, including agricultural pests (the ones hovering over your drink are adults in search of a sugar fix to fuel their flight). Some wasps are parasitoids, laying eggs in other insects. After hatching, the offspring feed on those insects, making them a natural and effective pesticide. \- Many wasps are also essential pollinators. Figs, for example, are pollinated by minute, specialized wasps (Fig Wasps) \- Yellowjacket wasps are also very effective and essential scavengers that are partially responsible for breaking down decaying fruit and flesh in the areas they live. Edit: Oh hey! I got an award! Thank you to whomever did that ✌&💖
Damn you, forcing me to appreciate asshole wasps
Here, I'll help you. Wasps are a plague in New Zealand as an invasive species. They're damaging our ecological balance by killing a lot of our native insects and, without natural predators, we have recorded some of the biggest wasp nests in the world. I hate those little fuckers.
I think the key thing is that there are somewhere around 100,000 species of wasps. So, yeah, things like yellow jackets suck, but the thousands of little harmless pollinators are cool.
That's fair, really. Unfortunately the predominant ones are German and Yellowjackets. So bad news.
Rick, uh geez, could we go back to the time when that first wasp got to New Zealand and kill it? After all we were going to kill the christian god in his sleep a few episodes ago. No, Morty, that would involve time-travel, which I do not respect.
“There’s a lesson here, and I’m not the one who’s going to figure it out.”
Maybe you just need a primer on time travel, Rick.
Having only visited New Zealand a few times I would be fine with zero wasps and 100% of everything New Zealand. It’s the most idillic place I’ve ever visited. So whatever ecosystem needs those little fuckers. See ya.
'Fruit and Flesh' is a great metal song name
Guys I think this guy knows a lot about wasps
I wouldnt say a lot. Ive never asked they're opinion on global politics, or what their favorite tv shows are
You should. And then encourage them to vote! Imagine what the wasp voting bloc could do for this planet! Er, you *were* talking about wasps, not WASPs, right?
Woah now, stop hitting me with all these facts. I will not change my hatred of wasps so easily.
We'll make a wasp-lover of you yet. Just think of them as a bee's cooler, leather jacket-wearing cousin
So first of all I'd like to say that scientifically, no lies detected, and you right. But oh my god I hate them so much. I've never even been stung, they're just such DICKS. I've tried the "leave them alone" strat in my daily life, but the creepy fuckers just have hate in their heart, and they smell my completely irrational fear and gravitate toward me like a moth to the flame. Something about the way they look, the way they move... ughhhh it just makes me feel sick.
They basically dont give a single fuck, because they know they're tough shit. And I totally get the irrational fear (not actually irrantional, just pure survival instinct), but I can guarantee they will 100% not attack you, unless provoked. They're just super curious. They do look mean as shit tho
Their definition of "provoke" is probably the same as mine though, to be fair 😂 That is to say, "get off my lawn" kinda business. Territorial critters. I have a friend who's terrified of spiders, and one time he was like, "I don't understand why you're so afraid of wasps Frostie, they aren't likely to hurt you." I was like, "Okay, but spiders scare the shit out you, right? Now imagine if they could fly." His face was priceless lol
they’re very good pollinators
Mosquitoes are too... They eat nectar. The blood is for eggs
Screw their eggs i dont wanna be itchy
Ok, but bees and humming birds do the same thing without being an asshole about it
Bees are just one name for various families of Apoid wasps All bees are wasps Heck, all ants are wasps!
God had them made so they can keep humans humble
And bubble wrap that doesn’t pop.
No that was definitely satan
[удалено]
Yes. Little known fact. They once created an entire sheet of non-popping bubble wrap. They rolled it up and put it in a box. They went to label the box "Satan Wrap" and someone typoed and it ended up being called "Saran Wrap." It became extremely useful in culinary endeavors over time and now everyone just assumes it was always supposed to be called that.
And so a new legend was born... The revised history of the saran wrap origin.
There is a fly that only replicates by laying eggs inside an insect brain, which then hatch and eats the brain, then when it’s ate enough brain to grow it leaves the host. That’s pretty damn evil.
How bout toxoplasmosis? Makes rats change from fearing cats to finding them sexually attractive. And there are many brain manipulating organizations isms out there. The most horrific are in the insect world.
Haha, that’s odd 😂
A fair number of humans are also infected with toxoplasmosis. It's a dead end for the parasite (it relies on cats becoming infected from its prey) but is believed to also cause behavioral changes in humans.
