NationStates Jolt Archive

You can never prove that it is the Word of God, same with any divine book. You can, however, trace it back to the people who wrote it, and they have done that and crosschecked it with Roman Historians. So it was written by many people who claim that the divine hand helped them make it.

Is there any way to prove that the Bible (because someone is probably going to ask: this refers to the holy book of Christianity, whatever translation you wish) is really the Word of God?
I read somewhere something along the lines of "The Bible is true because it says so"... but anyone with even a basic understanding of logic knows that this is horribly illogical.
In which case it would be wrong because of this:
"I am God. The Bible is wrong, and I am God, because I say so."
So you have to listen to me.

Nutshell? Ask it yourself.
Otherwise, no.

You can't prove it is, but you can however prove it isn't by showing how the stories in the bible are actually just slightly altered, borrowed versions of other myths from thousands of years ago. Example. (http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcpa5.htm)

My compliments on staying focused and unswayed in your references. *bows*

You can't prove it is, but you can however prove it isn't by showing how the stories in the bible are actually just slightly altered, borrowed versions of other myths from thousands of years ago. Example. (http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcpa5.htm)

Is there any way to prove that the Bible (because someone is probably going to ask: this refers to the holy book of Christianity, whatever translation you wish) is really the Word of God?
I read somewhere something along the lines of "The Bible is true because it says so"... but anyone with even a basic understanding of logic knows that this is horribly illogical.
In which case it would be wrong because of this:
"I am God. The Bible is wrong, and I am God, because I say so."
So you have to listen to me.

I think a more interesting question is:

Does the Bible have to be the undisputed word of God to be relevant?

I cannot answer in the respect of validity, because I'm an evil biased atheist.

However, I can correct you. Validity is not important, but relevance is. Is it relevant to say God hates fags? What of Jews? And abortion?

The word of God is the word of those who convey it, and they're all capitalist cuntfucks. God is being oppressed by his most avid followers, and I'm not sure he appreciates that much.

Lou Dobbs '08

Lou Dobbs '08

Dontcha mean J.R. "Bob" Dobbs, 1996/9661?
http://www.subgenius.com/fist.html

Dontcha mean J.R. "Bob" Dobbs, 1996/9661?
http://www.subgenius.com/fist.html

But I don't like the name "Bob"..

But I don't like the name "Bob"..

You might go instead with Connie Dobbs?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/9/93/Conniedobbs.JPG/180px-Conniedobbs.JPG

You might go instead with Connie Dobbs?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/9/93/Conniedobbs.JPG/180px-Conniedobbs.JPG

Pfft, a female could never be President..

Pfft, a female could never be President..

It's already happened a few times, at least.
http://cache.boston.com/bonzai-fba/AP_Photo/2007/07/25/1185375209_3533.jpg
http://www.niu.edu/naspa/images/FRANCES.jpg
http://images.forbes.com/media/lists/11/2006/BMW8.jpg
http://www.smh.com.au/ffximage/2006/01/16/bachelet_narrowweb__300x424,0.jpg
http://myhero.com/images/Science/Cordova/g1_u17509_francecordova1.jpg

surely you're not thinking THIS:
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/154/434261564_56fd2a4ed3.jpg

Is there any way to prove that the Bible is really the Word of God?No, mainly because the God it is supposed to be the word of is inexistent. But you can try to. Join a Jesus camp.

No, mainly because the God it is supposed to be the word of is inexistent. But you can try to. Join a Jesus camp.

Wondering how long before you hopped in on this thread.

Wondering how long before you hopped in on this thread.No religion thread without me, huh?

No religion thread without me, huh?

Exactamundo. :)

I was going to post something insightful but I'll just post this (http://atheistdelusion.cf.huffingtonpost.com/) and this (http://deludedmailbag.cf.huffingtonpost.com/) which proves that the bible is the literal word of god.

I was going to post something insightful but I'll just post this (http://atheistdelusion.cf.huffingtonpost.com/) and this (http://deludedmailbag.cf.huffingtonpost.com/) which proves that the bible is the literal word of god.:p

Erm, it's really what you make of it. So there you go.

"great zombie invasion of jersualem" ??

You can never prove that it is the Word of God, same with any divine book. You can, however, trace it back to the people who wrote it, and they have done that and crosschecked it with Roman Historians. So it was written by many people who claim that the divine hand helped them make it.

you cant even do that.

the gospels are written by unknown authors. the names were added later, they arent in the text. they are traditional attributions not historical ones.

those that DO have a supposed name of a real person--the epistles of peter and paul-- dont have cross references by roman historians. some were not written by the author named.

you can kinda cross check some of the figures in the gospels. it doesnt work perfectly but there was a herod; there was a pilate; there was a roman conquest of the holy land. there are no contemporary references to jesus (not that there should be). the details of jesus' life are not correct. (no star, no magi, no slaughter of innocents, no choirs of angels, no "great zombie invasion of jersualem" at his death.)

its all quite problematical.

??

matthew 27:50-53

50 But Jesus cried out again in a loud voice, and gave up his spirit.

51 And behold, the veil of the sanctuary was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth quaked, rocks were split,

52 tombs were opened, and the bodies of many saints who had fallen asleep were raised.

53 And coming forth from their tombs after his resurrection, they entered the holy city and appeared to many.

dead people rising from the grave and entering the city. seems like a zombie invasion to ME.

and something that would have "made the news" if it had actually happened.

matthew 27:50-53

50 But Jesus cried out again in a loud voice, and gave up his spirit.

51 And behold, the veil of the sanctuary was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth quaked, rocks were split,

52 tombs were opened, and the bodies of many saints who had fallen asleep were raised.

53 And coming forth from their tombs after his resurrection, they entered the holy city and appeared to many.

dead people rising from the grave and entering the city. seems like a zombie invasion to ME.

and something that would have "made the news" if it had actually happened.

Well, the just diseased Jesus would then make the Master Zombie, right?

Well, the just diseased Jesus would then make the Master Zombie, right?

http://img402.imageshack.us/img402/8449/zombiejesuslt9.jpg

Questioning validity get's you no where. If you believe it you believe it, if you don't you probably never will. It can neither be proved nor disproved (as yet anyway), just like Big Bang v Intelligent Design. It is a matter of faith or disbelief, not validity. (Although validity may change the faith/disbelief part, but some people will beleive anything even if it is 'proven' false).

Even good historians would have a hard time tracing all the authors. Even some of the same books probably had multiple writers, and were edited intensely over time, if not lost in translation.

I think a more interesting question is:

Does the Bible have to be the undisputed word of God to be relevant?

Well I sort of see it in the same way I see the Illiad. It documents some history and says a lot about the time period it was written in, but there are just some things that logically don't have any factual value.

Is there any way to prove that the Bible (because someone is probably going to ask: this refers to the holy book of Christianity, whatever translation you wish) is really the Word of God?
I read somewhere something along the lines of "The Bible is true because it says so"... but anyone with even a basic understanding of logic knows that this is horribly illogical.
In which case it would be wrong because of this:
"I am God. The Bible is wrong, and I am God, because I say so."
So you have to listen to me.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kl9ldtRFigw

I have heard that if you trace it back to who wrote it, then you have to believe that they believed it was true.

http://img402.imageshack.us/img402/8449/zombiejesuslt9.jpg

*gives two cookies to Ifreann*

Even if it was, can you imagine how many times it has probably been abused, manipulated, mistranslated, rewritten entirely, and converted when it's original written date to now?


Either you believe in it or you don't. It's a proverbial impasse, with no way for one to disprove the other in a logical fashion.

Either you believe in it or you don't. It's a proverbial impasse, with no way for one to disprove the other in a logical fashion.How so?

How so?

Logic nullifies faith, but the problem with faith is that it means looking at logic and denying it in favor of what you've been told.

Therefore, impasse.

Logic nullifies faith, but the problem with faith is that it means looking at logic and denying it in favor of what you've been told.

Therefore, impasse.

that's not an impasse, that is one side being wrong.

that's not an impasse, that is one side being wrong.

Ah, but the problem with that is assuming that the one true faith is wrong and everyone believing it is a moron.


I don't even bother with religion due to the staggering amount of nonsense and illogic, but since I grew up in a religious household I know most of these retorts.

I'm going to tune in now and then to this thread to see if anyone will ever answer the question I ask everytime this topic comes up:

What does it matter whether the Bible is the really real and truly true Word o' God (tm)?

How does that affect its validity*, or its relevance, or anything else about it? 100s of books have been written by Christian theologians which are not the Word of God but are still valid for and relevant to that religion. Just like 1000s of texts have been written in Buddhism that do not claim to be the Word of Buddha, but are valid for and relevant to that religion. Why does the Bible have to be so special?

(*A related question is, valid for what purpose?)

The obsessive arguing over that book is one of the several reasons I did not choose Christianity as my religion. It seems so petty to me -- so beside the point. It seems the only people who think it matters are the ones who already think it is the Word of God, and all of the arguments I've heard from such folks so far, boil down to, if it isn't, then their religion is false. Which strikes me as a weak foundation for such a big organization.

So I'm waiting to see if there are any better arguments in favor of such a proposition. Otherwise, I stick with my opinion -- i.e., it doesn't matter.

Now, now -- the bible is just as valid as Dr. Hobo's ramblings (http://www.vgcats.com/comics/?strip_id=58)!

What does it matter whether the Bible is the really real and truly true Word o' God (tm)?If the bible is God's word that would mean the biblical God is real. And that would change what and who you are and the context of your life.

If the bible is God's word that would mean the biblical God is real. And that would change what and who you are and the context of your life.

I don't see how.

And I don't see how the Bible not being God's word would mean he isn't real.

I know you think that -- or at least that's the argument you like to post -- but I've made it clear to you many times that I reject your argument because it is so overtly biased.

EDIT: If you want a softball to swing at, try this one: If you write a book about me, does the fact that I didn't dictate it to you mean that I don't exist? Do all the biographies of George Washington prove that there was no such person as George Washington?

My point is that I don't understand why some Christians can't believe in their god even if they don't elevate that one book to magical status. That is what I am waiting for an explanation of. Since you are not a Christian -- in fact, are on record as denying the validity of Christianity altogether -- you are not the person to give me that answer.

I don't see how.It's more a matter of thinking than seeing.

What does it matter whether the Bible is the really real and truly true Word o' God (tm)?
Because it is the root from which all other Christian writings and thinking derive both their legitimacy and creative origins?
The same goes for any other religion. All Islam goes back to the Koran, all Judaism goes back to the Tanakh, and all Buddhism goes back to the Buddha (who, though he was a person and not a sacred text, still gets used the same way).
If the mainspring of Christian theology is wrong, then all that subsequent thought was just the result of people wasting their time thinking about fairy stories.

It's more a matter of thinking than seeing.
Not with you, it isn't -- your approach is that obvious.

But, as I said, you're not a Christian, so you can't answer my questions. So I'm not going to waste time chasing in circles with you.

Because it is the root from which all other Christian writings and thinking derive both their legitimacy and creative origins?
The same goes for any other religion. All Islam goes back to the Koran, all Judaism goes back to the Tanakh, and all Buddhism goes back to the Buddha (who, though he was a person and not a sacred text, still gets used the same way).
If the mainspring of Christian theology is wrong, then all that subsequent thought was just the result of people wasting their time thinking about fairy stories.
Yes, I've heard all that, many times, but it still leaves me like the proverbial little kid, still asking, "Why?"

Why is the idea less valid because it comes from someone other than who you originally thought?

If the ideas of how to live, how to behave, how to relate to the world, how to think about good and evil, are valid for life, then what does it matter, whether they were dictated directly by a god, or made up by someone who had achieved some enlightened state and wrote down his/her thoughts as a result?

If you believe in them, and they help you, and you feel they are consistent with the notion of godhead that you believe in, why shouldn't you accept them as a sacred text, even if they were written by a person or people?

I would remind you that, in Buddhism (as an example), no one thinks the Buddha is a god, and few people think there was/is only one Buddha, and no one thinks the writings of enlightened scholars are really the words of Buddha (unless the author is a Buddha, of course). All the sacred texts of Buddhism were written by people. They refer to divine matters.

(Btw, and for the record, the religion I practice has no written sacred texts. It was one its chief attractions for me.)

I don't see how.

And I don't see how the Bible not being God's word would mean he isn't real.That's a completely different approach.
If the bible is God's word then God does exist. If the bible is not God's word then that says nothing about God.

I know you think that -- or at least that's the argument you like to post -- but I've made it clear to you many times that I reject your argument because it is so overtly biased.Yes, I know you have never understood anything I have written.

EDIT: If you want a softball to swing at, try this one: If you write a book about me, does the fact that I didn't dictate it to you mean that I don't exist?The fact that you didn't dictate it to me and I don't know you at all means that I would have made such a book up entirely.

