NationStates Jolt Archive

Yes, I was reading the Bible. Just becuase I don't like Christians doesn't mean I don't believe in god.
I was reading the story about God and Abraham. At the ending Abraham sacrifices a goat, and God accepts it. I went on and I read more.
The book contradicts itself a half-dozen times. I can see how perverts like Jerry Falwell can get twisted definetions of "morality" out of it. Please, when you read the Bible, don't try to interpet it. Becuase chances are, you're wrong. The book is a collection of fables, and leave it at that.

While I think you're wrong about it being a book of fables. And I am insulted by your dislike of Christians. We're not all like Jerry Falwell and those insane radicals. They're a bunch of lunatic fantics.

I do however agree that not everything in the Bible should be interpreted. But I also think parts of it shouldn't be taken literally. A lot of whats in the Bible is symbollic and not meant as is.

I realize what I said may sound sort of contradictory to myself, but just try to understand it.

When people try to "understand" the bible you get the Salem witch trials. It's best to be studied by yourself. Or not studied at all.

Could it be that the bible is like a party manifesto written by politicians at different time in different places failing to offer us a coherent policy?

I was reading the Bible.
This was your first mistake if you were trying to understand the religious right.

When people kill people after interpreting the Bible you get the Salem Witch Trials.

There's a key difference there.

The Bible does contradict itself by most interpretations, yes, but the Bible is a collection of many seperate books written at seperate times. Though some insist that the whole must be taken as true, I and many others do not. Because one chemical in a lab is good for you does not mean that all are. Similarly, because one book in the library is full of lies, not all are.

This comes down to the fact that when you describe people and you use the words all or always you are going to be wrong.

All or always rarely applies to anything, it never applies to people.

This comes down to the fact that when you describe people and you use the words all or always you are going to be wrong.

All or always rarely applies to anything, it never applies to people.
This is singularly the most intelligent thing I have read anyone post in this forum ever.

When people kill people after interpreting the Bible you get the Salem Witch Trials.

There's a key difference there.

The Bible does contradict itself by most interpretations, yes, but the Bible is a collection of many seperate books written at seperate times. Though some insist that the whole must be taken as true, I and many others do not. Because one chemical in a lab is good for you does not mean that all are. Similarly, because one book in the library is full of lies, not all are.

I like your idea. I think along similar lines.

This is singularly the most intelligent thing I have read anyone post in this forum ever.

Indeed.

Yes, I was reading the Bible. Just becuase I don't like Christians doesn't mean I don't believe in god.
I was reading the story about God and Abraham. At the ending Abraham sacrifices a goat, and God accepts it. I went on and I read more.
The book contradicts itself a half-dozen times. I can see how perverts like Jerry Falwell can get twisted definetions of "morality" out of it. Please, when you read the Bible, don't try to interpet it. Becuase chances are, you're wrong. The book is a collection of fables, and leave it at that.


I don't care to address most of the content of this post, for the most part because it is a tired, pointless, useless debate.

I only wish to add one thing: I, too, do not at all agree with most of Jerry Falwell's policies and beliefs...but I have met the man, and he is no "pervert". He is kind, generous, giving, and very "grandfatherly". Again, his beliefs are fine to disagree with, or even abhor, but attacking him personally neither furthers your cause, nor speaks well of your intellect.

Attack the problem. Not the person.

Well said, Keljamistan.

Thank you.

This is singularly the most intelligent thing I have read anyone post in this forum ever.

Wow, thank you. But I am afraid you are far too generous.

This comes down to the fact that when you describe people and you use the words all or always you are going to be wrong.

All or always rarely applies to anything, it never applies to people.

ditto.

The interesting thing is, if more people applied this line of thinking, there'd be less pointless debate on this forum.

This comes down to the fact that when you describe people and you use the words all or always you are going to be wrong.

All or always rarely applies to anything, it never applies to people.

I partially agree. But isn't "It never applies to people" an inverse "always" statement?

Yes, I was reading the Bible. Just becuase I don't like Christians doesn't mean I don't believe in god.
I was reading the story about God and Abraham. At the ending Abraham sacrifices a goat, and God accepts it. I went on and I read more.
The book contradicts itself a half-dozen times. I can see how perverts like Jerry Falwell can get twisted definetions of "morality" out of it. Please, when you read the Bible, don't try to interpet it. Becuase chances are, you're wrong. The book is a collection of fables, and leave it at that.Go on reading. When you've read Yoshua you won't like god either.

I disagree though that the Bible is a collection of fables. It's a collection of histories.

First off: I'm not Christian. However, I HAVE read a good portion of the Bible, and I'd like to point something out: LOTS of things contradict themselves, but usually the contradiction comes from the differences between the Old Testament and the New Testament. In the goat example, if you read deeply you find that before Christ, sacrifice of things like goats was indeed condoned and accepted by God. However, AFTER Christ sacrifice was no longer needed, as Christ gave his life in the ultimate sacrifice. To offer further sacrifice was to deny that Christ's sacrifice was enough, and thus shun His gift to us. So, there you have it: back in the day, goat sacrifice was accepted. Nowadays, it's rude and heretical, for a rather valid reason in the context of the religion.

$0.02

I don't care to address most of the content of this post, for the most part because it is a tired, pointless, useless debate.

I only wish to add one thing: I, too, do not at all agree with most of Jerry Falwell's policies and beliefs...but I have met the man, and he is no "pervert". He is kind, generous, giving, and very "grandfatherly". Again, his beliefs are fine to disagree with, or even abhor, but attacking him personally neither furthers your cause, nor speaks well of your intellect.

Attack the problem. Not the person.

Falwell blamed 9/11 on the gays. He's a complete homophobe and a racist. So yes, it is fine to attack him personally.

Go on reading. When you've read Yoshua you won't like god either.

I disagree though that the Bible is a collection of fables. It's a collection of histories.

Very corrupted histories. They do have some truth in them, don't get me wrong. But the Bible can't be thought of as "gods word."

I don't care to address most of the content of this post, for the most part because it is a tired, pointless, useless debate.

I only wish to add one thing: I, too, do not at all agree with most of Jerry Falwell's policies and beliefs...but I have met the man, and he is no "pervert". He is kind, generous, giving, and very "grandfatherly". Again, his beliefs are fine to disagree with, or even abhor, but attacking him personally neither furthers your cause, nor speaks well of your intellect.

Attack the problem. Not the person.

I agree completely, Jerry Falwell has expressed some views that I find deplorable, but personal judgement falls squarely on the shoulders of the Reverend and his god.

Furthermore, after reading this post and past posts, I find that Neo Alansyism has abandoned all privelege to make any judgements.

Falwell blamed 9/11 on the gays. He's a complete homophobe and a racist. So yes, it is fine to attack him personally.


Show me where.

..and being against homosexuality is not the same as being a homophobe.

...I never got the feeling he was a racist...can you illustrate that one, too?

Because one chemical in a lab is good for you does not mean that all are. Similarly, because one book in the library is full of lies, not all are.
Well, how do you know which books are full of lies and which are the truth? You can't follow them all if they're contradictory, but I doubt God has ever spoken to you directly in a clear manner, not open to interpretation. So how do you know which book(s) to follow? If you're just going to go with the books that seem right or work for your moral compass, why do you need the potentially lie-filled books at all? I mean, sure there are a bunch of books in the library, but they're all talking about the same thing: what god wants you to do. How can you trust any of them if some are full of lies?
It just seems a bit like Russian Roulette, except instead of a bullet in one chamber it's eternal damnation.