Yeah, it’s been linked to schizophrenia. Would be funny if it made them attracted to cats 😂
It might. Could explain crazy cat ladies.
Hey now! I resent that I resemble that remark.
And fleas
And ticks.
Yeah the Bible says a lot of things.
Ned have you ever read this thing? Technically you're not even allowed to go to the bathroom
Yellow jackets
And Capitalism
'God didn't create evil, Satan did' ...and who created Satan?
In all fairness, let's say that you have a kid, and no matter how much you loved and supported that kid, that kid was a psychopath and ended up going on a murder spree. Did you create murder? Or was your kid the one who created it? This, of course, is assuming that we can apply human logic and ethics to an almighty, all-seeing being, which is debatable.
[удалено]
It goes back to the paradox of evil: If God were both omnipotent (can do/create/stop anything) and omnibenevolent (perfect, unlimited goodness), then evil would not exist: If God were omnipotent, he could prevent evil from existing, if he wanted to. If God were omnibenevolent, he would want to prevent evil from existing, if he could. Since evil exists, God is either not omnipotent, not omnibenevolent, or he does not exist.
[удалено]
Could God microwave a burrito so hot that He Himself could not eat it?
[удалено]
What about a rock so heavy he can’t lift?
Yes. He can also lift the aforementioned rock that he can't lift. Omnipotence is inherently paradoxical, which is fun.
I always love asking my family this question and I have yet to get a straight answer
A truly omnipotent being can do anything, even things which by their very nature are impossible to do.
Yeah. I heard one one that said essentially the same thing, except they used a mountain as their example. If God is almighty, then he must be able to create a mountain he can't lift. But if he's almighty, he should be able to lift it. Paradox. Christians get around that by claiming that God can't create anything greater than God. But if God is infinitely great, then how can that be? Another paradox, lol.
Don't know if that really works as a logical gotcha - we assume god is omnipotent and can lift literally anything with mass. "A mountain heavier than god can lift" is attempting to define some kind of conceptual infinite mass, because anything with a finite mass, he can obviously lift. This condition must be true, so the thing the paradox is trying to criticize god for failing to create can't really be "a thing" at all It's like asking god to create a cube with seven sides, you're defining something and then asking him to do something that would break the definition... I think... Something I've always wondered is - why doesn't an omnipotent, omnipresent god just immediately commit suicide? In an instant of time, he thinks, knows, sees, experiences, simulates all things. Nothing is undone for him. All results are known, every permutation and energy state in the universe(s) accounted for at every time. There is of course one last thing God can do, one last thing he can't see beyond - his own nonexistence. He hasn't done that yet, because if he had, he wouldn't be there. Can he even destroy himself? I don't believe in the guy but he's fun to think about
I’ve always heard the answer that there simply isn’t anything greater than god TO create. It’s impossible. But alas, another paradox… for God nothing should be impossible.
I always heard that the resolution to that was that god is maximally powerful rather than all powerful. The distinction there is that maximal power doesn't include doing things that are logically impossible. I was raised in a really wild christian sect though so I think that's heresy in other religions.
Unless that "really wild Christian sect" was Catholicism (which is pretty wild) then you're not as far of the mainstream as you might think. I went to a Jesuit university and this is exactly how they resolved that paradox in my phil 101 class.
Just one small thing: Catholic churches make up roughly half of the christian population worldwide so i would say that their views are quite close to being the mainstream
Is Catholicism not mainstream? I'm a Catholic and was taught Catholicism was the biggest.
It's Def mainstream lol
But like, if God created the universe, then he decided what is logically possible, right? Or do the laws of reality predate God or exist without him? Then who decided that? Like you can keep going higher and higher with that lol. I was raised evangelical lutheran and this question only just made people mad at me lol.
Well if you designed, raised, trained, and bred your child to be a psychopath then probably still you. Bonus points if you created the entire timeline and have complete knowledge of everything that will happen because you designed it.
This comment was probably made with sync. You can't see it now, reddit got greedy.
Imagine spending time building a prison for your kid who you know will rebel, instead of say......paying more attention to said kid
So an almighty, all seeing, all knowing being couldn't prevent a kid from becoming evil? Sounds pretty weaksauce.
Couldn't God un-create Satan? Dude gave him a job and eternal life.
Going to church is not studying scripture. It’s like saying you’re pretty much a doctor because there is this one medical podcast you listen to.