Do all the biographies of George Washington prove that there was no such person as George Washington?What?

My point is that I don't understand why some Christians can't believe in their god even if they don't elevate that one book to magical status. That is what I am waiting for an explanation of. Since you are not a Christian -- in fact, are on record as denying the validity of Christianity altogether -- you are not the person to give me that answer.If Christians didn't elevate the bible to magical status, what sources would they be left with? They have to desperately cling to the bible simply because that's all they have.
Btw I was raised in a Catholic (i.e. real Christian) environment, and I know exactly how Christians feel and think and why Christianity is vain and void altogether. I was often expelled from religion classes because I kept asking questions the teachers had no answers to.

Not with you, it isn't -- your approach is that obvious.

But, as I said, you're not a Christian, so you can't answer my questions. So I'm not going to waste time chasing in circles with you.Your arrogance must be limitless. You are such an ill mind. Which is also why you'll never understand anything I write., but I can live with that.

<snip>

Your arrogance must be limitless.
So is my contempt.

You are such an ill mind. Which is also why you'll never understand anything I write., but I can live with that.
Excellent. :) We can now resume not talking to each other.

If you believe in them, and they help you, and you feel they are consistent with the notion of godhead that you believe in, why shouldn't you accept them as a sacred text, even if they were written by a person or people?


if you believe that you have to follow the rules given to you by god to come into heaven and avoid hell then you have to be sure that you follow the right rules. If the bible is written by humans and not trough some kind of divine revelation or something then the possibility that it isn't totally correct is pretty big, so how would you know that god demands you to discriminate against homosexuals or preach that condoms are infected with AIDS etc?
Of course I really don't have a clue since I don't believe in god.

blah.
there is no way to prove anything in the world.
regardless of what science says, they're not proving anything, they're making a theory to prove it, same thing as religion.
as why would the bible be invalid? it is based on the torah + why have ppl kept trying to find jesus' body or whatever if it's all fake.
gosh.

=D
*YEAH* NATION STATES.

if you believe that you have to follow the rules given to you by god to come into heaven and avoid hell then you have to be sure that you follow the right rules. If the bible is written by humans and not trough some kind of divine revelation or something then the possibility that it isn't totally correct is pretty big, so how would you know that god demands you to discriminate against homosexuals or preach that condoms are infected with AIDS etc?
Well, that is the general argument, and on the surface it appears unassailable, until we get to the last part, because those things aren't in the Bible, so anyone who follows them as actions based on Bible precepts is really just following the word of a person (some pastor or other) who claims to interpret the Bible, and not following the Word of God itself.

So it falls into the trap of showing people who say they do one thing, when they really do another -- which in turn, undermines the arguments that insist on the Word of God validity criterion for the Bible.

Of course I really don't have a clue since I don't believe in god.
I have no clue, either, since I'm not a Christian. I'll sit quiet until some Christian feels like addressing the question. :)

i remember accidently flipping through the bible years ago.. and i remember a part where the 'God' created everything in 7 days.. its all very 'real' aren't it.. and its at the very first part... yea....

Well, that is the general argument, and on the surface it appears unassailable, until we get to the last part, because those things aren't in the Bible, so anyone who follows them as actions based on Bible precepts is really just following the word of a person (some pastor or other) who claims to interpret the Bible, and not following the Word of God itself.

So it falls into the trap of showing people who say they do one thing, when they really do another -- which in turn, undermines the arguments that insist on the Word of God validity criterion for the Bible.


ok, I used stupid examples but let's say that he really doesn't want us to turn the other cheek (that IS in the bible isn't it?) what then?

ok, I used stupid examples but let's say that he really doesn't want us to turn the other cheek (that IS in the bible isn't it?) what then?

If the instruction to turn the other cheek IS in the Bible, and IF the Bible is the actual word of god, then obviously, God does want Christians to turn the other cheek. So any suggestion that he doesn't, should be rejected as not the word of god, right?

But of course, that leads then into the endless briar thicket of the Bible contradicting itself, which also damages the assertion that the Bible is the most reliable source for authority on all Christian writings and all Christian activities, because it can clearly be used to either allow or disallow anything.

And that brings me back to my original question, because if the Bible -- which is just one book -- cannot be relied upon to be a consistent guide, why should the validity of an entire set of theological beliefs be made dependent upon it?

When I was younger, and looking about for a religion for myself, I really found a lot of value in Christian beliefs, but among the several reasons I decided against it for myself, was this Bible controversy. I just felt that putting so much emphasis on that book, not only missed the point of the religion, but also devalued the religion by trivializing it in a way.

That's just my personal feeling. My question is just my curiosity about whether there is more reasoning behind it than I've been shown so far.

*wonders why Christian can't just use the Bible as a guide on how to live and to treat your fellow man. Doesn't really understand the whole need to elevate to to this magical status to make it more valid.*

And that brings me back to my original question, because if the Bible -- which is just one book -- cannot be relied upon to be a consistent guide, why should the validity of an entire set of theological beliefs be made dependent upon it?


actually it's more than one book, it's compiled out of several books, that's probably why it contradicts itself so much.

...
Why is the idea less valid because it comes from someone other than who you originally thought?

If the ideas of how to live, how to behave, how to relate to the world, how to think about good and evil, are valid for life, then what does it matter, whether they were dictated directly by a god, or made up by someone who had achieved some enlightened state and wrote down his/her thoughts as a result?

If you believe in them, and they help you, and you feel they are consistent with the notion of godhead that you believe in, why shouldn't you accept them as a sacred text, even if they were written by a person or people?
...

Its not a matter of just knowing the names of the authors, the secular world accuses the authors of lying and story telling and saying they are not actual witnesses of anything real. That makes the Christian defend the authenticity of the scripture because if THIS (the following scriptures) is just metaphor and NOT certainty …

John 11
25Jesus said to her, "I am the resurrection and the life. Whoever believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live, 26and everyone who lives and believes in me shall never die. Do you believe this?"

John 20
5And stooping to look in, he saw the linen cloths lying there, but he did not go in. 6Then Simon Peter came, following him, and went into the tomb. He saw the linen cloths lying there, 7and the face cloth, which had been on Jesus’ head, not lying with the linen cloths but folded up in a place by itself. 8Then the other disciple, who had reached the tomb first, also went in, and he saw and believed; 9for as yet they did not understand the Scripture, that he must rise from the dead.

IF the scripture can’t be trusted as a witness of the actual events, then the authors might be liars when they said:

Acts 1
21So one of the men who have accompanied us during all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, 22 beginning from the baptism of John until the day when he was taken up from us—one of these men must become with us a witness to his resurrection."

And if they are liars about the resurrection being a literal, physical resurrection of Christ back from death, then these are not true:

Romans 6:4
We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.

Romans 8:11
If the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit who dwells in you.

And if those statements are not true in actuality and not just metaphor, then:

1 Corinthians 15
13But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. 14And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain. 15We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we testified about God that he raised Christ, whom he did not raise if it is true that the dead are not raised. 16For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised. 17And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. 18Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. 19If in Christ we have hope in this life only, we are of all people most to be pitied.

But it IS true, 1 Corinthians 15 continued:
20But in fact Christ has been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. 21For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead. 22For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive. 23But each in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, then at his coming those who belong to Christ. 24Then comes the end, when he delivers the kingdom to God the Father after destroying every rule and every authority and power. 25For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. 26The last enemy to be destroyed is death.

John 8:14
Jesus answered, "Even if I do bear witness about myself, my testimony is true, for I know where I came from and where I am going, but you do not know where I come from or where I am going.


So in the end, the Christian MUST believe that the scripture is not lying so that they can believe in the resurrection of Christ and of themselves.

As to the certainty that they feel they must have in proclaiming their own individual interpretations and understanding of each and every one of the the scriptures, of this, they are frequently and naturally humanly mistaken.

*wonders why Christian can't just use the Bible as a guide on how to live and to treat your fellow man. Doesn't really understand the whole need to elevate to to this magical status to make it more valid.*

the problem is that if people only used it as a guide for their life then a lot (most of the liturgy, the clerics and generally most of the institutions round the organized religion) of things would become superfluous, and a lot of people would lose a lot of power and money. This is probably why it grew this way (I'm not saying it is some sort of conspiracy or something)(although iirc in the beginning of the Church there was a big debate on how holy Jesus was etc)

If the instruction to turn the other cheek IS in the Bible, and IF the Bible is the actual word of god, then obviously, God does want Christians to turn the other cheek. So any suggestion that he doesn't, should be rejected as not the word of god, right?

But of course, that leads then into the endless briar thicket of the Bible contradicting itself, which also damages the assertion that the Bible is the most reliable source for authority on all Christian writings and all Christian activities, because it can clearly be used to either allow or disallow anything.

And that brings me back to my original question, because if the Bible -- which is just one book -- cannot be relied upon to be a consistent guide, why should the validity of an entire set of theological beliefs be made dependent upon it?

When I was younger, and looking about for a religion for myself, I really found a lot of value in Christian beliefs, but among the several reasons I decided against it for myself, was this Bible controversy. I just felt that putting so much emphasis on that book, not only missed the point of the religion, but also devalued the religion by trivializing it in a way.

That's just my personal feeling. My question is just my curiosity about whether there is more reasoning behind it than I've been shown so far.

I've always operated on the position that if there seems to be a contradiction, then the interpretations of one or the other passages is wrong.

I feel like this issue is really tired.

You take somebody's word for it that the Bible contains the "Word of God", or you investigate the issues at hand yourself, just like the way you would determine the existence of "God".

Was it "God" working through human conduits that caused some particular words to be arranged in a particular manner? Then refer back to your belief in the existence of "God"; if found, then it's entirely possible. If not then it would be pretty hard to believe any of it was directly guided by a divine authority.

Then there's the matter of wrapping one's head around some apparent illogics and unscientific statements. One method of dealing is to approach things as spiritual metaphors; in that light, the book just may, to some readers, make a an amount of sense. Are people resurrected out of the dirt of their grave? In Resident Evil, yes; in science, the answer is obvious. But could you live your life half-aware of what was going on (or hardly at all, feeling dead), then suddenly have a paradigm shift where you just feel more "alive"?

Without that framework on call, the Bible is easily just another ancient unsourced wiki article tinkered with by the old factions of the day, printed by a society who fabricated the existence of an invisible ultimate being due to some emotional black hole where their purpose and happiness in life should have been, and summarily thumped by generations of close-minded afraid-to-question-reality zealots.

I don't pretend to have the answer for you, I pretend to have my own.

And while I'm here,
I feel like this following list of things and attitudes are also pretty tired:

"Hey let's not capitalize the word Bible because it indirectly shows we deny it and now it's a term not the title of a book."

"Hey let's not capitalize 'God' for the same reason, and neglect to write 'a god' so it's more insulting."

"Hey let's misspell 'god' as 'gawd' to add insult to injury because of some bad feeling we have in general but it's fashionable so let's."

"Oh those gawd-gawkers with their invisible deities, if only they didn't make things up and try to force it on people throughout history. If only I was free to believe what I want to believe without anyone telling me how."

And :upyours: THIS tired tired archetypical argument:

Person 1: "There is no God."
Person 2: "Yes there is."
1: "Prove it."
2: "Disprove it!"
1: "You are crazy."
2: "You are close-minded."
1: "I hate all religion because of you."
2: "You are rejecting my idea and I will threaten you in a veiled/non-veiled manner."
1: "Idiot."
2: "Sinner."
1: "You are so arrogant."
2: "You just want to continue your immoral life."
1: "The Bible is fake. All the events never happened, there is no evidence."
2: "It all happened because it says so."
1: "It's illogical."
2: "You're just reading it wrong."
1: "All of you are just nuts like I said before and will always say."
2: "Your ignorance is your own downfall; always has been, always will."
..etc.

Anti-religion, Bible-bashing: the irony is it's all become its own religion now with its own doctrine and incontrivertible beliefs, combat mannerisms and ban list. Except nobody's waiting for the return of some prophet, because "there never were any and never will be". So :upyours: all the hypocrisy, bickering, and cute jabs in this thread. Excuse my irritation and anger.

Is there any way to prove that the Bible (because someone is probably going to ask: this refers to the holy book of Christianity, whatever translation you wish) is really the Word of God?

There is no way to prove the Bible is the Word of God, anymore than there is a way to prove the Koran is the Word of God, or Green Eggs and Ham is the Word of God.
But, if you're someone who already believes it is divinely inspired, and you are arguing with someone else who also shares this belief, the Bible is a very useful source. Just as when presenting a case before an American court, citing the Constitution would be useful (but it would be less so in, say, Nigeria).

Well I sort of see it in the same way I see the Illiad. It documents some history and says a lot about the time period it was written in, but there are just some things that logically don't have any factual value.