A few changes and...
"Yes, I was reading the Koran. Just becuase I don't like Muslims doesn't mean I don't believe in god.
I was reading the story about God and Abraham. At the ending Abraham sacrifices a goat, and God accepts it. I went on and I read more.
The book contradicts itself a half-dozen times. I can see how perverts like Osama Bin-Laden can get twisted definetions of "morality" out of it. Please, when you read the Koran, don't try to interpet it. Becuase chances are, you're wrong. The book is a collection of fables, and leave it at that."

"When people try to 'understand' the Koran you get September 11th. It's best to be studied by yourself. Or not studied at all."

In these sensitive and politically correct times, if someone were to begin a forum that contained these statements, I believe there would be a good number of people that would be agry at these sweeping denunciations of a religion and its holy book. Why is there a double standard?

I partially agree. But isn't "It never applies to people" an inverse "always" statement?

Ironically, yes. However the never in my statement applies to the judgement not to the people.

Yes, I was reading the Bible. Just becuase I don't like Christians doesn't mean I don't believe in god.
I was reading the story about God and Abraham. At the ending Abraham sacrifices a goat, and God accepts it. I went on and I read more.
The book contradicts itself a half-dozen times. I can see how perverts like Jerry Falwell can get twisted definetions of "morality" out of it. Please, when you read the Bible, don't try to interpet it. Becuase chances are, you're wrong. The book is a collection of fables, and leave it at that.

Christians and Jews have always had a tough time understanding how that passage works. If you don't believe me, try reading Fear and Loathing and see how many knots Kierkegaard ties himself in trying to make sense of it.

That being said, it doesn't necessarily follow that just because a) you're not a Knight of Faith, and b) the whole concept of the Knight of Faith is a load of hooey (personally, I like Hegel's understanding of the passage much better: Abraham was a despicable human being), doesn't mean that anyone who tries to come up with some way of understanding it is automatically some kind of zealot bent on a religious cleansing of the world.

Yes, I was reading the Bible. Just becuase I don't like Christians doesn't mean I don't believe in god.

The book contradicts itself a half-dozen times. I can see how perverts like Jerry Falwell can get twisted definetions of "morality" .

This is very ironic. So you believe in God......this makes you a Christian or Christ-like, if you will, made in the vision of God. But you don't like Christians OR anyone "christ-like" I am confused!

Jerry Falwell is presented as "god-like" in this context. He is a human-being first and as such, sinful in all he does.

I would suggest you refer to the book of JAMES of more information on this matter.

;)

I missed the part in the Bible where it says "Although this is many times specifically mentioned as being The Word Of God(c), feel free to interpret it as you will to better suit your needs".

I personally find Judeo-Christian religions all similarly ridiculous, but they never cease to amaze me with their stalwart defense of something so flawed as the Bible.

All sorts of fun stuff, like:

GE 11:7-9 Where God sows discord
PR 6:16-19 Where God hates anyone who sows discord

GE 17:7, 10-11 The covenant of circumcision is to be everlasting.
GA 6:15 It is of no consequence.

GE 17:15-16, 20:11-12, 22:17 Abraham and his half sister, Sarai, are married and receive God's blessings.
LE 20:17, DT 27:20-23 Incest is wrong.

1SA 28:6 Saul inquired of the Lord, but received no answer.
1CH 10:13-14 Saul died for not inquiring of the Lord.

1SA 31:4-6 Saul killed himself by falling on his sword.
2SA 1:2-10 Saul, at his own request, was slain by an Amalekite.
2SA 21:12 Saul was killed by the Philistines on Gilboa.
1CH 10:13-14 Saul was slain by God.
(Saul apparently had it pretty rough, having to die four times)

2KI 4:32-37 A dead child is raised (well before the time of Jesus).
MT 9:18-25, JN 11:38-44 Two dead persons are raised (by Jesus himself).
AC 26:23 Jesus was the first to rise from the dead.

...and much, much more. It's not so hard to see through the Bible's veneer, you just have to realize that you've nothing to be afraid of. Even if the Bible were to be true; the selfish, childish god it describes is none I'd care to worship.

That being said, it doesn't necessarily follow that just because a) you're not a Knight of Faith, and b) the whole concept of the Knight of Faith is a load of hooey (personally, I like Hegel's understanding of the passage much better: Abraham was a despicable human being), doesn't mean that anyone who tries to come up with some way of understanding it is automatically some kind of zealot bent on a religious cleansing of the world.

However, do you not admit the validity of the teleological suspension of the ethical if we are able to place ourselves in that absolute relation to the absolute?

If you're just going to go with the books that seem right or work for your moral compass, why do you need the potentially lie-filled books at all? I mean, sure there are a bunch of books in the library, but they're all talking about the same thing: what god wants you to do. How can you trust any of them if some are full of lies?
It just seems a bit like Russian Roulette, except instead of a bullet in one chamber it's eternal damnation.

They don't just have to be about "what god wants [one] to do." I simply see it as being what one can best do to find peace within him/herself and this world. (This may or may not be the same as God's intentions for you, depending on your viewpoint.) It doesn't matter if it's the Bible, it could be Gandhi's biography, the Koran, some religious musings, or the philosophy assignment of some random high school student. The point, for me, is that reading new things, like talking to new people, opens up new possibilities to be evaluated.

I suppose it's possible that I could be eternally damned for this way of thought. But it's the way I think, right now. If I'm eternally damned, and I don't understand why, so be it. I couldn't have done anything.

A few changes and...
"Yes, I was reading the Koran. Just becuase I don't like Muslims doesn't mean I don't believe in god.
I was reading the story about God and Abraham. At the ending Abraham sacrifices a goat, and God accepts it. I went on and I read more.
The book contradicts itself a half-dozen times. I can see how perverts like Osama Bin-Laden can get twisted definetions of "morality" out of it. Please, when you read the Koran, don't try to interpet it. Becuase chances are, you're wrong. The book is a collection of fables, and leave it at that."

"When people try to 'understand' the Koran you get September 11th. It's best to be studied by yourself. Or not studied at all."

In these sensitive and politically correct times, if someone were to begin a forum that contained these statements, I believe there would be a good number of people that would be agry at these sweeping denunciations of a religion and its holy book. Why is there a double standard?

That's how things are, my friend. I hate all relegious fundmentalist regardless of affilation.

Well, how do you know which books are full of lies and which are the truth? You can't follow them all if they're contradictory, but I doubt God has ever spoken to you directly in a clear manner, not open to interpretation. So how do you know which book(s) to follow? If you're just going to go with the books that seem right or work for your moral compass, why do you need the potentially lie-filled books at all? I mean, sure there are a bunch of books in the library, but they're all talking about the same thing: what god wants you to do. How can you trust any of them if some are full of lies?
It just seems a bit like Russian Roulette, except instead of a bullet in one chamber it's eternal damnation.

The bible is not a manual, it is a guide.

I hate all relegious fundmentalist regardless of affilation.

Ergo, you yourself have a fundamentalist religious position, and thus...

However, do you not admit the validity of the teleological suspension of the ethical if we are able to place ourselves in that absolute relation to the absolute?

Depends what you mean. If you mean accept Kierkegaard's solution to the problem, then yes. That's why I'm so repulsed by his thinking. However, not everyone comes to the conclusion Kierkegaard did.

Wow, thank you. But I am afraid you are far too generous.
Take some time reading the forums and you will see I am not being generous, I am telling the truth.

