That explanation doesn't wash. If what is downright wrong is accepted because that is how society thinks at one point, (like homophobia, anti-abortion,lack of population control, or crooks who can afford to manipulate whole countries, or the obliteration of hundreds of earthly species because humans are special, attitudes prevalent today) is not objected to but condoned, because "god" supposedly condones such behaviour, then that religion, philosophy or notion should be condemned.
What would YOU want to hear at church?
- Thread starter adopted
- Start date
That explanation doesn't wash. If what is downright wrong is accepted because that is how society thinks at one point, (like homophobia, anti-abortion,lack of population control, or crooks who can afford to manipulate whole countries, or the obliteration of hundreds of earthly species because humans are special, attitudes prevalent today) is not objected to but condoned, because "god" supposedly condones such behaviour, then that religion, philosophy or notion should be condemned.
Reasons why I reject the Bible:
1. It is not clear
2. It is not concise
3. It's accounts of history are in question
4. It's accounts of events are in question
5. There are better books around
There are probably more.
Anyway, I'd think being perfect would enable one to overcome jealousy, anger, etc. but this god seems to have no end of anger and jealousy. It should have seen what would come from its designs, but either it didn't see the future or it did and didn't care anyway (which makes it a sadist). Clearly, this god isn't perfect and shows entirely way too many human traits. And no amount of apology or excuse can change that.
Besides, as I said, the probabilities of this god existing are extremely minute and diminishing even further each time science comes up with research showing that the universe does the same things that the Bible says this god does or did.
1. It is not clear
2. It is not concise
3. It's accounts of history are in question
4. It's accounts of events are in question
5. There are better books around
There are probably more.
Anyway, I'd think being perfect would enable one to overcome jealousy, anger, etc. but this god seems to have no end of anger and jealousy. It should have seen what would come from its designs, but either it didn't see the future or it did and didn't care anyway (which makes it a sadist). Clearly, this god isn't perfect and shows entirely way too many human traits. And no amount of apology or excuse can change that.
Besides, as I said, the probabilities of this god existing are extremely minute and diminishing even further each time science comes up with research showing that the universe does the same things that the Bible says this god does or did.
Which is precisely why Mark Twain said, "and Man created God in his own image." In fact, all the gods had human traits, which makes them all unbelievable as separate entities. They were all intended to reflect human traits, to be mirrors to elucidate Man's understanding of Himself, not be some omnipotent outside force acting upon Man's will.
The most amazing thing about slavery is how neatly Christian apologists can rationalize it as acceptable when doing so is essential to maintaining civil order while at the same time lauding Jesus for preaching the sedition that resulted in his execution. The freedom that comes with being a slave of the most good and perfect master is exactly the same as the freedom that comes with being the slave of ANY master: none at all. There's no freedom in being a slave, that claim is preposterous. It's even worse than that, we are enjoined to both love and fear that perfect master, the essence of sado-masochism. No thanks, I'll take my chances on doing my own thinking.
We have STORIES, but no proof of him. No mention in Egypt, no mention of him anywhere else... just stories.
As it is, I never said I rejected what Moses supposedly said/did, so please don't say I did. And if someone rose from the dead to explain anything to me - and I saw them rise from the dead - I'd have a lot of questions, like first and foremost, WTF??
If we're talking dead then living and non-zombified, then I'd have questions for them and whether I reject them would depend on certain things anyway.
Unless they're a Vampire, then, well... then there might be an issue. :smile:
Adopted seems to think everyone is like he is, but on the "wrong" side of the fence in that we rely on belief and regardless of evidence, we will still disbelieve Biblical nonsense. IOW, he seems to think we cannot be objective.
Sorry, adopted, but if you provide real evidence (independent, verifiable, and demonstrably repeatable), there are those of us who are willing to consider it. Otherwise, words are just words.
Sorry, adopted, but if you provide real evidence (independent, verifiable, and demonstrably repeatable), there are those of us who are willing to consider it. Otherwise, words are just words.
The way you talk, it's as if you position your challenge to God through me, like you're practicing for what you're going to say on judgment day. I cannot give you what you're looking for; I cannot open your eyes. If you ignore everything that is around you, then you'll be the fool to me and I'll be the fool to you. We're not the same, you and me. We don't speak the same language. We don't have the same master. We don't listen to the same voice. You follow your teachers, I follow mine. You hunger and thirst after your cisterns, I do after mine.
If your god showed its face, or whatever passes for a face, then I'd chat directly with it. But it won't, can't, or doesn't even exist.
I know you can't provide evidence. There appears to be none. I also know I have no compunction against accepting real evidence when I see it. I simply haven't seen any.
Ignore what, for instance?
Sure we are. We're humans.
English is the standard here at CC.
I have none. That means I am free to accept whatever evidence there is. You aren't free, but are bound by a belief in something that probably doesn't exist and therefore everything you think and say is tied to that perspective.
I listen to all I can hear. You only listen to one.
Mine are many, and I am very choosy about them that they'll teach me with objectivity, reason, and without bias. You have one.
I have many, you have one. You'll go thirsty before I will.
You'll need to decide whether all Biblical Christians, along with Christ himself, are schizophrenics, or are bearing the truth. I expect the former diagnosis from all unbelievers. It's part of the package of being a Christian who doesn't compromise or bend to political correctness in an attempt to appear sophisticated. Confession of my Lord is worth much more to me than my popularity in this culture.
I don't understand your question. The gospels were written by the apostles that Christ appointed; therein, they recorded His teachings, His life, His death, His resurrection, and His ascension.
lmao Congrats. I don't compromise to positions either. I'm also quote far from being politically correct. And I have no wish to appear to be anything other than what I am.
which were transcribed, translated, manipulated, understood by other men in their own ways - in other words: diffused to gossip. If we're supposed to live up to His word, shouldn't we have the REAL ones?
Keep in mind, I have already snagged you in misinterpretation and misrepresenting statements I have made in this very thread.
Meticulously reproduced like no other historical document. Translated into many languages, including the one you and I speak.
That's quite possible -- I'm not God. If I have done that, I apologize.
Well, yes. I don't believe in polar opposites concerning everything (or polar identicals).