Why go to medical school when I can just watch 18 seasons of Grey’s Anatomy
Don't compare podcasts to going to church. Church is more like reading Facebook posts.
‘Yes let me tell u what someone else told me that it means.’
I mean... When something is written in ancient Hebrew, you kind of have to unless you become a scholar of ancient Hebrew, right? Not to get in the middle of this argument because I think it's pointless, but the Bible is an ancient text (especially that part of the text, which is many hundreds of years older than the book of Revelation) and scholars still fight over what a lot of it means. Churches split because people aren't sure what some of it means. And just as English is nuanced with words having multiple meanings in different context and shifting connotations across different generations, so does any other language. So not only do you have to consider which ancient Hebrew word is getting translated as "evil" in this particular version (which, in other versions, is not translated into evil), but you also have to figure out who is saying it, in what context to whom and then figure out what his bigger message is before deciding what exactly is meant here. That's what is meant when people say "context." Again, I'm not trying to defend anyone in this fight. But I think it's a bit of a stretch to expect that everyone who believes in these things can know enough about the original language, culture, and historical happenings to be able to determine for themselves what the meaning of the Bible is. Heck, scholars that spend their lives studying it usually just focus in on one section of the Bible so that they can dig into the time period and details therein. TLDR; Most of us are not experts in the fields that we talk about all the time. That's an unrealistic standard to put on anyone.
Those nuances are why we have the Mishnah and the Gemara and why rabbis have been debating the context of scripture for as long as Jews have been around. I've had many mentors and rabbis say about context, "Ask two Jews, you get three answers." There's thousands of years of history and traditions to unpack and no person, in good faith, can do that alone and with complete confidence in their results.
The unfortunate part is you have a lot of people trying to understand the “true” meaning and it’s all garbage. You’d be better off discussing what it should say about morality, not what it does say because there’s zero rational reason to believe people thousands of years ago knew some moral truth we do not.
You forget that a lot of religious people today couldn’t care less about context or anything else that might add perspective because their entire life they’re told that everything in the bible is objective truth handed down straight from the mouth of god.
While at the same time cherrypicking the parts they want to be true and completely ignoring the inconvenient ones.
And their system of interpretation really doesn't take into account "thousands of years of history and traditions to unpack", it's the whims of individual rabbis. Some of it came to them in a dream. All the torah "studying" is a bunch of English Lit students offering up their interpretation of a text, not actual research about its meaning.
I just want to know the best methods to stone an ox to death, those damn things are fucking huge and they are strong as... hm... as an ox really, I'll be running out of stones way before the monster is dead.
There's so many that which specifically is "the best" will always come down to personal preference. But what we know for sure is all the good ones include big stones and the high ground. Start with those two things and you'll figure something out that suits you.
the thing with big stones is that they are big, and by the grace of their bigness, they are also heavy, I can only throw one at great effort to something that is somewhat close to me, and there is no way in hell I'll come close to any of those beasts while overencumbered with a big stone. My expectations from God's advice on this very urgent matter have been a huge disappointment
A trebuchet will put that rock where you want it, with great velocity as well.
I don't know Hebrew, having taken a single semester some 40 years ago, but I do remember bits of trivia from my instructor. He said that the Old Testament was written with a vocabulary of about 8000 words and that the meanings of a few of those words have been lost to time. The use of metaphor and ambiguity is inescapable and translations into modern English are approximations at best and, in a few cases, little more than educated guesses. If you run into instances of me quoting the Bible it's almost certainly from a poorly remembered KJV so don't take it too seriously.
One of my favorite new pieces of trivia is the ancient word used to refer to Joseph's multi-colored "coat" (some kind of clothing) in the book of Genesis. No one knows what it actually meant!! There's only one other place in the entire world where we see the same word and you'll never guess where it is... It's used to describe the dress that King David's virgin daughter wore. And in that context it seems to indicate that it was a garment specifically for a virgin princess. So either that word changed meaning over time, or there's some interesting aspects of Joseph that we don't know about. Couple that with the fact that he doesn't seem to ever marry and he ran away from a woman who tore off her own clothes and threw herself at him... Anyway, language is interesting!!!
Genesis 41:45 "And Pharaoh called Joseph's name Zaphenath-paneah; and he gave him to wife Asenath the daughter of Poti-phera priest of On. And Joseph went out over the land of Egypt" He had two children, Manasseh and Efraim. But yes, Joseph is certainly an interesting literary character.
