NationStates Jolt Archive

Seriously. Why did he leave it to a bunch of flawed men? Why all the confusion? Look...if the dude made the universe, certainly he could make a nice, simple book appear? And why did he take so long to get that sucker out in the first place? Surely it would've been more useful a couple thousand years earlier? Who's ever heard of divine writer's block?

*don't take this too seriously folks, though I am interested in some Christian opions on the silly subject.

Seriously. Why did he leave it to a bunch of flawed men? Why all the confusion? Look...if the dude made the universe, certainly he could make a nice, simple book appear? And why did he take so long to get that sucker out in the first place? Surely it would've been more useful a couple thousand years earlier? Who's ever heard of divine writer's block?

*don't take this too seriously folks, though I am interested in some Christian opions on the silly subject.
Agreed (though I suppose we are going to get a bunch of BS about free will)

It's a simple answer really.


You see, God came through the Texas Public School system......


In other words, he was illiterate!


:D

Nah - that can't really be. After all, didn't he hand Mel Moses Brooks those 15 commandments?

If God was a Texan, I would slit my wrists.

Agreed (though I suppose we are going to get a bunch of BS about free will)
Well...I guess I won't bother contributing, since anything I say has already been predetermined to be "BS". :mad:

Well...I guess I won't bother contributing, since anything I say has already been predetermined to be "BS". :mad:
Ok maybe I should not have been so harsh but seriously … but are you proposing god writing an informative book to make sure we got the correct information detracts from free will more then him flooding the world and killing off all sinners (or at least the worst) did?

Seriously. Why did he leave it to a bunch of flawed men? Why all the confusion? Look...if the dude made the universe, certainly he could make a nice, simple book appear? And why did he take so long to get that sucker out in the first place? Surely it would've been more useful a couple thousand years earlier? Who's ever heard of divine writer's block?

*don't take this too seriously folks, though I am interested in some Christian opions on the silly subject.

In the beginning, God created the earth, and he looked upon it in His cosmic loneliness.

And God said, "Let Us make living creatures out of mud, so the mud can see what We have done." And God created every living creature that now moveth, and one was man. Mud as man alone could speak. God leaned close as mud as man sat up, looked around, and spoke. Man blinked. "What is the purpose of all this?" he asked politely.

"Everything must have a purpose?" asked God.

"Certainly," said man.

"Then I leave it to you to think of one for all this," said God.

And He went away.

God likes his anonymity, so he prefers a ghost writer. Or perhaps I should say Holy Ghost writer. ba-dum!

He was far too busy smiting people.

why not?

Because that is not the way He works.

He has a method of calling Prophets. Telling them what he wants and having them spread that to the rest of the people.

It is a little easier for people to say hey, that Prophet is telling us to do something, and he is doing it too. I guess it must be possible. Rather than God just telling us and us thinking "Ha! yeah right, like anyone can do THAT"

Besides God doesn't want to stand around and order us. That would defeat the purpose. He wants us to find out for ourselves.

Also, It is easier for man to assosiate with man. We can talk on our own level. God is on an entire different level. So instead of shocking us all senseless he only shocks one person senseless and lets that person explain to us :)

And yes, there is the free will arguement. :)

Sorry I'm all over the place with this post

If God was a Texan, I would slit my wrists.
No, he was a Mexican. He just went to school in Texas, just across the river, you see.

why not?

Because that is not the way He works.

He has a method of calling Prophets. Telling them what he wants and having them spread that to the rest of the people.

It is a little easier for people to say hey, that Prophet is telling us to do something, and he is doing it too. I guess it must be possible. Rather than God just telling us and us thinking "Ha! yeah right, like anyone can do THAT"

Besides God doesn't want to stand around and order us. That would defeat the purpose. He wants us to find out for ourselves.

Also, It is easier for man to assosiate with man. We can talk on our own level. God is on an entire different level. So instead of shocking us all senseless he only shocks one person senseless and lets that person explain to us :)

And yes, there is the free will arguement. :)

Sorry I'm all over the place with this post

But him creating it would make a much more clear and probably believable (one would assume a god would make it believable) message … an important thing when he is supposedly basing our eternal life off of us understanding his message

My belief is that God can be revealed to anyone - and we all see God a little differently. This is, I believe, the way it is supposed to be. We are all human beings - all fallible - and none of us can fully understand everything there is to know about the path we "should" take. The path may be as simple as the end result.

I also feel that humanity is "growing up" in a way. At our infancy, we could understand very little. Instructions from God came in a very carrot-stick method because that is what the cultures of the time would understand. Later, Christ came and changed the tune. We (should) have outgrown that mentality and matured to the point that we can follow God and do what is right out of love, rather than fear or the need for "goodies". Unfortunately, many people still haven't gotten to that point.

Anyways, I don't know if this answers the question, but I really think the search for truth is supposed to be part of the picture - and must be part of the picture. Even if God had popped the Bible into existence in the best possible words, there would be those who got the message wrong based on their own biases.

I once knew an Episcopalian lady in Newport, Rhode Island, who asked me to design and build a doghouse for her Great Dane. The lady claimed to understand God and His Ways of Working perfectly. She could not understand why anyone should be puzzled about what had been or about what was going to be.
And yet, when I showed her a blueprint of the doghouse I proposed to build, she said to me, "I'm sorry, but I never could read one of those things."

"Give it to your husband or your minister to pass on to God," I said, "and, when God finds a minute, I'm sure he'll explain this doghouse of mine in a way that even you can understand."

She fired me. I shall never forget her. She believed that God liked people in sailboats much better than He liked people in motorboats. She could not bear to look at a worm. When she saw a worm, she screamed.

She was a fool, and so am I, and so is anyone who thinks he can see what God is Doing.

Seriously. Why did he leave it to a bunch of flawed men? Why all the confusion? Look...if the dude made the universe, certainly he could make a nice, simple book appear? And why did he take so long to get that sucker out in the first place? Surely it would've been more useful a couple thousand years earlier? Who's ever heard of divine writer's block?

*don't take this too seriously folks, though I am interested in some Christian opions on the silly subject.

Well, who thought God to read? He had to wait til people invented writing to act as his personal secretary!

My belief is that God can be revealed to anyone - and we all see God a little differently. This is, I believe, the way it is supposed to be. We are all human beings - all fallible - and none of us can fully understand everything there is to know about the path we "should" take. The path may be as simple as the end result.

I also feel that humanity is "growing up" in a way. At our infancy, we could understand very little. Instructions from God came in a very carrot-stick method because that is what the cultures of the time would understand. Later, Christ came and changed the tune. We (should) have outgrown that mentality and matured to the point that we can follow God and do what is right out of love, rather than fear or the need for "goodies". Unfortunately, many people still haven't gotten to that point.

Anyways, I don't know if this answers the question, but I really think the search for truth is supposed to be part of the picture - and must be part of the picture. Even if God had popped the Bible into existence in the best possible words, there would be those who got the message wrong based on their own biases.


