|
|
DagothGares
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
No gods or kings
|
posted April 24, 2009 06:12 PM |
|
|
Dagoth's take on aying that Homer was so much coooler than the prophets of the old testament: A father killed his own daughter (human sacrifice) so he could make the wind return and go to war (because, you know, what else were you supposed do?)... Oh, yes... Much more drama and in touch with current reality...
I'm quoting this, because this was asked like half a month ago and I was too lazy to reply, sorry.
Quote:
Thanks for the insight. Although you were mostly throwing questions, hehe. But I was not interested on the looks of God. Rather other of his attributes that I less hear talked about. For example, you believe that life was created specifically by God? The aim was human (evolution)? So that tells us something about God. He has will and intent? Is that what you believe? We can also add that if he has those characteristics, he is personal.
Do I believe life was created by him? Yes, I believe something or other (which we can name God) sparked life into a molecule, but I do not know the hard science and I probably never will. I think it was his full intent that life should develop, but I don't think human life was necesarily his intent. It could be that he wanted intelligent life and caused things to happen.
I believe it would be something like chaos theory... you know, butterfly causes a volcano on the other side of the world.
I also believe in a more personal God, but that is just me. His intent would simply be life, since he even designed organic life to adapt and live as much as possible and if your intent is ife, then I suppose he can be called benevolent...I don't believe he is omniscient and him being omnipotent can be argued.
Of course, this is all speculation, because the nature of God is unknowable. Though, I know from personal experience that hardcore believers can feel something', like a comfort that they are never alone and always has this 'energy' with them, like I said. So I think h can only be called personal if you accept him. I have been disappointed several times in my life (death, disease and all those that happen when you grow up), so take that as a reason, before you ask 
____________
If you have any more questions, go to Dagoth Cares.
|
|
Wolfsburg
Promising
Known Hero
... the Vampire Doc
|
|
posted April 24, 2009 08:07 PM |
|
|
Quote:
It's boring because atheists assume theists don't know Bible.
Its either that or selective reading, dear. One cannot possibly conceive that this whole book is an actual representation of supreme moral.
Quote:
Funny. They throw in quotes and highlight some lines without a comment.
Any other way one should engage in reasonable criticism of a literary work without quoting its passages? And, stoning women to death beacause they were not maids at marriage really needs commenting?
Quote:
Dear atheists: we know Bible. We know what's written there. You can't really add anything to discussion by quoting stuff we already know. Do us a favor and don't do it again.
Dear DOOMFORGE, I think you should not speak on behalf of all theists in the house. First of all, thats simply not elegant. You may know the bible as you say (may), but many others have not taken the time to read it completely (aka lack of time, or selective reading), and may profit from more detailed studying. Second, this is a thread basically conceived to point out why some of us reject the idea of a god, or why we are desappointed with its depiction. If we cannot point the bible as a flawed instrument, by means of studying its flawed passages, then we are basically sheltering the cristian god from criticism, because according to many of you that book is His written word.
Quote:
Thanks in advance.
Im just beginning, thank me at the end. 
|
|
DagothGares
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
No gods or kings
|
|
posted April 24, 2009 08:15 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Im just beginning, thank me at the end.
hahahahahahahahahahahaha[/childishgiggling]
____________
If you have any more questions, go to Dagoth Cares.
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted April 24, 2009 08:47 PM |
|
|
Wolfsburg, think for a second: would you discuss a book with a guy who read 10% of it?
NO?
Of course not!
Why to put a different approach to the Bible?
You want to discuss? You assume people you discuss with KNOW the book.
If they don't, tell them to SCRAM, cause they don't know what they are talking about.
It works like this EVERYWHERE, I mean, would you take a man that read 1% of the book and said "it SUCKS" seriously?
I wouldn't. You probably wouldn't either.
So do me a favor and just don't put more quotes, or at least COMMENT them?
I'm not talking on behalf of anybody here. It's just common approach to assume people you discuss with KNOW what are you talking about.
It pisses me off because I don't actually need to be reminded silently of every damn flaw. I guess others don't have to be, either.
As for "does it need commenting" - yes, it does, in fact. ESPECIALLY when it comes from an entirely different age. You are not commenting yesterday's newspaper where everything is obvious!
