Go to The Reverend Kooka Speaks About Religious Bulls#!t
- Add a comment
- Go to GOD, THE POOR FATHER FIGURE
You also state: "You have been told what meaning to see in the Bible and the story there in, so you see the bIble as you wish to based on how you have been taught to." How do you know this? Who was it again that taught ME "what meaning to see?" And what EXACTLY is it, Kooka, that "[I] wish to" believe about the Bible? Are you psychic, because I don't recall telling you in any detail any of these things.
"Atheists look at the Bible purely as literary and so they see the stories for what they are and the meanings there for what they are." Got any evidence of this? Do you have any examples of literary bible discussions by Atheists that support anything you claim in this blog? THESE are what you present to solidify your argument, Kooka, not insults, accusations, and sweeping statements like, "everyone knows that."
posted by
Gheeghee
on February 11, 2005 at 12:27 PM
| link to this | reply
In your blog, the first line is, "Recently Gheeghee remarked about how I wish for my kids to treat me and how I should treat God." This is not what I remarked, but your SPIN on what I remarked.
My comment was not about your intent, or how "[you] should treat God." I asked you questions that you did not answer, regarding how you LOVE your kids, not how you TREAT them. These are not the same thing. If you go to www.m-w.com, you'll see that LOVE and TREAT are not synomyms. Therefore, you misread my comment, misquoted me, misrepresented my intent. In other words, NICE SPIN.
posted by
Gheeghee
on February 11, 2005 at 11:47 AM
| link to this | reply
RAME -- you said
"God gave us rules to save our souls out of pure love for us. If we follow His rules, we are following the path to Heaven. If we choose not to follow His rules, we are then choosing the path to hell."
It would appear that in my blog, THE REAL TRUTH, several of your fellow Christians would take issue with that statement.
Are you correct?
Or are they correct?
posted by
Xeno-x
on February 11, 2005 at 7:36 AM
| link to this | reply
Gheeghee
Of course you are not going to explain, because you can not . You are making that up in order to discredit me. I am taking nothing at all out of context. You have been told what meaning to see in the Bible and the story there in, so you see the bIble as you wish to based on how you have been taught to. I have not, so I can look at this and say 'hey, that does not work for what claims have been made.'
More Christians take the Bible out of context than any Atheist I know. Atheist are not looking to make the Bible fit with their views or ways to use the passages of the Bible to defend whatever it is they feel like using it for that week. Atheists look at the Bible purely as literary and so they see the stories for what they are and the meanings there for what they are.
posted by
kooka_lives
on February 10, 2005 at 9:02 PM
| link to this | reply
Actually, the problem is that YOU don't know what I'm talking about. Reading comprehension requires that you read within the context of the whole. This seems to be something you do often, reading out of context. I'm not going to waste my time explaining that context, either, as it's pointless.
posted by
Gheeghee
on February 10, 2005 at 2:29 PM
| link to this | reply
Gheeghee
I'm not sure you know what you are talking about. I have not put a spin on anything at all.
Love and Parenting skills need to go hand in hand. If you are a good parent you show both together. For true parenting skills are not going be of nay use without love and it you truly love your children you will instinctively have good parenting skills.
I see no proof of God's love nor his parenting skills when studying the Bible. He claims to have both, but truly shows neither one.
posted by
kooka_lives
on February 10, 2005 at 11:38 AM
| link to this | reply
Re the spin: I'm talking about my comment, where I was illustrating the concept of Love, not parenting skills. You misunderstood, and responded based on your misunderstanding, not on what was written. This seems to be a pattern that you might want to address.
posted by
Gheeghee
on February 10, 2005 at 8:54 AM
| link to this | reply
RAME
"God gave us rules to save our souls out of pure love for us. If we follow His rules, we are following the path to Heaven. If we choose not to follow His rules, we are then choosing the path to hell."
That is God saying that we either follow his rules or he will beat us. Unless God is so powerless that he can not really control where we go. God is the one to judge us and since he judges us by his rules then he is the one who decides our fates, not us.
