There would be nothing unfair or demonic about that if we were actually speaking about a God.

But we're not.

We're really talking about a brainwashing tactic that was created in the name of a religion to get people to suck up to religious bigotry.

It has nothing to do with any God.

Rejecting the Bible as the "word of God" cannot possibly constitute rejection of God.

The reasons should be vividly apparent anyone who can think rationally even in the slightest way.

Disbelieve in fables and unreliable rumors does not constitute rejection of "God". Even if those fables claim to be the word of God. Just as recognizing the Greek Mythology does not constitute rejection of Zeus. It's simply a disbelieve that Zeus represents God.

What Christians are truly trying to sell everyone on is the idea that God is far too stupid to understand or comprehend the difference between "disbelief" and "rejection".

Therefore it would be wrong to even suggest that an atheist is "rejecting" God. They simply don't believe in "God" and disbelief does not constitute "rejection".

A person would truly need to believe that God is extremely stupid to not be able to recognize the difference between "disbelief" and "rejection".

But that's precisely what the Christian religion demands. It demands that God is indeed that stupid.

Unless, you personally disagree with many of the main tenets of the Christian religion. For example that it's important to believe anything that's in the Bible, such as Jesus being the son of God, etc.

The idea that a God would hold people responsible for having to believe in such a convoluted set of inconsistent and often outright absurd tales, is indeed nonsense, IMHO.

And yes I do believe that if God truly held out that particular scenario, that would indeed be "demonic".

Absolutely. That would be totally disgusting and irrational, IMHO.

It's my deepest and most sincere belief, that if a truly all-wise being were going to attempt to communicate with humans via a religion, such a being could have done a FAR BETTER job than the ancient Hebrews did in their fables.

In fact, I'm not kidding when I say that the philosophy of Eastern Mysticism is a FAR WISER PICTURE of God.

I mean, gee whiz, if I'm going to compare what the ancient Hebrews wrote with what the Eastern Mystics wrote and ask, "Which appears to have come from a wiser source?" The writings of the Eastern Mystics are the clear winners hands down!

So which one more than likely came from a divine source? If any?

Clearly the Eastern Mystic picture must be from the divine source since it's far wiser.

Fortunately for the Christians, the Eastern Mystical picture of God doesn't demand that anyone believe in those writings in order to accept God. So the Christians are safe, even though they reject the words that may actually be from God.

Now that makes far more sense to me.

The lady doth protest too much, methinks.

You are asking me to take ONE SENTENCE out of context for your purposes. I'm not going to do that.

Nobody is asking you to take anything out of context.

Just interpret it in terms of the context that you believe it fits.

Nothing could be easier.

Have you no will of your own?

The entire Bible belongs to all of humanity, including Christians. When you were a Christian, did you just read the Gideon Bible?



Sometimes your free will is limited by circumstances, like maybe you are imprisoned or you want to beat someone up, but he's stronger than you. In this case, the world was punished and because Noah couldn't take care of two of every animal and every living child on the planet, the children were given a rather swift death. There was no other way for God to exact his punishment upon the civilizations of the world.



What leads you to believe that?



Lot sinned, but he was a God fearing man. Everyone sins. Because God forgives our sins and intentionally forgets them, it would be impossible for God to make mention of Lot's sins.



Because she would have been stoned as an adultress. God created Jesus within the womb of a God fearing woman who was betrothed to a God fearing man. God knew their personalities and hearts, so he knew that they would obey him and accept Jesus as their own.



Okay, I was afraid you would say that. God must have hardened your heart too.

Just kidding.

Look, the scriptures are up for interpretation. Have you prayed on them? How badly do you want the answer? Would you give up the chance at salvation, rather than pray every day and night for 40 days? How did you show your devotion to finding the answer to your questions? Honestly, there are various interpretations. Some people (mostly Calvinists and non-believers) believe that God directly hardened Pharaoh's heart. Most Christians and Jews understand it to mean that God's actions of using a stuttering run-away slave as his messenger hardened Pharaoh's heart. It's cute when non-believers always take the worst possible interpretation of scriptures, it's a sure sign of a closed mind when you see subjective things in black and white.



Can you show scripture that shows that Abraham despaired? I see a man who was obeying and trusting God, to the point that he was willing to sacrifice his own son.



Two things. One: I believe that God carefully picked the family into which Jesus would be placed. I believe that God picked Joseph, because God knew his heart was good and he feared God. Two: That's one hell of a run on sentence, what do you do for a living?