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted April 24, 2009 08:50 PM |
|
|
Quote:
You will discover much more! You will discover its a holy book with a bronze age mentality
Frankly, I don't see your point or your arguments, I mean their relevance. There are those people (trust me, a lot worse than "The Bible" you're arguing against) who think that killing random women is not only ok, but something good. (ask Ted Bundy), or psychopaths who like torture.
What's my point? Some people have different viewpoints, of course the above example is extreme, but what do you expect the Bible? To "appeal" to someone's sense of morals? Remember that it may bring disgust to someone else in the same way.
Psychopaths or heretics might say "The Bible is false, cause it is too soft" and you say "The Bible is false, just look at what it 'encourages'!"???
Different people will reply in different ways.
"Hey, 'nowadays' we have different viewpoints" (I assume by 'we' you mean 'the majority') is not an argument. In 500 years' time people may become cannibals. Would they use the argument "Religion X is against cannibalism, therefore it is wrong"?
At any rate these kind of arguments are like "I don't like that you can't travel faster than the speed of light, so relativity MUST be wrong.", only that they apply to what you "don't like" this time, in morals. I'm not saying I agree/disagree with you, I'm just stating, such arguments are subjective and may vary depending on person, so any answer you receive, take it with this in mind, and accept that not everyone thinks alike. And understand that even a heretic here would have the same "value".
There is nothing "absolutely morally" superior (without taking religion in account) between today and yesterday, without any religion/belief reference point. Or between today and tomorrow (let us assume that in 50 years people become psychopaths/cannibals and think it is ok: think, would they use the same arguments?)
Quote:
Its either that or selective reading, dear. One cannot possibly conceive that this whole book is an actual representation of supreme moral.
???
What is "supreme moral"? I mean, if you don't believe in religion, what is "supreme moral" and how is it measured? (since you say that it is better than religion, it must not just be simply a 'belief of majority' or something like that, cause that's what religion is/was).
What you suggest, that the Bible must 'appeal' to everyone, would lead to it even appealing to the mass murderers: they don't "like" the "thou shalt not kill" commandment at all, so that must be changed? The only 'way' it would appeal to everyone would be if it didn't exist. Then, everyone would have his/her own viewpoints.
Something like this:
"The Bible: Page 1
What you think, you are right. Your morals are the best universally and absolutely supreme. You, the reader. God loves you if you do what you think is good!
The End!"
That would appeal to everyone, including aforementioned mass-murderers 
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted April 24, 2009 08:56 PM |
|
|
Oh, and, it's neither that or selective reading, I think. On this part, I might be wrong, of course - just my personal approach.
What I do is - reading through it, assuming Jesus' words have the highest priority - as he was the one that spoke them, not showed them to people in visions and dreams like Old Testaments claims God did - and throw out those who contradict Jesus' words. Why? Because God can't contradict himself, damnit.
Jesus was meant to be a guideline to Christians. There is nothing more "clear" than to follow his example for a Christian. You don't need to dig through hundreds of sentences that contradict themselves (cause they do and it's a well known feature of Bible.) You take out the "most recent patch", and consider it the most important. And you're done. No contradictions. No stoning. No morally ambiguous sentences.
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
|
DagothGares
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
No gods or kings
|
|
posted April 24, 2009 08:59 PM |
|
|
Quote:
would you take a man that read 1% of the book and said "it SUCKS" seriously?
Yes, because the man gave up on reading it after 1%.
Of course, if he was hellbent on hating it, then that's another issue...
____________
If you have any more questions, go to Dagoth Cares.
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted April 24, 2009 09:01 PM |
|
|
Nononono Dagoth. You may respect him disliking the book, and that's fine. He got bored. It's not his cup of coffee. Fine.
But him/her, smart mouthing about the book, trying to discuss the plot and the hidden message? Wtf?
There is only one answer to such guy: Read it first, act smart later.
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted April 24, 2009 09:02 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Yes, because the man gave up on reading it after 1%.
Sorry but in that case, the only way he can say it correctly is "the 1% I read sucks, so I thought the rest is the same, so I stopped reading it."
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 24, 2009 09:25 PM |
|
|
You are beside the point.
Isn'e it strange that we all here reject most of the things propagated in the Old Testament? Isn't it strange that the people who live to what stands there are the same fundamentalist muslim the West views with a lot of suspicion?
The question is, can you accept someone as your creator whose moral is basically rejected by all Western States?