Ergo, you yourself have a fundamentalist religious position, and thus...
Thanks BWO, nicely worded.

Ergo, you yourself have a fundamentalist religious position, and thus...

What on earth are you talking about?

Previously Stated by The Zero and The One:
I missed the part in the Bible where it says "Although this is many times specifically mentioned as being The Word Of God(c), feel free to interpret it as you will to better suit your needs".

I personally find Judeo-Christian religions all similarly ridiculous, but they never cease to amaze me with their stalwart defense of something so flawed as the Bible.

All sorts of fun stuff, like:

GE 11:7-9 Where God sows discord
PR 6:16-19 Where God hates anyone who sows discord

GE 17:7, 10-11 The covenant of circumcision is to be everlasting.
GA 6:15 It is of no consequence.

GE 17:15-16, 20:11-12, 22:17 Abraham and his half sister, Sarai, are married and receive God's blessings.
LE 20:17, DT 27:20-23 Incest is wrong.

1SA 28:6 Saul inquired of the Lord, but received no answer.
1CH 10:13-14 Saul died for not inquiring of the Lord.

1SA 31:4-6 Saul killed himself by falling on his sword.
2SA 1:2-10 Saul, at his own request, was slain by an Amalekite.
2SA 21:12 Saul was killed by the Philistines on Gilboa.
1CH 10:13-14 Saul was slain by God.
(Saul apparently had it pretty rough, having to die four times)

2KI 4:32-37 A dead child is raised (well before the time of Jesus).
MT 9:18-25, JN 11:38-44 Two dead persons are raised (by Jesus himself).
AC 26:23 Jesus was the first to rise from the dead.

...and much, much more. It's not so hard to see through the Bible's veneer, you just have to realize that you've nothing to be afraid of. Even if the Bible were to be true; the selfish, childish god it describes is none I'd care to worship.

Allow me to rip apart these assumptions, piece by piece.
1. God can sow discord to suit his purposes, but humans can't sow discord. This would seem like a contradiction, if you put humans and God on an equal level. However, God is above humans, and allowed to do whatever he wants.
2. The covenant is important as a symbolic gesture, but it is fairly insignificant because it is a minor agreement.
3. This applies differently in ancient times, for a half sibling was not considered a family member, and this was NOt incestuous.
4. Saul should have inquired of the Lord, and just because the Lord didn't answer, doesn't mean he should stop inquiring. Billions of people do it every day: it's called prayer!
5. This is a simple factual error that results from the Bible having multiple authors, but the theological meaning does not change. It doesn't matter if God personally killed Saul, or he had someone else do it.
6. You're problem is that you fail to see it from the authors' point of view. If God gave the author this information, it would LOOK LIKE they rose from the dead. However, the people of the time did not understand that some people could appear to be dead, but were not.
7. Finally, to say God is portrayed as selfish is an outright lie. First and foremost, God created the Earth. He did ot have to do this. Second, he constantly offers forgivenes, despite people disobeying him constantly.
How do ya' like them apples?!?

What on earth are you talking about?

By expressing hate based upon theological views you are taking a very fundamentalist view.

Allow me to rip apart these assumptions, piece by piece.
1. God can sow discord to suit his purposes, but humans can't sow discord. This would seem like a contradiction, if you put humans and God on an equal level. However, God is above humans, and allowed to do whatever he wants.
2. The covenant is important as a symbolic gesture, but it is fairly insignificant because it is a minor agreement.
3. This applies differently in ancient times, for a half sibling was not considered a family member, and this was NOt incestuous.
4. Saul should have inquired of the Lord, and just because the Lord didn't answer, doesn't mean he should stop inquiring. Billions of people do it every day: it's called prayer!
5. This is a simple factual error that results from the Bible having multiple authors, but the theological meaning does not change. It doesn't matter if God personally killed Saul, or he had someone else do it.
6. You're problem is that you fail to see it from the authors' point of view. If God gave the author this information, it would LOOK LIKE they rose from the dead. However, the people of the time did not understand that some people could appear to be dead, but were not.
7. Finally, to say God is portrayed as selfish is an outright lie. First and foremost, God created the Earth. He did ot have to do this. Second, he constantly offers forgivenes, despite people disobeying him constantly.
How do ya' like them apples?!?

I find your apples quite palatable.
Allow me to present my opinion, rather than claim I'm ripping anything up.

1. Do as I say, not as I do. It's ridiculous when you apply it to god, too.
2. God apparently needs to learn what 'everlasting' means then, eh?
3. Family members are fair game if the current letter of the law states it as such?
4. "Didn't inquire" and "stopped inquiring" are two very, very different things.
5. My my, you mean there could be ERRORS IN THE BIBLE!!?!, I must thank you for 'ripping apart' that point.
6. Is that an answer directly from your nether-regions, or was there a middle-man involved?
7. God created man to worship. All the suffering that has ever existed has done so with the express consent of God. I would rather no one ever have existed than think of the people that have suffered and died at the hands of your merciful God. I don't think there's ever been a better example of selfish.

The bible is not a manual, it is a guide.
The point is that you're supposed to follow the guide, whether you consider it a manual or a guide (the difference between the two being fairly semantic). If certain parts are lies, how do you know which parts are true?

Take everything with a grain of salt

I like how the creator of this thread said "the book contradicts itself like half a dozen times, and doesn't even say where.

Well if you are refering to differences in the old Testiment and the New. Then they do contradic each other.

Jesus sacraficed himself for us. He is the ultament sacrafice, we dont have to do that any more.

And the real loonies are the Bill Mayers of this world spreading liberal ideas in the media, making being a conservative or even having a relidgion to be stupid.

________________
//(.)>(.)\\\
___^_____ :sniper: :mp5: :mp5: :sniper: :mp5: :sniper: :sniper: :gundge: :gundge: :gundge:

muhahah die

Well if you are refering to differences in the old Testiment and the New. Then they do contradic each other.

Jesus sacraficed himself for us. He is the ultament sacrafice, we dont have to do that any more.

And the real loonies are the Bill Mayers of this world spreading liberal ideas in the media, making being a conservative or even having a relidgion to be stupid.

________________
//(.)>(.)\\\
___^_____ :sniper: :mp5: :mp5: :sniper: :mp5: :sniper: :sniper: :gundge: :gundge: :gundge:

muhahah die

Um... Well, I already covered the "Christ as ultimate sacrifice" thing a while ago, but thanks for refreshing everyone's memories. Though I have to disagree with a word choice of yours:

And the real loonies are the Bill Mayers of this world spreading liberal ideas in the media, making being a conservative or even having a relidgion to be stupid.

As a liberal myself, I can tell you that painting anyone that follows a religion and/or conservative viewpoints as stupid IS NOT the goal of the liberal mindset. Indeed, it's the exact opposite. Being conservative is fine if it works for you, and as for religion? Rock on! That's great! The liberal viewpoint is that of freedom of thought, not the condemnation of it.

I like how the creator of this thread said "the book contradicts itself like half a dozen times, and doesn't even say where.

I didn't say like. Read the God damn thread!

Um... Well, I already covered the "Christ as ultimate sacrifice" thing a while ago, but thanks for refreshing everyone's memories. Though I have to disagree with a word choice of yours:

And the real loonies are the Bill Mayers of this world spreading liberal ideas in the media, making being a conservative or even having a relidgion to be stupid.