I don't know that to be true. There is a considerable amount of archeology to back up the Bible. And the Biblical view of God makes logical sense. It might be politically incorrect, but not all beliefs are equal.

Yes and I'm expressing it by refusing to do something that is stupid and pointless.

Oh and she's definitely asking me to interpret a scripture out of context, so you have lied once again.

You're a typical bible thumper. Quick to throw the insults and call people liars. It's quite ungodly of you and clearly shows that your just in it for the purpose of using the religion to insult other people.

No, Spider there are no lies here. You are totally FREE to put your answers and interpretations in any context you so desire.

No one is forcing you to take anything out of context. If you think they are that's only an expression of your own limited abilities. You are more than free to read the whole chapter, or book, or whatever, and present your response in whatever context you so choose. Your delusions of being 'limited' by what other people say, are just that: your own personal delusions. They have no reality in the real world.

So calling people liars to try to make up for your own limitations is pretty lame.

I'm very glad to hear you say that. Because this is at least one point that I'm in agreement with you on. And this is why it is not "religion bashing" when any human being expresses their views why they feel that the bible has no more merit than Greek Mythology.



There's actually historical and archeological evidence to back up some of Greek Mythology too. Of course, not its claims of divine intervention etc.

The same is true of the Bible. There is no archeological evidence to back up the supernatural claims made in the Bible. All that exists is archeological evidence to suggest that some of the various wars, and events may have actually taken place. But that's to be expected since no one questions that the bible was indeed written by people living on the Earth.

Why should it be surprising that they wrote about events that actually occurred? That doesn't give their supernatural claims one iota of support.

For example, in the stories of the New Testament, it wouldn't matter to me if they had tons of evidence that a man named Jesus actually lived, taught his ministry and was in fact crucified on a cross. That wouldn't impress me in the slightest. I expect all of those things most likely did indeed occur. But none of that supports the idea that Jesus was born of a virgin, was the sacrificial lamb of God, and rose from the dead.

So archeological "Evidence" for to back-up the biblical stories is basically meaningless. There's TONS of archeological evidence for the Egyptian Gods. Does that make THEM real?

Just because a culture had superstitions and wrote about them within the context of their everyday lives doesn't give their superstitions any credibility.


You also say, "And the Biblical view of God makes logical sense."

Well, that's highly subjective, and I most certainly disagree with that view.

I don't see any logical sense in a supposedly all-wise, all-powerful God being appeased by blood sacrifices.

I don't see any logical sense in a supposedly all-wise, all-powerful God claiming that people who are worshiping OTHER GODS are choosing to reject God.

I don't see any logical sense in a supposedly all-wise, all-powerful God who is trying to teach humanity not to KILL people, to instruct them to murder an entire culture with no mercy so they can move onto "promised land".

It would seem to me that a LOGICAL God would have dealt with the heathens himself instead of having to corrupt his loyal followers by having to ask them to commit mass murder.

I don't see any logical sense in a supposedly all-wise, all-powerful God suggesting that people who refuse to believe in the biblical fables is turning against him.

I don't see any logical sense at all in a supposedly all-wise, all-powerful having his own son nailed to a pole to 'pay' for the sins of man. Who was being 'paid'? God himself?

What's wrong with just forgiving people outright?

I don't see any logical sense in a supposedly all-wise, all-powerful God waiting until all of humanity has become completely evil and then dealing with it by flooding them out and having some guy build a boat to save his animal kingdom.

In fact, from my perspective there is very little in the Bible that makes any logical sense at all.

I think he cares very much. I am not there to see or be able to 'prove' His feelings anymore than I could probably PROVE any humans feelings(other than repeating their CLAIMS anyhow). But I tend to believe he indeed feels sorrow and disappointment when we are not on the right path. ....as I said before,,,,he is the heavenly father and I think that analogy is probably accurate in many ways,,,

unlike the rest of creation, we were given souls, souls with the potential to live on forever with Our father,,,and unlike the rest of creation, we were given AMPLE authority over the rest of creation....from the ability of our mind to develop and manipulate it, to the physical abilities of our flesh to do the same.

I never saw my father nor mother weep, but it doesnt mean they never did.

We can't prove or measure our own souls...

How than can we prove or measure if other creatures on this planet have none?

I measure soul by something that goes beyond an instinct for survival, such as plants and animals have

LOL! Now who's trolling for reactions?

You DO know you're not the only one reading these pages, right? And that your opinion is no more that just your opinion, not something 'from your lips to God's Ear'?