A social evolution of being able to understand complex and or abstract methods … intresting

Because if a burning bush wrote it, people would think it was the work of Satan. Plus, man would edit it anyway. God has his reasons. Afterall, he did invent physics and gravity. He's not some moron. Then, there's the man part. That might be a mistake if there wasn't some big guy up there. Man is probably a test of the absolute free will program he created.

Ok maybe I should not have been so harsh but seriously … but are you proposing god writing an informative book to make sure we got the correct information detracts from free will more then him flooding the world and killing off all sinners (or at least the worst) did?

It wasn't as if He didn't give them a chance. He had Noah tell them about the flood for 100 years and then the rain came and they decided they had changed their minds....too late. He wants us to live good lives for our WHOLE life, not just repent at the last minute.

Besides, if he did it Himself that would be undeniable evidence. The test of earth life would be moot because everyone could see the book written in God's hand and do whatever it said (unless they were extemely stupid).
I'm sorry if free will sounds cliche but that is what the ENTIRE plan of God revolves around. :)

Seriously. Why did he leave it to a bunch of flawed men? Why all the confusion? Look...if the dude made the universe, certainly he could make a nice, simple book appear? And why did he take so long to get that sucker out in the first place? Surely it would've been more useful a couple thousand years earlier? Who's ever heard of divine writer's block?
Because god is inside us, a part of us, not a being "somewhere out there".
(Non-Christian opinion.)

I would certainly agree with Willamena. I believe a "bible" of sorts was encoded into the human conscience. The literal, paper-and-ink Bible was created by humanity. I would argue that it was invented by humanity as well.

If we examine the depth of faith among so many Christians, we can conjecture there were some honest believers among it's writers, out to explain natural events. However, if we examine the church's ancient role in enriching itself and maintaining it's own power base... we can't help but be cynical.

It wasn't as if He didn't give them a chance. He had Noah tell them about the flood for 100 years and then the rain came and they decided they had changed their minds....too late. He wants us to live good lives for our WHOLE life, not just repent at the last minute.

Besides, if he did it Himself that would be undeniable evidence. The test of earth life would be moot because everyone could see the book written in God's hand and do whatever it said (unless they were extemely stupid).
I'm sorry if free will sounds cliche but that is what the ENTIRE plan of God revolves around. :)
Oh I am pretty sure it would still be deniable … but he could have defiantly made it more clear … and relevant (you know spent some time … revised a few things … cut out the crap that was left over like a lot of stuff in Leviticus)

Agreed (though I suppose we are going to get a bunch of BS about free will)

The thread asks a question based on the assumption that religion is true. How could we not get BS?

I once knew an Episcopalian lady in Newport, Rhode Island, who asked me to design and build a doghouse for her Great Dane. The lady claimed to understand God and His Ways of Working perfectly. She could not understand why anyone should be puzzled about what had been or about what was going to be.
And yet, when I showed her a blueprint of the doghouse I proposed to build, she said to me, "I'm sorry, but I never could read one of those things."

"Give it to your husband or your minister to pass on to God," I said, "and, when God finds a minute, I'm sure he'll explain this doghouse of mine in a way that even you can understand."

She fired me. I shall never forget her. She believed that God liked people in sailboats much better than He liked people in motorboats. She could not bear to look at a worm. When she saw a worm, she screamed.

She was a fool, and so am I, and so is anyone who thinks he can see what God is Doing.

Yikes.

Maybe what she actually wanted was a godhouse? In which case it would obviously be a present for her God, and so your suggestion of talking to God about it directly was an insult as it would spoil the surprise.

Not that God would be surprised, but I'm sure he could pretend. For her.

The thread asks a question based on the assumption that religion is true. How could we not get BS?
"Free will" is a concept used in more than just religious discussion (though you are correct, it's a religious concept).

The real answer?


God didn't write the Bible for precisely the same reason that Ishmael didn't write Moby Dick. Fictional characters, after all, do not write themselves into their author's novels.

i speak as an atheist here - but what if God was just lazy i get that problem all the time (i dont mean to offend anyone just a joke)

But him creating it would make a much more clear and probably believable (one would assume a god would make it believable) message … an important thing when he is supposedly basing our eternal life off of us understanding his message
the only message you really have to understand is that Christ died for yoour sins, and all you have to do is ask and you'll get eternal life. u seem rather concerned that people won't understand...a rather large percentage of the world's population is doing an excellent job of it so far, and i'm sure you're smarter than a great deal of them. ;)

Religion is part BS. Science is part BS. Humans are part BS. Get over it, people. If a burning bush wrote it, would people think it was from god? They could have interpreted it as a work of satan. If a profit wrote it, people would believe it. God understood this concept that came out of nowhere. Plus, much of the bible came from god anyway. Man tends to edit stuff anyway.

Fine, fine, I'll answer your question.

Why didn't I do it myself? It's because I'm not only narcissistic, I'm extremely lazy. Seriously. I can't even bring myself to smite people anymore, and I used to love doing that. By the time the Bible came along, I was already too lazy to write it, so I sent it to a committee somewhere. Me only knows if they got the message right...
[/god]

I believe that God was trying to show he had faith in us "flawed" men. He was letting us do things on our own. He is our father and was trying to let us do something for ourselves. He commanded prophets to write it with a his teachings for the generations to come. He doesn't want to control us like little puppets, but have us believe in Him and everlasting truth and that we will be saved one day by His son.

Sorry if this offends anyone but its my opinion.

the bible may have been written by "fallable men" but the bible is written perfectly.. there is no mistakes and no contradictions.. without God that perfection is not possible.. so in reality God did write it.. i like the way it was put, God used man as his personal secretary

the bible may have been written by "fallable men" but the bible is written perfectly.. there is no mistakes and no contradictions.. without God that perfection is not possible.. so in reality God did write it.. i like the way it was put, God used man as his personal secretary
Are you kidding?

Which version are you speaking of?

why not?

Because that is not the way He works.

He has a method of calling Prophets. Telling them what he wants and having them spread that to the rest of the people.

It is a little easier for people to say hey, that Prophet is telling us to do something, and he is doing it too. I guess it must be possible. Rather than God just telling us and us thinking "Ha! yeah right, like anyone can do THAT"

Besides God doesn't want to stand around and order us. That would defeat the purpose. He wants us to find out for ourselves.

Also, It is easier for man to assosiate with man. We can talk on our own level. God is on an entire different level. So instead of shocking us all senseless he only shocks one person senseless and lets that person explain to us :)

And yes, there is the free will arguement. :)

Sorry I'm all over the place with this post
ding ding ding.

prophets are better than books. he talked to them directly. THEY (or someone who heard the story later) put it in a book. the book was people's idea, prophets were god's idea.

it worked pretty well if you think about it. most of the people at the time of the prophets were illiterate anyway.

Defeats the whole purpose of freedom and individual responsability. If the Divine had intended mankind to be meaningless automations then such a perfect work would have been appropriate, however since the Divine appears to have prized free will more for mankind than unthinking obedience (all the way back to the begining, remember the apple?), a perfect work which leaves no room for individual choice is not appropriate for the Divine.