There are some parts in the OT, after the lecture of which you can safely put away that book as unacceptable - it just sucks, and nothing afterwards can make up for that. This Jahwe is no one you'd wish to be your creator, obviously, and luckily enough everone is free to do exactly that.
Logically spoken, for those who argue, well, the New Testament is everything and the OT nothing:
Even you must see that Jesus simply CANNOT be the son of the God Jahwe the OT speaks from, and if you believe in Jesus the only reasonable conclusion is that something has been forged.
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted April 24, 2009 09:33 PM |
|
|
I really believe OT is just messed up with the wrong kind of influence. I mean, how much of God's word is there, really? All of it? No way, it would contradict itself. A lot? Most likely. You can say, it's convenient to pick ones you like, but I'm not doing it: I'm sticking to the New Testament and Jesus; if there's anything that contradicts his teaching, it has to go. Simple as that.
Jesus' teachings aren't bad, I mean, most atheists agree they are good or at least acceptable. So the main controversy in Christianity is the Judaical origin. I don't think OT is worthless, though: I believe that in its true form, it would perfectly fit NT. What we have is a book difficult to read, and - IMO - simply too confusing to analyze.
Call me convenient, but I'm sticking to NT and those parts of OT that don't make a logical mess of Christianity. The others.. I dismiss them. I have to. I have to choose when there are two completely different approaches that cancel each other.
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted April 24, 2009 09:36 PM |
|
|
Quote:
The question is, can you accept someone as your creator whose moral is basically rejected by all Western States?
I'm sorry, I do not see the relevance. What makes the "Western States" so divine in comparison that whatever we believe/do must adhere to them?
Of course I do not say that people using them are something which others who reject them are not. I'm simply pointing out, this is similar to a "christian vs muslim" debate, why would the "western state vs some religion" be any different?
Not to mention that I think going by the arguments against religions (causing wars), this fills the bill as well.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
Wolfsburg
Promising
Known Hero
... the Vampire Doc
|
|
posted April 24, 2009 10:19 PM |
|
|
Thanks for that post JJ, couldn't agree more.
About the rest of you, sorry about having posted so scarcely for the last couple of hours, its just that I was cooking and discussing religion at the same time, and if I didnt finish the first I was about to have a bad indigestion or burned apple-mousse, hehehe.
Sorry if I nerved you in anyway, Doomforge, I do meet quite often people who defend the bible as the written word of god, untouched by mankind, uncorrupted. And many of them point the teachings within the bible as deriving from a SUPREME MORALITY. That meaning it was written by a perfect supreme being and therefore perfect itself.
A vision which I most energically refute.
I am happy you guys decided to discuss the matter with me, and I'll be glad to further share my impressions here in case it interests anyone.
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted April 24, 2009 10:27 PM |
|
|
Don't worry, I'm no bigot. I enjoy taking all possibilities into consideration.
Faith is something I simply like, though. Years of discussions with people of different opinion, and various intelligence failed to change it. I enjoy believing in God. Yeah, I really do.
And no, in no way I'm not angry at you or anything, it takes a lot to enrage or offend me on the internet. I think it's impossible!
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 24, 2009 10:46 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
The question is, can you accept someone as your creator whose moral is basically rejected by all Western States?
I'm sorry, I do not see the relevance. What makes the "Western States" so divine in comparison that whatever we believe/do must adhere to them?
Of course I do not say that people using them are something which others who reject them are not. I'm simply pointing out, this is similar to a "christian vs muslim" debate, why would the "western state vs some religion" be any different?
Not to mention that I think going by the arguments against religions (causing wars), this fills the bill as well.
Death, you are doing it again - arguing for arguing's sake.
Simple question: If a really, realy powerful being would claim to be your creator and energetically nod to stone the adultress, kill the enemies, and so on, all this stuff that would gain you the mark "fundamental muslim", as his law, would you feel comfortable or not?
I wouldn't. As I wouldn't be if some politician would wanted to make that a law in the country I live in.
As wouldn't the Western World. So why would I pray to someone I would not want to be in my government?