As a liberal myself, I can tell you that painting anyone that follows a religion and/or conservative viewpoints as stupid IS NOT the goal of the liberal mindset. Indeed, it's the exact opposite. Being conservative is fine if it works for you, and as for religion? Rock on! That's great! The liberal viewpoint is that of freedom of thought, not the condemnation of it.

But you see, I am a liberal fascist. I believe the only way for the liberal cause to live on is to fight fire with fire.
Instead of "Oh you want the war, well that's your opinion."
Say "I hope your children are drafted and come home in a vegetable state"

Cruel, maybe. But to fight violent, ignorant people you must resort to these tatics.

Well if you are refering to differences in the old Testiment and the New. Then they do contradic each other.

Jesus sacraficed himself for us. He is the ultament sacrafice, we dont have to do that any more.

And the real loonies are the Bill Mayers of this world spreading liberal ideas in the media, making being a conservative or even having a relidgion to be stupid.


You mean Bill Maher, I think, and your statement that he is a loony is drastically misinformed as he represents the view of many people.

If your views were unassailable, nobody would disagree with them. Christians need to remember that.

You mean Bill Maher, I think, and your statement that he is a loony is drastically misinformed as he represents the view of many people.

If your views were unassailable, nobody would disagree with them. Christians need to remember that.
Yes, so many people loved what he said after 9/11 "We are the terrorists", that his show got booted off the network.

But you see, I am a liberal fascist. I believe the only way for the liberal cause to live on is to fight fire with fire.
Instead of "Oh you want the war, well that's your opinion."
Say "I hope your children are drafted and come home in a vegetable state"

Cruel, maybe. But to fight violent, ignorant people you must resort to these tatics.
You are 13 years old you no concept of fighting for anything.
The Liberal Cause? What would that be?
A Liberal Facist?
Amazing.
Yet another testimonial not to send your children to the American school system.

But you see, I am a liberal fascist. I believe the only way for the liberal cause to live on is to fight fire with fire.
Instead of "Oh you want the war, well that's your opinion."
Say "I hope your children are drafted and come home in a vegetable state"

Cruel, maybe. But to fight violent, ignorant people you must resort to these tatics.
What you are saying is contrary to liberal dogma: negotiate, negotiate, negotiate. If they kill some of your people, ask them nicely to never do it again. If they keep killing your people, give them a stern warning. Liberals are supposed to be tolerant. "I hope your children are drafted and come home in a vegetable state" is not very tolerant (yes, I am using sarcasm/understatement).

You are 13 years old you no concept of fighting for anything.
The Liberal Cause? What would that be?
A Liberal Facist?
Amazing.
Yet another testimonial not to send your children to the American school system.

Firstly they're only a few people, predominatly the poor who have ever had to "fight" in their lives. Liberal Fascism is explained in-depth in my manifesto. Which was banned from the web becuase of "subliminal messaging."
I have no love for the American school system, just to tell you.

What you are saying is contrary to liberal dogma: negotiate, negotiate, negotiate. If they kill some of your people, ask them nicely to never do it again. If they keep killing your people, give them a stern warning. Liberals are supposed to be tolerant. "I hope your children are drafted and come home in a vegetable state" is not very tolerant (yes, I am using sarcasm/understatement).

Liberalism is about not tolerating violence, ignorance, and intolerance. Liberalism needs a more authoritarian face.
Look how well it's going for the reps.

I find your apples quite palatable.
Allow me to present my opinion, rather than claim I'm ripping anything up.

1. Do as I say, not as I do. It's ridiculous when you apply it to god, too.
2. God apparently needs to learn what 'everlasting' means then, eh?
3. Family members are fair game if the current letter of the law states it as such?
4. "Didn't inquire" and "stopped inquiring" are two very, very different things.
5. My my, you mean there could be ERRORS IN THE BIBLE!!?!, I must thank you for 'ripping apart' that point.
6. Is that an answer directly from your nether-regions, or was there a middle-man involved?
7. God created man to worship. All the suffering that has ever existed has done so with the express consent of God. I would rather no one ever have existed than think of the people that have suffered and died at the hands of your merciful God. I don't think there's ever been a better example of selfish.

Alright, Zero, while I thank you for complimenting my apples (and no, there is no hidden meaning to that), I'm going to have to sadden you by rebutting your arguments.
1. Of course the same standards don't apply to us as they do to him. HE'S GOD. By very definition, that implies superiority. He is wise enough to determine when discord must be sown, but we are not.
2. "everlasting" does not mean "important". While the covenant will last forever, that doesn't make it a particularly significant agreement.
3. It was not just the law, it was the general perception of the time.
4. Sorry about that. I misunderstood you. However, since this is could be changed with minor wording, I'm guessing ot was a translation error. These texts are very old after all.
5. Of course there are errors in the Bible. God inspired it, but it was written over the centuries by many different people who interpreted God's inspiration differently. Also, translation errors fill the Bible, but these errors are mistakes that make no theological contradiction, and simply a slight factual one.
6. I'm sorry, but I fail to grasp how that rebutts my point in any way.
7. That is an incorrect assumption. God gave us this Earth as an act of graciousness, and has shown forgiveness to many. The fact that so many suffer is the work of evil forces, and because God cannot intervene in every instance of suffering, because humans must be good of their own free will, not by force. God cannot step in every time we screw up. We've got to learn to stop screwing up.
Ba da BOOM!

Firstly they're only a few people, predominatly the poor who have ever had to "fight" in their lives. Liberal Fascism is explained in-depth in my manifesto. Which was banned from the web becuase of "subliminal messaging."
I have no love for the American school system, just to tell you.
Obviously the American school system has failed you, because you apparently never learned that our military is comprised completely of VOLUNTEERS! Many join the military for (gasp!) moral reasons: the belief that it is good and noble to fight for your country and the freedoms it enjoys. And you have obviously never been poor if you think poor people have never had to fight in their lives before joining the military.

Liberalism is about not tolerating violence, ignorance, and intolerance. Liberalism needs a more authoritarian face.
Look how well it's going for the reps.
If liberals become more authoritarian, then they are no longer liberal, but fascist. A term which you have already used in this thread, I believe. Mussolini, my hero!

Obviously the American school system has failed you, because you apparently never learned that our military is comprised completely of VOLUNTEERS! Many join the military for (gasp!) moral reasons: the belief that it is good and noble to fight for your country and the freedoms it enjoys. And you have obviously never been poor if you think poor people have never had to fight in their lives before joining the military.

Most men join them millitary becuase they're poor and the army offers them three square meals and a pay check.

Most men join them millitary becuase they're poor and the army offers them three square meals and a pay check.
Do you have proof of this ? (and F9/11 doesn't count)

Obviously the American school system has failed you, because you apparently never learned that our military is comprised completely of VOLUNTEERS! Many join the military for (gasp!) moral reasons: the belief that it is good and noble to fight for your country and the freedoms it enjoys. And you have obviously never been poor if you think poor people have never had to fight in their lives before joining the military.

Volunteers? Um... I'm going to assume you meant that people join of their own accord, not that they're not getting paid. The military is in fact a profession. And I think I have to point something out: the poor are the most common people to join the military, yes. You can look at the various polls on the average family income of the majority of military members. The reasons for this are usually quite simple:

1. It pays well, and if you're poor, you need the cash.
2. Most military positions offer assistance with schooling after their time in the services.
3. It gives a poor person a chance to travel the world, and given their financial state, they're not likely to see it otherwise.

So, there you have it: an arugment to support (somewhat) Neo's assertations.

