Log in with a social network:
Log in with your username or email:
A couple of millenia ago, God starting watching Star Trek and decided that the Prime Directive was a good idea.
Or another answer:
God was the representative of an alien organisation that was conducting experiments on early humans or simply using them as slaves. Adam and Eve were the ones curious and intelligent enough to seek knowledge, which is what God was ordering humans not to seek, and fled the prison camp as a result. Nutjob prison camp guard dealing with what they regarded as inferior animals would explain a lot about the god of the OT.
Ugly answers, but they make sense.
Or, more being more charitable towards this god I don`t believe in anyway:
Reality is a testing ground to determine the balance of good and evil. Both sides agreed to not interfere with the stuff to be tested (i.e. us). Satan cheats, of course, but God doesn`t.
It seems to have been widespread by 3000BC. For example, a village of well built stone houses with a sewerage system and flushing toilets (primitive but apparently functional) has been found in Britain and dated to 3200BC. A storm in 1850 uncovered it - who knows what else is still covered elsewhere? Britain is hardly a prime contender for earliest civilisation - the ultra-fertile flood plains of massive slow-moving rivers are the most logical place for the start of farming and thus settlement.
I was surprised to find that the oldest known city is in Turkey. I thought it would be in the Tigris-Euphrates area, in what was Mesopotamia.
Spammed? You mean banned? Not likely, keep it under your hat (this is a Yesterday post after all, hopefully won`t get read much) but the only people I ban are:
1. Asiaspammers - perm.2. Nasty words about certain orientations - temp.3. Blatant racism - perm or temp depending on history.
But they, weird things happen at IAB all the time - just a few days ago we had a message from a certain member who wanted us to ban him/her, because he/she didn`t have the willpower to stay away from the site by him/herself. Chalk that one up in the `weird poop` ledger I say.
I know I`m never going to convince you it`s all nothing, but as long as the answer appeal to me more like the elusive non-sequiturs of people trying to create a faith you can`t pin down, then i will never be a believer.
For starters, God physically lived, or at least visited, Eden. There was no corruption, death, evil, etc. there. There was one Tree, which Adam & Eve were quite clearly warned about. Eating from it gave them understanding of these bad things, and would make them mortal. Speculation: Maybe God Himself had to eat from that Tree occasionally to "keep up" His powers and knowledge? An interesting thought.
Either way, the two guests in Eden were told to leave it alone, and they didn`t. Interesting: God didn`t `punish` them as we often think (although he did evict them from Eden for it); eating the fruit was what did it. And they were warned beforehand that it would.
So when someone says "Why did God punish mankind because of Adam?", the point is, Adam did it to himself.
Just a thought.
There are no answers to these questions, only speculation. There are analogies you can think of, like being a parent: "(a) I can keep my kid inside, protected, never hurt but never knowing fun, or (b) I can let him play outside and know both" but none of them really answer the fundamental question. That`s why the only REAL answer can be "We don`t think the same way or have the same values as God does".
Adam and Eve walked with God (physically) in Eden; he was their companion/friend and obviously `apparent`. A tree stood there which Man was forbidden to eat from because its fruit would make him "like us" said God, knowing good from evil, but they ate from it anyway, or so the legend goes.
So all these things you say "why did God, why would He, how come He...?", WERE in the beginning, and then were not any more, because of that event.
[quote]"For My thoughts are not your thoughts, Neither are your ways My ways", declares the Lord. “For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are My ways higher than your ways, and My thoughts than your thoughts.” Isaiah 55:8[/quote]
If God were what you say, then why would he not create us to be in his company. Pose no threat of evil above us, make himself apparent, and I`m sure we would all believe and uphold him. Why is it that in the history of the bible he provided so much proof of himself to so many, but now there is nothing? Why were we once deserving of proof that he existed, proof of his awesome power with his name attached to it, and now we are left to our own imaginings? God must truly be torturous, because, and I don`t mean to sound egotistical here, I am a good person and I can`t find the faith.
