# Have difficulty believing the Bible.



## Mr. Ed (May 27, 2022)

I’ve heard one of the main objections regarding homosexuality is same-sex relationship do not procreate the species. If this is true, the same law should apply planned parenthood, birth control and contraception. 

Why is God so angry in the Old Testament. God ruled as a dictator, opposing God meant suffering and death sometimes in great numbers. God caused all kinds hardships to Job and his family on wager with the devil. However, to be fair, God limited the things the devil could do to Job.

The Old Testament is about God‘s sovereign authority and demand for respect. The Old Testament is based on male dominance and Patriarchal Rule. The Old Testament reflected the life and fears of the people living during that time.

Living BC must have been hard compared to life today.

Introduction of the New Testament changed God’s demeanor to lovey-dovey giving direct access to God through Jesus Christ. God becomes love, a far cry from Old Testament God. Why?


----------



## Nathan (May 27, 2022)

Mr. Ed said:


> I’ve heard one of the main objections regarding homosexuality is same-sex relationship do not procreate the species. If this is true, the same law should apply planned parenthood, birth control and contraception.
> 
> Why is God so angry in the Old Testament. God ruled as a dictator, opposing God meant suffering and death sometimes in great numbers. God caused all kinds hardships to Job and his family on wager with the devil. However, to be fair, God limited the things the devil could do to Job.
> 
> ...


People define God by their own perceptions.   Jesus' re-defined God's position, taking pretty much a 180 deg. turn about in attitude.
Jesus was a renegade, some modern so-called Christians profess to "love Jesus" but they don't love his teachings.


----------



## Lara (May 27, 2022)

Mr. Ed said:


> Why is God so angry in the Old Testament? God ruled as a dictator, opposing God meant suffering and death sometimes in great numbers. God caused all kinds hardships to Job and his family on wager with the devil. However, to be fair, God limited the things the devil could do to Job.
> The Old Testament is about God‘s sovereign authority and demand for respect. The Old Testament is based on male dominance and Patriarchal Rule. The Old Testament reflected the life and fears of the people living during that time.
> Introduction of the New Testament changed God’s demeanor to lovey-dovey giving direct access to God through Jesus Christ. God becomes love, a far cry from Old Testament God. Why?



You asked so here is my faith based response:

Why was God so angry in the Old Testament? God is angry in the OT because, just like our earthly fathers have rules and expect obedience from their children so does God. His punishment was more harsh for disobedience because he holds quite a bit more weight than an earthly father does.

He created us to have the ability to choose right or wrong. So, our Creator, deserves dominance, the right to set rules as He sees fit, reverence, and respect. He's not on our level...BIG time.

Why did God change His demeanor in the New Testament? Because He loved man despite their sins and wanted to show us His love and offer His forgiveness of our wrongs, a gift for the taking, by sending a Savior (Jesus) to save us from our sins and pay our punishment.

Don't forget...God is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow, but if He wants to modify a rule...He can. Our Creator can move mountains...and has. So, we can't sell Him short with our finite minds.
`


----------



## Geezer Garage (May 27, 2022)

You, and billions of others. My take on it is like most things. Take the best it has to offer, and there is a lot, and disregard the rest. The bible was written by men of an era, and we all know how fallible men can be.



Mr. Ed said:


> I’ve heard one of the main objections regarding homosexuality is same-sex relationship do not procreate the species. If this is true, the same law should apply planned parenthood, birth control and contraception.
> 
> Why is God so angry in the Old Testament. God ruled as a dictator, opposing God meant suffering and death sometimes in great numbers. God caused all kinds hardships to Job and his family on wager with the devil. However, to be fair, God limited the things the devil could do to Job.


----------



## chic (May 28, 2022)

Catholics still don't like birth control of any kind and consider it a sin.   I guess women were more dispensable and replaceable back in OT days.


----------



## Capt Lightning (May 28, 2022)

I think that there is no way you can believe the literal truth of the bible. At best,  you can regard it as a collection of ancient writings by people who interpreted things according to beliefs, acceptability  and knowledge of the times.  
When people talk about "God creating man" - which iteration of hominoids do they mean  from the millions of years before the emergence of Homo Sapiens?   I doubt if the ancient scribes had much knowledge of evolution, so they made up "Adam & Eve" to explain the origins of modern man.  Understandable, but pure fantasy.


----------



## Lara (May 28, 2022)

Capt Lightning said:


> I think that there is no way you can believe the literal truth of the bible...