Most men join them millitary becuase they're poor and the army offers them three square meals and a pay check.
And you know this from all the military people you hang out with?

Yet another testimonial not to send your children to the American school system.

As a student in a public high school, I would like to say: Amen to that! I've had teahers try to indoctrinate me with their liberal worldviews, I've been coaxed to "talk about my feelings", and I've been haphazardly psychoanalyzed and pegged as depressed and having low self-esteem. At least now I'm prepared to deal with people like that early on in life. :p
And by the way, as much as I dislike our public school teachers, I do love the US and thank God (yes, GOD) that I have the opportunity to live here.

Volunteers? Um... I'm going to assume you meant that people join of their own accord, not that they're not getting paid. The military is in fact a profession. And I think I have to point something out: the poor are the most common people to join the military, yes. You can look at the various polls on the average family income of the majority of military members. The reasons for this are usually quite simple:

1. It pays well, and if you're poor, you need the cash.
2. Most military positions offer assistance with schooling after their time in the services.
3. It gives a poor person a chance to travel the world, and given their financial state, they're not likely to see it otherwise.

So, there you have it: an arugment to support (somewhat) Neo's assertations.
Bad choice of words, volunteer in the sense that they sign up willingly, no draft. As to the average family income of military members, it is probably low because the military doesn't pay much! If I could afford it, I would go into the military, but I have too many bills to pay and too many mouths to feed. Plus I'm now 35, which I think is too old . . .
Regardless, being in the military is a choice, and not forced on anyone. And it does not follow that just because someone is poor, they are joining the military for the money, although I am sure in some cases that is true.

Volunteers? Um... I'm going to assume you meant that people join of their own accord, not that they're not getting paid. The military is in fact a profession. And I think I have to point something out: the poor are the most common people to join the military, yes. You can look at the various polls on the average family income of the majority of military members. The reasons for this are usually quite simple:

1. It pays well, and if you're poor, you need the cash.
2. Most military positions offer assistance with schooling after their time in the services.
3. It gives a poor person a chance to travel the world, and given their financial state, they're not likely to see it otherwise.

So, there you have it: an arugment to support (somewhat) Neo's assertations.

Firstly, they are only poor relativistically. The "poor" in the US are only poor when compared to the rest of the US. If you compare their lot with the living conditions of many other countries they are actually quite well off. Secondly over 90-95% of the enlisted military has graduated high school or gotten their GED. I can't argue with the last, but then if you really want to travel the world to any varied amount of locations you wouold have to be quite rich as in upper middle class.

Most men join them millitary becuase they're poor and the army offers them three square meals and a pay check.

Some, not most. As someone else said, most join out of a love for their country and a will to defend it. You're too lazy and cowardly to get up off your butt and join, so shut up. You don't know what you're talking about. :headbang:

Bad choice of words, volunteer in the sense that they sign up willingly, no draft. As to the average family income of military members, it is probably low because the military doesn't pay much! If I could afford it, I would go into the military, but I have too many bills to pay and too many mouths to feed. Plus I'm now 35, which I think is too old . . .
Regardless, being in the military is a choice, and not forced on anyone. And it does not follow that just because someone is poor, they are joining the military for the money, although I am sure in some cases that is true.

*nods* I agree. I was just throwing out another view point... but... I really shouldn't have. I need those $0.002! ;) Also, I can support your claim that it's not always for money that a poor person joins the military. One of my old D&D friends, who was really quite poor (working at a 7/11 doesn't pay all that well), recently joined the Navy not because he wanted money, but because he wanted to do something with his life. And the same goes for my cousin's husband. But there is a certain "poverty trend" in the stats...

Check out the following link for some demographics on the military:
US Military Demographics (http://onbasemarketing.com/demographics.html)

...I can't argue with the last, but then if you really want to travel the world to any varied amount of locations you wouold have to be quite rich as in upper middle class.

Well, either that or you're dirt poor but travel all over the place. Like me :)

Check out the following link for some demographics on the military:
US Military Demographics (http://onbasemarketing.com/demographics.html)

Useful. Thanks.

Alright, Zero, while I thank you for complimenting my apples (and no, there is no hidden meaning to that), I'm going to have to sadden you by rebutting your arguments.
1. Of course the same standards don't apply to us as they do to him. HE'S GOD. By very definition, that implies superiority. He is wise enough to determine when discord must be sown, but we are not.

So justice is whatever God chooses it to mean? In that case, how could anything be considered wrong absolutely? Murder in that instance is perfectly okay if God wills it so. This is absurd.

God is subject to the same laws of morality and justice as we are. He respects the moral law because it is just and moral, not because he whims it so.


2. "everlasting" does not mean "important". While the covenant will last forever, that doesn't make it a particularly significant agreement.

The covenant covers who gets eternal life and how they do so. If the content isn't enough to imply significance, then I'm not sure what will.

Useful. Thanks.
NP :)

This is singularly the most intelligent thing I have read anyone post in this forum ever.

Well now...this forum, perhaps...but think about it: it's a contradiction. Saying that 'always' or 'all' NEVER (hint hint) is kind of a violation of the logic it is trying to promote...

Absurd cases:
ALL people die when their bodies have been subatomically disassembled (don't give me any crap about them 'living on in memory').

I would go farther, but I will just be flamed to death on minor technicalities.

So justice is whatever God chooses it to mean? In that case, how could anything be considered wrong absolutely? Murder in that instance is perfectly okay if God wills it so. This is absurd.

God is subject to the same laws of morality and justice as we are. He respects the moral law because it is just and moral, not because he whims it so.



The covenant covers who gets eternal life and how they do so. If the content isn't enough to imply significance, then I'm not sure what will.
1. yes, beacuse God decided what moral justice was. There is absolute wrong, and it has already been decided by God
2. I'm referring to a different covenant, which I was discussing with "The Zero and the One." The covenant you refer to is the most important of them all, so sorry if you're confused.

First off: I'm not Christian. However, I HAVE read a good portion of the Bible, and I'd like to point something out: LOTS of things contradict themselves, but usually the contradiction comes from the differences between the Old Testament and the New Testament. In the goat example, if you read deeply you find that before Christ, sacrifice of things like goats was indeed condoned and accepted by God. However, AFTER Christ sacrifice was no longer needed, as Christ gave his life in the ultimate sacrifice. To offer further sacrifice was to deny that Christ's sacrifice was enough, and thus shun His gift to us. So, there you have it: back in the day, goat sacrifice was accepted. Nowadays, it's rude and heretical, for a rather valid reason in the context of the religion.

$0.02

It is my understanding that animal sacrifice was not necessary for the forgiveness of sins, even before Jesus' death. Isaiah 1:11 implies that sacrifices are either not needed or inadequate for the forgiveness of sins. John the baptist was preaching baptism for the forgiveness of sins long before Jesus was crucified. (Mark 1:4, Luke 3:3)

wow...keep letting the christians post on this thread.b/c the more christians that agree with the other christians means that they're more right!!!

yeah...NOT REALLY.stfu...we all know what you ALL think...so,all you need to say is "I'm a christian.And we'll know what you think."

In Russia, Bible reads you!

wow...keep letting the christians post on this thread.b/c the more christians that agree with the other christians means that they're more right!!!

yeah...NOT REALLY.stfu...we all know what you ALL think...so,all you need to say is "I'm a christian.And we'll know what you think."

Well, I'm a christian and you know what I think? Probably not, because I have rather different opinions than other christians. Just like any other group, we swing all the way from radical fundimentalists to radical liberals. So you know what I'm thinking? Yup. Bingo. That you're a bigot!