Well, the Iliad was intended to be fiction, so of course there are parts that would be illogical.
But as for chariots made of creatures with four faces, people being thrown in furnaces, big boats that can carry two of every animal on the planet, seven golden lampstands in the sky, a wound that leaks blood and water, human being turned to salt, people living for 365 years and then rising up to Heaven, massive bodies of water splitting down the middle, etc... I guess all they have to do is say that the more fanciful stuff is "metaphorical" so others won't think they're stupid enough to think that stuff is actually real.

*wonders why Christian can't just use the Bible as a guide on how to live and to treat your fellow man. Doesn't really understand the whole need to elevate to to this magical status to make it more valid.*Read the bible and you know why. If you used the Bible as a guide on how to live the world would be a single big bloodbath.

Well, the Iliad was intended to be fiction, ...According to whom?

Read the bible and you know why. If you used the Bible as a guide on how to live the world would be a single big bloodbath.

True....

True....

how is that true? it would not be a giant blood bath. lets say we all followed the ten commandments. we would have a lot less problems. "thou shalt not kill" that right there plain black and white is one of the commandments. if we were to follow that. how would it be true for the world to be a giant blood bath. btw i know a lot about religion... just a warning.

how is that true? it would not be a giant blood bath. lets say we all followed the ten commandments. we would have a lot less problems. "thou shalt not kill" that right there plain black and white is one of the commandments. if we were to follow that. how would it be true for the world to be a giant blood bath. ten commandments? too funny. those are just the soft guidelines. where are those when God has Joshua conquer Canaan and slaughter every human in his path? Or when he himself kills off the entire planet in his biblical Flood?

btw i know a lot about religion... just a warning.oh, you make me shiver with fear....

So I thought about this a long time and here is my answer

I'm a theist so I do believe God exists meaning that the only reason for the Bible to be relevant for so long would be because it was either divine or divinely inspired in some way. So at it's core the Bible is written or dictated by God. Now how much of that original divine/divinely inspired exists is still up for debate so then the Bible might not in its current form be written by God but by humans but it was divinely inspired which is good enough for me.

As for the debate as why it matters... I don't really think it does. UB of course says the Bible justifies murder but his favorite religious text, the Koran, does the same thing and we are constantly reminded of this by our prejudice of Muslims. Any religion is manipulated by humans for their own ends no matter what but even if it's not the Bible for the most part still gives people a good way to guide their lives. Yes there are some problems with it like I really don't know how to defend the genocides of the Canaanites so I won't, but I will say that that was probably some human manipulating the reasoning. Though that probably disagrees with my thesis from above. I know that historians have also believed that this invasion of Canaan never took place so it might be a moot point.

I really have no idea, none. As much I don't like UB he makes some valid points that I know to be true. So I shall try to reckon my beliefs like this: it doesn't matter the Bible is a good guideline at worst or at best the only reason why it's still relevant is God's doing.

My favorite religious text is the Koran? I did not know that...

Btw it really doesn't matter whether the conquest of Canaan had really occurred, or had occurred exactly as the bible narrates it. What is important is the biblical god's attitude expressed in such a story, be the story accurate or not. And holding on to such a god says a lot about the believer. And the conquest of Canaan isn't the only example where any reader has to doubt the moral integrity of the biblical god. God has Saul killed because he spared an enemy's life. How low is that?

My favorite religious text is the Koran? I did not know that...


Well I only say that because of your support of genocide on Jews and Christians and your unyielding support for Palestinians no matter what they do wrong. Though of course if you have another religious text you do love I am more than open to hearing about the real you.

Well I only say that because of your support of genocide on Jews and Christians and your unyielding support for Palestinians no matter what they do wrong.I am not supporting any genocide. Are you insane? And of course I support the Palestinians, because I have a sense of Justice that you seem to lack. But that's not the issue of this thread (although it is related in a Jewish perspective).

Though of course if you have another religious text you do love I am more than open to hearing about the real you.I don't love religious texts. I read them.

actually it's more than one book, it's compiled out of several books, that's probably why it contradicts itself so much.
Fine. One set of books, typically bound as a package.

Its not a matter of just knowing the names of the authors,
I never said anything about knowing the authors of the books. I don't think that should matter.

the secular world accuses the authors of lying and story telling and saying they are not actual witnesses of anything real.
Excuse me, but SOME atheists say that -- and by no means all atheists. Please do not paint all secularists with the same brush, accusing all of being disrespectful of others' beliefs, just as I do not paint all Christians as being radical, politically militant theocratists. :)

That makes the Christian defend the authenticity of the scripture because if THIS (the following scriptures) is just metaphor and NOT certainty …

John 11
25Jesus said to her, "I am the resurrection and the life. Whoever believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live, 26and everyone who lives and believes in me shall never die. Do you believe this?"

John 20
5And stooping to look in, he saw the linen cloths lying there, but he did not go in. 6Then Simon Peter came, following him, and went into the tomb. He saw the linen cloths lying there, 7and the face cloth, which had been on Jesus’ head, not lying with the linen cloths but folded up in a place by itself. 8Then the other disciple, who had reached the tomb first, also went in, and he saw and believed; 9for as yet they did not understand the Scripture, that he must rise from the dead.

IF the scripture can’t be trusted as a witness of the actual events, then the authors might be liars when they said:

Acts 1
21So one of the men who have accompanied us during all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, 22 beginning from the baptism of John until the day when he was taken up from us—one of these men must become with us a witness to his resurrection."

And if they are liars about the resurrection being a literal, physical resurrection of Christ back from death, then these are not true:

Romans 6:4
We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.

Romans 8:11
If the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit who dwells in you.

And if those statements are not true in actuality and not just metaphor, then:

1 Corinthians 15
13But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. 14And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain. 15We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we testified about God that he raised Christ, whom he did not raise if it is true that the dead are not raised. 16For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised. 17And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. 18Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. 19If in Christ we have hope in this life only, we are of all people most to be pitied.

But it IS true, 1 Corinthians 15 continued:
20But in fact Christ has been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. 21For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead. 22For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive. 23But each in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, then at his coming those who belong to Christ. 24Then comes the end, when he delivers the kingdom to God the Father after destroying every rule and every authority and power. 25For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. 26The last enemy to be destroyed is death.

John 8:14
Jesus answered, "Even if I do bear witness about myself, my testimony is true, for I know where I came from and where I am going, but you do not know where I come from or where I am going.


So in the end, the Christian MUST believe that the scripture is not lying so that they can believe in the resurrection of Christ and of themselves.

As to the certainty that they feel they must have in proclaiming their own individual interpretations and understanding of each and every one of the the scriptures, of this, they are frequently and naturally humanly mistaken.
Thanks for this very well presented answer. :)

I bolded a few phrases because it seems to me that this argument really only makes sense if you come at it from a certain viewpoint -- if you believe that these events in the Bible are literal, not metaphoric AND if you equate metaphor with lie. Metaphor =/= lie, but if you think this way, then I see why you would insist upon this matter. It just reinforces my earlier belief that the only people who care about this are the ones who already believe it to be so, and who worry that their faith in their god would not survive any doubts or serious adjustments.

I have personal issues with that mindset -- which I don't think is unique to the Christian religion -- but I don't want to go into that. Suffice it to say, I cannot think that way, so I cannot accept the argument that the Bible MUST be the word of god or else it's just lies, and that's why I'm not in a Christian religion.

Also, I'm starting to guess that there really isn't anything behind the explanatory arguments I've been hearing for years. Anyway, thanks again for your answer.

I've always operated on the position that if there seems to be a contradiction, then the interpretations of one or the other passages is wrong.
Obviously, that is the rational assumption. But which one is the right one? That's where the controversies start.

According to whom?
According to its author. Guess what? Hamlet and Moby Dick were intended to be fiction, even though they had a foundation in real historical events too. Please don't descend into denseness.

[QUOTE=United Beleriand;13131840]ten commandments? too funny. those are just the soft guidelines. where are those when God has Joshua conquer Canaan and slaughter every human in his path? Or when he himself kills off the entire planet in his biblical Flood?

ok, yes, God destroyed mankind. but, he saved Noah. He entrusted Noah and his family the job of then repopulating the Earth. then also the only reason God destroyed the Earth was because people were such sinners and didnt repent for the sins because they had strayed form the religion. Noah and his family were saved because they repented and stayed with the religion. God then made a covenant with Noah and he promised never to kill humanity ever again (the symbol of this covenant is the rainbow). Also this was all in the Old Testament; and in the Old Testament our God is wrathful. but then in the New Testament, our God becomes more compassionate. if you didnt realize that i suggest you start reading and analyzing. suck on that bitches!

ok, yes, God destroyed mankind. but, he saved Noah. He entrusted Noah and his family the job of then repopulating the Earth. then also the only reason God destroyed the Earth was because people were such sinners and didnt repent for the sins because they had strayed form the religion. Noah and his family were saved because they repented and stayed with the religion. God then made a covenant with Noah and he promised never to kill humanity ever again (the symbol of this covenant is the rainbow). Also this was all in the Old Testament; and in the Old Testament our God is wrathful. but then in the New Testament, our God becomes more compassionate. if you didnt realize that i suggest you start reading and analyzing. suck on that bitches!

So killing someone for not believing is OK?

I was going to post something insightful but I'll just post this (http://atheistdelusion.cf.huffingtonpost.com/) and this (http://deludedmailbag.cf.huffingtonpost.com/) which proves that the bible is the literal word of god.

Awesome. Colbert-ish even. :D

So killing someone for not believing is OK?

From Lyriah's last post I don't know if you can expect a serious answer from his next post, so I'll butt in and take a stab at that question for you.

If you have a field full of wild weeds with no crop in it, what do you do? You can burn it, plow it under or otherwise find a way to destroy all of it there to make room for the good and fruitful crop that you want to grow there.

It's both natures way, man's way and God's way apparently. A forest fire may destroy the old growth, but it makes room for new growth that could not have grown there if there had been no fire. I'm sure you already know this though, but you have to apply that lesson to the flood story.

Is a farmer an evil character when he takes his tractor and plows the old and useless and unsalvageable weeds under, and then plants a crop of nutritious wheat or grasses there to feed his cattle and horses? I don't think so, I think that makes him a good keeper of the land, and I think it makes God a good keeper of the earth.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kl9ldtRFigw

I have heard that if you trace it back to who wrote it, then you have to believe that they believed it was true.

Smunk! Have you heard?
http://www.amazon.ca/Spock-vs-Q-Gift-Set/dp/0743509463

From Lyriah's last post I don't know if you can expect a serious answer from his next post, so I'll butt in and take a stab at that question for you.

If you have a field full of wild weeds with no crop in it, what do you do? You can burn it, plow it under or otherwise find a way to destroy all of it there to make room for the good and fruitful crop that you want to grow there.

It's both natures way, man's way and God's way apparently. A forest fire may destroy the old growth, but it makes room for new growth that could not have grown there if there had been no fire. I'm sure you already know this though, but you have to apply that lesson to the flood story.

Is a farmer a evil character when takes his tractor and plows the old and useless and unsalvagable weeds under and then plants a crop of nutritious wheat or grasses to feed his cattle and horses? I don't think so, I think that makes him a good keeper of the land, and I think it makes God a good keeper of the earth.
Humans are not weeds.
And if the biblical god is not powerful enough to convince folks then maybe he isn't such a good god or role model. This supposed god wades in blood knee-deep. And in a monotheistic setting with a god whose focus of creation is humanity this is simply UNACCEPTABLE as a basis for worship.

i remember accidently flipping through the bible years ago.. and i remember a part where the 'God' created everything in 7 days.. its all very 'real' aren't it.. and its at the very first part... yea....

You actually ... touched ... it? o.9

I feel like this issue is really tired.
*snip*

Wha-hahahahahohoho hahahaheeheehe*snort*hahaha!!!!

From Lyriah's last post I don't know if you can expect a serious answer from his next post, so I'll butt in and take a stab at that question for you.

If you have a field full of wild weeds with no crop in it, what do you do? You can burn it, plow it under or otherwise find a way to destroy all of it there to make room for the good and fruitful crop that you want to grow there.

It's both natures way, man's way and God's way apparently. A forest fire may destroy the old growth, but it makes room for new growth that could not have grown there if there had been no fire. I'm sure you already know this though, but you have to apply that lesson to the flood story.