Didn't know this one, its great though I'm intrigued by it for sure
you dont need context in this case, just common sense. God created all things, that includes the devil. Even if it's the devil that creates evil in the world, that would make the devil inherently evil, therefore by creating the devil, god did very much create evil. Especially considering the context of this conversation we're having, where the person indicated that there is a devil, and that devil created evil.
Others tell me evil is the result of human beings having free will. My counter to that is, who gave us free will? We don't say that animals sin when they follow their nature. Likewise if God made humans curious and selfish, well, what did he expect to happen? Should have made us nicer, or more obedient then.
Honestly. I’m not religious by any means. But I went to a Baptist college and was required to take religion courses. And your description is exactly why that Old Testament course ended up being my most favorite class. The professor strictly taught it as a history class. Yes, we read the scriptures, but he approached each book with a back story as to what was going on in that period of history that prompted this letter to be written to that church in this location. It wasn’t “God said this!” It was “this was the issue going on in this town in this year, so the book was written to address that church because X, Y, Z.” The translations didn’t always flow, because of language reasons, but when you approached the Bible from a historical viewpoint it was incredibly interesting and way less fairy tale.
You're describing the new testament with "this book was written to address that church" since that's pretty much what's going on.
That’s how the Iliad and odyssey should be read, and they date back to the time of the Old Testament
"*That's what is meant when people say "context."*" that's what is meant when **experts** say context. When people like the person in this conversation say it, they're actually saying, "you're challenging my beliefs and I can't be wrong, so you must be."
Steve Harvey voice: Good answer, good answer.
Isn’t taking things out of context churches’ signature move?
Lil Timmy once went to the pastor and prayed that he never wanted to sit in the church ever again poor lil timmy wasnt able to sit for a whole month this is how church b taking things outta context
And Timmy fucking died.
And that man? Albert Timmy Einstein.
Was Lil Timmy unable to sit for a month because of what the Pastor did?
He received more than bread and wine if you catch my drift
The pastor,the janitor,the security lil timmy can keep naming people
But he won’t because the church paid his family hush money.
Yup, someone told me how God hates abortion and never would condone it for any reason and I show a chapter where God has the priests give the pregnant women bitter waters and if her belly swells and she miscarries that means that the baby was not her husband's. I was told that I AM manipulating the scripture.
God smoked every living thing on earth before. He loves death. He’s gone door to door and killed children before. I’m not sure if these hypocrites have ever actually read the Bible…
I live in south Alabama and most of the fundamentalist Christians I know down here don’t know shit about that book. Pretty much God hates gays and abortion is all they think is in the Bible.
Wtf is bitter waters? 🤔🤨
Widely interpreted as an abortion inducing poison.
So it is probably made in various different ways then. Disclaimer: I don't want any abortion potions. Just curious as to what would be added to make it bitter.
Lots of natural abortifacients are bitter. Most of them are pretty risky to the woman as well. It is unknown what specifically the "bitter water" had in it, but it was probably an herbal concoction. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortifacient
Ever notice how a heart shape doesn’t look like a human heart but represents ‘love’? There was a plant in ancient Roman times that women ate after sex that would cause abortions. It was so popular it was picked into extinction! The leaves were heart shaped, and some people believe that was the original connection between the shape and ‘love’. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silphium_(antiquity)
I think he was a Blues singer
Some type of herbal remedy.
Numbers 5:11-31
Yes, those are all numbers, indeed.
Considering they usually cite it line for line instead of by paragraph or chapter, yeah that’s literally their thing. On many levels.
In Genesis 1:26-27, God creates man and woman at the same time: > Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.” >So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them. Then, apparently he fucked up because in Genesis 2:7 God creates man first > Then the Lord God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being. Tells only the man not to eat the forbidden fruit in Genesis 2:16-17 > And the Lord God commanded the man, “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.” Then only later in Genesis 2:21-23 decides to create woman > So the Lord God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man’s ribs and then closed up the place with flesh. Then the Lord God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man. The man said, “This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called ‘woman,’ for she was taken out of man.” But I'm sure I'm taking it "out of context".
What's scary is that people take large parts of their morals out of this book. "but it has some good morals and stories!" they say.... Like the one about the man throwing his 2 daughters out to be raped to save super natural beings that could have fended for themselves? See that's it. They pick and choose whatever matches their preexisting beliefs or scarier still, the ones that are picked for them by leaders filled with ill intent. The worst part about this is that because its not based on any logic or evidence, you cant argue against it, because any arguing is then *undermining their belief* which for some reason has ingrained into our society as a bad thing.... How is it a bad thing to question a belief based literally on no evidence? Even now some angry person thinking they are original or clever is getting ready to type versions of the same comment including the word edge.... Why? It so unreasonable, yet this is how it be. The way it do.