Very corrupted histories. They do have some truth in them, don't get me wrong. But the Bible can't be thought of as "gods word."Not so corrupted as you might think. If you take away all the BS that was only inserted to endorse the Israelite-style cult of Yah, you get a good account of ancient history.

Well, I'm a christian and you know what I think? Probably not, because I have rather different opinions than other christians. Just like any other group, we swing all the way from radical fundimentalists to radical liberals. So you know what I'm thinking? Yup. Bingo. That you're a bigot!If you are a christian, it is already clear what you think. Where you position yourself in the spectrum between "radical fundimentalist" and "radical liberal" is almost irrelevant, since already the very fundamentals of Christianity are highly questionable.

If you are a christian, it is already clear what you think. Where you position yourself in the spectrum between "radical fundimentalist" and "radical liberal" is almost irrelevant, since already the very fundamentals of Christianity are highly questionable.

OK, so what am I thinking?

In Russia, Bible reads you!

In Russia, joke tells you!

OK, so what am I thinking?

You're thinking: "If you can guess what I'm thinking, I'll give you lots of money so you can buy a game cube and the complete set of the Oxford English Dictionary."

Okay, now give me the money.

You're thinking: "If you can guess what I'm thinking, I'll give you lots of money so you can buy a game cube and the complete set of the Oxford English Dictionary."

Okay, now give me the money.

Game Cube??? Ha! Fat chance! Upgrade your PC and play real games!

You're thinking: "If you can guess what I'm thinking, I'll give you lots of money so you can buy a game cube and the complete set of the Oxford English Dictionary."

Okay, now give me the money.

The dictionary part was pretty creepy though.... :confused:

The dictionary part was pretty creepy though.... :confused:

Yeah, well I'm, like, 19 different kinds of geek.

Yeah, well I'm, like, 19 different kinds of geek.

Well, we'll get along fine then.

If you are a christian, it is already clear what you think. Where you position yourself in the spectrum between "radical fundimentalist" and "radical liberal" is almost irrelevant, since already the very fundamentals of Christianity are highly questionable.

Ha! And I guess if you're an atheist it's already clear what you think as well. Where you position yourself in the spectrum of intolerant bigot and disinterested agnostic is irrelevant, since the fundamentals of atheism are based on nothing more than the inability to prove something, which in and of itself only denotes a lack of knowledge, not that an idea is invalid ;)

/sarcasm

I stopped reading the posts at the first page, so dunno if this has allready been said.

Crossman:

..I also think parts of it shouldn't be taken literally. A lot of whats in the Bible is symbollic and not meant as is.

How do you know that? Maybe the guys who wrote the book did mean it literally. Maybe they did believe moses turned a stick into a snake, there's no way to tell. Back then ppl believed a lot of strange things.

I've read some parts of the bible, and i must say it has some amuzing tales. I read it just like the gilgamesj epos, the arthur stories, the quran. All of them nice tales which ppl at some point honestly believed in.

Keruvalia:
In Russia, Bible reads you!

Sounds like you got a nice story, tell me ;)

Alright, Zero, while I thank you for complimenting my apples (and no, there is no hidden meaning to that), I'm going to have to sadden you by rebutting your arguments.
1. Of course the same standards don't apply to us as they do to him. HE'S GOD. By very definition, that implies superiority. He is wise enough to determine when discord must be sown, but we are not.
2. "everlasting" does not mean "important". While the covenant will last forever, that doesn't make it a particularly significant agreement.
3. It was not just the law, it was the general perception of the time.
4. Sorry about that. I misunderstood you. However, since this is could be changed with minor wording, I'm guessing ot was a translation error. These texts are very old after all.
5. Of course there are errors in the Bible. God inspired it, but it was written over the centuries by many different people who interpreted God's inspiration differently. Also, translation errors fill the Bible, but these errors are mistakes that make no theological contradiction, and simply a slight factual one.
6. I'm sorry, but I fail to grasp how that rebutts my point in any way.
7. That is an incorrect assumption. God gave us this Earth as an act of graciousness, and has shown forgiveness to many. The fact that so many suffer is the work of evil forces, and because God cannot intervene in every instance of suffering, because humans must be good of their own free will, not by force. God cannot step in every time we screw up. We've got to learn to stop screwing up.
Ba da BOOM!


My apologies for the delay, these forums amount to a distraction for while I'm at work :)

To continue:
1. Placing God beyond his own moral guidelines seems foolish to me.
2. If it's "everlasting" should it still be "lasting" today? God never said, so far as I'm aware "Hey, don't really trip too much about this covenant, it's all good".
3. So if the general perception of the time is that rape and murder is ok I'm free to go crazy? Good to know the Bible kowtows relative morality.
4. How many errors can you seriously blame on translation errors? I understand that occasionally something is mis-interpreted, but these texts have been studied over, and over, and over - I'd be hard pressed to believe that something so significant would be changed so much by translation errors four times.
5. Ah, the Chewbacca defense. If you can acknowledge random inaccuracies in the bible, hopefully you'll finally be the one to explain to me how it is that people know that entire chapters weren't arbitrarily inserted? Could a 'translation error' have ever resulted in one of the commandments having been incorrectly translated? How about two of them?
6. I'd have given you a rebuttal if I thought you had a point.
7. Best one yet. Let's look at what you said here:

"The fact that so many suffer is the work of evil forces"

An understandable position to take, if you're not a fan of the bible.

(Isaiah 45:7) - "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things."

(Amos 3:6) - "Shall a trumpet be blown in the city, and the people not be afraid? shall there be evil in a city, and the LORD hath not done it?"

"Evil Forces" is a fun name for "God", ne?

I'd throw in some asinine sound effect or movie quote to make it seem as though my points were more effectual, but I get the idea you'll cover that one if you choose to reply.

A few changes and...
"Yes, I was reading the Koran. Just becuase I don't like Muslims doesn't mean I don't believe in god.
I was reading the story about God and Abraham. At the ending Abraham sacrifices a goat, and God accepts it. I went on and I read more.
The book contradicts itself a half-dozen times. I can see how perverts like Osama Bin-Laden can get twisted definetions of "morality" out of it. Please, when you read the Koran, don't try to interpet it. Becuase chances are, you're wrong. The book is a collection of fables, and leave it at that."

"When people try to 'understand' the Koran you get September 11th. It's best to be studied by yourself. Or not studied at all."

In these sensitive and politically correct times, if someone were to begin a forum that contained these statements, I believe there would be a good number of people that would be agry at these sweeping denunciations of a religion and its holy book. Why is there a double standard?
I agree with your comments about the Koran, but such things have been posted by users here before and reasonable discussion has followed. We're not slaves to PC censorship.

In Russia, joke tells you!
I LOVE Soviet Russia "jokes". They're Grrreat!

My apologies for the delay, these forums amount to a distraction for while I'm at work :)

To continue:
1. Placing God beyond his own moral guidelines seems foolish to me.
2. If it's "everlasting" should it still be "lasting" today? God never said, so far as I'm aware "Hey, don't really trip too much about this covenant, it's all good".
3. So if the general perception of the time is that rape and murder is ok I'm free to go crazy? Good to know the Bible kowtows relative morality.
4. How many errors can you seriously blame on translation errors? I understand that occasionally something is mis-interpreted, but these texts have been studied over, and over, and over - I'd be hard pressed to believe that something so significant would be changed so much by translation errors four times.
5. Ah, the Chewbacca defense. If you can acknowledge random inaccuracies in the bible, hopefully you'll finally be the one to explain to me how it is that people know that entire chapters weren't arbitrarily inserted? Could a 'translation error' have ever resulted in one of the commandments having been incorrectly translated? How about two of them?
6. I'd have given you a rebuttal if I thought you had a point.
7. Best one yet. Let's look at what you said here:

"The fact that so many suffer is the work of evil forces"

An understandable position to take, if you're not a fan of the bible.