Regarding literal truth in the Bible...there are figures of speech in the Bible and there Parables in the Bible that aren't literal. They are meant to be taken as a simple story to be used to illustrate a moral or spiritual lesson as told by Jesus in the New Testament.

Other than the obvious I just mentioned, when we make ourselves the final arbiters of which parts of the Bible are to be interpreted literally, we elevate ourselves above God. Who is to say, then, that one person’s interpretation of a biblical event or truth is any more or less valid than another’s? The confusion and distortions that would inevitably result from such a system would essentially render the Scriptures null and void. The Bible is God’s Word to us and He meant it to be believed—literally and completely.

Not only _can_ we take the Bible literally, but we _must_ take the Bible literally. This is the only way to determine what God really is trying to communicate to us. When we read any piece of literature, but especially the Bible, we must determine what the author intended to communicate.

Many today will read a verse or passage of Scripture and then give their own definitions to the words, phrases, or paragraphs, ignoring the context and author’s intent. But this is not what God intended, which is why God tells us to correctly handle the Word of truth.

You also mentioned evolution but that's a whole other thread and we've had many evolution threads here over the years...too many


----------



## C50 (May 28, 2022)

Capt Lightning said:


> I think that there is no way you can believe the literal truth of the bible. At best,  you can regard it as a collection of ancient writings by people who interpreted things according to beliefs, acceptability  and knowledge of the times.
> When people talk about "God creating man" - which iteration of hominoids do they mean  from the millions of years before the emergence of Homo Sapiens?   I doubt if the ancient scribes had much knowledge of evolution, so they made up "Adam & Eve" to explain the origins of modern man.  Understandable, but pure fantasy.


That's been my take as well.  The bible is a work of fiction that became a tool used to control others.


----------



## Lara (May 28, 2022)

C50 said^ The bible is a work of fiction that became a tool used to control others.

What's wrong with our Creator controlling what He created? He's our heavenly Father, we are His children. 
What's wrong with an earthly father controlling his children? 

Both leave open the ability for them to also make their own choices as well. Some right, some wrong. Some good, some evil. But the love of these two fathers want their children not to have to suffer the natural consequences of the wrong choices. So a foundation is laid as the children grow and learn.


----------



## Alligatorob (May 28, 2022)

Mr. Ed said:


> Have difficulty believing the Bible.


I can give you my take as a non-believer. 

I think the Bible is a very interesting historical document, many authors and many points of view, written over a period of about 1,000 years, about 2,000+ years ago.  Truly amazing it has survived.  I believe it does contain many words of wisdom relevant today.  Also some interesting stories, probably some with a truthful basis, probably some pure fiction.

Given its origin its no surprise that it contains some inconsistencies, seems to me people can take from it the parts they want and not others. 


Mr. Ed said:


> Living BC must have been hard compared to life today.


Absolutely, harder than most of us can imagine.  It is impressive that anything written back then survived and still has any relevance today.


----------



## Laurie (May 28, 2022)

Nope!


----------



## Paco Dennis (May 28, 2022)

I went from a skeptic to a born again Christian years ago, but I can remember how it happened. A Christian asked me if I prayed to God. I said I do so inwardly sometimes. He said try praying out loud. It was really weird at first. It was like talking to the whole universe, and it was little ol' me. But, after a couple weeks, and being taught by a born again Christian, I fell totally in love with GOD, through Jesus. That's right, he said pray out loud to Jesus. I feel like @Lara is a born again Christian. Perhaps you two could PM so she could help you get in touch with some others in your area, 
  It truely IS a very real experience, I am very glad the whole thing happened to me. No one can tell you the temperature of the water, you have to put your hand in it.


----------



## JustDave (May 28, 2022)

Man created God in his own image.  The Bible has some historical significance, because it was written in historical times, but this is mixed with too much fantasy to be worthy of serious consideration.  I'm not as knowledgeable about other religious texts, but those I am somewhat familiar with, there is a similar preoccupation with fantasy and mystery.

I don't believe being a good person requires a Bible, and we know from first hand observations that believing in the Bible does not make a person good.  It just makes a person a believer, which is far less important than being ethical.


----------



## Em in Ohio (May 28, 2022)

The god of when?  The god of where?   What god?   Whose god?   Who's god?
In my opinion, everyone should take courses in the history of religious beliefs and comparative religion.
Read other books.


----------



## JustDave (May 28, 2022)

Em in Ohio said:


> In my opinion, everyone should take courses in the history of religious beliefs and comparative religion.
> Read other books.