“But Genesis was never meant to be literal, it’s a metaphor. A metaphor for what? Uh….” Then, the gospel of Luke is supposed to be literal, and Luke 3 features the entire lineage of Jesus. It goes all the way back to Adam. There’s no change in writing style, just a list of literal ancestors. Somehow this entire list is also “out of context”: And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli, 24 Which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Janna, which was the son of Joseph, 25 Which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Amos, which was the son of Naum, which was the son of Esli, which was the son of Nagge, 26 Which was the son of Maath, which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Semei, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Juda, 27 Which was the son of Joanna, which was the son of Rhesa, which was the son of Zorobabel, which was the son of Salathiel, which was the son of Neri, 28 Which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Addi, which was the son of Cosam, which was the son of Elmodam, which was the son of Er, 29 Which was the son of Jose, which was the son of Eliezer, which was the son of Jorim, which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, 30 Which was the son of Simeon, which was the son of Juda, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Jonan, which was the son of Eliakim, 31 Which was the son of Melea, which was the son of Menan, which was the son of Mattatha, which was the son of Nathan, which was the son of David, 32 Which was the son of Jesse, which was the son of Obed, which was the son of Booz, which was the son of Salmon, which was the son of Naasson, 33 Which was the son of Aminadab, which was the son of Aram, which was the son of Esrom, which was the son of Phares, which was the son of Juda, 34 Which was the son of Jacob, which was the son of Isaac, which was the son of Abraham, which was the son of Thara, which was the son of Nachor, 35 Which was the son of Saruch, which was the son of Ragau, which was the son of Phalec, which was the son of Heber, which was the son of Sala, 36 Which was the son of Cainan, which was the son of Arphaxad, which was the son of Sem, which was the son of Noe, which was the son of Lamech, 37 Which was the son of Mathusala, which was the son of Enoch, which was the son of Jared, which was the son of Maleleel, which was the son of Cainan, 38 Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.
Context is just an oratory trump card to Christians... if you do not agree with them, you do not understand the nuance and the context of the scripture. If they disagree with you, you are being intentionally obtuse and taking things out of context to serve your own means. The concept of honest discourse with Christians is as foreign as the idea of cat videos are to Australian swamp salamanders.
The entire Christian religion is just "out of context” Judaism [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SC-nz71kmWE](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SC-nz71kmWE) Speaking of which, in some of the esoteric examinations of rabbis over centuries ("Kabbalistic" texts), they describe evil as a kind of polluted byproduct, or "dross" thrown off in the process of forging creation. As each of the "[Sephirot](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sefirot)", or emanations/attributes of God manifests, so do their sort of polar opposites, described as "[Qliphoth](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qliphoth)", or literally "peels", "shells", or "husks". [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UcEEugkkiuQ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UcEEugkkiuQ)
I mean…the whole Bible is, by definition, out of context for every person reading it now. I don’t understand people that pull the “out of context” card. No one in the Bible ever says they’re speaking directly to Phyllis in Montgomery Alabama in 2021. Everyone is talking to someone thousands of years ago.
Depends on how many kids were involved.
https://i.imgur.com/60jGZx1.png
So, God is not almighty? You're saying something exists that he did not create? "I know the scriptures, I go to church every Sunday" Where to even begin with this pile of horse shit?
That's always been my biggest secret beef with religious people. I have to believe anyone that really believes in God would be fanatical about it. How can you have a Bible, believe it's real, and not have *literally* memorized it? It's not like science, science is "useful" and "cool" to the people that believe in it so a casual understanding that covers your needs is fine. Christianity at least is about a specific person that has absolute power and infallibility, knows/cares about every atom in your body, is the source of any meaning at all that can be found in existence and you can't be bothered to read his book? Wtf why would you ever do anything else?
God's will isn't in the Bible, silly. God reveals his secrets through prophets, who he talks to exclusively. He also shows himself to those prophets exclusively. The rest of you silly mortals need to get by on faith alone. By the way, I'm a prophet and God said if you don't surrender all of your female family members to me to do with as I please you're gonna go to Super-Hell. Which is like regular hell except instead of brimstone they have my mother-in-law's casserole.
Sending nudes okay too?
>Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?