Yes it is. "God" either doesn`t exist at all, OR is the allpowerful, allknowing, allpresent Being who created the Universe. That`s the very definition of God.
You`re still stuck on YOUR (or Epicurus`) definition of malevolent, justice, fair, right, wrong, etc. These human definitions can`t apply to a Supreme Being; it has its own standards of right and wrong, not ours.
Consider for a second how what is absolutely abhorrent behavior in peacetime, suddenly becomes `right` in wartime. Not only right, we give people medals for murder! Because the definition of right and wrong changes, when we`re at war.
I could go into examples like parents smacking their children for their own good, etc, but the simple answer to the age-old question "Why does God allow evil?" is simply "Because he knows more than us."
I agree that it`s not surprising that town and cities are usually where they`re described as being, but I`m disputing the date. Rather surprisingly, human settlements go back further than 3000 BC. Catal Huyuk is the oldest known city and has been dated to ~6000BC. It`s likely that there were villages before that - Catal Huyuk was a large settlement with stone buildings and thousands of inhabitants, which is very unlikely to have been the first human settlement. It`s far more likely that there was something in between semi-nomadic hunting/gathering and city-building.
I`m confused by this.
I`m going to break it down by my understanding.
You`re right the first part negates itself, but only if the def of GOD is omnipotence, which it isn`t.
If God is able to stop evil, then he must choose not to, making him malevolent. Although I agree that the conclusion of malevolence is somewhat subjective and not absolute, it does stand to reason that a compassionate God would choose to stop evil.
If he could stop evil and wanted to, then why would there be evil. Pretty obvious, and the only real question.
at the end we are back where we began only vice versa.
So I disagree that it is only a statement. I think it does ask a question, and I don`t think the potter having control over his clay has much to do with it.
I understand the implied statement that God is malevolent as the logical conclusion.
So is God malevolent?If not, then why does evil exist under a comp
You`re trying to pass off a reference to all women and only women as a reference to uneducated people or a reference to women who were followers of a different religion. Not only is that interpretation, it`s backwards interpretation that doesn`t make sense. You`re starting with a conclusion and trying to find a way of making the evidence fit it even though it obviously doesn`t. Your interpretation is like claiming that a sign stating "No-one from the USA allowed in here" means that people with big cars are not allowed in there.
I`m sure you`ve heard the old logic question "What happens when an immovable object is met by an irresistible force?"
For those who never worked it out, its the question itself which is at fault. An `immovable object` is one that cannot be moved, by any force anywhere; therefore, in a universe where one exists, there cannot be such a thing as an irresistible force.
And vice versa.
Since by DEFINITION God IS omnipotent, the first part of the question is meaningless. Hence Epicurus` "question" actually comes down a statement calling God malevolent, based on the questioner`s definition of the word. Since God IS all-powerful, His definition of what is good, bad, evil, malevolent, etc are unlikely to be the same as ours. Epicurus` question is answered by one simple Bible verse: "Doesn`t the potter have power over his clay?"
`See, you dig around the Bible long enough, you can find something worth taking out of context to piss people off`
also whoever posted this doesn`t understand the word `contradiction`
Cracka said that no where else in the book does it mention that women ought to be silent, however as someone before quoted, when God created Eve she was intended to be subservient to Adam, indicating that men were held in higher regard.
"They might have worked perfectly for his time and the society he lived in, but times change."
So because something that was accepted in times past, but is not now, Christians reserve the right to reexamine and interpret or negate scripture based on it`s cultural relevance? And yet scripture which is said to be either Gods word directly or inspired by his spirit is supposed to be infallible.
20: There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses.
Given that there are no other scriptures that command "women to be silent" at all times, In fact there are scriptures that support women teaching.
These are Paul`s letters to Timothy and he specifically says "I do not..." Not God does not.That`s a very big difference there.