____________
"Nobody dies a virgin ... Life f*cks us all." - Kurt Cobain
|
|
Wolfsburg
Promising
Known Hero
... the Vampire Doc
|
|
posted April 24, 2009 11:26 PM |
|
|
@Thedeath (I have to start by thedeath, I mean, you never take one of the four knights lightly )
I have discussed religion exhaustively before and notoriously it seems not rarely the two opposing sides are on two completely different tracks of thought. But I'll try with my best efforts, to explain my point of view, not convince you, just put my world perspective in a clearer way.
Quote:
What's my point? Some people have different viewpoints, ..., but what do you expect the Bible? To "appeal" to someone's sense of morals? Remember that it may bring disgust to someone else in the same way.
I expect a divine source of knowledge to be: first - unambiguous. (Clear and without an edge for misinterpretation). Second - it should cover all eventualities. 3 - no two principles should be contradictory.
From the bible? A human text? I expect nothing. I think its trivial to point that the bible is open to (mis)interpretation, the many versions of it show that for themselves. People read what they want to read. You only use this book to conveniently reinforce morals that were already stablished within the individual.
Quote:
Psychopaths or heretics might say "The Bible is false, cause it is too soft" and you say "The Bible is false, just look at what it 'encourages'!"???
Conclusion: so im the opposite of psychopaths? I wouldn't have a problem with that. But seriously, I dont say the bible is false. Because in order to claim something as false you need something to be legitimate. And since I dont think we have any real source of knowledge deriving from a supreme being in our hands, I basically think the bible, like the Quran and other holy books are but the attempt to emulate a supreme sense of morality. With little sucess I might add.
Quote:
In 500 years' time people may become cannibals. Would they use the argument "Religion X is against cannibalism, therefore it is wrong"?
The very idea that our moral values are degenerating doesnt convince me. I think slavery is wrong, was wrong, and will be wrong independent of time, era and of what leviticus might pose in favor of it. Specially when it claims to be the words from God.
Quote:
At any rate these kind of arguments are like "I don't like that you can't travel faster than the speed of light, so relativity MUST be wrong."
Not AT ALL, Death. You're saying: I refuse to accept a perfectly valid principle because I cannot archieve it. Unless you really mean stoning a woman to death 'cause she had sex before marriage is a perfectly valid rule, which I fail to archieve and therefore accept. Those are not words from a god, and even worse if they were.
Quote:
There is nothing "absolutely morally" superior
Thats the first time we agree. And if there was a morally superior god out there there wouldn't be much discussion around it as well. He would show that through clear acts, ideas and principles.
Quote:
What you suggest, that the Bible must 'appeal' to everyone, would lead to it even appealing to the mass murderers: they don't "like" the "thou shalt not kill" commandment at all, so that must be changed? The only 'way' it would appeal to everyone would be if it didn't exist. Then, everyone would have his/her own viewpoints.
Again, I dont expect nothing from the bible. I think Dumbo doesnt need the feather to fly as much as I dont think human kind needs the bible at all as a source of morality. Mass murderers will be mass murderes with or without the bible. Pizarro, Cortez, Torquemada, were all deeply catholic and deeply bestial.
Quote:
(I suggest)Something like this:
"The Bible: Page 1
What you think, you are right. Your morals are the best universally and absolutely supreme. You, the reader. God loves you if you do what you think is good!
If you understood that from my previous posts then I think we are REALLY on two different tracks of thought...
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted April 25, 2009 12:22 AM |
|
Edited by TheDeath at 00:30, 25 Apr 2009.
|
Quote:
I expect a divine source of knowledge to be: first - unambiguous. (Clear and without an edge for misinterpretation). Second - it should cover all eventualities. 3 - no two principles should be contradictory.
From the bible? A human text? I expect nothing. I think its trivial to point that the bible is open to (mis)interpretation, the many versions of it show that for themselves. People read what they want to read. You only use this book to conveniently reinforce morals that were already stablished within the individual.
Of course that wasn't my question. I mean, what would you expect the "Bible" or a "Bible" (aka a divine text) to be? Ignore the current one, but keep in mind, what makes it different than the current Bible when you do so, at the fundamental level (not just different opinions, because as you know, that leads to.. uhm religious wars? ). I.e ask yourself this. Is it only a difference of opinions? (i.e morals?).
I understand what you mean and do not mean to disagree entirely. Please keep in mind my post was meant to be more like explaining why some people may be so "over the top" with their ideas, and frankly I do not condemn them. Because if we did condemn them then we would be approaching said 'religious' wars ourselves, only that in this case may be an opinions war.