(Isaiah 45:7) - "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things."

(Amos 3:6) - "Shall a trumpet be blown in the city, and the people not be afraid? shall there be evil in a city, and the LORD hath not done it?"

"Evil Forces" is a fun name for "God", ne?

I'd throw in some asinine sound effect or movie quote to make it seem as though my points were more effectual, but I get the idea you'll cover that one if you choose to reply.

Tsk, tsk. First of all, I like adding sound effects and quotes. It may seem stupid, but it keeps things light hearted and therefore not personal.
1. My point is that humans have to have strict moral guidelines to control them, even though sometimes these actions may be necessary. However, God has the wisdom to know when these actions are justified, and when they are not.
2. "everlasting" is different from important. It still exists today, but it is not as important as it used to be.
3. No because what I'm saying is that at the time, that wasn't incest. Incest, rape and murder, were banned outright, but if something was not considered incest, it was not banned. (Keep in mind, low population levels sometimes meant incest was a necessity.)
4. But think about it for a second...the original texts have been gone for millennia. In fact, when they discovered the dead sea scrolls, and compared them to modern day Bibles, the amount of minor errors was staggering.
5. Again going back to the Dead Sea Scrolls, and other ancient texts, we can tell that major things, such as whole chapters and the Ten Commandments go unchanged.
6. Well, I have nothing to say here as I don't remember what the original argument was about.
7. God creates evil forces, because he was the original creator of Satan. (You seem well versed in the Bible, so I'll assume you know that whole story.) And he uses these forces to test us. God cannot step in every time we are tempted to do evil, for if he did, what good would our free will be?
And, just because it seems to please you so much, I will add another "asinine" quote.
"Foolish mortal. Dost thou really think thou can challenge my almighty power?"

And you know this from all the military people you hang out with?

Yes. I know three sevice men right in my neighborhood.

Tsk, tsk. First of all, I like adding sound effects and quotes. It may seem stupid, but it keeps things light hearted and therefore not personal.
1. My point is that humans have to have strict moral guidelines to control them, even though sometimes these actions may be necessary. However, God has the wisdom to know when these actions are justified, and when they are not.
2. "everlasting" is different from important. It still exists today, but it is not as important as it used to be.
3. No because what I'm saying is that at the time, that wasn't incest. Incest, rape and murder, were banned outright, but if something was not considered incest, it was not banned. (Keep in mind, low population levels sometimes meant incest was a necessity.)
4. But think about it for a second...the original texts have been gone for millennia. In fact, when they discovered the dead sea scrolls, and compared them to modern day Bibles, the amount of minor errors was staggering.
5. Again going back to the Dead Sea Scrolls, and other ancient texts, we can tell that major things, such as whole chapters and the Ten Commandments go unchanged.
6. Well, I have nothing to say here as I don't remember what the original argument was about.
7. God creates evil forces, because he was the original creator of Satan. (You seem well versed in the Bible, so I'll assume you know that whole story.) And he uses these forces to test us. God cannot step in every time we are tempted to do evil, for if he did, what good would our free will be?
And, just because it seems to please you so much, I will add another "asinine" quote.
"Foolish mortal. Dost thou really think thou can challenge my almighty power?"

1. Whether God considers it justified or not, a girl being raped is still a girl being raped - a child being murdered is still a child being murdered. Forgive me if his mercy doesn't appear terribly evident.
2. "This covenant shall be everlasting" doesn't really leave a lot of room to imply "but don't worry about it too much", in my opinion. Making a rule that you intend to leave in place forever would seem to imply that you've got a good reason to emphasize it.
3. A good reply, but very important problems-
(Keep in mind, low population levels sometimes meant incest was a necessity.)
What about when high population levels make murder a 'necessity'? What about when high poverty levels make stealing a 'necessity'? Moral relativism has little place in the Bible.
4+5. Claiming that based on the information we have now glaring errors can exist, but other sections are irrefutably accurate is a might ridiculous - you can have it one way or the other, but not both at the same time. The book is either entirely correct, and full of factual errors, or potentially entirely incorrect.
6. You claimed that people brought back from the dead prior to Jesus only 'appeared' to be dead. Aside from the bible not saying anything about them only 'appearing' to be dead, your logic would also dictate that Jesus could have merely 'appeared' to be dead.
7. Most all accounts of God allow him omnipotence as well as omniscience; God is perfectly aware of which 'tests' I will pass and which I will fail - if he has created me, he has designed me with strengths and weaknesses, and knows before I am born whether I will pass these 'tests'... Furthermore, creating a race of people to worship you, 'testing' them with evil to see if they are worthy (even though you already know the answer to that question), and then damning them to an eternity of torment should they fail seems like about the furthest thing from compassionate that I can imagine. The Bible's god is cruel, selfish and unworthy of any worship, save that given by those that fear him enough to cower.

1. Whether God considers it justified or not, a girl being raped is still a girl being raped - a child being murdered is still a child being murdered. Forgive me if his mercy doesn't appear terribly evident.
2. "This covenant shall be everlasting" doesn't really leave a lot of room to imply "but don't worry about it too much", in my opinion. Making a rule that you intend to leave in place forever would seem to imply that you've got a good reason to emphasize it.
3. A good reply, but very important problems-
(Keep in mind, low population levels sometimes meant incest was a necessity.)
What about when high population levels make murder a 'necessity'? What about when high poverty levels make stealing a 'necessity'? Moral relativism has little place in the Bible.
4+5. Claiming that based on the information we have now glaring errors can exist, but other sections are irrefutably accurate is a might ridiculous - you can have it one way or the other, but not both at the same time. The book is either entirely correct, and full of factual errors, or potentially entirely incorrect.
6. You claimed that people brought back from the dead prior to Jesus only 'appeared' to be dead. Aside from the bible not saying anything about them only 'appearing' to be dead, your logic would also dictate that Jesus could have merely 'appeared' to be dead.
7. Most all accounts of God allow him omnipotence as well as omniscience; God is perfectly aware of which 'tests' I will pass and which I will fail - if he has created me, he has designed me with strengths and weaknesses, and knows before I am born whether I will pass these 'tests'... Furthermore, creating a race of people to worship you, 'testing' them with evil to see if they are worthy (even though you already know the answer to that question), and then damning them to an eternity of torment should they fail seems like about the furthest thing from compassionate that I can imagine. The Bible's god is cruel, selfish and unworthy of any worship, save that given by those that fear him enough to cower.
1. Like I said before, God does not condone evil, but He cannot step in to solve all of humanity's problems.
2. I see we simply interpret this part differently. What it seems to imply to you, it does not imply to me. So I'm not going to argue this point.
3. No, because I would hardly qualify marrying you're half sister (not immediate family) as bad as murder or as stealing. And, high population levels do not justify murder because
a.food production has always stayed ahead of population growth
b. I would hardly put killing someone in the same category as marrying your half-sister. While it is disgusting, its not nearly as bad.
Stealing is not justified by poverty because poverty can be overtaken by hard work.
4+5. If you compare the current Bible to ancient ones, you can see that minor errors exist, but the actual histories in the Bible remain intact.
6. Well, ancient scholars were not exactly wise in the ways of medicine, and they were the ones interpreting God's inspiration. They would have seen it as
death, for they weren't wise enough to understand the true meaning of what unfolded. And as for your point about Jesus, well...that's just ridiculous. There is no way any human being could have survived such a brutal method of execution as crucifixion.
7. Well, this really depends on your interpretation. From what I have read, I believe God knows the general outcome of the world's history, but I do not believe that he knows the specifics of every human being's path in life. After all, that would have made free will irrelevant, which according to the Bible, it is not. Also, while God has designed people to have strengths and weaknesses, they by no means must fail prey to these weaknesses. That's what free will is all about. Also, about your selfishness argument, I don't recall God giving any reason for his creation of humanity, much less for his worship. And I believe that God creating us, and giving us life is the very definition of compassion and selflessness. I would rather suffer through life's pains than not have life at all.