This is NOT a commandment by God or Jesus. [/quote]
2 Peter 1:20-21 - "Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost."
2 Timothy 3:16 - "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness."
The Bible says that everything in it is the word of God, and useful as moral guidance.
Unless you reject the writings of the Apostles as fallible (in which case the Jesus story is potentially wrong, which would be a theological nightmare), you have no grounds on which to dismiss this because Jesus/God didn`t directly say it.
This is NOT a commandment by God or Jesus.
Wow dude, you ought to use a yingyang as an avatar with that attitude. Oh wait...
Well given that it was compiled over a long period of time, changed throughout history to suit the ideas and needs of the people in power, and then translated from different languages, yeah, that can royally screw something up quite easily.
In the near future, Humans will move from being Homo-sapiens to Homo-evolotis. The meaning of Homo-evolotis is a "species that takes direct control over their evolution, and the evolution off others". We are nearly there folks, and anything is possible.
I am kind of like you in that I do alot of charity work because I believe in helping people that need and want it. I actually helped a church (in england) because they were the only local community that were trying to make a difference. The fact that I am an atheist didn`t bother them, and nor should it. People are entitled to their beliefs but its the difference we can make to people that need it that counts. I disagree with the catholic church almost completely. The pope is an abboration, an unrequired sink hole of resources that could be used to actually make a differene to the people that need it the most.
Unfortunately for you, the Bible shoots you down in flames there. Early on, I used to say "how fair is it, that tribes in Africa who never heard of Jesus will go to Hell for not believing?" But the Bible says that all creatures have a knowledge of God just from seeing the world and drawing breath, and stand condemned because of it. That`s Biblical justice for you.
As a result, my faith in GOD hasn`t wavered, but I will never trust CHURCHES ever again.
Sure. I`m an intelligent person who Believes despite the reasoning power of his own considerable intellect and despite the body of physical evidence to the contrary, in the absolute sovereignty of God, the creation of everything by Him, and the logical premise that if God is truly OMNIpotent, OMNIscient and OMNIpresent (ALL powerful, knowing, and everywhere), then there must by logical exclusion be no free will and that all things were ordained from before Creation. This incidentally is exactly what the Bible has always claimed, despite numerous modern reinterpretations.
So in a nutshell, it don`t make no sense to believe, but I do anyway, which is why its called "faith".
And don`t listen to a word Davy says, how can you trust someone who thinks the Earth is millions of years old and oil was made by crushing plants? I mean c`mon!
Oh, you had to go ask *ducks in futile attempt to hide from the batpoo*
Fair enough point Lion. Broadly agreed with minor edit: swap out "history book" for "geography book" and I`ll give you that one.
Yeah good point, that`d be as stupid as, say, looking at 50m high walls of water either side of you and walking across the dry seabed because God said he`d protect you to the other side. Or killing your own son because God said to. Or stepping out of a boat in the middle of a storm and walking over to Jesus on the water. Or expecting 3 loaves and 5 fishes to feed 5000 people. Or...
It`s called faith. If God said "walk on that bridge and be safe", that`d be alright with me.
The Bible, and other ancient religious texts, are essentially THE basis for field of archeology. There are very, very few cities mentioned in the Bible that haven`t been discovered now, and basically the Bible has been the map to finding them. As to whether that makes the Bible the Word of God or just a damn handy history book, I leave that to you to determine. But the simple answer is "Yes", the Bible is and was right about all the ancient places it mentioned.
:DTo be fair, I wouldn`t demand DNA evidence on anything that supposedly occurred 2,000 years ago. That`s unnecessarily stringent.
This has basically been dispelled, because Jesus and Joseph were names as common as Dan and Bob (hey bob!) and there was no DNA evidence supporting the claims (linking Jesus to mary and their children)
It was mainly seen as hype for a documentary made by filmmakers with an agenda...mainly selling their flick.
For future reference, there are a few of us on IAB who demand reputable sources as in any good debate. Be forewarned.
Tell me Lion, would you trust such a bridge?