As for it not being arround for a few thousand years, I dunno what you are talking about. The NT was written within 100 years of Chist, and would have been pointless before that (although there are some passages beforehand which allude to the coming of Christ). As for the rest, well Moses wrote Exodus himself traditionally ( including the parts after his death) and compiled other written traditions whic already existed. Admittedly the Misnah wasn't written down formally as such until maybe 200AD but there was no need for it until then, oral usage being sufficent to pass down the specific laws and written histories abounding.

Since so much of the bible is concerned with relating historical events, it is kinda pointless to do more than hint at what is coming, after all if the 4 Gospels had been written at the time of Abraham it would have played hob with free will and all, and would the slavery in Egypt have been so bad if everyone knew when Moses was coming? How about Job, what sort of story would it be if when he was growing up he knew all about what was coming since his parents told him about it when they taught him the bible?

Oh I am pretty sure it would still be deniable … but he could have defiantly made it more clear … and relevant (you know spent some time … revised a few things … cut out the crap that was left over like a lot of stuff in Leviticus)

There is a couple of reasons why the bible is not clear. 1. The bible was written in a different time, long ago, it was written to fit in with that time period and 2. It was originally written in Hebrew so it had to be translated to English, that is why there is multiple versions (New King James for example) and it is impossible for a perfect translation that makes it a little muddy and not clear.

Look, when you're god you don't have to do anything yourself. You have people who do it for you. You just speak the general idea into the dictaphone and then someone will transcribe it and fill it out. Then they just pass the copy to you, and make modifications or approve. And that's it.

Then people go and screw it all, but that's not your responsibility anymore, is it?

I believe that God was trying to show he had faith in us "flawed" men. He was letting us do things on our own. He is our father and was trying to let us do something for ourselves. He commanded prophets to write it with a his teachings for the generations to come. He doesn't want to control us like little puppets, but have us believe in Him and everlasting truth and that we will be saved one day by His son.

Sorry if this offends anyone but its my opinion.
That’s admirable but he should have some understanding that we see flaws and lack of proof in these writings and have doubts … he allowed flawed descriptions of himself to be passed around … he should not be surprised if that causes some issues with some of us

Defeats the whole purpose of freedom and individual responsability. If the Divine had intended mankind to be meaningless automations then such a perfect work would have been appropriate, however since the Divine appears to have prized free will more for mankind than unthinking obedience (all the way back to the begining, remember the apple?), a perfect work which leaves no room for individual choice is not appropriate for the Divine.

Who says that if God wrote the Bible himself, we'd all be meaningless automations with no freedom or individual responsibility? Just because God wrote something doesn't mean everyone would be forced to believe it.

Seriously. Why did he leave it to a bunch of flawed men? Why all the confusion? Look...if the dude made the universe, certainly he could make a nice, simple book appear? And why did he take so long to get that sucker out in the first place? Surely it would've been more useful a couple thousand years earlier? Who's ever heard of divine writer's block?

*don't take this too seriously folks, though I am interested in some Christian opions on the silly subject.
Don't j00 know? It'z coz God didn't sp33k Inglish!

Don't j00 know? It'z coz God didn't sp33k Inglish!
Which is fine, considering it wasn't written in English, was it? :D

There is a couple of reasons why the bible is not clear. 1. The bible was written in a different time, long ago, it was written to fit in with that time period and 2. It was originally written in Hebrew so it had to be translated to English, that is why there is multiple versions (New King James for example) and it is impossible for a perfect translation that makes it a little muddy and not clear.
You would figure he would spend some time making sure his message was not diluted … you know he is basing our eternal life on us getting and understanding that message

Because if a burning bush wrote it, people would think it was the work of Satan. Plus, man would edit it anyway. God has his reasons. Afterall, he did invent physics and gravity. He's not some moron. Then, there's the man part. That might be a mistake if there wasn't some big guy up there. Man is probably a test of the absolute free will program he created.
Hey, I like this post and support it!

From a Christian's perspective:

In the beginning, God's Word was written in the heart. After the fall, the continuing degradation of man resulted in man having an ever-increasing detachment from God, not knowing God's Word and in adulterating God's Word. Consequently, God brought the Hebrew nation to a mountain, where He personally spent time with Moses, explaining to him how the people could have a covenant relationship with him, explained to him the purpose of His commands, and with His own finger wrote the commandments on the stone tablets.

Over generations, the people and the priests subsequently adulterated the written law of God by adding to it and causing the people to stumble over the man-made law rather than seeking a holy relationship with God.

Jesus, God in human form, is the personal fulfillment of God's law.


So, that's the answer to the question.

The bible is not perfect. At least, not anymore. Man edits stuff. Here's a true story. My mom is a nurse. She deals with sick and dying people all the time. This one time, a man literally died(heart stopped, brain stopped, the whole nine yards). He came back to life. He said that he asked god which faith is the true faith or something and god said,"All faiths are flawed.". See? All faiths are flawed. Also, god can't tell us stuff directly anymore without breaking the law. Seperation of church and state has become "unless you're aetheist or islamic, you can't practice religion in public for some reason", at least in the US, the home country of nutjobs beating corrupt international organization bitches and where police can't do anything without the risk of being sued. Damn you, beuracracy. We should have listened to that hobo. Pie=yummy, people. Pie=yummy.

Don't take that once dead man's experience as crap until you learn that people talk about seeing heaven seconds before they die. If heaven is not real, what happens to us when we die? Not our bodies, us? What will we see? What will we feel? Will we simply go into off mode? We have to go somewhere and religion makes sence and answers questions. Isn't that why aetheists are so dependant on science? To answer questions noone asked?

From a Christian's perspective:

In the beginning, God's Word was written in the heart. After the fall, the continuing degradation of man resulted in man having an ever-increasing detachment from God, not knowing God's Word and in adulterating God's Word. Consequently, God brought the Hebrew nation to a mountain, where He personally spent time with Moses, explaining to him how the people could have a covenant relationship with him, explained to him the purpose of His commands, and with His own finger wrote the commandments on the stone tablets.

Over generations, the people and the priests subsequently adulterated the written law of God by adding to it and causing the people to stumble over the man-made law rather than seeking a holy relationship with God.

Jesus, God in human form, is the personal fulfillment of God's law.


So, that's the answer to the question.


But it does not answer the question of why he did not make the recording of this himself in order to make sure we got the message rather then leaving it up to us flawed humans who “adulterated” it but we somehow must still be faithful to this “adulterated” bible otherwise we shall suffer hell

Because, if he made a recording, people would go "what the hell is this?". Plus, man is more of a test of freewill. You know, just to see what happens and to see how many people actually make it to heaven.

Seriously. Why did he leave it to a bunch of flawed men? Why all the confusion? Look...if the dude made the universe, certainly he could make a nice, simple book appear? And why did he take so long to get that sucker out in the first place? Surely it would've been more useful a couple thousand years earlier? Who's ever heard of divine writer's block?

*don't take this too seriously folks, though I am interested in some Christian opions on the silly subject.

Seriously, Sinuhue, I usually enjoy your threads, but I really think this one is intended to spark up hateful conversation. You are making fun of something that you know many people take very seriously. You're not really seeking any knowledge you couldn't get in another less offensive way.

