I made a claim today that I should not have done without having specific examples in mind (and if this has been discussed before, please let me know).
My claim is that god is bipolar. Of course, there are other mental disorders we could label him with, but this is the one I want to explore.
It is evidenced initially by creation of the world.... he worked for 6 days with no sleep, and thought everything was good. (manic stage) and then he destroyed the world in a flood (depressed stage). But what else is there?
I found this article later, and while it was amusing, its not quite the concrete, biblical evidence I want, though it does make reference to a few books.
Replies are closed for this discussion.
Hey, Bob, I have only replied to replies regarding what I have said before, I haven't made the same old point again and again just because I think I'm so great or because I want attention, but because I stand behind what I say and because this is a decent website and I do my best trying to make people understand what I say.
Rudeness is subjective. Calling someone rude might be seen as rude by someone too, you know. And isn't it rude to reply to someone's post without reading all the other posts he wrote in the same discussion? Or should I copy all I have written so far in a discussion in every new post I make and add whatever new thing I have to say? Wouldn't that mean just repeating myself over and over and over again and just making the same old point? Wouldn't that mean doing what you say it doesn't deserve all the sturm and drang?
I am going to be rude (by your standards) again and tell you that your post is useless to this conversation. Calling me rude doesn't really help if that's all you have to say. If you don't back up your statements, you're as useful as an umbrella during a tsunami.
Mr. Nigma allow me to illustrate why people are so cross with you.
What Wizard of Oz? Now we're claiming he's sick? When will all the discussions about someone/something that doesn't exist end? It's outrageous...
My point is that it is possible to talk about God as a literary character. Or are you suggesting that literary analysis is useless?
For me, there is a big difference between a character that remains what he/she/it actually is, fictional, and a character that gets out of control and influences the lives of billions of people more or less directly. I just have to say this, If that couldn't be drawn from what I've said before this post.
And again, if god would have been human, yes, analyze the shit out of him, but he is not human, not even as a fictional character, unless you are talking about a really specific god, or one that you made up. So how can you determine whether he is sick or not? Perhaps you can analyze his behaviour and see it as symptoms of a disease, but you can't diagnose something that you can't even begin to understand what it is - certainly not human.
I think making the argument that the behavior of the god depicted in the bible is inconsistent (that is to say, god's behavior contradicts itself every once in a while) can have some use if you're attempting to argue that said god is neither "eternal" or "never-changing" as he is described by christians.
As far as specific instances where the god of bible is portrayed in such a way that he seems inconsistent (maybe the term bipolar is an exaggeration), I can't think of any off the bat. When I get back later tonight I'll take a look at some verses and post back here.
King David was a favored of god and killed a guy to hide his affair with the guy's wife. As punishment, god had David's son sleep with her and get her pregnant and had them killed. Oh, but David lived, lol.
It's not true, mate... And it's definitely not a good reason for this discussion. If their god doesn't exist, they're the sick ones, the ones that actually need to be cured, instead of wasting time talking about non-existing things. And, if you can't reason with them, how are you going to agree when you basically call all they hold as sacred, crazy?
First of all what's not true? Second of all, don't dictate to me what is and is not a good reason for anything mate. You seem to think your opinion in somehow more important than mine. You've stated it now move on. I don't need to hear the shit.
For the record.
David commits adultery with Bathsheba, the wife of Uriah the Hittite. Bathsheba becomes pregnant. David sends for Uriah, who is with the Israelite army at the siege of Rabbah, so that he may lie with his wife and conceal the identity of the child's father. Uriah refuses to do so while his companions are in the field of battle and David sends him back to Joab, the commander, with a message instructing him to abandon Uriah on the battlefield, "that he may be struck down, and die." David marries Bathsheba and she bears his child, "but the thing that David had done displeased the Lord." The prophet Nathan confronts David, saying: "Why have you despised the word of God, to do what is evil in his sight? You have smitten Uriah the Hittite with the sword, and have taken his wife to be your wife." Nathan presents three punishments from God for this sin. First, that the "sword shall never depart from your house" (2 Samuel 12:10) second, that "Before your very eyes I will take your wives and give them to one who is close to you, and he will sleep with your wives in broad daylight. 12 You did it in secret, but I will do this thing in broad daylight before all Israel., (2 Samuel 12:12) and finally, that "the son born to you will die" (2 Samuel 12:14). David repents, yet God "struck the [David's] child ... and it became sick ... [And] on the seventh day the child died." David leaves his lamentations, dresses himself, and eats. His servants ask why he wept when the baby was alive, but ends his mourning when the child dies. David replies: "While the child was still alive, I fasted and wept. I thought, 'Who knows? The Lord may be gracious to me and let the child live.' But now that he is dead, why should I fast? Can I bring him back again? I will go to him, but he will not return to me." (2 Samuel 12:22-23, New International Version).
sorry Moria for being a party to this on your thread. I don't mean any disrespect to you.
Well, I was strictly referring to any involvement of any god/lord/supreme being that might have been mentioned in your post.
I'm not dictating anything. I don't know why you understood it that way, but it wasn't my intention to do so.
Okay, people seem to only want others to agree with them, so I guess a few arguments from the opposite side are not welcomed. I think I'm not going to reply again, unless maybe someone posts something worth replying to. Anyway, I'll say it again, it's nothing personal, so don't take it that way.