Lion mate, you should see my 21st Century re-translation of the Old Testament. I`m particularly proud of my translation of Deuteronomy 20, 10-17:
Eh? Yes, life thrives where it can. But it will not always reach the level of sentience necessary to achieve self-awareness. Look at how many species of animals exist or have existed on our planet (countless millions) and how many have the necessary intelligence to realise how scarce life is in the universe (one, homo sapiens).
Of course there could be life elsewhere in the universe, but even if there is, it might not be intelligent enough to realise how rare life in the universe is. We might be the only species that ever achieves that level of knowledge. That was my point.
If you call pride in the achievements of my species "ego", then yes, that`s exactly what it is.
Yeah, then it was resurrected. No bible reference necessary.
Nor will whomever you asked be able to, because that`s like saying "This bridge is totally solid and will hold any weight whatsoever, except when it doesn`t". People say things like that about the Bible because there are bits in there they don`t like or want to stick to, too inconvenient to their lifestyle.
God (again, if you accept the existence/definition) says quite clearly in 2 Timothy 3:16: "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is useful for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction." I emphasize the word `ALL` - it doesn`t say "Some of it is for this, some is just figurative."
Really? You really think that is validation of how not sexist the bible is?
Examples please, because since I am critical of my own convictions I`ve looked into many of these instances and found many are hoaxes, exaggerated, or easily explained as stories told about people who did indeed exist. I mean Merlin existed but I don`t draw conclusions about the man because I watched the sword in the stone.
Damn Davy, I didn`t realize you were on the Committee working on the King James Version - 21st Century Edition. Can`t wait to read more.
Now, if that entire passage isn`t positively dripping with repulsive misogyny, then I don`t know what is. Sorry, I see no other way to interpret it taken as a whole.
Complete and utter bullsh*t. I`ve listened to your interpretative ramblings of how the verse wasn`t directed at women but at uneducated people etc etc (seems pretty directly aimed at women to me). But that last bit about men and women being seen as equal bugs me.
You keep prattling on about context. One has to look no further than the VERY NEXT VERSE IN THE SAME PASSAGE AT QUESTION HERE for the fuller context. "But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression."
are you incapable of understanding my choice and use of words in speech if I have may hair braided.
it has everything to do with diction.
Yes if the object is to keep women out of the congregation.
"You have to agree with me that dressing for provacative reasons is cause for a mental distraction from something else in the opposite sex, right? "
I don`t know if I have to agree with that. Hey IAB men. Are you incapable of understanding my diction if I have may hair braided. How about if I wear a tight skirt?
Because maths assigns a finite value (zero) to a non-existent quantity of items. This is equivalent to saying "Everyone else in the world is NOT shagging (insert babe here) therefore I AM". If you take the zero out of math, the whole math world falls apart. The whole Math thing is a plot by the Government to divert suspicion from the Civil War, Roswell, WTC and the Sasquatch Bioengineering Project.
Come again!?! Are you saying the way a woman dresses dictates her ability to reach people on a spiritual level? Please get in a time travel machine and spend more time with Paul. You two would hit it off swimmingly no doubt. You enjoy not bathing and dieing in the next ten years.
It terrifies me more to think that we might NOT be the only beings with enough intelligence...
ORLY. Do tell why not.
IKnowAGhost - That`s a nice interpretation, but unfortunately it`s not accurate. Look at the words immediately before 1 Timothy 2:15, particularly from 1 Tim 2:9 onwards. It`s clear from context that Timothy isn`t saying that people who aren`t trained in scripture shouldn`t talk about it - he is clearly and specifically talking about women.
It`s sexism, plain and simple. Not only are women to be silent and not teach, they are not to dress up prettily, braid their hair, or wear jewellery.
if you dig around long enough in any religion or opinion you will find something that contradicts it.
I suspect it`s because several people have written the books.