By the way, the answer is faith. When something is confirmed then it is knowledge and not faith. This is a little word that both theists and atheists struggle with understanding.

Who says that if God wrote the Bible himself, we'd all be meaningless automations with no freedom or individual responsibility? Just because God wrote something doesn't mean everyone would be forced to believe it.
Implied in the original premise. "Why all the confusion? Look...if the dude made the universe, certainly he could make a nice, simple book appear?". If it were a simple book without confusion, then it's rightness would be self-evident and all people would folow it because of it's evident rightness. I supose Divine authorship could be ambiguous and confusing and not obviously written by the Divine, but that would be indistingushable form the form we have now. If Divine authorship were evident from the text itself (the only real thing which distingushes it from having it written by men (and women?)) then what madman would not believe it?

The thread asks a question based on the assumption that religion is true. How could we not get BS?

Think about it as sort of like interpretation of literature. While Romeo and Juliet didn't exist, we can still analyse their motives. Whether you believe religion is true or not, you can still argue with it on its own terms. That way, it's actually easier to convince people.

I try to do this with everything. If you're trying to (for example) convince someone not to be racist, they're not going to listen if you tell them how Racism Is Wrong. They might at least not be so vocal about it if you tell them about how the people they're insulting could probably beat them up.

Okay, so that was a bad example.

As for the original question... maybe God's experimenting? He lays down a few simple rules and then sits back to see what humans do with them.

Or maybe it's a test of sorts. He doesn't want just anyone to pass the test - what the rewards for doing so are is another point to debate - so he makes sure that the way to do so is hidden in millenia of confusion. Only the people who can see through all the weird and useless bits to the actual /meaning/ get to pass.

Hey, it's a theory (in the non-scientific sense). After all, God is only seen as truthful because the Bible says he is, and the Bible is only said to be true because God says it is...

Implied in the original premise. "Why all the confusion? Look...if the dude made the universe, certainly he could make a nice, simple book appear?". If it were a simple book without confusion, then it's rightness would be self-evident and all people would folow it because of it's evident rightness. I supose Divine authorship could be ambiguous and confusing and not obviously written by the Divine, but that would be indistingushable form the form we have now. If Divine authorship were evident from the text itself (the only real thing which distingushes it from having it written by men (and women?)) then what madman would not believe it?
Wow. Good point, well said.

Say he "wrote" it....could we tell the difference?

You think it still wouldn't be written down, and looked like an original man created it? Would you expect some magical sky wizard aura to be on it?

Anyways.....technically G-d did write it first, gave it to Moses, Moses broke it, so G-d, made him re-write it.

;p

Implied in the original premise. "Why all the confusion? Look...if the dude made the universe, certainly he could make a nice, simple book appear?". If it were a simple book without confusion, then it's rightness would be self-evident and all people would folow it because of it's evident rightness. I supose Divine authorship could be ambiguous and confusing and not obviously written by the Divine, but that would be indistingushable form the form we have now. If Divine authorship were evident from the text itself (the only real thing which distingushes it from having it written by men (and women?)) then what madman would not believe it?
Yes but making it clear that god wrote it would not remove free will … it may make it more likely that we will follow it but I would assume and all loving god would like us to have a good solid source of information.

Hell he did not even have to make it divine authorship apparent I would almost settle for making it clear and relevant (not saying it is all irrelevant … but being more meaningful is defiantly possible along with trimming some of the crap that is in there (such as multi fabric cloths))

God gives man free will, but if you use that free will to not belive in god you go to hell.
He didn't think this threw very well did he?

Yes but making it clear that god wrote it would not remove free will … it may make it more likely that we will follow it but I would assume and all loving god would like us to have a good solid source of information.

Hell he did not even have to make it divine authorship apparent I would almost settle for making it clear and relevant (not saying it is all irrelevant … but being more meaningful is defiantly possible along with trimming some of the crap that is in there (such as multi fabric cloths))
Well, there are newly rewritten bibles that attempt to make the (Greek) texts contemporary and relevant. The most notable, and popular I believe, is The Message (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1576831205/104-1301158-0147905?v=glance) by Eugene Peterson.

If God was a Texan, I would slit my wrists.
What, you're in that much of a hurry to meet a Texan?

But it does not answer the question of why he did not make the recording of this himself in order to make sure we got the message rather then leaving it up to us flawed humans who “adulterated” it but we somehow must still be faithful to this “adulterated” bible otherwise we shall suffer hellHmm, how to adress this. Those who belive that not following the bible in it's current form (a distinct minority) reject the concept that the bible is adulterated, they instead believe that while not directly divinely authored it was divinely edited and as such every word in it is true. Those who accept that the bible is a possibly imperfect work of imperfect man belive that one's oligation is to follow the will of the Dvine and that the bible is an imperfect attempt by man to show what the Divine requires, the obligation is not to follow the bible but to follow the Divine.

Note that damnation as a concept has little support in the Christian bible.

That’s admirable but he should have some understanding that we see flaws and lack of proof in these writings and have doubts … he allowed flawed descriptions of himself to be passed around … he should not be surprised if that causes some issues with some of us

Perhaps they aren't flawed, but simply incomplete?

Perhaps those flaws are meant to be - to make us question and turn to God, rather than to another human being's vision of God?

Perhaps those issues are exactly what should be there, as you should be searching in your own way?

=)

Well, there are newly rewritten bibles that attempt to make the (Greek) texts contemporary and relevant. The most notable, and popular I believe, is The Message (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1576831205/104-1301158-0147905?v=glance) by Eugene Peterson.
While admirable it still is guess work … being clear and relevant would not mean I believe in it … but it defiantly would be much easier to do so

I am a skeptic … without a direct revelation it is not in my nature to blindly accept it … that’s me… if god has a problem with that too bad for him … he will be missing the company of someone (by my opinion anyways) would be worthwhile hanging out with

Perhaps they aren't flawed, but simply incomplete?

Perhaps those flaws are meant to be - to make us question and turn to God, rather than to another human being's vision of God?

Perhaps those issues are exactly what should be there, as you should be searching in your own way?

=)
SO he inspired the bible to be flawed in order for us not to get it spoon fed by other humans

Now that is interesting though with that idea comes the another one … that of a god who is forgiving enough of us when letting us find out for ourselves understands if we don’t quite get it right :)

While admirable it still is guess work … being clear and relevant would not mean I believe in it … but it defiantly would be much easier to do so

I am a skeptic … without a direct revelation it is not in my nature to blindly accept it … that’s me… if god has a problem with that too bad for him … he will be missing the company of someone (by my opinion anyways) would be worthwhile hanging out with
You're one of those people who knows he won't like to eat peas before he even tries them, eh? ;)

SO he inspired the bible to be flawed in order for us not to get it spoon fed by other humans

Not exactly. I think God inspired and inspires many people. Some of them so much so that they felt the need to write it down and pass it on to others. I do not, however, believe that God specifically sat certain people down and said "You are going to write a part of the Bible. Get going." =)

Now that is interesting though with that idea comes the another one … that of a god who is forgiving enough of us when letting us find out for ourselves understands if we don’t quite get it right :)

Considering that I don't think any of us ever get it completely right, I certainly hope so. =)

Not exactly. I think God inspired and inspires many people. Some of them so much so that they felt the need to write it down and pass it on to others. I do not, however, believe that God specifically sat certain people down and said "You are going to write a part of the Bible. Get going." =)



Considering that I don't think any of us ever get it completely right, I certainly hope so. =)
Me as well … and that’s why I am fine being me and doing the best I can … I figure if there is an all loving god out there he will understand my shortcomings and realize I am just trying to be true to myself and true to what information I can find

I don’t have it in me for blind faith … that is one of my many shortcomings … if he is out there he will understand

Yes but making it clear that god wrote it would not remove free will … it may make it more likely that we will follow it but I would assume and all loving god would like us to have a good solid source of information.