Is a farmer an evil character when he takes his tractor and plows the old and useless and unsalvageable weeds under, and then plants a crop of nutritious wheat or grasses there to feed his cattle and horses? I don't think so, I think that makes him a good keeper of the land, and I think it makes God a good keeper of the earth.
This is another reason why I'm not in a Christian religion. Too many are infested with people who talk like this. I'm still grateful for that answer you gave me earlier, but come on, man, you can't think you're making a good impression of your religion with claptrap like this.

ok, yes, God destroyed mankind. but, he saved Noah. He entrusted Noah and his family the job of then repopulating the Earth.Really? You did the math?

then also the only reason God destroyed the Earth was because people were such sinners and didnt repent for the sins because they had strayed form the religion. Noah and his family were saved because they repented and stayed with the religion. God then made a covenant with Noah and he promised never to kill humanity ever againThe 12-step? He has a lot, LOT of making up to do.

(the symbol of this covenant is the rainbow)Awesome. Couldn't have picked a better symbol. I've seen it everywhere, didn't know that's what it meant.

Also this was all in the Old Testament; and in the Old Testament our God is wrathful. but then in the New Testament, our God becomes more compassionate. if you didnt realize that i suggest you start reading and analyzing.Humanity unhardened God's heart! Woot! I wonder what other things we can break his spirit on? Yay!

suck on that bitches!Ah ... NOW we're getting somewhere. :)
You play Onan.

From Lyriah's last post I don't know if you can expect a serious answer from his next post, so I'll butt in and take a stab at that question for you.

If you have a field full of wild weeds with no crop in it, what do you do? You can burn it, plow it under or otherwise find a way to destroy all of it there to make room for the good and fruitful crop that you want to grow there.

It's both natures way, man's way and God's way apparently. A forest fire may destroy the old growth, but it makes room for new growth that could not have grown there if there had been no fire. I'm sure you already know this though, but you have to apply that lesson to the flood story.

Is a farmer an evil character when he takes his tractor and plows the old and useless and unsalvageable weeds under, and then plants a crop of nutritious wheat or grasses there to feed his cattle and horses? I don't think so, I think that makes him a good keeper of the land, and I think it makes God a good keeper of the earth.

Thing is, a farmer did not claim to create both his field and plants. A field simply exists until the farmer cultivates it, his only control over the weeds that grow there being removal and destruction so that he can plant his desired crop. God claimed to have created the field, weeds and all, in perfect control of creation, knowing that the weeds would have to be uprooted and thrown away to make room for the crops. Does it make sense to create something you will only toss aside and destroy later, something that will try to choke off the resources of what you are trying to cultivate in the meantime? To take this out of the analogy, do you think that God created some people simply so they could be tossed aside and destroyed to make way for his followers?

Humans are not weeds.
And if the biblical god is not powerful enough to convince folks then maybe he isn't such a good god or role model. This supposed god wades in blood knee-deep. And in a monotheistic setting with a god whose focus of creation is humanity this is simply UNACCEPTABLE as a basis for worship.

From God's point of view, humans are certainly like weeds if they can not be redeemed. To God a thousand years is like a day, a day is like a thousand years, humans come and go from their own respective point of views, but from God's point of view we are all complete entities regardless of how long, or how short, our life spans are. Thankfully, since Christ redeems, all humans are redeemable.

But in this regard, God does NOT save all of us from all natural disasters or war or famine, man made or otherwise, the good suffer with the bad. As individuals, our reward and/or punishment for if we have accepted redemption though God’s promise is not revealed to the outside world by whether or not a person lives long enough to die of old age or if their life seems to be cut short tragically.

We all die, humanity is in a constant state of dying and being reborn, from God’s point of view. The pre-flood world needed to be sanitized, from the story’s point of view, and God did the job to make room for us here now.

This is another reason why I'm not in a Christian religion. Too many are infested with people who talk like this. I'm still grateful for that answer you gave me earlier, but come on, man, you can't think you're making a good impression of your religion with claptrap like this.

It's the point of the story, I didn't write it.

Additionally, as a one time farmer and realist, I understand well enough too.

Thing is, a farmer did not claim to create both his field and plants. A field simply exists until the farmer cultivates it, his only control over the weeds that grow there being removal and destruction so that he can plant his desired crop. God claimed to have created the field, weeds and all, in perfect control of creation, knowing that the weeds would have to be uprooted and thrown away to make room for the crops. Does it make sense to create something you will only toss aside and destroy later, something that will try to choke off the resources of what you are trying to cultivate in the meantime? To take this out of the analogy, do you think that God created some people simply so they could be tossed aside and destroyed to make way for his followers?

If I have a hundred acres, but I only need twenty, I use twenty. When I need forty, I have to go and clear twenty that has been growing wild, yes? The weeds are there, the weeds WILL die one way or the other, if they die of their own accord, they will be replaced by more weeds. IF I plow them under, I can plant my crop.

My other option is to use the hundred acres from day one, then the weeds would never have had a chance to grow at all, now would they?

i think its stupid that they dont belive in evalotion but they use the stuff that it has givin us to sell there bible there propaganda to the world and make people pay for it i thought GOD was free that you didnt have to pay to belive in him but they seem to be making a hell of a lot of money out of it

and they have killed a lot of people for gods will

if you belive in a god i dont think you need to go to church or pay to belive in him god costs nothing and anything else is a big con just to make some people rich

but you know if you belive in god good for you but tell your mates to stop knocking on my door trying to sell me stuff :headbang:

:confused:So killing someone for not believing is OK?

no!!! Our Lord destroyed mankind because they sinned accessivly and didnt repent in any way at all. for example, im orthodox and when i sin i repent at my church. now lets pretend im atheist. if im atheist and i have sinned and i regret it, that is my way of repenting. but because someone does not believe in God does NOT mean they should die... at all. i have many friends who are atheist and i love them and i would NEVER want them to die. do you understand what im saying at all?:confused:

:confused:

no!!! Our Lord destroyed mankind because they sinned accessivly and didnt repent in any way at all. for example, im orthodox and when i sin i repent at my church. now lets pretend im atheist. if im atheist and i have sinned and i regret it, that is my way of repenting. but because someone does not believe in God does NOT mean they should die... at all. i have many friends who are atheist and i love them and i would NEVER want them to die. do you understand what im saying at all?:confused:

you remember, of course, that the story of noah is set before god defined sin. there were no 10 commandments, no leviticus to let people know what god expected of them.

so they were killed for sins they didnt know existed.

If I have a hundred acres, but I only need twenty, I use twenty. When I need forty, I have to go and clear twenty that has been growing wild, yes? The weeds are there, the weeds WILL die one way or the other, if they die of their own accord, they will be replaced by more weeds. IF I plow them under, I can plant my crop.

My other option is to use the hundred acres from day one, then the weeds would never have had a chance to grow at all, now would they?

You miss my point. You, the farmer, don't create the fields or cause the weeds to grow. To the farmer, the acres simply exist until cleared and used, while God creates the fields and whatever is in them. The farmer lets the weeds grow, God causes the weeds to grow, both with the same end for the weeds in mind, removal and destruction. The farmer does not bear the same responsibility for the weeds that God does because the weeds exist without the farmer. God created the weeds and gave them life, the same as he did with the crops, yet he removes the weeds and cultivates the crops. Thus, the weeds are created simply for destruction.

Now, this whole analogy was supposed to answer a question about people. So, I bring my question out the analogy of plants and weeds to the realm of people. Did God create some people simply so they could be removed and destroyed? Is the purpose of the people who don't believe in God to simply be removed and destroyed at God's whim?

:confused:

no!!! Our Lord destroyed mankind because they sinned accessivly and didnt repent in any way at all. for example, im orthodox and when i sin i repent at my church. now lets pretend im atheist. if im atheist and i have sinned and i regret it, that is my way of repenting. but because someone does not believe in God does NOT mean they should die... at all. i have many friends who are atheist and i love them and i would NEVER want them to die. do you understand what im saying at all?:confused:

Even if you don't want them to *die*, you still on some level want comeuppance for your philosophy, which would be, of course, making the assertion that they will suffer *after* they die, if not during. You're attributing the suffering to them unjustly.
As known statistics go, you know, we all die, so we might as well get on with the living while we can.

you remember, of course, that the story of noah is set before god defined sin. there were no 10 commandments, no leviticus to let people know what god expected of them.

so they were killed for sins they didnt know existed.

Corruption, violence and wickedness are the root causes. But the scripture did not call them sins, yet, Lyriah misspoke because he knows that the corruption, violence and wickedness spoken of then is called sin today.

Genesis 6:
11Now the earth was corrupt in God’s sight, and the earth was filled with violence. 12And God saw the earth, and behold, it was corrupt, for all flesh had corrupted their way on the earth. 13And God said to Noah, "I have determined to make an end of all flesh, for the earth is filled with violence through them. Behold, I will destroy them with the earth.

A person does not need to have defined sins in front of them to abuse another person and know it is wrong.

Corruption, violence and wickedness are the root causes. But the scripture did not call them sins, yet, Lyriah misspoke because he knows that the corruption, violence and wickedness spoken of then is called sin today.

Genesis 6:
11Now the earth was corrupt in God’s sight, and the earth was filled with violence. 12And God saw the earth, and behold, it was corrupt, for all flesh had corrupted their way on the earth. 13And God said to Noah, "I have determined to make an end of all flesh, for the earth is filled with violence through them. Behold, I will destroy them with the earth.

A person does not need to have defined sins in front of them to abuse another person and know it is wrong.

yeah it makes the weeds analogy apt. there is inherently wrong with weeds. they are only bad in the farmer's eyes.

all those people were destroyed without even knowing what they did wrong.

to Ashmoria: Leviticus comes after Exodus which is where Moses is you imbecile! therefore the ten commandments would have existed at the time and so would the understanding of sin.

To Balderdash71964: i understand your point about the sin of today. but in my opinion if God hadnt made the covenant with Noah he'd probably be destroying us because we are so extremely sinful.

to Ashmoria: Leviticus comes after Exodus which is where Moses is you imbecile! therefore the ten commandments would have existed at the time and so would the understanding of sin.

To Balderdash71964: i understand your point about the sin of today. but in my opinion if God hadnt made the covenant with Noah he'd probably be destroying us because we are so extremely sinful.

i am talking about the destruction of the earth in the great flood. that was noah. that happened in genesis.

From God's point of view, humans are certainly like weeds if they can not be redeemed. To God a thousand years is like a day, a day is like a thousand years, humans come and go from their own respective point of views, but from God's point of view we are all complete entities regardless of how long, or how short, our life spans are. Thankfully, since Christ redeems, all humans are redeemable.

But in this regard, God does NOT save all of us from all natural disasters or war or famine, man made or otherwise, the good suffer with the bad. As individuals, our reward and/or punishment for if we have accepted redemption though God’s promise is not revealed to the outside world by whether or not a person lives long enough to die of old age or if their life seems to be cut short tragically.

We all die, humanity is in a constant state of dying and being reborn, from God’s point of view. The pre-flood world needed to be sanitized, from the story’s point of view, and God did the job to make room for us here now.

Please save your drooling. If God, such as the bible makes him, kills a human, he loses all credibility, trustworthiness and and all worshipworthiness. This God, whose name is Jealousy, is finished.

in my opinion if God hadnt made the covenant with Noah he'd probably be destroying us because we are so extremely sinful.

Well then fuck him and his double standards, most notably wrath.

also to The Brevious: i have no idea what Onan is... or why i would play it.

also to The Brevious: i have no idea what Onan is... or why i would play it.

That is by far the coolest thing i've ever seen you print :D

*bows*

If no one else points this out, i'll bbl later for elucidation.

to Ashmoria: Leviticus comes after Exodus which is where Moses is you imbecile! therefore the ten commandments would have existed at the time and so would the understanding of sin.The Flood does not take place in Leviticus. What role model was god to those contemporaries of Noah that he killed?

also to The Brevious: i have no idea what Onan is... or why i would play it.Then read your Bible more thoroughly. Oh, and are you male and do you have any married brothers?

Then read your Bible more thoroughly.

Ayup. QFT.

What do you think about the validity of the bible?

A book written by man.

Edited by man.

Translated by man. Several times.

Interpreted by man. In several different manners.

True word of God? I think not.

It's the point of the story, I didn't write it.

Additionally, as a one time farmer and realist, I understand well enough too.
And what part of your "realist" (ye gods, I wish people had any idea what that term actually means) viewpoint, tells you that you can treat people like weeds and that the people will go down before you like the weeds did? And what part of your "realist" viewpoint convinces you that your God is treating people the way a farmer treats weeds? Look about you, and point out some examples to me.

You miss my point. You, the farmer, don't create the fields or cause the weeds to grow. To the farmer, the acres simply exist until cleared and used, while God creates the fields and whatever is in them. The farmer lets the weeds grow, God causes the weeds to grow, both with the same end for the weeds in mind, removal and destruction. The farmer does not bear the same responsibility for the weeds that God does because the weeds exist without the farmer. God created the weeds and gave them life, the same as he did with the crops, yet he removes the weeds and cultivates the crops. Thus, the weeds are created simply for destruction.