And i don`t want you to think im ignorent about religion and science, i have heard both sides, i was brought up a christian, and i believe in evolution, i don`t know if i believe in God, but like i said, thinking about it blows my mind, im not going to go out and find other ways of proving my beliefs, we aren`t all destined to be explorers of science or religion, some of us would rather see it unfold. I try to be open minded to new ideas, but like i said earlier, when people are mean to me i`ll just ignore them.
I think namecalling was a bit unnecessary really. Almightybob i do agree with you on the part where you say "The first is known as the scientific method. The second is religion."I think like everything, religion has good points and bad points, i like that it gives people faith in bad times but it`s the extremes i don`t like, like Harkannin said, if people were just nice to each other and accepted others beliefs instead of argueing about it all the time it wouldn`t be a problem.I can`t begin to understand the science of it though, it blows my mind.
Nobody knows anything for sure. The only things we can know with 100% certainty are mathematical proofs. Everything else has a margin of error, because there is always the possibility that new evidence may be uncovered which directly disproves the previously held beliefs.
The question is, are you going to incorporate the new evidence, build a better understanding, learn, and progress as a civilisation? Or are you going to rigidly stick to what you always thought, ignoring anything else that might be discovered?
The first is known as the scientific method. The second is religion.
Alice, you`re naive. While religion is not a person, those people who believe in its value have every opportunity to take offense to such a comment, especially since you go so far as to negate yourself by saying "no one knows". you just be quiet and I`ll leave you be. You see I don`t take kindly to your indirect criticisms of debating. Troll.
I didn`t know religion was a person with feelings :PAnd i really don`t think anyone knows for sure, but people argue over it all the time, it`s all just opinions and beliefs.
Very humble and respectful. You are quite dodgy. Can`t quite make any assertion about yourself eh? I digress. I`m not on here to discuss people who aren`t brave enough to defend their own beliefs or even participate in conversations by openly asking questions about the things they don`t know. I`m here to dispute the criticism of religion to combat unwanted preaching! HOORAH
Not really, i find it quite easy to be nice to people, no matter what their religion of beliefs to people who aren`t nice to me i generally ignore.
I agree about the kindness and humbleness jazz, although it`s difficult to maintain with all the seething, above it all, non committal comments people like to throw around in cowardice.
"I just came here to look at the religious flame war :)I think religion sucks, noone knows, and everyone thinks they know."
and everyone knows what everyone thinks they know what no one knows, but they know that no one knows what no one knows.
Thought this was pretty accurate, simply because we see this as a joke. If it were christians flocking to see the virgin mary in a stain then we`d have to put on our serious faces :) I think the onion has captured it nicely!
I`m from Ireland and I`m glad I`m from a country where we can `choose` what to believe in whether it be a "primitive sky belief system" or nothing at all...maybe in your country the choices are more limited...i`d be willing to bet though it`s just you who is limited!
Missed this part sorry. What the hell are you talking about? Anti-christian agenda? Wow. So im going to take a guess and say this upset you because it`s something that questions your beliefs. Well good. However to quote House
"If you could reason with religious people, then there would be no religious people"
Why on earth would you assume that?
[quote]and this guy pulls out a pretty hateful comment.[/quote]
From her religion. That was part of the point.
Wow dude, so where do I start? Firstly we are not "anti-christian", we are atheist. We don`t care about -any- religion, not just christianity. We believe that people are entitled to think what they like and believe what they like. What we don`t like is when people that do believe in god decide they want to "spread the message" or "save our dammed souls". We don`t give a poo! We`re atheists! Leave us the drat alone! We have made a choice now respect it like we respect your beliefs. When someone comes out into the open and starts preaching at me then they are going to get a witty comeback. The bible is not logical, in fact, its complete bollocks, but I don`t run around churches shouting "go godless! You are missing superbowl Sunday!"
just to be annoying :) Allah IS God
1. I am THE one god bitches! Don`t worship allah or any of those other mofos.
2. Do not worship false idols. Get the eff outta here Brangelina.
3. You non-nice individuals better only mention my name when you mean it! Don`t take it in vain draters.
4. No rollin on Shabbos.
5. Honour your Mommsy and Daddsy. Put them in a nice home.
6. Do not murder, unless I or George Bush tell you too.
7. Do not commit Adultery. Nasty Animals.
8. Do not steal. (Unless you figure out a way to make it seem like not stealing and do it in the name of the church.)
9. Do not bear false witness against your neighbour, unless you are really sure she`s a witch and deserves it.
10. Do not covet thy neighbours wife, unless I tell her to kill her husband effectively making her a widow...then you just go right ahead.