I took a course in college called "Philosophy of Religion." It was an enjoyable study.  It was the typical Introductory to Comparative Religion 101. None of it changed my life much, I don't think.  It did help me put Christianity in a realistic perspective, and I enjoyed learning about other religions without being preached at.


----------



## Em in Ohio (May 28, 2022)

Lara said:


> What's wrong with our Creator controlling what He created? He's our heavenly Father, we are His children.
> What's wrong with an earthly father controlling his children?
> 
> Both leave open the ability for them to also make their own choices as well. Some right, some wrong. Some good, some evil. But the love of these two fathers want their children not to have to suffer the natural consequences of the wrong choices. So a foundation is laid as the children grow and learn.


What kind of all-powerful god (the father) allows an eighteen year old child to brutally slaughter 19 young children?  It isn't a god that deserves my respect - or anyone else's devotion - in my opinion.


----------



## C50 (May 28, 2022)

Em in Ohio said:


> The god of when?  The god of where?   What god?   Whose god?   Who's god?
> In my opinion, everyone should take courses in the history of religious beliefs and comparative religion.
> Read other books.


See that's part of the problem with religion, many people are afraid to do their own work and form their own beliefs.  Many never gain a wider perspective, and that is exactly the philosophy pushed by whatever religious affiliation you belong to.  "Ours is right, ours is good, ours is the one and only way". The second you question the narrative you began to lose faith, and the church doesn't want to lose any of its flock.

Simply by reading old Testament vs new, or different versions as written and rewritten,  or attending other churches, it's hard to believe people don't question the authenticity of the Bible.  I guess it's because they don't want to know, people are afraid to admit we are simply a bug on the earth and the end of our earthly life is just that, the end.


----------



## Capt Lightning (May 28, 2022)

I've just been watching a most fantastic programme presented by the scientist Prof. Jim Al-Khalili about the vastness of the universe.  Using the latest technology, looking back into the universe, revealed an unimaginably violent environment.  Stars being born, stars exploding - even whole galaxies with billions of stars colliding. Not exactly "On the first day God created the heaven and the Earth" . The Universe as we know it was about 9 billion years old when the Earth was 'created'.  

Why would this God who mysteriously always existed, decide to create this vast violent universe with trillions of stars and probably as many planets? Why would  he/she/ it create creatures who were wiped out and replaced by other creatures, eventually coming up with hominoids leading to modern man?   My mother would  say, "that's just God's way", and that saved her from having to actually think about it.


----------



## C50 (May 28, 2022)

Capt Lightning said:


> I've just been watching a most fantastic programme presented by the scientist Prof. Jim Al-Khalili about the vastness of the universe.  Using the latest technology, looking back into the universe, revealed an unimaginably violent environment.  Stars being born, stars exploding - even whole galaxies with billions of stars colliding. Not exactly "On the first day God created the heaven and the Earth" . The Universe as we know it was about 9 billion years old when the Earth was 'created'.
> 
> Why would this God who mysteriously always existed, decide to create this vast violent universe with trillions of stars and probably as many planets? Why would  he/she/ it create creatures who were wiped out and replaced by other creatures, eventually coming up with hominoids leading to modern man?   My mother would  say, "that's just God's way", and that saved her from having to actually think about it.


Just a few weeks ago I had a religious friend tell me the earth/universe is only 6000 years old.  We debated for a few minutes and I asked him if there was nothing until God created everything where did God come from?  Where is God's place?  His reply was god is transadental and humans don't have the intellectual intelligence to understand all that he is.  

There's nothing like a good factual explanation to answer my question, and that was nothing like a good factual explanation. lol


----------



## Lara (May 28, 2022)

I could answer all these excellent questions and posts but I won't...
Do I hear a thunderous applause from the rafters?  I will answer them later though.
I'm the only one in this thread so far representing "the other side" so I have to come back...or do I?

I don't think it will matter here. I don't think anyone here cares to read my posts.
Not because I haven't changed anyone's mind. That's not my goal. But because I'm a bit of an irritant.
That's why there aren't any faith based believers in this thread...yet. That's unfortunate.
The state of the world is a mess because we are becoming less and less on the same page.
If we all had a little faith and a "rule book" we all could agree on, our world would prosper from it.

But the Bible predicted long ago that this would happen.

Today is an important busy day for me.
This is phase one of moving day for me as I get closer to my final home being built on the island.
It's been a year and a half of construction due to delays in the industry.


----------



## JustDave (May 28, 2022)

C50 said:


> His reply was god is transadental and humans don't have the intellectual intelligence to understand all that he is.