You could compare it to man made marine/aquarium exhibits, where they have huge tanks and they sometimes develop a problem that ends up killing the fish or causing some other problem, maybe the fish just aren't surviving like they should be or are all getting some illness, sometimes they have to drain the tanks and sanitize the entire thing and start over. But to end the suffering they have to kill the problem. It's how life works on this planet. Even a non-Christian has to recognize that as animal species come and go, new ones replace the old ones. The entire existence of our planet clearly shows what I have been describing, you don't have to be a Christian to recognize it.


Now, this whole analogy was supposed to answer a question about people. So, I bring my question out the analogy of plants and weeds to the realm of people. Did God create some people simply so they could be removed and destroyed? Is the purpose of the people who don't believe in God to simply be removed and destroyed at God's whim?

God would that all come to him, so no, none are made to parish. Dying and death in sin are two different things though, the saved 'die' too, but the wages of sin are death (eternal death, not physical death alone).

2 Peter 3
9 The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance.

You could compare it to man made marine/aquarium exhibits, where they have huge tanks and they sometimes develop a problem that ends up killing the fish or causing some other problem, maybe the fish just aren't surviving like they should be or are all getting some illness, sometimes they have to drain the tanks and sanitize the entire thing and start over. But to end the suffering they have to kill the problem. It's how life works on this planet. Even a non-Christian has to recognize that as animal species come and go, new ones replace the old ones. The entire existence of our planet clearly shows what I have been describing, you don't have to be a Christian to recognize it.



God would that all come to him, so no, none are made to parish. Dying and death in sin are two different things though, the saved 'die' too, but the wages of sin are death (eternal death, not physical death alone).

2 Peter 3
9 The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance.

Listen, your God is a killer. There is no justification for it. Ever.

You could compare it to man made marine/aquarium exhibits, where they have huge tanks and they sometimes develop a problem that ends up killing the fish or causing some other problem, maybe the fish just aren't surviving like they should be or are all getting some illness, sometimes they have to drain the tanks and sanitize the entire thing and start over. But to end the suffering they have to kill the problem. It's how life works on this planet. Even a non-Christian has to recognize that as animal species come and go, new ones replace the old ones. The entire existence of our planet clearly shows what I have been describing, you don't have to be a Christian to recognize it.
So, are you now suggesting that the mere existence of non-Christians causes Christians to suffer and, therefore, non-Christians should be expunged from the world like weeds in a field or algae in a fish tank?

God would that all come to him, so no, none are made to parish. Dying and death in sin are two different things though, the saved 'die' too, but the wages of sin are death (eternal death, not physical death alone).

2 Peter 3
9 The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance.
Allowing people to die in sin is NOT the same as clearing them away, which is what you were talking about before. Allowing people to choose their own way and reap whatever consequences is NOT the same as weeding them out, as in your farm analogy.

Make up your mind -- you either think some people are marked for deliberate destruction or you don't. If you do, don't bother trying to backpedal from it. If you don't, then say you don't, say "oops" about the farmer story, and then say what you really mean.

EDIT: By the way, your apparent assumption that your religion is the natural evolutionary course of human existence, in keeping with the "way life works" in this world, is not only ironic and arrogant, it is also entirely unfounded and unoriginal.

EDIT #2: By the way again, I would point out that farms and aquariums are not natural environments, so there is nothing in them that is in keeping with the way life works. In the real world, the algae have as much right to be there as the fish, and all must share the pond. The creatures that cannot share with those that are different, are the ones that nature weeds out.

And what part of your "realist" (ye gods, I wish people had any idea what that term actually means) viewpoint, tells you that you can treat people like weeds and that the people will go down before you like the weeds did? And what part of your "realist" viewpoint convinces you that your God is treating people the way a farmer treats weeds? Look about you, and point out some examples to me.

You want me to start listing all the species on the planet that no longer exist and have had their step in the food chain on this planet taken over by a different species or creature?

People don't need to go down before 'me' like weeds for any reason. I'm not God, I’m one of the plants.

EDIT: you did get me to look up the work realist though, it means what I thought it meant, what do you think it means that didn't apply to my usage?

Listen, your God is a killer. There is no justification for it. Ever.

On this planet today, there is no life without death. Which part of this is confusing to you?

yeah it makes the weeds analogy apt. there is inherently wrong with weeds. they are only bad in the farmer's eyes.

all those people were destroyed without even knowing what they did wrong.

I don't have to be told it is wrong to be endlessly violent, to 'know' it is wrong. The natural cycle of life can not exist if it is in perpetual violence.

Sometimes it feels like this world is in perpetual violence, but when you sit down and start thinking about it you can imagine all violence all the time to all people, you don't have to be told what is a sin to know it is wrong to abuse people.

On this planet today, there is no life without death. Which part of this is confusing to you?The killing by/for God for his personal entertainment part.

I don't have to be told it is wrong to be endlessly violent, to 'know' it is wrong. The natural cycle of life can not exist if it is in perpetual violence.

Sometimes it feels like this world is in perpetual violence, but when you sit down and start thinking about it you can imagine all violence all the time to all people, you don't have to be told what is a sin to know it is wrong to abuse people.

every man woman and child except for the noah family was killed. there is no way that every single one of them had done such a bad thing that it would be obvious even to those who have no knowledge of what god wants that it was a sin.

he killed them without so much as a warning.

Please save your drooling. If God, such as the bible makes him, kills a human, he loses all credibility, trustworthiness and and all worshipworthiness. This God, whose name is Jealousy, is finished.

Really? Okay, you deny God. Now what? The earth doesn't have death anymore? Guess your denial of God doesn't absolve your problem now does it? Death from all causes continues, everything young grows old, everything born, dies. You don't have to believe in God for it to continue the way it is already going.

However, when one recognizes that they are here, right now, they don't have to be promised a tomorrow to be thankful for today. I can give thanks and give praise and worship to the one that gave me what I’ve already had, even if I get no more.

every man woman and child except for the noah family was killed. there is no way that every single one of them had done such a bad thing that it would be obvious even to those who have no knowledge of what god wants that it was a sin.

he killed them without so much as a warning.


No warning? Really? How long do you think it took Noah to build the ark?

Additionally, we can not know what the people were supposed to be like back then, apparently they lived for several hundreds of years and they weren't entirely human...

Genesis 6
2the sons of God saw that the daughters of man were attractive. And they took as their wives any they chose. 3Then the LORD said, "My Spirit shall not abide in man forever, for he is flesh: his days shall be 120 years." 4The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of man and they bore children to them. These were the mighty men who were of old, the men of renown.

How can we say they weren't all violent all the time? The intent of the story is that they were all violent and corrupt.


If you want to compare it to modern day natural catastrophes etc., I'll agree with you, but you and I can't rightfully change the story to us and then complain about it, it's not about us, it's about the planet before us, according to the story.

The killing by/for God for his personal entertainment part.

The killing by God, for his personal entertainment? I'm sorry, I didn't read that anywhere in Genesis, perhaps you can recite the verse for me.

Short answer... Sure it is. But that is a "biased" Christian point of view. Long Answer:
Let's say it is untrue. Meaning no creation, no commandments, no sin, no Jesus, no savior concept, and no Christianity... I know that sounds good to some *nods* but where does that take us? This is what I believe, and just be cause I say it does not mean I am right, as Subis pointed out. First of all, i get sick of the argument that "because other cultures and places have similar legends, the Bible must be false." On the other hand, it corroborates that information. Babylon has its gilgamesh, the bible has its flood. Egypt has its horus, Christianity has its Jesus. Etc. If every religion/culture/moral idea was totally different, with no cohesiveness whatsoever, I would be in the atheist camp, personally. Why bother if there is no order to things. Same with science/logic. The only reason we study those things is because there is an inherent order in what we are looking at. The bible has similar stories, as well as some similar ideas to other writings etc. However, it tends to go farther into the problem than most others. But to look at life... here comes the lead weight... I would have to say that Christianity is the most fulfilling life for these reasons.

If it is right, then living the Christian life leads one to heaven
If it is wrong, I merely slip into the void or run through life again, but I felt fulfilled in the life that I had

Back to my short answer, as a Christian, yeah.

No warning? Really? How long do you think it took Noah to build the ark?

Additionally, we can not know what the people were supposed to be like back then, apparently they lived for several hundreds of years and they weren't entirely human...

Genesis 6
2the sons of God saw that the daughters of man were attractive. And they took as their wives any they chose. 3Then the LORD said, "My Spirit shall not abide in man forever, for he is flesh: his days shall be 120 years." 4The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of man and they bore children to them. These were the mighty men who were of old, the men of renown.

How can we say they weren't all violent all the time? The intent of the story is that they were all violent and corrupt.


If you want to compare it to modern day natural catastrophes etc., I'll agree with you, but you and I can't rightfully change the story to us and then complain about it, it's not about us, it's about the planet before us, according to the story.

geee did all humans live near noah? maybe there were a few who didnt get the chance to drop by and ask him what he was up to.

its not like noah was a prophet going around telling people to repent. he was told to build an ark because it was going to flood. his neighbors didnt believe him. its not like he told them to build their own boats, they were already doomed to a watery death.

the weed analogy is very correct. god didnt love these people. they were weeds that needed to be wiped out.

So, are you now suggesting that the mere existence of non-Christians causes Christians to suffer and, therefore, non-Christians should be expunged from the world like weeds in a field or algae in a fish tank?

Nope, I'm talking about what God did with Noah. Not what he’s doing today.


Allowing people to die in sin is NOT the same as clearing them away, which is what you were talking about before. Allowing people to choose their own way and reap whatever consequences is NOT the same as weeding them out, as in your farm analogy.

Exactly right. God doesn’t do the flood thing anymore.

Make up your mind -- you either think some people are marked for deliberate destruction or you don't. If you do, don't bother trying to backpedal from it. If you don't, then say you don't, say "oops" about the farmer story, and then say what you really mean.

I haven’t said oops (not that I might not do something that needs it, but not so far right here in this thread). I do not think some people are marked for deliberate destruction. The Flood story talks about the earth before ours, with people living hundreds of year, sons of God (whatever they might be, angels etc.,) and the Nephilim, whatever they were, and these things were destroyed completely, apparently.

EDIT: By the way, your apparent assumption that your religion is the natural evolutionary course of human existence, in keeping with the "way life works" in this world, is not only ironic and arrogant, it is also entirely unfounded and unoriginal.

Of course it’s not original, it’s scriptural. It’s thousand of years old. Unfounded though? Based on what do you say that?

Romans 1
19For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made.

EDIT #2: By the way again, I would point out that farms and aquariums are not natural environments, so there is nothing in them that is in keeping with the way life works. In the real world, the algae have as much right to be there as the fish, and all must share the pond. The creatures that cannot share with those that are different, are the ones that nature weeds out.

Nature weeds out what nature weeds out. Farms and aquariums are representative of closed environments, like the entire planet is an enclosed environment floating in space around the Sun. Its scale is different but the principle is exactly the same.

You want me to start listing all the species on the planet that no longer exist and have had their step in the food chain on this planet taken over by a different species or creature?

People don't need to go down before 'me' like weeds for any reason. I'm not God, I’m one of the plants.

EDIT: you did get me to look up the work realist though, it means what I thought it meant, what do you think it means that didn't apply to my usage?
I think "realist" means one who makes political/socio-political plans or policies based on pragmatic assessments of situations, rather than on fixed ideals or ideologies. It does NOT mean that it's okay for other people to suffer as long as it benefits your interests, as you just shrug it off as the natural order for you to benefit at their expense, but that's how a lot of people use it. Of course, those people are not realists; they are egoists.

The reason I say there is nothing "realist" in your argument is because you are arguing that it is the natural order of things for your religion and your god, which benefit you, to sweep away all that I believe, and even me myself, as a person, which patently would not be a benefit to me, and that the only reason for this is to make more room for you to flourish. In other words, you are describing a god who will make the whole world revolve around you. That's not realism, friend, that's egoism.

And you have yet to show me any evidence of your god doing any such thing, or anything that would indicate that this argument is anything more than a self-serving fantasy of yours.

geee did all humans live near noah? maybe there were a few who didnt get the chance to drop by and ask him what he was up to.

its not like noah was a prophet going around telling people to repent. he was told to build an ark because it was going to flood. his neighbors didnt believe him. its not like he told them to build their own boats, they were already doomed to a watery death.

the weed analogy is very correct. god didnt love these people. they were weeds that needed to be wiped out.

They were perpetually violent and unredeemable...

Genesis 6
13And God said to Noah, "I have determined to make an end of all flesh, for the earth is filled with violence through them.

It doesn't say if God loved them or not.

We don't warn the virus before we inject the penicillin.