For example, taking the "western principles" example from JJ, if we get arrogant at the concept of the "Western principles" and neglect others (e.g: muslims) then that's what we're going to be. The same as any religious war ever was. That's how they all start.
Now, we use to say that they are fighting over trifle things, but aren't we doing the same right now? Let's ask ourselves this question.
Quote:
Conclusion: so im the opposite of psychopaths? I wouldn't have a problem with that. But seriously, I dont say the bible is false. Because in order to claim something as false you need something to be legitimate. And since I dont think we have any real source of knowledge deriving from a supreme being in our hands, I basically think the bible, like the Quran and other holy books are but the attempt to emulate a supreme sense of morality. With little sucess I might add.
Well in some ways you are definitely the opposite of a psychopath, but that was just an example lol (I know how it sounds)
Quote:
The very idea that our moral values are degenerating doesnt convince me. I think slavery is wrong, was wrong, and will be wrong independent of time, era and of what leviticus might pose in favor of it. Specially when it claims to be the words from God.
I agree, of course, with slavery, as on others. However my point was not to drag a "agree" or "disagree" into this discussion. If we were to only base ourselves on that, we would arrive at the religious heretic styles, who never even ponder about what they do, as long as their opinions are met. That's why I'm trying to think here from an "outside" perspective, not from my own opinions.
My post was meant to clarify why some people may have different viewpoints, and why approaching that with OUR viewpoints will only lead to conflicts -- that is, instead of saying "they are savages/definitely wrong/look what they advocate", we should take a look from outside (i.e neutral) at ourselves and see if we aren't on the same path -- not in the context of what we do, but in the context of this question: is the difference between us and them only a matter of opinion?. And I didn't say that morals are degenerating, it was just an example. An example that morals "change" and even from individual and individual. However, my point all along was that many people will think of something differently.
My reason is thus: the next time people say "Those X guys are horrible!" remember that they can say the same and it HAS been said the same, in fact, it's what people call the "religious wars".
When attempting to do so from a non-religious perspective, ask yourself what is it that makes yours fundamentally different (i.e not just a difference of opinion but whether it is different fundamentally). 
Quote:
Not AT ALL, Death. You're saying: I refuse to accept a perfectly valid principle because I cannot archieve it. Unless you really mean stoning a woman to death 'cause she had sex before marriage is a perfectly valid rule, which I fail to archieve and therefore accept. Those are not words from a god, and even worse if they were.
Obviously I was speaking in general, and I did try to not speak my opinions. You know why? Because it would not be constructive. So did many religious heretics thought, stating their opinions, seeing how others agreed, and then never questioned themselves -- saying "muslims" are teh bastards, but never looking at themselves and seeing that they are similar.
It's even more interesting and you HAVE to ask yourself this (i.e non-opinions) when it's non-religious. At least they acknowledge they have faith, it is harder when you don't have it to use opinions and say why they are 'better'. At least the 'faith' argument is a dead-end, but here I doubt that it can be used.
Quote:
Quote:
(I suggest)Something like this:
"The Bible: Page 1
What you think, you are right. Your morals are the best universally and absolutely supreme. You, the reader. God loves you if you do what you think is good!
If you understood that from my previous posts then I think we are REALLY on two different tracks of thought...
No lol that wasn't what you suggested
That was what I meant to show an example of a Bible that appeals to everyone. You don't obviously, and I never meant that you advocate criminals or whatever, I'm sorry if it turned out that way (I re-read my post).
Like most of my postings at the OSM, I went extreme with MY idea about the appealing and see how far I can take it. It was my idea all along anyway
Quote:
As wouldn't the Western World. So why would I pray to someone I would not want to be in my government?
I didn't say you would have to pray for someone like that. In fact I was referring to OTHERS -- i.e IF they condemn you for "not believing in their God" or whatever, ask yourself if you do the same to them. Of course you aren't, I'm just stating what was my point all along.
That is, it's not about you or what you believe, but how you perceive others -- and how they perceive you. If you think they are bastards for perceiving you in a certain way, think about it if you do the same in return. And I'm not saying to perceive them with the same "ways" (i.e killing vs something else), but rather FUNDAMENTALLY different. Or is it the perceivement only a matter of opinion? Cause if it is, we are approaching the standard conflicts of opinions that has followed humanity all along -- I'm sure I don't have to give examples right?