Hell he did not even have to make it divine authorship apparent I would almost settle for making it clear and relevant (not saying it is all irrelevant … but being more meaningful is defiantly possible along with trimming some of the crap that is in there (such as multi fabric cloths))
The second part first. Realize that the bible is not a domcument solely for the now. Are you perhaps proposing that the Divine should have written multiple texts to used at the apporpriate times and ignored thereafter, with Divine Authorship concealed? If so, then look to the Prophets Mohammed who's revelations are as applicable today as they were centuries ago, or David Koresh who also recieved a new revelation. Since the NT was a new covenent with the Divine, it supercedes large chunks of the irrelvancies. Pehaps it is time for a different new covenant to clarify issues, or past time even, maybe Joe Smith was the man to listen to. Personally I favor retaining the "crap" myself to be on the safe side, but recognizing that an imperfect document written by imperfect men may not have much meaning about a perfect being when read by an imperfect being.

As for the first part, who knowing the word of the Divine and knowing the word of the Divine would chose to reject it? You assert that people would, but who are they? Did not Abraham prepare to sacrifice Issac when he knew the word of the Divine was the word of the Divine? The word of the Divine known as the word of the Divine establishes it own coercive factor, a sane person could no more freely chose to ignore it than one could freely chose to ignore gravity. If we accept damantion as the alternative to obedience to the will of Divine, would any sane person chose damantion? Freedom to chose means there must be the perception of a meaningful choice, were the will of the Divine manifest then any sane person would percieve only one good choice.

I think of the Bible as both historical record and God's message. The people writing it were including both, but the history changed what the message intended.

The reason that God didn't just snap His Divine fingers and make the Bible like it SHOULD have been, is that that would meddle with our free will. It's kind of like that question, "Why doesn't God just make everyone worship Him?" in the respect that God is letting us make our own mistakes, and subsequently letting us fix them on our own(which in many cases we seem to be incapable of).

I think of the Bible as both historical record and God's message. The people writing it were including both, but the history changed what the message intended.

The reason that God didn't just snap His Divine fingers and make the Bible like it SHOULD have been, is that that would meddle with our free will. It's kind of like that question, "Why doesn't God just make everyone worship Him?" in the respect that God is letting us make our own mistakes, and subsequently letting us fix them on our own(which in many cases we seem to be incapable of).
That’s all good and fine if he understands the fact that not all of us follow this book due in part to its apparent flaws.

I refuse to believe a just god would let people make a flawed book then judge us exactly by what that flawed book says (though I have issues with salvation by faith in general)

Seriously, Sinuhue, I usually enjoy your threads, but I really think this one is intended to spark up hateful conversation. You are making fun of something that you know many people take very seriously. You're not really seeking any knowledge you couldn't get in another less offensive way.
Ha! So you say! Well, I haven't seen it get hateful yet...

Look, if something is so serious that you can't talk about it, what good is it? if something is so serious that you can't deal with it in a lighthearted manner, you have to ask yourself why not.

Most Christians so far don't seem offended. In fact, I've seen some really good replies. It doesn't mean I'm going to convert, but I think it bores down to the heart of a person's faith. Faith I respect. Belief I respect. Imposition of such, I'm not wild about. You mistake my intent for maliciousness. Some people take all sorts of things TOO seriously. Taking something seriously doesn't mean discussing it in solemnity all the time.

I have a question by the way. Does anyone think the Bible should be updated? Or should we use the examples in it more as metaphors than literal explanations of things? I guess that's actually my question...should the Bible be taken literally, or figuratively, or both?

I have a question by the way. Does anyone think the Bible should be updated? Or should we use the examples in it more as metaphors than literal explanations of things? I guess that's actually my question...should the Bible be taken literally, or figuratively, or both?
Figuratively as is (though I see no reason a deity couldn’t spend some time making sure it is up to date as well)

That’s all good and fine if he understands the fact that not all of us follow this book due in part to its apparent flaws.

I refuse to believe a just god would let people make a flawed book then judge us exactly by what that flawed book says (though I have issues with salvation by faith in general)

That is one of my hang-ups too. The problem is that how do we know the standards in the flawed book are the same standards God is judging us by?

I mean, it's obvious (to me at least) the book is flawed, so this leads to the question:

How do I live my life so that God judges me worthy? (this is the wrong way to word this question, but I couldn't come up with better)

In my opinion, that is where we take the parts of the Bible that seem most RELEVANT(don't kill, commit adultery, etc.) to our personal lives, (this is where my "Religion is a personal experience, not a mass(not mass as in Church, but mass as in large group of people) experience force-fed to us by an, in many ways, antiquated Church" arguement comes in) and

I have a question by the way. Does anyone think the Bible should be updated? Or should we use the examples in it more as metaphors than literal explanations of things? I guess that's actually my question...should the Bible be taken literally, or figuratively, or both?

I think it just depends on what part you are reading... I DEFINITELY do not think it should be taken completely literally...

but as a general rule of thumb, I'm not sure

That is one of my hang-ups too. The problem is that how do we know the standards in the flawed book are the same standards God is judging us by?

I mean, it's obvious (to me at least) the book is flawed, so this leads to the question:

How do I live my life so that God judges me worthy? (this is the wrong way to word this question, but I couldn't come up with better)

In my opinion, that is where we take the parts of the Bible that seem most RELEVANT(don't kill, commit adultery, etc.) to our personal lives, (this is where my "Religion is a personal experience, not a mass(not mass as in Church, but mass as in large group of people) experience force-fed to us by an, in many ways, antiquated Church" arguement comes in) and


I can understand that … the difference with me is that I do not follow (partly cause of the obvious flaws in the book that I have trouble knowing what is in fact flaw and what is not) what is written just because it is in the bible
I follow what feels right to me

I have a question by the way. Does anyone think the Bible should be updated? Or should we use the examples in it more as metaphors than literal explanations of things? I guess that's actually my question...should the Bible be taken literally, or figuratively, or both?
As an adamant adimirer of mythology and all things old, I think it would ruin the treasure that is the Bible to make it into something else. Rather, make a whole new contemporary "The Book" specifically for modern-day Christianity, and leave the past alone.

Why should God waste his time creating a book?

All you have to do is know what the prophets, and Jesus said.

Besides if you watch the history special on the Bible Codex then you would learn that there is something strange with it.