We don't have to feel sorry for the cancer cells before applying radiation treatments.

Sometimes branches need to be cut off or the whole tree will die.

As to if we can die from natural or man made disasters and still be loved by God, of course we can.

Luke 13
4Or those eighteen on whom the tower in Siloam fell and killed them: do you think that they were worse offenders than all the others who lived in Jerusalem? 5No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish."

We all die, loved by God or not. We don't all suffer death though.

Nope, I'm talking about what God did with Noah. Not what he’s doing today.



Exactly right. God doesn’t do the flood thing anymore.


I haven’t said oops (not that I might not do something that needs it, but not so far right here in this thread). I do not think some people are marked for deliberate destruction. The Flood story talks about the earth before ours, with people living hundreds of year, sons of God (whatever they might be, angels etc.,) and the Nephilim, whatever they were, and these things were destroyed completely, apparently.
In other words, you are attempting to backpedal from the argument you created with that insulting farm story.

Of course it’s not original, it’s scriptural. It’s thousand of years old. Unfounded though? Based on what do you say that?
<snip>
I mean unoriginal in that every single religion and many political theories, think and say that they are the ultimate expression of what humankind is supposed to be. Ego trips aren't just a Christian thing.

I meant unfounded in that there is no demonstrated basis on which to justify such self-confidence.

Nature weeds out what nature weeds out. Farms and aquariums are representative of closed environments, like the entire planet is an enclosed environment floating in space around the Sun. Its scale is different but the principle is exactly the same.
So, the planet is not a natural environment? I'm sorry, but you clearly have nothing left in this argument but bullshit.

I think "realist" means one who makes political/socio-political plans or policies based on pragmatic assessments of situations, rather than on fixed ideals or ideologies. It does NOT mean that it's okay for other people to suffer as long as it benefits your interests, as you just shrug it off as the natural order for you to benefit at their expense, but that's how a lot of people use it. Of course, those people are not realists; they are egoists.

A realist will recognize that the planet exists in a perpetual state of living things being born and dying. Like it or not, recognizing the existence of God has nothing to do with it/. Denying God does not change it.

The reason I say there is nothing "realist" in your argument is because you are arguing that it is the natural order of things for your religion and your god, which benefit you, to sweep away all that I believe, and even me myself, as a person, which patently would not be a benefit to me, and that the only reason for this is to make more room for you to flourish. In other words, you are describing a god who will make the whole world revolve around you. That's not realism, friend, that's egoism.

I’ve already quoted scripture that says God is waiting on judgment because he would that ‘all’ come to him. He’s doesn’t seem to be in any rush to judgment or hurry to end the world and clear the way for the next phase of creation. Why do you accuse me of advocating that he hurry up for my benefit? Benefit for me on this planet is irrelevant to God. I am not the focal point of God’s plan. I can join up with his plan, or not. Join or not though, we WILL all die sooner or later, fact of life. I’m not arrogant for having noticed this fact.

And you have yet to show me any evidence of your god doing any such thing, or anything that would indicate that this argument is anything more than a self-serving fantasy of yours.

The Noah story shows when God did it. The history of the existence of life on this planet shows that life circles in phases just as the Noah story described the old being replaced with a new beginning. Old things pass away and are replaced by new things. The same can happen for us as individuals as it does for the species on this planet.

2 Corinthians 5:17
Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come.

Hebrews 8:13
In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.

In other words, you are attempting to backpedal from the argument you created with that insulting farm story.

I'm not back peddling at all. We do not live in the pre-flood world. The rules are changed since then, people are changed since then too, apparently.


I meant unfounded in that there is no demonstrated basis on which to justify such self-confidence.

I don't need to be overly self-confident to be able to predict that the species won't last forever.

So, the planet is not a natural environment? I'm sorry, but you clearly have nothing left in this argument but bullshit.

The planet is a natural environment, scripture says God is revealed in the natural creation. God can treat the planet like you and I treat an aquarium in our living rooms. Scale makes no difference to the end result.

Catastrophic events have changed the continuation of the life forms on the entire planet before, surely you do not deny this. The Flood story is a story of one event, planetary scientists tell us that catastrophic events on the global scale have happened more than once. Why are you surprised that the scripture would describe one?

A realist will recognize that the planet exists in a perpetual state of living things being born and dying. Like it or not, recognizing the existence of God has nothing to do with it/. Denying God does not change it.



I’ve already quoted scripture that says God is waiting on judgment because he would that ‘all’ come to him. He’s doesn’t seem to be in any rush to judgment or hurry to end the world and clear the way for the next phase of creation. Why do you accuse me of advocating that he hurry up for my benefit? Benefit for me on this planet is irrelevant to God. I am not the focal point of God’s plan. I can join up with his plan, or not. Join or not though, we WILL all die sooner or later, fact of life. I’m not arrogant for having noticed this fact.



The Noah story shows when God did it. The history of the existence of life on this planet shows that life circles in phases just as the Noah story described the old being replaced with a new beginning. Old things pass away and are replaced by new things. The same can happen for us as individuals as it does for the species on this planet.

2 Corinthians 5:17
Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come.

Hebrews 8:13
In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.
I think you've run out of air.

You made a very clear remark about people being cleared away like weeds in a farm field to make way for what your god wants to be there. Now you're trying to muddle the issue into something else, only nobody knows what. Well, it's not working. You are not a skilled backpeddler.

And you are talking about your religion to a non-believer (me). How did you think I would react to that weedy farm analogy? Hm? Yet your only response is to quote your scripture to me -- as if it has any meaning to me at all; as if I would in any way accept it as an explanation or an excuse. And you claim it's not you talking, it's the scripture. Is that another thing your god does for you -- take the blame for your gaffs?

I said it once already -- I'll say it again now and then no more: You have shown me nothing that would justify your arrogant self-confidence in comparing your high opinion of your own religion to the natural cycles of life or the processes of evolution. Nothing whatsoever. All I've seen for pages since that farm faux-pas is you repeating yourself, adding nothing.

I will add just this: If you are comparing your religion to the cycles of life on Earth, then I remind you that cycles repeat themselves endlessly. So, if I am to be swept away to make room for you, the day will come when you are swept away to make room for me. Somehow I doubt that was the effect you were going for, but there it is. All life on Earth ends up as food for something else, and so, by your own analogy, all religions of human beings end up as forgotten notions, cannibalized to make new ones. That applies to yours as well as any other.

Ready to rethink your ridiculous analogies yet?

EDIT: Look, we enjoyed a brief moment of me not despising you as a debater. That moment has passed. Now it's late, and I have a trip tomorrow, so I won't be around for a few days. If this thread is still alive when I get back, I'll check in on it, but I really don't think I'll have anything more to say to you on this.

The killing by God, for his personal entertainment? I'm sorry, I didn't read that anywhere in Genesis, perhaps you can recite the verse for me.You know about the Flood thing?

Ok guys why dont we take a step back and take a look at logic. Let's examine the Noah Story. According to the Bible a biblical flood happened that covered the whole planet completely, and it also goes on to say that noah made an ark big enough to hold every land species Animal. Now we will assume that by some chance the fish managed to survive despite the hard rain. Let us further consider the fact the Ark would have been made from wood. So let us assume that we are talking say 30,000 different species put on the ark in the male and female fashion. Now that brings us to 60,000 animals, but the problem with that is for a boat to contain that many animals and enough food and water to sustain them is absurd. Now lets assume the water somehow manages to be all freshwater where their floating the fact is thats still an ABSURD amount of food to have to carry for 40 days. Now how do you sustain that many animals on an ark made of wood? ( after all a long enough wood structure in that sort of turbulence would probably break and sink.)

That leads us to how it is possible to cover the whole world COMPLETELY in water if the bible is taken literally on that one. Scientists have done the math and the fact is there is not enough water on the planet (frozen and unfrozen combined) to cover the world fully. Look at it this way the tallest mountain in the world thats above water that being Mt Everest which is 8,848m tall. THats 8.848 Kilometers above the surface of the the normal land. Thats a damned long way for the water to rise so unless god "magically" turned other elements into Hydrogen and Oxygen then thats pretty much busted.

That all being said I am a former Christian having been raised in a VERY Christian home. My view of the Bible is its more a moral guide as to how people should be. Thats not to say one must believe in a god to be good. If in fact you look at it from the view that SOME Christians only obey the morals because they fear hell then one could see an Atheist as being the better. The fact is its not simple stuff.

Heres how it works either you believe or you dont.

I think you've run out of air.

You made a very clear remark about people being cleared away like weeds in a farm field to make way for what your god wants to be there. Now your're trying to muddle the issue into something else, only nobody knows what. Well, it's not working. You are not a skilled backpeddler.

I'm not backpedaling at all. God did clear them away like a farmer clears away the weeds from his field. But God ALSO said he's not going to do it again. What part of this is giving you the most trouble? Then is different than now. God changed the rules during the flood apparently.


And you are talking about your religion to a non-believer (me). How did you think I would react to that weedy farm analogy? Hm? Yet your only response is to quote your scripture to me -- as if it has any meaning to me at all; as if I would in any way accept it as an explanation or an excuse. And you claim it's not you talking, it's the scripture. Is that another thing your god does for you -- take the blame for your gaffs?

Your reaction is your concern. I’m trying to accurately convey what the story says about itself. And when I quote scripture for you it’s because its from the same book that hosts the Noah story in the first place. To express the goals of the God of Noah, I quote the same book about the same God.

I said it once already -- I'll say it again now and then no more: You have shown me nothing that would justify your arrogant self-confidence in comparing your high opinion of your own religion to the natural cycles of life or the processes of evolution. Nothing whatsoever. All I've seen for pages since that farm faux-pas is you repeating yourself, adding nothing.

I submit that the farm analogy is not a faux-pas, or a mistake of any kind. It’s an accurate analogy of God’s intention in the Flood story in Genesis.

I will add just this: If you are comparing your religion to the cycles of life on Earth, then I remind you that cycles repeat themselves endlessly. So, if I am to be swept away to make room for you, the day will come when you are swept away to make room for me. Somehow I doubt that was the effect you were going for, but there it is. All life on Earth ends up as food for something else, and so, by your own analogy, all religions of human beings end up as forgotten notions, cannibalized to make new ones. That applies to yours as well as any other.

Actually, you are trying really hard to put words in my mouth. I’ve used the natural cycles of life on Earth to help explain cycles of different earths in the scripture stories. As to your assuming that I would be worried about my religion, I think God can handle himself just fine.

As to your posit though, So, if I am to be swept away to make room for you, the day will come when you are swept away to make room for me, you are creating a false dichotomy there. Technically, if I said you were being swept away to make room for me (which I never said despite your repeatedly saying it) and the cylcle kicked in to remove me, it would NOT put back what was there before. By the example of earth's past existence, new things replace old things, not one or two things trading spaces with each other.

Ready to rethink your ridiculous analogies yet?

No. But I hope you catch on to the part that I haven’t attacked you at all, if you are offended by the story of the Flood in Genesis, it’s not my fault for accurately portraying the story, the author of the scripture is who offended you, not me.

You know about the Flood thing?

The story says he was doing it to end the violence, not for his entertainment.

The story says he was doing it to end the violence, not for his entertainment.Same thing if he knew everything in advance.

Same thing if he knew everything in advance.

Thats a flawed statement. The fact is the Bible claims we are made in God's Image now lets view it this way we are a flawed people, and if we are flawed then clearly would God be if we are made in his image which would mean the idea that he is omnipotent is flawed. If there is a God then i doubt he is truly Omnipotent and All powerful.

You can never prove that it is the Word of God, same with any divine book. You can, however, trace it back to the people who wrote it, and they have done that and crosschecked it with Roman Historians. So it was written by many people who claim that the divine hand helped them make it.


Proof is evidence - what is god, how do you define god.

The Bible is a historic piece, there are different versions accredited to different authors.

St. Jerome's Bible was one of the First translated to Latin...
there are other vulgates.

That book was translated from various other languages so said, as far as the church's history is concerned.

The Old Testament is based on the Torah Scrolls, the Torah itself is an accumulation of Abrahamic History - that is said to have passed from Egypt to Babylon.

The God of the Jews is not soley talked about and referenced in the Torah.. what the Torah is is a historic and legal book, of the Jews and ancestors, as their lines have preserved. (and it is a long standing tradition to write by hand a copy of the torah scroll... ---- by hand a replica .. from one copy to the next -- to be exact. Generation on Generation

Much like you can say the same to any historic source, be it the bill of rights, the Books of Marx or the Magna Carta, all those are sources.

It happens that the Bible is considered a holy book, by not only the christians, but also the Muslims who accorded it holy status many years ago.


If the story told by those who wrote the Torah is true then god and the angels spoke to those people, and if the word of the writers of Jesus's story the disciples and apostles then so to miraculous things of the work of the holy spirit is at work.