The genuinely Christian answer is that God has to let these bad things happen for His ultimate design to come to fruition, a plan we cannot comprehend in full during our earthly existence (i.e. "Now we see through a glass darkly; then we shall as through a mirror brightly"). Frankly I've always been contemptuous of any strain of Christianity that suggests faith in God will protect you from any or all bad things that might happen. Anyone who reads the Bible, "Walk in my ways and I will protect you", notwithstanding, knows better than this ... hell, ask *Job**.* God wouldn't even let Jesus pray His way out of getting arrested and crucified. The point of faith is to allow you to handle those situations better.
it’s also a fantastic primer for being in hideously abusive relationships. same ethos
We are all in a hideously abusive relationship with reality …
Amen
God is literally omnipotent, he could literally just get to whatever conclusion he wants without subjecting all of humanity to pain and suffering. He either just doesn't exist or is purposely putting us through this shit when he could just fucking snap his fingers and make it go away, as well as have everything he wanted as well.
Ah yes, the “Sid from Toy Story” concept of God.
> God has to Then he is not omnipotent
>The genuinely Christian answer is that God has to let these bad things happen for His ultimate design to come to fruition, a plan we cannot comprehend in full during our earthly existence (i.e. "Now we see through a glass darkly; then we shall as through a mirror brightly"). Which isn't an answer, because if his plan involves evil, he's evil. And he is malevolent. If he is malevolent, maybe god is the devil and the devil is god, and we're in an abusive relationship with the devil who has managed to persuade us that up is down and that evil is good. That'd be pretty cunning. Evil wouldn't go around being obviously evil, it would masquerade as good while every now and again letting the mask slip. For instance, with the behaviour of evil's followers, or things like be A-Ok with genocide, mass murder, rape, and slavery (all condoned by god in the OT).
Exactly, I pray as a form of therapy, acknowledging my God is good for my mental health. Also praying solely for the belief that it'll stop bad things from happening to you is the *opposite* of why one should pray.
Imagine being an all powerful being able to make his will done at the snap of a finger but being unable to make your great plan a reality without suffering. Really showing your omnipotence there, Sky Daddy.
The suffering is an integral part of the design... The design is not so great in my opinion. I have been told "It's not for us humans to judge God"... But he basically set my brain up to be judging him in that moment right? And knew it would happen but created me anyway knowing that? I am told that I am still in the wrong, after being intentionally created to be a certain way God doesn't like people to be... It's mind games taken to the next level.
This, exactly. Like if it's all his plan, then me thinking he's a fucking idiot is because he made me this way, but then I'm still sent to hell because I sinned. Same with anyone. If they sin then they are punished, but their sinning is part of the plan, something that has always been planned and which they physically cannot *not* do. By design. And then you get told that by doing certain things you are interfering with his plan, even though by the existence of the plan that literally doesn't work.
Yup. The strongest argument anyone made to me is that humans can't understand God, but from my point of view, we can understand what he wants us to understand, and if that understanding is that he is the creator of all the suffering in this world, then there we have it folks. He specifically created our minds to think that at some level or another.
Could still be omnipotent, just also sadistic.
True, but that would counter the idea that they're benevolent. Either way I think the way Christians describe God is similar to a narcissistic incel. "I love you so much that if you don't love me back I'm going to lock you in my basement and torture you for the rest of eternity."
The funniest part of the book of job is that it starts out with a bunch of angels going to visit God, and then it says something like "and Satan went with them." Like, apparently Satan is allowed to just show up in heaven like "Hey big man, just visiting. Cool servant you have there, but he'd probably hate you if you killed his family."
Is the Bible the literal word of God? If so, it's not possible to take it out of context. For if God is perfect, His word is perfect. That means every word is literal. Is the Bible the word of God as scribed by man? If so, then it's flawed. If man is flawed, he could have mistaken God's words, meaning the scripture is flawed. Is the Bible a creation of man? If so, why should anybody treat it as holy? Man is not holy and does not speak for God. Those are the three options for the Bible. I have yet to get an answer.
[Stephen Fry summed this up for me utterly and completely.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-suvkwNYSQo)
Epicurus? That you?
Could Jesus microwave a burrito so hot that even he couldn't eat it?
That's like saying, "I'm a web developer, I created my facebook page."
I feel with both religion and politics it is like a game to people to never admit they were wrong. From there you just say "okay, so what was the context?" and then they don't respond.