(of course this is a general philosophical question, not specifically targetted at "the west" or "the muslim world" or ANY other subject at ALL).
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
Izzy
Known Hero
too cute 4 words
|
|
posted April 25, 2009 12:29 AM |
|
|
Quote:
So do me a favor and just don't put more quotes, or at least COMMENT them?
I'm not talking on behalf of anybody here. It's just common approach to assume people you discuss with KNOW what are you talking about.
It pisses me off because I don't actually need to be reminded silently of every damn flaw. I guess others don't have to be, either.
look, no offense but to me that sounds like a case of ignorance is bliss. are you afraid to see the truth and flaws in a book you deem as "holy"? i may not claim any religion for myself but i'm also open minded enough that if someone had solid proof or could show me a flaw in my life or the way i was doing things then please. feel free.
Quote:
As for "does it need commenting" - yes, it does, in fact. ESPECIALLY when it comes from an entirely different age. You are not commenting yesterday's newspaper where everything is obvious!
i assume you're referring to those last quotes. what's not to get? what needs commenting? i'm not a bible buff and i get was was written there unless there's some sort of re-translation you have that makes it out to mean something entirely different.
____________
|
|
DagothGares
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
No gods or kings
|
|
posted April 25, 2009 12:33 AM |
|
|
Izzy...
None of us see the bible as divine mandate, nor do we take the OT too seriously...
He is annoyed by the fact people find so-called holes and flaws in religion and make the leap of logic that God doesn't exist.
That's not discussing is it? No, it isn't. it just puts the discussion in some malaise, I do not want to read...
____________
If you have any more questions, go to Dagoth Cares.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted April 25, 2009 12:36 AM |
|
|
Quote:
I expect a divine source of knowledge to be: first - unambiguous. (Clear and without an edge for misinterpretation). Second - it should cover all eventualities. 3 - no two principles should be contradictory.
The Bible is clear and without contradiction to me. The deep parts of the Bible can't be understood by everyone, it must be learned by revelation from God.
EVERYTHING can be misinterpreted. Soemtimes this is done deliberately by dishonest people. Other times the misinterpretation is due to failure to take the writing in context.
Quote:
People read what they want to read
No, that is not true. In school I many times read what I did not wish to read. Also, driving down the freeway I am bombarded with messages I don't want to read. I don't want to read everything that is associated with my work, but I do.
Now, did you mean any of those things? No. I took you out of context. It is quite easy to twist the words of anyone if that is your intention.
Quote:
I basically think the bible, like the Quran and other holy books are but the attempt to emulate a supreme sense of morality.
It is quite obvious you have never seriously read the Bible.
The Bible presents "the heroes of faith" at their heights of faith and their depths of sin.
The Bible at once says "Be ye holy for he [God] is holy" and also says "for all have sinned." Holiness of life is the goal but God recognizes that we will fall short of that goal.
Jesus specificly says not to be judgemental. To the meek and honest seeker he was gentle. To the hypocrits he spoke the truth with sternness.
Quote:
I think slavery is wrong, was wrong, and will be wrong independent of time, era and of what leviticus might pose in favor of it.
God did allow slavery in Israel at a point in time although he did so out of the hardness of th eharts of man. As is the reason he allows divorce.
Mat 19:8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.
God's revelation was progressive.
Quote:
Unless you really mean stoning a woman to death 'cause she had sex before marriage is a perfectly valid rule, which I fail to archieve and therefore accept. Those are not words from a god, and even worse if they were.
No, those are the words of THE God. You want to make a god of your own and have him serve your desires and make him dance to your music.
Quote:
And if there was a morally superior god out there there wouldn't be much discussion around it as well. He would show that through clear acts, ideas and principles.
He has and does. You don't like his principles. You want a god that bows to your thoughts.
Quote:
Mass murderers will be mass murderes with or without the bible. Pizarro, Cortez, Torquemada, were all deeply catholic and deeply bestial.
There have been many pretenders, wolves in sheeps chothes. They pretended to be Christians and we not.
But people who were very much dedicated atheists murdered over 100 millino people in the past 100 years. That is just the major atheist tyrants.
1Jn 3:15 Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him.
1Jn 4:20 If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar: for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen?
|
| |
|
|
This Popular Thread is pages long: 