As an adamant adimirer of mythology and all things old, I think it would ruin the treasure that is the Bible to make it into something else. Rather, make a whole new contemporary "The Book" specifically for modern-day Christianity, and leave the past alone.
I have to admit, I view the Bible much like other mythological stories...I think these stories have very important and real messages for us, even if taken out of the realm of the purely spiritual.

I can understand that … the difference with me is that I do not follow (partly cause of the obvious flaws in the book that I have trouble knowing what is in fact flaw and what is not) what is written just because it is in the bible
I follow what feels right to me


As do I. Me and the Bible just understand each other when it comes to certain things...

Me and the Bible are tight :cool:

(Sorry for this, I just couldn't resist)<------that rhymes ;)

I have a question by the way. Does anyone think the Bible should be updated? Or should we use the examples in it more as metaphors than literal explanations of things? I guess that's actually my question...should the Bible be taken literally, or figuratively, or both?

Maybe the metaphors should be updated, and JP2 said that most of the things were metaphorical.

Maybe the metaphors should be updated, and JP2 said that most of the things were metaphorical.
I'm not sure...have you ever heard a 'modern' version of Romeo and Juliet? Something gets lost in the translation...

I'm not sure...have you ever heard a 'modern' version of Romeo and Juliet? Something gets lost in the translation...

Nope, but I know that it was translated wrong once, and thats why Angelo gave Moses horns in the sculpture. 40 was mistranslated from alot and I think there is another thing oh well.

Bejesus, you're inviting people to critique christianity! I'm so happy! :)

But okay, novel idea here:

No God; accept death as what it truly is and stop worrying about it (which by the way is a much healthier viewpoint than being in denial about death).



CHuRch IS noT the way to happIness, AcceptiNg that lIfe ends is the roAd to lifeloNg bliss.

(capitals spell CHRISTIAN, geesh it's hard making that into an acronym)

Bejesus, you're inviting people to critique christianity! I'm so happy! :)

But okay, novel idea here:

No God; accept death as what it truly is and stop worrying about it (which by the way is a much healthier viewpoint than being in denial about death).



CHuRch IS noT the way to happIness, AcceptiNg that lIfe ends is the roAd to lifeloNg bliss.

(capitals spell CHRISTIAN, geesh it's hard making that into an acronym)

Tisn't new and who says its healthier?

Statistics show that (Now don't use the damnable myth on me, you know the one I am talking about. I got this from netscape) countries with alot of religious followers have less crime, and junk and so on and so forth.

You're the only one bringing up death, obviously it's bothering you. By the way, no one is in "denial" about death. And you have no idea if what you say is true or not. No one dead has come back and told you the answer so shut up and get back on the track of the discussion.

Tisn't new and who says its healthier?

Statistics show that (Now don't use the damnable myth on me, you know the one I am talking about. I got this from netscape) countries with alot of religious followers have less crime, and junk and so on and so forth.
Well, despite being an atheist, I have this to say.

I prefer teaching in communities that have a strong religious tie. Be that Christian or Muslim (haven't had much experience outside of those two). The kids are more respectful, we don't lose as much time on discipline issues. I won't say religion is the sole reason. It isn't. More factors are at play. But it is often a good indicator that those other factors will be in place.

You're the only one bringing up death, obviously it's bothering you. By the way, no one is in "denial" about death. And you have no idea if what you say is true or not. No one dead has come back and told you the answer so shut up and get back on the track of the discussion.
On first reading, I thought you said, "Shut up and get to the back of the discussion!"

Which is actually kind of apt :D

You're the only one bringing up death, obviously it's bothering you. By the way, no one is in "denial" about death. And you have no idea if what you say is true or not. No one dead has come back and told you the answer so shut up and get back on the track of the discussion.
What was that all about :confused:

But it does not answer the question of why he did not make the recording of this himself in order to make sure we got the message rather then leaving it up to us flawed humans who “adulterated” it but we somehow must still be faithful to this “adulterated” bible otherwise we shall suffer hell

Maybe I didn't explain very clearly, but I didn't indicate that the Bible was adulterated. What I meant was that the laws (ie: you can't walk more than "x" distance on the Sabbath because doing so is "work") that were created by the councils and priests adulterated God's law given directly from God to Moses and the prophets.

Maybe I didn't explain very clearly, but I didn't indicate that the Bible was adulterated. What I meant was that the laws (ie: you can't walk more than "x" distance on the Sabbath because doing so is "work") that were created by the councils and priests adulterated God's law given directly from God to Moses and the prophets.
The problem is now all we got to go on is the book where some of these adulterated laws are written down … we have to filter the crap from the good in our own holy book (supposedly)
I would hope god would keep the book if flawed at least pure

Why didn't God write the Bible Himself?
Ooh! I just thought of a good smart-alecky answer...

Because she wrote it Herself. ;-)

The problem is now all we got to go on is the book where some of these adulterated laws are written down … we have to filter the crap from the good in our own holy book (supposedly)
I would hope god would keep the book if flawed at least pure


I've explained what I was referring to when I originally referred to the adulterated laws...I was not at all referring to the laws which were spoken or written directly by God or were given by God to the prophets.

The adulterated laws I was referring to were those added by men. Thesenever were included in the Bible -- they are not canonical. I gave an example of the "no work on the Sabbath" law, which was a human adulteration of God's law to keep the Sabbath holy.

I think folks who argue against the authenticity of the bible in its present form should study it. Arguing that it is no longer authentic if indeed it ever were simply because one doesn't agree with the basic concept of the existence of a holy and righteous (and jealous) God is fairly short-sighted.

Here's a few reasons to debate.

1. God doesn't write books.
2. That would be spoon feeding us the answer to all the questions.
3. because it's not His style
4. Because we did.
5. man invented writing, God doesn't even need it.
6.NEW ONE: God gave us ten lessons, and we made 400 out of them.

some of these might connect into good answers, or contradict in some way, I dunno, so have fun with them.

not christian here

question one: would you have written the book yourself when you could get some puny humans to do it?

question two: would you had written the book in their primitive language? (shurely you have an own language the puny humans are incapeble of speaking)

question three: humans are stupid, they only know the closest area around them, take the noas ark for example. all the worlds animals in one boat (of course that can work when you only know perhaps 200 animals).
would you really tell some low spicies that their planet happens to round and not flat?

see humans writing the bible is crazy, a god who does it is worse.

not christian here

question one: would you have written the book yourself when you could get some puny humans to do it?

question two: would you had written the book in their primitive language? (shurely you have an own language the puny humans are incapeble of speaking)

question three: humans are stupid, they only know the closest area around them, take the noas ark for example. all the worlds animals in one boat (of course that can work when you only know perhaps 200 animals).
would you really tell some low spicies that their planet happens to round and not flat?

see humans writing the bible is crazy, a god who does it is worse.
#3 demands that #1 and #2 be yes.

Ooh! I just thought of a good smart-alecky answer...