My own opinion is that everything is holy to a holy person, if you understand the union with god then you understand that god is everywhere and within everything, and even ourself is serving the holy purpose of god as all things in the begining serve to the end and the beginging and end for eternety timeless and everfull.

It was translated, now to many many languages.. those are interpretations..

the bible as the new and old testaments are a collection of documents that the church felt were useful, and should have been accumulated and shared for whatever reason.. they talk about the law that Jesus followed (the old testment) and what his disciples wrote about him - and the church.


While not all is necessarily holy in it's own right it describes the messages of god and his people. That is they are no more holy than anyone who speaks for god.. regardless of the word prophet or otherwise.



Of course you can deny anything. As far as I am concerned the creator, or what have you is ever with us, and the bible does carry a message of god , so to as all things that speak to me in life, it is just what it says. It all speaks of union with God.

While my own beleifs may stray from the dogmas of the church(es) I follow my own law, much like Moses gave the law given by god, I follow the right law that god shows me.

The bible though.. it is a source that the cults of peter or others follow, they have made strong societies and it has provided good morals in many cases..

It is a secondary source if not more though - as a matter of fact god used (individuals) others to write it (but of course we cannot deny that at some point the union exists regardless)

but those who believe in the universally damned may disagree on that point..

believe what you may.

The bible does speak of a god, and unless you say the bible is a lie, then of course it speaks of a god .. god doesn't claim to write it in there though I don't think..

it is isn't

THE BIBLE
by GOD

No it is

THE BIBLE
as compiled by the editors of the church.

a god and others do make cameo's though.. the bible is half about the jews, and a 3rd about Jesus's life and a 3rd about the early church -- with the other 1/30th about the end of the false church.

Proof is evidence - what is god, how do you define god.

The Bible is a historic peice, there are different verision accredited to different authors.

St. Jerome's Bible was one of the First translated to Latin...
there are otehr vulgates.

That book was translated from various other languages so said, as far as the church's history is concerned.

The Old Testament is based on the Torah Scrolls, the Torah itself is an accumulation of Abrahamic History - that is said to have passed from Egypt to Babylon.

The God of the Jews is not soley talked about and referened in the Torah.. what the Torah is is a historic and legal book, of the Jews and ancestors, as there lines have preserved.

Much like you can say the same to any historic source, be it the bill of rights, the Books of Marx or the Magna Carta, all those are sources.

It happens that the Bible is considered a holy book, by not only the christians, but also the Muslims who accorded it holy status many years ago.


If the story told by those who wrote the torah is true then god and the angels spoke to those people, and if the word of the writters of Jesus's story the disciples and apostles then so to miraculous things of the work of the holy spirit is at work.


My own opinion is that everything is holy to a holy person, if you understand the union with god then you understand that god is everywhere and within everything, and even ourself is serving the holy purpose of god as all things in the begining serve to the end and the beginging and end for eternety timeless and everfull.

It was translated, now to many many languages.. those are interpretations..

the bible as the new and old testaments are a collection of documents that the church felt were useful, and should have been accumulated and shared for whatever reason.. they talk about the law that jesus followed (the old testment) and what his disciples wrote about him - and the church.


While not all is necesarily holy in it's own right it describes the messages of god and his people. That is they are no more holy than anyone who speaks for god.. regardless of the word prophet or otherwise.



Of course you can deny anything. As far as I am concerned the creator, or what have you is ever with us, and the bible does carry a message of god , so to as all things that speak to me in life, it is just what it says. It all speaks of union with God.

While my own beleifs may stray from the dogmas of the church(es) I follow my own law, much like Moses gave the law given by god, I follow the right law that god shows me.

The bible though.. it is a source that the cults of peter or others follow, they have made strong societies and it has provided good morals in many cases..

It is a secondary source if not more though - as a matter of fact god used (ndividuals) others to write it (but of course we cannot deny that at some point the union exists regardless)

but those who beleive in the universally damned may disagree on that point..

beleive what you may.

The bible does speak of a god, and unless you say the bible is a lie, then of course it speaks of a god .. god doesnt claim to write it in there though I don't think..

it is isn't

THE BIBLE
by GOD

No it is

THE BIBLE
as compiled by the editors of the church.

a god and others do make cameo's though.. the bible is half about the jews, and a 3rd about Jesus's life and a 3rd about the early church -- with the other 1/30th about the end of the false church.

What is this? Your homework for religion class in 5th grade?

Same thing if he knew everything in advance.

Ah, then by that train of thought, every baby born is for God's entertainment as well.

*Looks at baby*

Maybe God is not so bad after all.

What is this? Your homework for religion class in 5th grade?

I agree that it's a big post, without directly addressing other posts, but did you really have to post a response yourself if you didn't have any comment besides attacking him personally?

And these flame wars are exactly how things like the Crusades began... I swear we would all be better off if there was either no Religion or only one Religion.

The bible has been translated by many people, one of the most prominent versions is the king james version, now over half of the translators were non-believers and their orders we're to make it sound poetic, hence the thees and thous. To think that that or any otther translation is the only correct message is dangerous.

some things within the bible cannot be taken literally, and wasn't meant o be taken literally. Other parts of the bible were mistranslated so it doesn't convey the correct message. it is up to the person studying the word to understand this and figure out the true message.

For a non-believer their is no proof, for a believer, no proof is needed, discussing/fighting about it probably won't sway any ones ideals.:headbang:

Thats a flawed statement. The fact is the Bible claims we are made in God's Image now lets view it this way we are a flawed people, and if we are flawed then clearly would God be if we are made in his image which would mean the idea that he is omnipotent is flawed. If there is a God then i doubt he is truly Omnipotent and All powerful.

We were made in his image having a body, soul, and spirit. our flaws have nothing to do with him, it has to do with our old sin nature obtained from the fall from grace and is passed down through by the father.

The bible has been translated by many people, one of the most prominent versions is the king james version, now over half of the translators were non-believers and their orders we're to make it sound poetic, hence the thees and thous. To think that that or any otther translation is the only correct message is dangerous.

some things within the bible cannot be taken literally, and wasn't meant o be taken literally. Other parts of the bible were mistranslated so it doesn't convey the correct message. it is up to the person studying the word to understand this and figure out the true message.

For a non-believer their is no proof, for a believer, no proof is needed, discussing/fighting about it probably won't sway any ones ideals.:headbang:

Well put my friend. Way I see it is religious "discussions" tend to end up devolving into the uhuh and nuhuh thing. Like I said before thats pretty much how things like the Crusades start.

We were made in his image having a body, soul, and spirit. our flaws have nothing to do with him, it has to do with our old sin nature obtained from the fall from grace and is passed down through by the father.

Technically speaking as far as I remember the bible never explicitly said how we are in his image. It's more a view on how you interpret it in my eyes. Mind you as I have said before I am Atheist so i tend to be at least a tad biased in my views.

Why is this even being debated? To anger the Lord?

Why is this even being debated? To anger the Lord?

I'm sorry, are you kidding?:eek: Debating and understanding is the only way that someone can truly choose for ,or against, god. Something like this is at the very heart of the search for truth

Why is this even being debated? To anger the Lord?

If there is a God when did he ever say things couldn't be discussed or talked of?

Technically speaking as far as I remember the bible never explicitly said how we are in his image. It's more a view on how you interpret it in my eyes. Mind you as I have said before I am Atheist so i tend to be at least a tad biased in my views.

I'm truly sorry forthat. I'm not sure where, but the man who I learn from had a passage or passages that pertained to us in his image. Not that I remember what they were though.

Why is this even being debated? To anger the Lord?

If God didn't want us to debate then we would not be able to.


Seriously. Obvious troll is obvious.

I'm sorry, are you kidding?:eek: Debating and understanding is the only way that someone can truly choose for ,or against, god. Something like this is at the very heart of the search for truth
I kid not. And one does not 'choose' God. One either worships Him or wanders astray. God is the Author of all Truth, ye of little faith.

If there is a God when did he ever say things couldn't be discussed or talked of?
'Pisteue kai mi ereuna'

Ancient Greek, loosely means believe and do not ask.

If God didn't want us to debate then we would not be able to.
He allows us to do many things. Certain are sinful. Such as debating the validity of His Word. Simple.

Seriously. Obvious troll is obvious.
Do you specialize in tautologies?

I kid not. And one does not 'choose' God. One either worships Him or wanders astray. God is the Author of all Truth, ye of little faith.


'Pisteue kai mi ereuna'

Ancient Greek, loosely means believe and do not ask.

"Ye of little faith"!?!?
Don't be condescending, you think just because you know a few verses that you are better than me. this holier than thou bit isn't going to cut it. I'm saved, so shove it.
and loosley translated can lose its meaning.
also it isn't ancient greek it is Koine greek, big difference.

"Ye of little faith"!?!?
Don't be condescending, you think just because you know a few verses that you are better than me. this holier than thou bit isn't going to cut it. I'm saved, so shove it.
Holier than thou? My child, you mistake my intentions. All I do is promulgate His divine Word. I know not many verses, but I know His Will.

And whatever gave you the impression that you're "saved"? Hell is still right around the corner, you know.

Holier than thou? My child, you mistake my intentions. All I do is promulgate His divine Word. I know not many verses, but I know His Will.

And whatever gave you the impression that you're "saved"? Hell is still right around the corner, you know.

For god so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son so that who soever beliefeth in him shall not perish, but have ever lasting life.

He allows us to do many things. Certain are sinful. Such as debating the validity of His Word. Simple.

My point still stands. If he did not want us to do them, we would not be able to do them. If it truly displeased him so much, then why allow us the ability to do so at all?

And if we could not question it, we would be a hive mind not unlike dictatorships and corrupt empires would like. You encourage blind conformity founded upon an illogical basis, then?

Do you specialize in tautologies?

Depends. I consider it more of stating the obvious to the obvious because nobody else has seemed to realize how obvious it is. If you want to call it tautology, go ahead and do so. You'd be wrong, but what else is new, right?

You can't prove it is, but you can however prove it isn't by showing how the stories in the bible are actually just slightly altered, borrowed versions of other myths from thousands of years ago. Example. (http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcpa5.htm)

shh kid! the birth of horus and jesus is COMPLETELY different!!! his mom cant remember her gay name but basicly masturbated with a severed penis she made??? then gave birth to him, but he was the reincarnate of the penis she masterbated with??? WOW the egyptians were fucked up!!! but anyways i dont remember mary masturbating with Jesus' severed penis she found in the bottom of the river then jesus gave birth to himself??? ya thats right you just got owned!!! hahahah

(just wiki it)

I swear we would all be better off if there was either no Religion or only one Religion.
How about a fell swoop, and focus instead on a directive of reason?
BTW, the latter sounds somewhat Anakin-esque.

For god so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son so that who soever beliefeth in him shall not perish, but have ever lasting life.

Oh yeah, they used that on the Millenium episode of X-Files.
...


...how appropriate.

Debating and understanding is the only way that someone can truly choose for ,or against, god. Something like this is at the very heart of the search for truth
Uhm, YAY!!!
:confused:

If there is a God when did he ever say things couldn't be discussed or talked of?

Like even his own name, for which people would be stoned over having uttered it?

Oh wait, like so many other problems with religion, that was a zealous interpretation that resulted in that law, eh?

'Pisteue kai mi ereuna'

Ancient Greek, loosely means believe and do not ask.

"Hakuna matata"

loosely means don't worry about anything for the rest of your days.

"Ye of little faith"!?!?
Don't be condescending, you think just because you know a few verses that you are better than me. this holier than thou bit isn't going to cut it. I'm saved, so shove it.
and loosley translated can lose its meaning.
also it isn't ancient greek it is Koine greek, big difference.You are saved? In what way and by whom? And why would you need saving in the first place?

Holier than thou? My child, you mistake my intentions. All I do is promulgate His divine Word. I know not many verses, but I know His Will.

And whatever gave you the impression that you're "saved"? Hell is still right around the corner, you know.You know God's will?
roflol wuahahahahahahahahahaah, you should be pope... :rolleyes: :D :D :D

To cut things short: the validity of the Bible as an account of historical events is more or less acceptable, but the validity of the Bible as an account of ancient beliefs and as a theological framework and interpretation is exactly ZERO. No faith in it will ever change that.

You know God's will?
roflol wuahahahahahahahahahaah, you should be pope... :rolleyes: :D :D :D
I am not Catholic. I am a Calvinist.

For god so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son so that who soever beliefeth in him shall not perish, but have ever lasting life.
Yes, and some will have everlasting life, in Hell - namely those who deny the Lord. Only when Satan is vanquished will those he holds captive be freed.