Yeah, that's what they told me in Sunday School too.  Starting at a young age, much of my life was spend searching for God.  I wanted to know whether he existed or not.  I didn't require a full understanding.  I just wanted to know if he existed.  Without that knowledge, none of the rest of his alleged qualities makes much difference.


----------



## Gary O' (May 28, 2022)

Mr. Ed said:


> Why is God so angry in the Old Testament. God ruled as a dictator, opposing God meant suffering and death sometimes in great numbers.


Just to get man's attention
We would've annihilated ourselves 

Gensis 6
The Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.


One might read about the Amalekites 
They were pretty dastardly 
They'd attack the Israelites from behind
Killing the women and children
Yes, God slew them


The specific context of the old testament time period is crucial. 
In ancient Near Eastern culture, triumph in warfare was commonly associated with the strength of a nation’s god. 
Consequently, the annihilation of Israel’s enemies conveyed that the one true God of Israel had asserted his power and rule over the false gods of other groups.

Nothing's changed
Salvation is from the beginning to the end of the Bible

One must study......prayerfully


----------



## morgan (May 28, 2022)

Lara said:


> I could answer all these excellent questions and posts but I won't...
> Do I hear a thunderous applause from the rafters?  I will answer them later though.
> I'm the only one here so far representing "the other side" so I have to come back...or do I?
> 
> ...


hang on, your posts (like everyone else's ) are interesting. Don't let anyone crush your beliefs.  I represent no particular "side" and I keep an open mind


----------



## morgan (May 28, 2022)

The title of this thread puzzles me because, if you have difficulty believing the bible, then don't, no one is forcing you, are they?
I don't believe everything I read in any book, but I tell you this, the bible holds a lot of comfort for a lot of people.


----------



## Gary O' (May 28, 2022)

Lara said:


> I don't think it will matter here. I don't think anyone here cares to read my posts.
> That's why there aren't any faith based believers here.


There's more than you think, dear sister.

We all choose topics with which to respond.

As far as God's word (old and new);

Like the Samaritan woman at the well, God reaches out to us where we are

It was that way in the old testament....and the new

'Seek and you will find'


----------



## oldman (May 28, 2022)

God did not write the Bible. The Bible was put together by many prophets and scholars. A lot of the writings and teachings were taken from scrolls. Moses played a big part in putting together many of these writings. Because some of the stories in the Old Testament were written by man, their authenticity can be argumentative and often is.

Honestly, I become upset when I hear people refer to the OT as a book of fairy tales. The stories may not be 100% accurate, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t true or didn’t happen. Mistakes may have been made when scholars attempted to interpret them. Names of people may not be accurate.

I remember during one of my Sunday School classes when I was just a small boy, our teacher said we have two choices in our beliefs. We can either believe in creation or evolution (science). I didn’t even know what the word ‘evolution’ met, so I asked. Her explanation was to ask me if I believed that I was created or did I evolve from some other living form. I decided to go with being created.

It’s really about faith. In times of desperation, who do you turn to?


----------



## fuzzybuddy (May 28, 2022)

As an atheist, I don't like commenting on the individual religious beliefs of others. All religious texts were written by men, so what is written and its interpretation is as fallible as ones' belief in them.


----------



## chic (May 28, 2022)

Just a word and it isn't biblical but it is about God. I think God's message to us all is to love one another. There would be less evil in the world if we loved and respected each other.


----------



## chic (May 28, 2022)

Em in Ohio said:


> What kind of all-powerful god (the father) allows an eighteen year old child to brutally slaughter 19 young children?  It isn't a god that deserves my respect - or anyone else's devotion - in my opinion.


Free will makes it all the shooter's choice and God does not interfere with a person's free will. Think of all the wars and torment especially in the twentieth century. God does not approve, but He does not intervene either.


----------



## Mr. Ed (May 28, 2022)

My dislike of God is the transference of my relationship to my paternal father. I know weird, right? This is the way my mind works. Watching anything to do with father/son relationships and/or family makes me want to puke. 
At the time of my father's death, I did not know things about him until later, without closure. I'm not afraid to explore the depth of my psyche, I am waiting for the proper tools.


----------



## Alligatorob (May 28, 2022)

C50 said:


> Just a few weeks ago I had a religious friend tell me the earth/universe is only 6000 years old. We debated for a few minutes and I asked him if there was nothing until God created everything where did God come from? Where is God's place? His reply was god is transadental and humans don't have the intellectual intelligence to understand all that he is.