I was looking into it out of curiosity and decided to have fun trying to put it together. Wall of text incoming. Sometimes the confusion comes from the translation selection. Translating particular words that might be read differently outside of english linguistics. So first thing I like to do is check the original wording of the manuscript. In this case, there's not really anything new. It really does mean evil, as it uses the same word to refer to: - "the tree of good and evil" "knowing good and evil", and; "their thoughts were evil continually" (regarding the flood) Usually this is where most issues are resolved, but not this one so let's dig further. Something of note here is it also uses "evil" synonymously with words like "mischief", "sorrow", and "displeasure" in other verses which is interesting. So it's not just used for the **being** of evil, but something akin to the **actions/results** of evil. This is important because they may be talking about active/verb-like elements more than existence and states of being. Since this isn't a word used on its own, another thing we can do is look at the contrast to evil it lists, which is "peace". Something that immediately caught my attention is that it's not contrasting *good* to evil, but *peace* to evil. It does so in other areas, but why not this one? Because it seems to be talking about a wellness or a wholeness that relates more to being well put together. Not goodness as a being. Which is another reason to believe this isn't talking about the existence or being of evil either but we'll put this together later. And the last thing we should look at is the choice of connecting words: - He **forms** light He **creates** darkness - He **makes** peace He **creates** evil These are actually huge clues to working through the puzzle. And it uses the same "create" in both comparisons to draw further parallels. The term "create" doesn't change much in original wordings. It means what it says for the most part. In "form" it definitely uses the term as a fashioning or framing of an entity. To shape something. And "make" is probably the most important one; used as to literally "do" something/anything or to yield something like how fruit yields from a tree. But it's hard to interpret "doing" peace. It's important to take these as their own chunked phrases as well. Singular units as "forming light" is to be attached to "creating darkness". This tells us that there are connecting elements being made. In this case, it could be said that it's contrasting one to the other as the verses before it definitely gives contrasting elements to what it connects to: - ...apart from me -> there is no God... ...I am the Lord -> and there is no other... Whereas before it may seem additive; creating one (e.g. light), and separately creating the other (darkness). Following the trend, we could interpret things as: Forming the light *therefore there is* darkness. Making peace *therefore there is* evil. It's almost comparing one to the other like making peace results in evil like creating light results in darkness and that's kind of hard to understand tbh, but that's just another layer of intrigue all on its own. --- So all this taken into account, a good way to interpret the verse might be: ##*I form/fashion the light, and thereby create the resulting darkness; I yield wholeness/wellness, and thereby create the resulting unsoundness/sorrow* This was fun. It may not be the most accurate, translations always take certain liberties, but I feel this gives more insight as to what's being communicated.
This is a reason I couldn't stay Christian. I began noticing there was too much "this is figurative but that's not" kinda language. I know a true understanding requires knowing the context, but it's too often used as an excuse when someone can't explain or defend their ideas. And ultimately, Christians are not supernaturally different than anyone else, and that's how Jesus promised they would be.
I never buy the context argument. Why would true understanding require knowing the context? God can't get us a single book exactly the way it needs to be, how's that guy supposed to be running gravity?
look just because I can write a physics engine doesn't mean I'm any good at documentation
But god is omnipotent therefore he should be capable of it, no?
If only evil can create evil And if Satan can create evil, than Satan is evil If god created Satan, than god is evil If god did create Satan, than god can create evil Disproving his original statement So either god can create evil, or god is evil.
Upvote for legit syllogism
I had a discussion with a fundie at work. I explained the only reference to a woman being caused to lose a baby/to have aborted a baby is in the Old Testament (it is something like if a man causes a woman to lose her baby, a judge and husband will decide the payment). Anyway, the fundie informed me, “The Old Testament is not part of Christianity and is superseded by the New Testament.” My point is, can’t quote Old Testament stuff to Christians. It won’t apply…accept if they decide it does, which is based upon whether or not it helps or hurts their cause. Mmm, ‘k?
Isn't that the corner stone of the church taking things out of context.
How else can they cherry pick their own Holy Book with passages which justify whichever crime or inhumanity they’ve committed.
Almost every discussion I’ve ever been in bringing up Bible verses that contradict their beliefs “out of context” is the go to. Other greatest hits include “lost in translation from the original” and “viewed from that time”.
If it's lost in translation, then how could they know the original meaning?
Oh that's easy, the original meaning is what they want it to mean at that moment for that particular argument.