Don`t get all upity.
Demanding recognition, or even worse, worship, when you do something nice goes a great length towards negating the niceness of your act.
In any case, why on earth would an all-powerful God need or want said belief/recognition/worship?
Is your god lacking in self-confidence?
People who try and make points using the bible are naturally hilarious to normal people.
Like I said... willingly into a debate, the subject of which originated from that woman and her choice of interpretation of the bible. The side you are arguing for.
Right, stories passed on orally. Thus I reiterate my statement (NOT a myth, thank you): "it`s very likely that not one single word of the New Testament was written by anyone who had actually MET Jesus."
Just as we have learned how to cook with fuels other than poo, we have also learned ethics and morals. It is no longer acceptable to treat women as the Bible suggests, nor is it acceptable to follow God`s genocidal orders.
I don`t know if God exists, but what I am sure of is that the Bible is wrong, and that Christian doctrine does not follow the Bible, and Christians do not follow the doctrine.
"People`s memories and ability to recite things they`ve witnessed or had been told were incredible in comparison to our society today."
There is no scientific proof of this whatsoever, simply because it cannot be tested.
"Roman Empire was singularly bent on persecuting and suppressing Christianity"
I suppose that`s true, but you must also accept that the expansion and worldwide acceptance of Christianity came from the oppressive force of an egotistical megalomaniac named Constantine, followed by the force and oppression of the church through taxation and evtually inquisition.
Erm, no. Example:"Hey kids, don`t have unsafe sex"This is from a point of compassion. It is impossible for all of humanity to follow it. Without the rule, there would be more of it.
The harm is not done by imposing the rule, harm is done by breaking it. They are just informing you of it.
Same: Do not kill. Do not steal. Do not have affairs. Do not worship false gods.
All of these lead to problems on their own.
Go read the book of Leviticus. Particularly 20.
Just see what it says about killing people ;)
Gays. Unruly sons. etc etc...
And another thing, NOONE IS JUDGING YOU.
We are judging the BIBLE, NOT YOU.
almightybob1 - your right gods not compassionate. its not like he gave us life, then we went and defied his law and sinned against him and secured a place in hell, and yet he decided to forgive us and send his own son to die for our sins so that we could go to heaven, and then all he asked in return for him doing this for us was to just believe that his sons did this for us. your right that`s not compassionate. thats something a person could never do. thats mercy and love that no one could even fathom.
Contrary to popular belief this is a myth. The gospels are almost totally agreed to be written as little as 30 years after the death of Christ. Which, if you know anything about your history, you`d know this is amazing. Everyone did everything orally. Stories were passed on orally, business was done orally. People`s memories and ability to recite things they`ve witnessed or had been told were incredible in comparison to our society today. To have something recorded even 100 years after the supposed death of Jesus is an astonishing feat in itself, especially since the Roman Empire was singularly bent on persecuting and suppressing Christianity.
I totally agree, it`s definitely the most prolific and history shaping hoax of all times.
Actually, it`s much worse than that. Contrary to popular belief, it`s very likely that not one single word of the New Testament was written by anyone who had actually MET Jesus.
So when society tells you (correctly) your religion is wrong and sexist, you go back and change your religion and beliefs to better fit society? That doesn`t sound like ultimate moral authority to me.