Believers are just that, they believe something for which there is no clear factual or scientific basis.  Once you accept that you can't really debate with them, its apples vs oranges.  I consider myself agnostic, I do give believers the possibility of being right.  I just don't see it myself.


Lara said:


> I could answer all these excellent questions and posts but I won't...
> Do I hear a thunderous applause from the rafters?


I hope  you do answer, your posts are always interesting.  Even if we don't agree I appreciate a clear presentation of anyone's beliefs.


chic said:


> I think God's message to us all is to love one another. There would be less evil in the world if we loved and respected each other.


Good words to live by, even if you don't believe in God.


----------



## Nathan (May 28, 2022)

Lara said:


> I could answer all these excellent questions and posts but I won't...
> Do I hear a thunderous applause from the rafters?  I will answer them later though.
> I'm the only one in this thread so far representing "the other side" so I have to come back...or do I?
> 
> ...


@Lara,  I always enjoy reading your posts, not sure what you mean by "the other side", there's a considerable portion of believers in Christ in this thread(myself included).  I don't know exactly what you mean with the term "faith based believers", but I suspect in your(Fundamentalist? Evangelical?) world that has a specific connotation.   Please feel free to express your beliefs, keep in mind others have just as strong(and valid) beliefs as well.


----------



## Em in Ohio (May 28, 2022)

chic said:


> Just a word and it isn't biblical but it is about God. I think God's message to us all is to love one another. There would be less evil in the world if we loved and respected each other.


If you change the word "god" to "good," I agree.


----------



## Gary O' (May 28, 2022)

Mr. Ed said:


> My dislike of God is the transference of my relationship to my paternal father


That's why there can be no judgement of each other
None of us has walked in another's shoes


Mr. Ed said:


> I'm not afraid to explore the depth of my psyche, I am waiting for the proper tools.


I hope you find them


----------



## David777 (May 28, 2022)

@Mr. Ed >>>" Have difficulty believing the Bible."

Why ought you simply believe because authorities in denominations you were part of in your past stated such as dogma?  That is and has been for centuries obviously a self-serving agenda to control flocks, especially since it was often hijacked by the powerful and their politicians.  Today, even many prominent scholars and theologians don't believe in inerrancy or infallibility nor do some denominations. Some won't state so publicly while such is obvious from their writings.  Since much scholarly material written over centuries is for the first time given the Internet, now available to the public, one can see many scholars then and now also didn't rigidly believe such. There is much on the Internet one can now read about that controversy.   Inerrancy and infallibility are primarily creations of 19th Century fundamentalists.  The following shows that attitude on a fundamentalist site per below:

https://israelmyglory.org/article/errant-or-inerrant-that-is-the-question/
snippets:

_In the Age of Enlightenment (Age of Reason, as it was known in the 17th and 18th centuries in Europe), philosophical rationalism crept into theology and began producing an antisupernatural way of thinking that undermined seminaries, Bible schools, denominations, and churches...

Some people say the Bible is inerrant on doctrine and theology but not, for example, on matters of history and science. But such a statement is fallacious... A God of truth, who cannot lie, could not and would not authorize error. Doing so would contradict truth...

Thus, if Scripture did not reveal truth about history and the physical world (no matter how major or minor), it could not be trusted at all. God cannot err, and the Scripture that proceeds from Him is the inspired, verbal, infallible Word of God. Therefore, the Bible in its original autographs is inerrant...

On October 26–28, 1978, 300 leading evangelicals met at the Hyatt Regency O’Hare in Chicago to craft what became known as the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy. This statement is one of the most complete definitions on the affirmation of scriptural inerrancy._

The above tersely shows many theologians are intensely afraid if their followers cannot totally trust the Bible and are then left to their own ignorant interpretations, they are likely to believe almost anything.  On the other hand if an ordinary person actually reads and studies available material today, they will find a great deal of the Bible believable and of great value at the level of "oral history".  Not believing The Flood covered the whole Earth dogma does not mean one cannot be a Christian.   No problemo for this person.

For example, if one want's to read what New Testament early Christian first century beliefs were about, I would highly recommend starting by reading St. Paul's "Book of Romans".

https://www.blueletterbible.org/nasb20/rom/1/1/s_1047001


----------



## Capt Lightning (May 28, 2022)

What's wrong with an earthly father controlling his children?

"Controlling" that's what's wrong.   Guiding, advising - that's hopefully what a father does.  Children will hopefully grow to be individuals, not clones of their father.