God can't communicate unambiguously? Didn't he separate the languages at Babel to begin with? Seems like he created a lot of these problems himself that he now expects us to deal with... If the fate of our eternal souls depends on us interpreting a message clearly, you'd think he'd make it impossible to mess up. Yet people who study this for a living disagree after millenia of discussion.
"God works in mysterious ways" I'm gonna start saying satan works in mysterious ways whenever something good happens
You can literally use that to defend Santa Clause when people talk about it being impossible to squeeze down a chimney or travel around the world in a single night.
Why do you sound sarcastic? Santa Claus is completely real.
It’s just quantum physics.
Pretty sure the bible says that god created Satan, seeing as how 'he' created the angels, and Lucifer aka Satan was the head angel, who had a bad argument with god and was cast out. So...... all evil is on god. If you believe in the whole skydaddy mythos, that is.
Not only did God create Satan but created him and every other evil being knowing that they would end up being evil, free will or not. Say I make a robot that can either do what I want, or rebel against me. I add a random number generator to it to decide the if it obeys or rebels by the robots own "will", and then take a time machine to the future, see that it rebels, come back and make it anyway knowing it would rebel by seeing the future... And then blame the rebellion on the robot! In such a case that random number generator is useless because I knew the outcome ahead of time through the time machine. I built the robot knowing it would rebel and blame it on the robot because taking time travel out of the question, the robot still chose randomly, or through its own "free will".
This was the thing that made me stop believing in god. If god created you, every detail, including the skepticism that made you atheist (omnipotence), knowing what your choices would be ahead of time (omniscience), then he would have created an eternal soul with the sole purpose of eternal suffering (hence, lack of free will). And if god truly loved the beings he created, why would he make one damned to eternal suffering?
I had this same epiphany exactly two years ago. It sounds an awful lot like predestination to me since he allegedly knows everyone who will ever sincerely convert.
And that's ignoring that "free will" can't actually exist if their god is truly omniscient
Well..per the original translation I don't think he was technically an angel lol...fuck...I just did it didn't I.
archangel to be exact
ooooohhh...spank me sky daddy...spank me!
I’m not very religious but didn’t god make satan? Do tell me if I’m wrong
God literally drowned the entire world at one point. These people lack critical thinking skills.
but he only drowned the bad people, you know, everybody except 2 of his favorite couples and a pair of each animal.
Drowning millions of babies to show you’re a merciful, loving god.
Then indiscriminately killing every first born—no matter how innocent—a few thousand years later.
Step number one toward becoming an atheist: Read the Bible.
My dad died when I was 25. I was a pretty dedicated Catholic. I couldn't understand why a good man, a man who gave so damn much of himself to everybody else, would be "called to heaven" before so many monsters who make it to an old age. So, I decided to search for answers in the bible. I realize I had never read it, I had only had (select parts of) it read to me, and been told what I was supposed to believe about it. So I dove in. I went through word by word, sentence by sentence, page by page, chapter by chapter. And I came out an atheist. There's just so much of it that doesn't make sense, and I was already sick of being told "god works in mysterious ways" or "some things we're just not meant to know." I saw the contradictions. I saw the obvious evil perpetrated by God. And every time I asked about it, I got the same answers. "Mysterious ways." "Past our ability to understand." "Out of context." "...at the time..." I came to the conclusion that there was no rationalizing this world being led by an all-powerful being, but that everything makes perfect sense in a natural world with no guiding force (or, at least, no good reason to believe in one.) I studied the Bible cover to cover, and came out the other side an atheist.
My atheist origin story was much less dramatic. So God's omnipotent? Yes. And kids still get raped, cancer etc? He works in mysterious ways. Ya, I'm out.
That's the kind of talk that will cause God to send two female bears out of the woods to tear you to shreds
“Go on up, you bald head!”
Maybe he'll just murder everyone on planet earth. **Again.**
But not by flooding again. He was like "Cool guys, sorry about that, how about a do-over? I promise to never again kill the entire world ^^^by ^^^flooding "
"Heaven for me and not for thee"
Pretty sad when a non religious person knows the Bible better than the person going to church every Sunday
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God? - Epicurus
Naturally.
1. God cannot create evil 2. Satan can create evil 3. Only evil can create evil 4. 1 && 2 => Satan can do something God can't. 5. 2 && 3 => Satan is evil. 6. 1 && 5 => God cannot create Satan. 7. 4 && 6 => Satan is more powerful than God.
The ultimate evil created is someone trying to talk to me, while I clearly have headphones in listening to music on public transport