[quote]just go copy down the ten commandments. there is not a man on earth that is able to follow all of those[/quote]What kind of compassionate god gives his followers rules he knows it`s impossible for them to obey?
and i find it funny that this whole time i have just stated what i believe and everyone cant wait to tell me im wrong. you say that as Christians we judge you, yes some do and they r wrong to do so, but look at yourself once in awhile. bumbleBB you say you grew up and realized its wrong to judge people with out reason. then how come this whole time you have been doing it to me.
interpret - to explain or tell the meaning of : present in understandable terms
im not trying to change or distort what the bible says, im trying to understand it. that is what i mean by interpret.
But its a choice, that you have to make. Not have someone else make for you.
One thing I am completely against is trying to make children believe. That`s just wrong in my opinion.
And Mjfoxman... Thats just it. The majority of the United States follows the bible supposedly. If that is so...then how did the laws today start negatively interacting with the rules of the bible?
I just personally refuse to put too much belief into a book that tells you go kill certain people.How is that any better than the Qur`an ?
see the problem is everyone runs into those people who stand on a street corner and yell to the world that everyone is wrong and going to hell, and that they are better than everyone else. then you think that every christian is like that. i dont think im better than anyone. i am just as bad as everyone else. the difference is i believe god will forgive me because i believe in him.
"Yet she became more and more promiscuous as she recalled the days of her youth, when she was a prostitute in Egypt.There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses."
For more of this, check http://www.cracked.com/article_15699_the...
Has anyone ever actually read the old Testament? Give it a read. ;)Completely full of evil deeds.
14 Then I said, "Not so, Sovereign LORD! I have never defiled myself. From my youth until now I have never eaten anything found dead or torn by wild animals. No unclean meat has ever entered my mouth."
15 "Very well," he said, "I will let you bake your bread over cow manure instead of human excrement."
I think generally the 10 commandments with a couple of exceptions are good moral guidelines that most people Christian or not agree with. My problem is the diction of the bible that is out right ignored by Christians because it doesn`t jive with the modern world.
the old testament is an amazing read, don`t bother with the new as its just the `same story` told by a bunch of crazy `frat brothers`, their stories match to an extent but I find it hard to believe they wrote this w/o communications between each other about details of the situations, hell some of them weren`t present for half of it (like when jesus was carrying the cross), yet they know such vivid details.
btw, I`m not religious (not anymore) but I`ll be damned if the old testament`s stories aren`t just as good at teaching morals as Aesop`s fables - just leave out the fear part (`god will smite you if you misbehave`)
There`s a plethora of other version, pick the one that you like the best and rationalize that god is actually good.
we dont do it so we can pick and choose what to follow and what to say no i dont wanna do that. it is hard to take what was said back then and apply it to this time. just like this verse. back then man did have authority over women and they were not allowed to teach. but if a christian tried to uphold that now, people would think he is sexiest, and condemn Christianity as sexist and wrong. so as Christians we read the bible, interpret it and try to apply it to the time we live in the best we can.
Maddog, together I think we can create an h-bomb caliber catastrophe in the religious sect of IAB.
Man, I`ve got to read the bible one day, but it`s really just not my kind of fiction.
And thou shalt eat it as barley cakes, and thou shalt bake it with dung that cometh out of man, in their sight.
actually, it was only one person in the Bible told not to cut his hair, though the passage can easily be pulled and taken out of context.
"God" told Samson`s parents to make him a nazirite, and not to cut his hair as it is a bond between him and God. he is also forbidden from drinking alcohol and visiting deceased/graves, though in samson`s case is he exempt from the last part.
I`ve been asking why the cherry [ick the parts that suits them for years. However, I find it`s np longer wise to use logic on belivers of any faith. It just makes them either
a) Angryb) Angrierc) Threaten me in some wayd) Implode!
I allways aim for d) though! It`s so much fun!
Proverbs 21:19It is better to live in a desert land than with a contentious and vexing woman.
So who decides which is which? What an awful cop out. Either you uphold the book "Gods word" entirely, or you don`t. You don`t get to pick out the "reasonable" parts and throw out what you don`t want to follow.