1. Whether God considers it justified or not, a girl being raped is still a girl being raped - a child being murdered is still a child being murdered. Forgive me if his mercy doesn't appear terribly evident.
2. "This covenant shall be everlasting" doesn't really leave a lot of room to imply "but don't worry about it too much", in my opinion. Making a rule that you intend to leave in place forever would seem to imply that you've got a good reason to emphasize it.
3. A good reply, but very important problems-
(Keep in mind, low population levels sometimes meant incest was a necessity.)
What about when high population levels make murder a 'necessity'? What about when high poverty levels make stealing a 'necessity'? Moral relativism has little place in the Bible.
4+5. Claiming that based on the information we have now glaring errors can exist, but other sections are irrefutably accurate is a might ridiculous - you can have it one way or the other, but not both at the same time. The book is either entirely correct, and full of factual errors, or potentially entirely incorrect.
6. You claimed that people brought back from the dead prior to Jesus only 'appeared' to be dead. Aside from the bible not saying anything about them only 'appearing' to be dead, your logic would also dictate that Jesus could have merely 'appeared' to be dead.
7. Most all accounts of God allow him omnipotence as well as omniscience; God is perfectly aware of which 'tests' I will pass and which I will fail - if he has created me, he has designed me with strengths and weaknesses, and knows before I am born whether I will pass these 'tests'... Furthermore, creating a race of people to worship you, 'testing' them with evil to see if they are worthy (even though you already know the answer to that question), and then damning them to an eternity of torment should they fail seems like about the furthest thing from compassionate that I can imagine. The Bible's god is cruel, selfish and unworthy of any worship, save that given by those that fear him enough to cower.
1. Like I said before, God does not condone evil, but He cannot step in to solve all of humanity's problems.
2. I see we simply interpret this part differently. What it seems to imply to you, it does not imply to me. So I'm not going to argue this point.
3. No, because I would hardly qualify marrying you're half sister (not immediate family) as bad as murder or as stealing. And, high population levels do not justify murder because
a.food production has always stayed ahead of population growth
b. I would hardly put killing someone in the same category as marrying your half-sister. While it is disgusting, its not nearly as bad.
Stealing is not justified by poverty because poverty can be overtaken by hard work.
4+5. If you compare the current Bible to ancient ones, you can see that minor errors exist, but the actual histories in the Bible remain intact.
6. Well, ancient scholars were not exactly wise in the ways of medicine, and they were the ones interpreting God's inspiration. They would have seen it as
death, for they weren't wise enough to understand the true meaning of what unfolded. And as for your point about Jesus, well...that's just ridiculous. There is no way any human being could have survived such a brutal method of execution as crucifixion.
7. Well, this really depends on your interpretation. From what I have read, I believe God knows the general outcome of the world's history, but I do not believe that he knows the specifics of every human being's path in life. After all, that would have made free will irrelevant, which according to the Bible, it is not. Also, while God has designed people to have strengths and weaknesses, they by no means must fail prey to these weaknesses. That's what free will is all about. Also, about your selfishness argument, I don't recall God giving any reason for his creation of humanity, much less for his worship. And I believe that God creating us, and giving us life is the very definition of compassion and selflessness. I would rather suffer through life's pains than not have life at all.

1. Whether God considers it justified or not, a girl being raped is still a girl being raped - a child being murdered is still a child being murdered. Forgive me if his mercy doesn't appear terribly evident.
2. "This covenant shall be everlasting" doesn't really leave a lot of room to imply "but don't worry about it too much", in my opinion. Making a rule that you intend to leave in place forever would seem to imply that you've got a good reason to emphasize it.
3. A good reply, but very important problems-
(Keep in mind, low population levels sometimes meant incest was a necessity.)
What about when high population levels make murder a 'necessity'? What about when high poverty levels make stealing a 'necessity'? Moral relativism has little place in the Bible.
4+5. Claiming that based on the information we have now glaring errors can exist, but other sections are irrefutably accurate is a might ridiculous - you can have it one way or the other, but not both at the same time. The book is either entirely correct, and full of factual errors, or potentially entirely incorrect.
6. You claimed that people brought back from the dead prior to Jesus only 'appeared' to be dead. Aside from the bible not saying anything about them only 'appearing' to be dead, your logic would also dictate that Jesus could have merely 'appeared' to be dead.
7. Most all accounts of God allow him omnipotence as well as omniscience; God is perfectly aware of which 'tests' I will pass and which I will fail - if he has created me, he has designed me with strengths and weaknesses, and knows before I am born whether I will pass these 'tests'... Furthermore, creating a race of people to worship you, 'testing' them with evil to see if they are worthy (even though you already know the answer to that question), and then damning them to an eternity of torment should they fail seems like about the furthest thing from compassionate that I can imagine. The Bible's god is cruel, selfish and unworthy of any worship, save that given by those that fear him enough to cower.
1. Like I said before, God does not condone evil, but He cannot step in to solve all of humanity's problems.
2. I see we simply interpret this part differently. What it seems to imply to you, it does not imply to me. So I'm not going to argue this point.
3. No, because I would hardly qualify marrying you're half sister (not immediate family) as bad as murder or as stealing. And, high population levels do not justify murder because
a.food production has always stayed ahead of population growth
b. I would hardly put killing someone in the same category as marrying your half-sister. While it is disgusting, its not nearly as bad.
Stealing is not justified by poverty because poverty can be overtaken by hard work.
4+5. If you compare the current Bible to ancient ones, you can see that minor errors exist, but the actual histories in the Bible remain intact.
6. Well, ancient scholars were not exactly wise in the ways of medicine, and they were the ones interpreting God's inspiration. They would have seen it as
death, for they weren't wise enough to understand the true meaning of what unfolded. And as for your point about Jesus, well...that's just ridiculous. There is no way any human being could have survived such a brutal method of execution as crucifixion.
7. Well, this really depends on your interpretation. From what I have read, I believe God knows the general outcome of the world's history, but I do not believe that he knows the specifics of every human being's path in life. After all, that would have made free will irrelevant, which according to the Bible, it is not. Also, while God has designed people to have strengths and weaknesses, they by no means must fail prey to these weaknesses. That's what free will is all about. Also, about your selfishness argument, I don't recall God giving any reason for his creation of humanity, much less for his worship. And I believe that God creating us, and giving us life is the very definition of compassion and selflessness. I would rather suffer through life's pains than not have life at all.

Ooops. Sorry for the accidental triple post.