With my boys when they break the rules they get punished right there and the punishment fits with the crime. I do not wait until they have had a life time to break rules and then show up and say their in big trouble for all the rules they broke. Also, I do not give them a simple out by saying 'If you swear you love and respect me I will not punish you for all that you have done.' I would rather earn their love and respect by showing a good example than demand it if they wish to not be punished.
posted by
kooka_lives
on February 9, 2005 at 5:13 PM
| link to this | reply
RAME
I very much understand the idea of the Holy trinity. I would point out however that some branches of Christians see it as being figurative, not literal. Of course that really is not the point of any of this though.
First off God really did not sacrifice his only son, since it was already known that Jesus would raise from the dead. If Jesus was God made mortal, then such suffering is really meaningless because God is eternal and such an experience is truly fleeting. If Jesus was a mortal son of God and had the faith he had, the once more it becomes meaningless because he would be aware that such pain was fleeting and he would move beyond it. If Jesus was mortal and did not know for sure he was going anywhere after his death, then the suffering has meaning because then and only then did he truly risk anything at all.
Of course none of that shows and love though. A loving father would not pick out one child to make suffer for all the rest. Instead he would give fair punishment to each child for the rules they break. There would be no original sin or any thought at all that we are born with sin, so there would not be the need to make one suffer for misbehavior that none of them could have controlled.
Are we not all descendants of Adam and Eve? I am not going to going to all that here though, since it really is off subject.
I said God stated the rules, and then he walked away expecting them to be followed because he threaten to punish us if we did not follow them. He never sat any examples or paid attention to guide us when we did wrong by 'send us to our rooms'. Instead he waits until things are out of control and then destroys us. The parents who act like that in reality generally end up with criminals for children.
posted by
kooka_lives
on February 9, 2005 at 5:07 PM
| link to this | reply
gheeghee
In the OT God very much hands down the rules and then walks away, then reappears every so often when he is upset that too many people are breaking the rules or one of his favored (and normally the biggest suck ups. It's no wonder God favors them so) comes and complains to him. Instead of noticeing when his children break the rules and sending them to their room on some such basic punishment to get the idea that they have done something wrong, he goes and destroys them for the accumulation of their sins. That is very his pattern throughout the whole of the OT. He does not punish for the single action, but for all the sins at once. At that point all of mankind's sins fall squarly as being God's fault if we are to view God as being the father of us all. He is not doing what a good parents does and punish for the single mistake in order to teach the child not to do it. Once more there is no teaching invovled in God's way of doing things
Wow, Gheeghee, replying to you has given me a whole new post once again.
posted by
kooka_lives
on February 9, 2005 at 4:44 PM
| link to this | reply
roofpig
Thank you for pointing that out, it has been corrected.
posted by
kooka_lives
on February 9, 2005 at 3:24 PM
| link to this | reply
Gheeghee
No spin at all. It is organized religion which goes and tries to make the God of the Bible into something it is very clearly not if you read the thing.
Roofpig was right, that was a typo. I have since corrected it and so it is talking about God in the Old Testament. As for examples, pick a page, any page from the OT and you will have all the examples you could possible want.
More specific, the story of Cain and Abel where God very obviously picks a favorite and gets upset because Cain gets mad because of this and lashes out as a child who is feeling neglected by his father would.
The whole story of Noah is nothing more than God punishing very blindly and saving his favorite.
I can not think of a single story from the OT that does not fit into this perfectly.
posted by
kooka_lives
on February 9, 2005 at 3:23 PM
| link to this | reply
RAME
are you saying that the Ten Commandments save our souls?
posted by
Xeno-x
on February 9, 2005 at 2:20 PM
| link to this | reply
you guys haven't convinced me
you make blanket statements -- without anything to back them up.
again and again and again, you don't address the issue do you?
that's why I love my son, Kooka -- he will issue a challenge and then everybody that answers him -- well, they're like you guys -- god says its so so it must be so -- it has to be so.
that's not the way to convince anyone.
posted by
Xeno-x
on February 9, 2005 at 2:18 PM
| link to this | reply
New Testament
guys!!!!!
so you don't agree that Jesus came to ovethrow all the tough laws of the Old Testament. You must be a new kind of Christian -- that's one of the bases of Christian belief -- that Jesus came to undo the Law of Moses.
odd.
posted by
Xeno-x
on February 9, 2005 at 2:15 PM
| link to this | reply
Old Testament
doesn't have rules? -- look at Leviticus, Deuteronomy
rules for just about everything
there was the rule that you could only carry on the Sabbath the amount of food that you could hold in your mouth.