Because she wrote it Herself. ;-)
YOU'VE SOLVED THE RIDDLE!!!!!!! *hands you a big pink cookie* :D (I actually almost made the title...Why didn't God write the Bible Herself....but thought I'd stick with the more common He)

Seriously. Why did he leave it to a bunch of flawed men? Why all the confusion? Look...if the dude made the universe, certainly he could make a nice, simple book appear? And why did he take so long to get that sucker out in the first place? Surely it would've been more useful a couple thousand years earlier? Who's ever heard of divine writer's block?

*don't take this too seriously folks, though I am interested in some Christian opions on the silly subject.

If God had written the Bible (Him/Her)*self would people be any more willing to accept it as Right? We live in a very skeptical world - there will always be those who doubt without out absolute undeniable proof (Thomas being one example)

Even if the book was 'unearthly' or appeared from thin air there would be doubters and others would have come up with conspiracy theories or whatever before the day was out.

I reckon its part of our nature to question things so the current setup seems as good as any other way.

Also, as far as I know, the Bible consists of only some of the books written by people around the time of Jesus - many were't included for reasons unknown to me (possibly restating what others said or maybe because some of the content doesnt 'fit' with what we are supposed to believe.)

Think i'm rambling a bit here so will stop now but I hope I've managed to get my general meaning across.

The real answer?


God didn't write the Bible for precisely the same reason that Ishmael didn't write Moby Dick. Fictional characters, after all, do not write themselves into their author's novels.

Exactly! :cool:

Seriously. Why did he leave it to a bunch of flawed men? Why all the confusion? Look...if the dude made the universe, certainly he could make a nice, simple book appear? And why did he take so long to get that sucker out in the first place? Surely it would've been more useful a couple thousand years earlier? Who's ever heard of divine writer's block?

*don't take this too seriously folks, though I am interested in some Christian opions on the silly subject.

Well, this also brings up the question of why he came to earth in a human form...

Well, this also brings up the question of why he came to earth in a human form...
Speaking from total and admitted ignorance here...

...but if you're referring to Jesus...wasn't he the SON of God...not God Himself??

I think the real question is if God had written the Bible why would he let a bunch of people choose which books get to be part of it and which dont.

Speaking from total and admitted ignorance here...

...but if you're referring to Jesus...wasn't he the SON of God...not God Himself??

Jesus was God made flesh. He was wholly Man and wholly Divine.

While He was the Son of God, he is one of the three parts of God.

God The Father-what people generally think of when God is mentioned. the big guy up in Heaven

God The Son-This would be Jesus

God The Holy Spirit-No one has given me a good definition for this, but I think the Holy Spirit is God's presence on Earth, until the Second Coming...

I think the real question is if God had written the Bible why would he let a bunch of people choose which books get to be part of it and which dont.


The snub answer here would be free will....

............and I don't have a better one.

Free will is probably the answer for most of the questions people ask about why God did/didn't do this/that.

Jesus was God made flesh. He was wholly Man and wholly Divine.

While He was the Son of God, he is one of the three parts of God.

God The Father-what people generally think of when God is mentioned. the big guy up in Heaven

God The Son-This would be Jesus

God The Holy Spirit-No one has given me a good definition for this, but I think the Holy Spirit is God's presence on Earth, until the Second Coming...Hmmm..doesn't sound like monotheism to me...but this is an old argument I will abstain from:)

Hmmm..doesn't sound like monotheism to me...but this is an old argument I will abstain from:)
Its really not but they needed something to seperate themselfs from alot of the paganistic beliefs back in the day ... what we WILL get is "its hard to understand" replys when we push it

Hmmm..doesn't sound like monotheism to me...but this is an old argument I will abstain from:)

Actually it is...we don't worship each one separately, but they are worshipped as one...

A similiar example is a particular person. Take me. There are three mes, well Gordons.

1.Gordon-around people
2.Gordon-by himself
3.Gordon-on the internet

1.This Gordon is very shy around people, and tends not to say much.
2.This Gordon is opposite of that Gordon. He tends to think a lot, and voices his opinions out loud(just no one ever hears them)
3. This Gordon is Gordon 2, just with a potential audience. He can voice his opinions out loud and not fear ridicule, because everyone on the internet is a loser and their opinions don't matter* ;)

All three of these are different, but at the same time, are part of me.

But like you said, probably not a good idea to get into it...



*Just kidding, this is some of the most stimulating conversation I get.

Its really not but they needed something to seperate themselfs from alot of the paganistic beliefs back in the day ... what we WILL get is "its hard to understand" replys when we push it
Well, I understand why so many native peoples were able to integrate Catholocism into our own spirituality...all those saints were useful mirrors of certain Gods...the religions fit together well.

Actually it is...we don't worship each one separately, but they are worshipped as one...

A similiar example is a particular person. Take me. There are three mes, well Gordons.

1.Gordon-around people
2.Gordon-by himself
3.Gordon-on the internet

1.This Gordon is very shy around people, and tends not to say much.
2.This Gordon is opposite of that Gordon. He tends to think a lot, and voices his opinions out loud(just no one ever hears them)
3. This Gordon is Gordon 2, just with a potential audience. He can voice his opinions out loud and not fear ridicule, because everyone on the internet is a loser and their opinions don't matter* ;)

But like you said, probably not a good idea to get into it...



*Just kidding, this is some of the most stimulating conversation I get.Not so tough to understand. The Creator is said to have many aspects as well, though he remains one being.

I don't buy that either, by the way...just saying:).

why not?

Because that is not the way He works.

He has a method of calling Prophets. Telling them what he wants and having them spread that to the rest of the people.

It is a little easier for people to say hey, that Prophet is telling us to do something, and he is doing it too. I guess it must be possible. Rather than God just telling us and us thinking "Ha! yeah right, like anyone can do THAT"

Besides God doesn't want to stand around and order us. That would defeat the purpose. He wants us to find out for ourselves.

Also, It is easier for man to assosiate with man. We can talk on our own level. God is on an entire different level. So instead of shocking us all senseless he only shocks one person senseless and lets that person explain to us :)

And yes, there is the free will arguement. :)

Sorry I'm all over the place with this post


How do you know those prophets weren't on LSD or shrooms?

Not so tough to understand. The Creator is said to have many aspects as well, though he remains one being.

I don't buy that either, by the way...just saying:).

Which Creator are you referring to? There are many of them in all the world religions...

As I understand it, you don't want to "buy" into anything. You were just looking for an explanation from a Christian...so I explained it.


By the way, I know perfectly well Christianity isn't the most "original" of religions...I don't know if anyone has brought it up. This is because Christianity was designed to bring the "uneducated, heathanistic masses" into the fold. Like the Sabbath was originally on Saturday, but they moved it to Sunday to coincide with the day honoring, yep, you guessed the Sun god.

Well, there are newly rewritten bibles that attempt to make the (Greek) texts contemporary and relevant. The most notable, and popular I believe, is The Message (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1576831205/104-1301158-0147905?v=glance) by Eugene Peterson.

You have to remember that they are paraphrased though. There is also TThe Street Bible/Word On The Street (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0007107900/002-9885777-8222420?v=glance)

You have to remember that they are paraphrased though.
Yes, well... that would be the translation part.

How do you know those prophets weren't on LSD or shrooms?