:)


-Kerry O.

Christians are only violating those verses if you assert that every non-Christian here is a fool including yourself...
I understand your thinking, but as long as there are 2 of us... You get the picture...

Methinks that you have no answer. Methinks that you are at a loss for words so you stutter and try to laugh away my points.

Methinks that when you are confronted with someone who has a grounding in Biblical study that is more in depth and stronger than your own (yet contradicts you), you would rather pretend that person doesn't exist or you would rather ridicule her.



I never said that you couldn't interpret the whole passage. You are stuttering again.





Are familiar with the term "red herring"? If not, let me explain: it is when people are engaging in a debate and one throws in an absolutely moot point to divert attention away from the topic at hand.

Your accusation of a "run-on" is a red herring.

Tell me why it is a run-on sentence, please, in detail.


By the way, your accusation of my run-on sentence is a run-on sentence.






Archaeology can only back up physical aspects, not the miraculous fairy tale portions of the Bible.

Archaeology also backs up that Troy and Knossos exist: does that mean there was a Trojan war in which the gods took sides? Does the existence of Knossos and a labyrinth mean that the Minotaur existed?

The Biblical view of god is NOT logical! And not only that, there is nothing new or original in the Bible: one only needs to study archetypal myth to know that.

An "argument" does not have to be a brawl; an argument is simply one's thesis. When I give instructions to my students on writing a persuasive paper, we discuss their "arguments": i.e. what their stance will be on their topic.

The Christians in this forum are arguing. Perhaps you are not or feel that you are not, but that doesn't take away from what others are doing.




another beautiful thing is that you dont HAVE to accept him,,,,



life is a balance of choices,, for all of us


Whoa, whoa, whoa . . . not accepting the Christian god is a "beautiful thing"? So, being cast into the fiery pit of hell for not accepting Jesus is beautiful?

According to Christianity, there is NO balance of choices . . . no, wait, there is: you choose Jesus and go to heaven or say, "No, thanks" and go to hell. That IS a balance.

I thought you read the Bible front to back?

Hell is NOT real...

Actually, in Christian parlance, every person who denies Jesus is a fool. It is not by MY interpretation of who is a fool, but the Christian god's interpretation.

Let me refer you to Psalms 14:1--"The fool hath said in his heart: There is no God . . ."

Personally, I think Christians who take the Bible literally are foolish, but in my quotes, I was using the words of god, not mine.

On the flood myth, I said:



The other guy responded:



I have studied and taught myth for years. The Epic of Gilgamesh is the oldest piece of known literature. (Note: I said "literature," not writing.) It predates the Hebrew Scriptures.

In Tablet XI of the epic, Utnapishtim describes how he built a boat and the subsequent action. For your perusal: http://www.ancienttexts.org/library/mesopotamian/gilgamesh/tab11.htm

Other flood myths:

http://www.suite101.com/content/prechristian-versions-of-noahs-ark-a93039

However, I am not sure that the Greek myth predates the Hebrew myth.

Also, as I mentioned, there are two flood versions in Genesis.



So Noah is to take TWO of every sort of animals into the ark, right?

But wait! That isn't right.



So which is it? Two of EVERY animal or seven pairs of clean animals and two of unclean animals?

Ack!

It doesn't matter if hell is not real; it doesn't even matter if the Bible contradicts itself; it doesn't matter because Christians decide what the Bible says and what it means, eh?

A basic tenet of MOST Christian denominations is that hell is a real place.

Hell is a place filled with fire, but according to Matthew 8:12, "But the subjects of the kingdom will be thrown outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth."

Since dead people are spirit and have no corporeal bodies, I am not sure how they will be gnashing their teeth. Hmmm . . .

Christian seek to explain this contradiction with fantastical explanations, but it only makes the existence of such a place even sillier.

LOL!!!

It doesn't matter? Why, so you can refute either way?

Just change your position to argue, eh? Now that is a contradiction.

While you may have impressed me a few months ago with your knowledge of the Pagan origins of some of the "tenets", for you to now assert that they are original and part of the Bible is laughable...

Seriously, use the internet, find out where and what "hell" is...

Do you assume I believe Jesus is God? LMAO!





Hmmm, I wonder why stone would be older that parchment...

Gilgamesh made a box, Noah made an ark. Which one seems more believable, myth or not?

The number is an easy reconciliation, but I'll leave it for the readers to ponder. Hint, you quoted enough verse to figure it out...

Now, question for you... If there was a flood, did it cover the entire earth or was it just local?