'If Kooka were to list all the rules, it would be just about as big as the Old Testament.
he doesn't need quotes, etc. -- it's already a given.
posted by
Xeno-x
on February 9, 2005 at 2:14 PM
| link to this | reply
oddly enough
John Bunyan came to the same conclusions as Kooka and wrote a book about it.
It's called PILGRIM'S PROGRESS.
posted by
Xeno-x
on February 9, 2005 at 2:12 PM
| link to this | reply
He gave us a list of rules.
They are called the Ten Commandments. Just as all fathers who love their children do. Children have to have rules and guidelines to help them make decisions that are good for them or to keep them from harm. Same with the Ten Commandments. God didn't say that we have to follow them or He will beat us. He gave us free will and we can choose to follow His rules or not, just as your own sons can choose to follow your rules or not. If your sons don't follow your rules, they could be seriously hurt or killed, depending on the rules. God gave us rules to save our souls out of pure love for us. If we follow His rules, we are following the path to Heaven. If we choose not to follow His rules, we are then choosing the path to hell.
posted by
RAME
on February 9, 2005 at 1:37 PM
| link to this | reply
I just realized I didn't finish one of my statements...
Out of the Jews came the line of David and Christ was born of the line of David. If He was to be born as a human at any point in history beyond Adam and Eve, He had to be born of a decendency.
posted by
RAME
on February 9, 2005 at 1:28 PM
| link to this | reply
There are three persons in one God, and He
sent His only son (the second person) to suffer and die for our sins so that we could all reach the gates of Heaven and live there in all eternity. The thanks He gets from some of us is to ignore Him or reject Him or call Him a poor father figure. He isn't a "father figure". He is our Father. Yes, He had a chosen people. His Son had to be born of a line and that line happened to be the Jews out of which was the line of David. When Christ was preaching, He performed many miracles, curing diseases, casting out demons, raising from the dead, all out of love for all of us. He was demonstrating His love for us over and over. With the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in one, He felt the pain of His son, physically, emotionally, mentally, and every other way. How much more proof of His love or good example do you need?
posted by
RAME
on February 9, 2005 at 1:24 PM
| link to this | reply
How about this for a challenge...
I challenge you, Kooka, to get facts before writing posts, provide some examples that support your argument. Your're the reverend, after all. You want to teach, do it right. I challenge you to actually present what is written and not spin the words of other people to suit your poorly presented arguments.
posted by
Gheeghee
on February 9, 2005 at 9:45 AM
| link to this | reply
"Then we get the New Testament, which is more or less an attempt at revising the horrible image of the Old Testament. This time you get a favored child running around telling everyone just how great the father is. " Again, Examples? Quotes? Where exactly does this appear?
posted by
Gheeghee
on February 9, 2005 at 9:33 AM
| link to this | reply
“First we will look at God as the New Testament shows him. This God is the kind of father who gives out a list of rules and tells you they nee to be followed and that you better not ask any questions or he is going to beat you.”
Quotes? Examples? Tell me, Kooka, where in the New Testament does any of this appear? Give me a book, a verse, anything on which to grasp that backs you up here.
posted by
Gheeghee
on February 9, 2005 at 9:32 AM
| link to this | reply
talk about a spin.
posted by
Gheeghee
on February 9, 2005 at 9:27 AM
| link to this | reply
Interesting analogy, Kook.
By the way, I think you said "New Testament" when you meant "Old Testament" in your first paragraph (it threw me off for a moment).
posted by
roofpig
on February 9, 2005 at 5:15 AM
| link to this | reply
I say
let them be punished
let those who want punishment receive punishment
sounds like they're sado-masochists anyway.
posted by
Xeno-x
on February 8, 2005 at 3:08 PM
| link to this | reply