In all probability, a lot of them probably were. Many cultures of the time considered LSD and shrooms to be methods by which one could raise oneself to the level of consciousness necessary to see the divine first hand.

In all probability, a lot of them probably were. Many cultures of the time considered LSD and shrooms to be methods by which one could raise oneself to the level of consciousness necessary to see the divine first hand.
Um LSD was invented around 1945 ... by Albert Hofmann

Which Creator are you referring to? There are many of them in all the world religions...
The Cree one:)

As I understand it, you don't want to "buy" into anything. You were just looking for an explanation from a Christian...so I explained it.
And you did a good job of it! No, I just find that it's easy for people to take quotes out of context if they happen to just pop in, so I said that to make it clear that I'm still an atheist. It saves me having to explain to people later that I didn't undergo a conversion!

Um LSD was invented around 1945 ... by Albert Hofmann
Hehehehehehhee.

By the way, I know perfectly well Christianity isn't the most "original" of religions...I don't know if anyone has brought it up. This is because Christianity was designed to bring the "uneducated, heathanistic masses" into the fold. Like the Sabbath was originally on Saturday, but they moved it to Sunday to coincide with the day honoring, yep, you guessed the Sun god.


I thought it was moved to Sunday because that was the day of Christ's resurrection?

Hehehehehehhee.
Lol I was confused … I was pretty sure it was synthetic lol

Lol I was confused … I was pretty sure it was synthetic lol
The original poster is still right though, as long as you take out the LSD part of it:)

I thought it was moved to Sunday because that was the day of Christ's resurrection?
And what lead you to believe that?

The original poster is still right though, as long as you take out the LSD part of it:)
Yeah know what they were geting at :) lol and agreed lol

God was too busy making hot women...

http://www.redstararms.com/arnewrsa4.JPG

By the way, I know perfectly well Christianity isn't the most "original" of religions...I don't know if anyone has brought it up. This is because Christianity was designed to bring the "uneducated, heathanistic masses" into the fold. Like the Sabbath was originally on Saturday, but they moved it to Sunday to coincide with the day honoring, yep, you guessed the Sun god.


nice theory, but....

Sunday WAS the day that Christ was resurected. If you don't believe in him thats a different matter. But the Bible records it as happening on Sunday. Peter and the remaining apostles then proceeded to worship on Sunday.

In english it is Sunday. For the god of the sun. But in Latin it is closer to Domini/Domingo(Spanish) which is "Day of the Lord". Nothing to do with the sun. That is just the Norse influence on English there. :)

God was too busy making hot women...

http://www.redstararms.com/arnewrsa4.JPG

...with guns? I'd've expected wings!

Speaking from total and admitted ignorance here...

...but if you're referring to Jesus...wasn't he the SON of God...not God Himself??

Actually you are right. Jesus WAS God's SON. Not God at all. Divine, yes. But not God. You COULD call Him A God. But THE God is the FAther and ALL worship must be to HIM in the Son's NAME.

The three are separate and distict beings. All this 3 in one talk is what confuses most believers and non-believers, but that was never a Biblical belief.

God the Father is the Father of all the Spirits (angels). One such (the first) was Jesus Christ. He came to earth to fix what man had messed up. He came to open the way to heaven to all. The Holy Ghost is another Spirit whose role is to confirm truth in the heart of man.

YOU'VE SOLVED THE RIDDLE!!!!!!! *hands you a big pink cookie* :D (I actually almost made the title...Why didn't God write the Bible Herself....but thought I'd stick with the more common He)

After a theology class in which gender-neutral language was absolutely mandated (including not assigning a gender to God), I got really used to not using pronouns when describing God at all. My prof did one use the word "Godself" hehe.

Actually you are right. Jesus WAS God's SON. Not God at all. Divine, yes. But not God. You COULD call Him A God. But THE God is the FAther and ALL worship must be to HIM in the Son's NAME.

The three are separate and distict beings. All this 3 in one talk is what confuses most believers and non-believers, but that was never a Biblical belief.

God the Father is the Father of all the Spirits (angels). One such (the first) was Jesus Christ. He came to earth to fix what man had messed up. He came to open the way to heaven to all. The Holy Ghost is another Spirit whose role is to confirm truth in the heart of man.
Yikes! Now I really AM confused! Not a god, part of God, a separate being...is there consensus on the answer to this question, or is this a debate various denominations have?

Yikes! Now I really AM confused! Not a god, part of God, a separate being...is there consensus on the answer to this question, or is this a debate various denominations have?
They all fight on it in the small scale … but they usually all end up at the conclusion of “its confusing … we may not understand it … and you may not either … it may not be possible to understand but we take it as truth anyways”

Yikes! Now I really AM confused! Not a god, part of God, a separate being...is there consensus on the answer to this question, or is this a debate various denominations have?

This is a debate that has been going on since the church was established. Of course, the belief you replied to was long ago declared heretical by the Catholic church - which included most churches at the time. =) That doesn't, of course, mean that it is incorrect.

This point of debate was one of the main points of contention between the East and West church, which led to the split and the advent of Roman Catholocism v. Greek Orthodox. The word eventually adopted by the entire church to describe the relationship (homousious I believe) was interpreted differently on both sides as its translation into Latin was a bit different.

Some people look at the Trinity as different aspects of the same being. Others look at them as distinct, but "of the same substance" (which is how some interpreted the word homousious). Others look at Christ as the previous poster did, as a "lesser" being, but still somewhat divine.

Very well put Dempublicents1, :)

This is one of the reasons why big blanket generalizations about "Christians" are so silly. Because there are any number of disagreements inside of "Christianity"



As for the gender of God. Interesting about your theology class. But I've never understood the whole issue. Mostly because the Bible always refers to God as the Father. Which implies male. This doens't bug me though because although not mentioned in the Bible I imagine He has a Wife. You cannot have a Father without a Mother. But that is beside the point :)

nice theory, but....

Sunday WAS the day that Christ was resurected. If you don't believe in him thats a different matter. But the Bible records it as happening on Sunday. Peter and the remaining apostles then proceeded to worship on Sunday.

In english it is Sunday. For the god of the sun. But in Latin it is closer to Domini/Domingo(Spanish) which is "Day of the Lord". Nothing to do with the sun. That is just the Norse influence on English there. :)

Oh..well then I was wrong...

Disregard my statement...I guess...

I just remember reading that in a book once....

This is a debate that has been going on since the church was established. Of course, the belief you replied to was long ago declared heretical by the Catholic church - which included most churches at the time. =) That doesn't, of course, mean that it is incorrect.

This point of debate was one of the main points of contention between the East and West church, which led to the split and the advent of Roman Catholocism v. Greek Orthodox. The word eventually adopted by the entire church to describe the relationship (homousious I believe) was interpreted differently on both sides as its translation into Latin was a bit different.

Some people look at the Trinity as different aspects of the same being. Others look at them as distinct, but "of the same substance" (which is how some interpreted the word homousious). Others look at Christ as the previous poster did, as a "lesser" being, but still somewhat divine.

Uh-oh, we agree. I think it's hard to argue that the trinity violates some tenent of monotheism, however (not suggesting you're saying that).