My point still stands. If he did not want us to do them, we would not be able to do them. If it truly displeased him so much, then why allow us the ability to do so at all?
His ways are beyond our mortal knowledge.

And if we could not question it, we would be a hive mind not unlike dictatorships and corrupt empires would like. You encourage blind conformity founded upon an illogical basis, then?

Conformity to the Lord's Word is rational in the extreme, as He alone is author of all Reason.

Depends. I consider it more of stating the obvious to the obvious because nobody else has seemed to realize how obvious it is. If you want to call it tautology, go ahead and do so. You'd be wrong, but what else is new, right?
I am only calling it by what it is. A tautology, and a particularly empty one at that, as I am not a troll. Heathens would like to think so, I am sure.

I am not Catholic. I am a Calvinist.Yeah, being Calvinist is most unfortunate. But in case you really knew God's will, the Catholics would love to take you back and make you pope...
But that's not gonna happen, as you know no god's will.

Yeah, being Calvinist is most unfortunate. But in case you really knew God's will, the Catholics would love to take you back and make you pope...
Being an atheist is most unfortunate. As for my (misguided) brethren, I am sure they'll find a way to resolve thing. Deus lo vult!

But that's not gonna happen, as you know no god's will.
You are mistaken.

Being an atheist is most unfortunate. As for my (misguided) brethren, I am sure they'll find a way to resolve thing. Deus lo vult!I am no atheist. And you know jack shit about any god.
Deus lo vult? So you are on a crusade?

You are mistaken.Nope.

I am no atheist. And you know jack shit about any god.
Then what are ye? As for your assertion, again you are mistaken.

Deus lo vult? So you are on a crusade?
Of sorts, yes. A crusade to spread His word.

Nope.
Gainsaying is futile.

You are mistaken.

Prove it.

His ways are beyond our mortal knowledge.

So... you have no answer and default to that, in an attempt to save face? Bravo, sir. Especially interesting to say that when you claim to know his will, yet not his reasons for it. Way to get tripped up in a bit of a contradiction.

Conformity to the Lord's Word is rational in the extreme, as He alone is author of all Reason.

I have about 10 thousand (and perhaps more) other people who can replace your "Lord's" word with the name of their god and possibly the he with a she and come out with the same statement.


Put concisely, explain to me how all other religions are wrong with an argument that doesn't also apply to your own.

I am only calling it by what it is. A tautology, and a particularly empty one at that, as I am not a troll. Heathens would like to think so, I am sure.

Snob appeal and loaded statements. Yay! :D

Wait wait wait.

I'm just curious as to Imperial Brazil's oppinion here.

Now I will be the first to admit that i'm a Catholic. Born and raised. Although from my experience here on this earth I feel that everyone should be treated equally, which would make me somewhat of a socialist (they fall on the left leaning liberals).

So does that make me an evil bastard in your eyes? Cause if I remember correctly, god does tell you to love your neighbor, which to me I would interperate as thinking of everyone, reguardless of their age, gender, sexual orientation, religious background, etc. as an equal in my eyes. I may not agree with Atheists, but I have had one or two Atheist friends back home in Illinois where I grew up, we had some rather interesting debates on many subjects, but never hated eachother. They were just as equal of an individual to be as even my friends who are gay back in IL.

So what does that make me in your eyes?

If there is a God when did he ever say things couldn't be discussed or talked of?

Fool! Clearly He would prefer things like they were in the Middle Ages when people believed in Him devoulty and so he decided to reward them by killing almost two-thirds of them with the Black Death. The Love and Mercy of God is a wonderful thing.

WOW the egyptians were fucked up!!!

I'd like to know what their opinions would have been of people who think they're drinking the blood and eating the flesh of someone who apparently died almost 2,000 years ago.

For god so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son so that who soever beliefeth in him shall not perish, but have ever lasting life.

Which, of course, we must believe just because the Bible says so.


Conformity to the Lord's Word is rational in the extreme, as He alone is author of all Reason.

Amen to that! Who could be foolish enough to think that an invisible giant that lives in the sky is unreasonable? I mean, some book says He exsists so it must be so!

So... you have no answer and default to that, in an attempt to save face? Bravo, sir. Especially interesting to say that when you claim to know his will, yet not his reasons for it. Way to get tripped up in a bit of a contradiction.
I know His Will inasmuch as He is willing to reveal it to me. The contradiction exists solely in the cobweb-filled confines of your... mind.

I have about 10 thousand (and perhaps more) other people who can replace your "Lord's" word with the name of their god and possibly the he with a she and come out with the same statement.
Amazing. Do doggy want his bone now?

Put concisely, explain to me how all other religions are wrong with an argument that doesn't also apply to your own.
They worship false idols. Plain and simple.


Now I will be the first to admit that i'm a Catholic. Born and raised. Although from my experience here on this earth I feel that everyone should be treated equally, which would make me somewhat of a socialist (they fall on the left leaning liberals).
Material wealth does not interest me one whit. I am only here to serve His will. Poor or rich, I do not give a damn - if you're going to Hell, there is no escaping it.

So does that make me an evil bastard in your eyes?
Not all are equal - sinners are clearly not equal to the virtuous and pious.

Cause if I remember correctly, god does tell you to love your neighbor, which to me I would interperate as thinking of everyone, reguardless of their age, gender, sexual orientation, religious background, etc. as an equal in my eyes. I may not agree with Atheists, but I have had one or two Atheist friends back home in Illinois where I grew up, we had some rather interesting debates on many subjects, but never hated eachother. They were just as equal of an individual to be as even my friends who are gay back in IL.
God also tells you to not suffer Sin.

So what does that make me in your eyes?
Confused? My judgement on your virtuosity is irrelevant though. Only His is worthy of your attention.


Amen to that! Who could be foolish enough to think that an invisible giant that lives in the sky is unreasonable? I mean, some book says He exsists so it must be so!
A book which He divinely inspired.

Now then you say they worship false idols. Show me evidence that your's is not a false idol as well, and let that evidence not be in the Bible for that is a circular argument and is hardly logical.

As a side note if your bible did not exist what would you be hm? likely another religion. All it seems you do is preach hate, and I might be a sinner in your eye's because I am an Atheist. However the fact is I do good things because I believe in kindness not because some big brother tells me to or I will burn in hell for eternity. Any who are good solely because of their religion should honestly be shot for they are the worst of us all.:D

I know His Will inasmuch as He is willing to reveal it to me. The contradiction exists solely in the cobweb-filled confines of your... mind.

Oh, I see. So you can being completely cognitive of his will most of the time, and then suddenly have a bout of forgetfulness when confronted with a question you can't answer. Gotcha.

Amazing. Do doggy want his bone now?

Ironic you should call me a dog. I'd liken myself to a cat: Independent and skeptical. A dog, however, will blindly follow people around if they toss food at it.

They worship false idols. Plain and simple.

Sorry, but no. That can be said about you too. Try again please. :)

http://www.teachinghearts.org/dre00maps.html

Why the bible? Why not the Bhagavadgita or the Iliad? Why make one religion special?

What is this? Your homework for religion class in 5th grade?

Uhm no but we talked about St. Jerome a little in my Midieval studies class at the University of Waterloo. Since it includes the emergence of the early church and the fall of rome, a lot of the origins of the bible come into play, as well as the source of the church.. popes, administrative structures into the middle ages etc...

I know how I use to view the bible when I was younger, and how I see it now, and it is not the same book to me.

I see it as an interpretive piece, much like I know that greek and latin or hebrew and latin to not always directly translate.

What's the issue?

Fool! Clearly He would prefer things like they were in the Middle Ages when people believed in Him devoulty and so he decided to reward them by killing almost two-thirds of them with the Black Death. The Love and Mercy of God is a wonderful thing.
I'd like to know what their opinions would have been of people who think they're drinking the blood and eating the flesh of someone who apparently died almost 2,000 years ago.
Which, of course, we must believe just because the Bible says so.
Amen to that! Who could be foolish enough to think that an invisible giant that lives in the sky is unreasonable? I mean, some book says He exsists so it must be so!

Actually current theories state that black death may have in large part been anthrax.

Where did the invisible giant thing come from?
IT IS SYMBOLIC DUHHH... communion in that respect is symbolic. Use of wine developed during the fall of rome.

christians as "THE BODY OF CHRIST"
etc..
canibalism is something else entirely.

What you may commonly see is a transition that has taken over a thousand years to get to where it is now. Christianity being almost 2000 years old now)

The book of common prayer or catechism etc.. are more recent developments.

The bible itself wasn't composed till when 300 or 400 AD or translation to latin forms then finally into english and other common languages.. since the 60's there have been more changes.

The church holds onto traditional values of those areas.

But understanding the original practice vs. the current practice.. and the meaning and reasons for those original practices may provide a more historic perspective of the meanings that you have rather than jaded or blurred perspectives that do not hold any historic consistency.

The early church is not the current church. There have been ongoing interpretation on many issues be it arianism or anthalasian beleifs or the various schisms of the church.. or varying opinions and the basis of bishop and appointments of the church etc.. the bible itself has different editions and different litergies and sermons and perspectives on the word itself..

pope... :rolleyes: :D :D :D

SOooooooooooooooooo close.

To blindly follow any faith is a dangerous thing, "just because the bible says so" is a really bad way to look at things. Their are misguided people who interpret the meanings to suit their agenda and others who are not quite right in the head. Some of the meaning is literally lost in translation. I agree that some of the stories in the bible do not make sense, but that is because they are being taken literally, some of them are not meant to be taken literally.

This thread is starting to be a bible bashing party, except for those that think they know everything (Imperial), this is no longer a discussion and it seems kind of redundant. is good, is bad, is good ,is bad.... Everyone here, including me, is functioning on misinterpretation and lack of knowledge. Because of that I doubt that any reasonable conclusion will be gained from this thread.

I cannot answer in the respect of validity, because I'm an evil biased atheist.

However, I can correct you. Validity is not important, but relevance is. Is it relevant to say God hates fags? What of Jews? And abortion?

The word of God is the word of those who convey it, and they're all capitalist cuntfucks. God is being oppressed by his most avid followers, and I'm not sure he appreciates that much.

Lou Dobbs '08


Your word use here is very offensive, there is no reason to use such language even if you don't agree with someone elses beliefs. I recommend this post be deleted.

Wha-ha
*snip*

(Mighty scurvy of ye to publicly castrate my anger).

Still, I see no peaceable outcome to this thread. Many minds have already been made up!

(Mighty scurvy of ye to publicly castrate my anger).
Tat tvam asi, to paraphrase (and mangle) Popeye. I'm going to attempt a sig with that too, if you don't mind. :D

Still, I see no peaceable outcome to this thread. Many minds have already been made up!
That's true, and to be fair, you made a lot of decent points in your post, which isn't what i was commenting on. I was merely commenting upon the paradox of attempting to dissuade people from arguing something they love to argue about, so vociferously, in a medium where argument is pretty much the point of the interaction in the first place. Doesn't mean you're wrong, it's just that it's really, REALLY about the voyage and not the destination.

To blindly follow any faith is a dangerous thing, "just because the bible says so" is a really bad way to look at things. Their are misguided people who interpret the meanings to suit their agenda and others who are not quite right in the head. Some of the meaning is literally lost in translation. I agree that some of the stories in the bible do not make sense, but that is because they are being taken literally, some of them are not meant to be taken literally.

This thread is starting to be a bible bashing party, except for those that think they know everything (Imperial), this is no longer a discussion and it seems kind of redundant. is good, is bad, is good ,is bad.... Everyone here, including me, is functioning on misinterpretation and lack of knowledge. Because of that I doubt that any reasonable conclusion will be gained from this thread.

OOOh I don't know I think we can saftly conclude that most of what is written in the Bible is not the word of God.

Your word use here is very offensive, there is no reason to use such language even if you don't agree with someone elses beliefs. I recommend this post be deleted.

Hehehe, right. Like that's going to happen.

Tat tvam asi, to paraphrase (and mangle) Popeye. I'm going to attempt a sig with that too, if you don't mind. :D

Quite alright, feel free. Your point on the process, not the result, is well taken.

OOOh I don't know ... I think we can saftly conclude that most of what is written in the Bible is not the word of God.

I'm sure a few of us could take it out with some Gin & Juice (Richard Cheese style, yo)

Quite alright, feel free. Your point on the process, not the result, is well taken.

Trust me, the ride is about a zillion x more fun if you don't take it home with you. :p

isn't the validity of any document largely a matter of context?

i can't seem to find the place where any god is supposed to have signed it though.

=^^=
.../\...

I'm sure a few of us could take it out with some Gin & Juice (Richard Cheese style, yo)

Huh wot? I have no idea what you are talking about!

Hehehe, right. Like that's going to happen.


It should happen .... I'm sure if I used language like that it would ... whats the differance?