----------



## Mr. Ed (May 28, 2022)

My faith has turned into reality. Is faith necessary to understand God? Without faith, Christian beliefs and practices are not the same as before.


----------



## horseless carriage (May 28, 2022)

Lara said:


> You asked so here is my faith based response:
> Why did God change His demeanor in the New Testament? Because He loved man despite their sins and wanted to show us His love and offer His forgiveness of our wrongs, a gift for the taking, by sending a Savior (Jesus) to save us from our sins and pay our punishment.


My teachings of Christianity came straight out of the draconian Roman Catholic version. Whenever I questioned whether Adam & Eve, were the first humans, which according to the Jewish, Islamic, and Christian religions, they were, and all humans have descended from them. 

As stated in the Bible, Adam and Eve were created by God to take care of His creation, to populate the earth, and to have a relationship with Him. I asked, was that a metaphor? Remember, they had two sons, Cane & Able. 

Abel, in the Old Testament, second son of Adam and Eve, who was slain by his older brother, Cain (Genesis 4:1–16). According to Genesis, Abel, a shepherd, offered the Lord the firstborn of his flock. The Lord respected Abel's sacrifice but did not respect that offered by Cain. In a jealous rage, Cain murdered Abel.

So when I asked about procreation, given that one son was slain, one was vilified and no other woman, other than Eve is ever mentioned, my typical Roman Catholic answer was: "You little heathen," each syllable would be accompanied by a slap around the head.

Therefore I must assume that I should believe every word in the bible, chapter & verse, or on the day of judgement, God will slap me around the head with every syllable, just to knock some sense into me.

And there you have it.


----------



## Mr. Ed (May 28, 2022)

I don't read the Bible, never liked reading the Bible. My wife reads the Bible and has morning devotion every day. It's not my thing. Even in Bible college I only read what I had to. Biblical mysticism was interesting but not permanently. Everything I understand about God is in me and cannot be removed because God is the who that I am.


----------



## Tish (May 28, 2022)

Nathan said:


> People define God by their own perceptions.   Jesus' re-defined God's position, taking pretty much a 180 deg. turn about in attitude.
> Jesus was a renegade, some modern so-called Christians profess to "love Jesus" but they don't love his teachings.


Amen to that!
Over 2000 years ago he spoke the words of love and acceptance, and nonjudgment.
Over 2000 years later people still don't get it!

Matthew 5-7


----------



## Mr. Ed (May 28, 2022)

Like to go on record saying I appreciate my mind and my capacity to enjoy it.


----------



## Em in Ohio (May 28, 2022)

chic said:


> Free will makes it all the shooter's choice and God does not interfere with a person's free will. Think of all the wars and torment especially in the twentieth century. God does not approve, but He does not intervene either.


Why not?  If the god in question is all powerful and loving, (other than the "free-will" argument please) why not intervene and save the young children from terrifying deaths?  Why not spare their mothers and fathers this unbelievable grief?  Bottom line, I have no respect for the version of god under discussion.


----------



## Murrmurr (May 28, 2022)

Mr. Ed said:


> I’ve heard one of the main objections regarding homosexuality is same-sex relationship do not procreate the species. If this is true, the same law should apply planned parenthood, birth control and contraception.
> 
> Why is God so angry in the Old Testament. God ruled as a dictator, opposing God meant suffering and death sometimes in great numbers. God caused all kinds hardships to Job and his family on wager with the devil. However, to be fair, God limited the things the devil could do to Job.
> 
> ...


Simply put, large populations of people still live by the rules of the old testament...a few versions of it. Lots of them live in the Middle-East, for example, and yes, life is hard for many of them. But that doesn't weaken their faith at all.


----------



## JustDave (May 28, 2022)

Em in Ohio said:


> Why not?  If the god in question is all powerful and loving, (other than the "free-will" argument please) why not intervene and save the young children from terrifying deaths?  Why not spare their mothers and fathers this unbelievable grief?  Bottom line, I have no respect for the version of god under discussion.


My grandmother was a baptist, and had the biggest effect on my religious indoctrination. My mother was Lutheran, but encouraged me to think on my own, although I don't think she imagined that might lead to atheism. But my grandmother!  Oh boy, did I get a load from her.  None of this thinking on your own stuff.  If something doesn't make sense, disregard it and believe it anyway, or you go straight to Hell.  By the way, Hell was a place where the Devil whipped you and made you shovel coal into a furnace.  I guess that came from the fact that we heated our two flat with coal, and she considered that a burden, although she never actually did it.

Now, even at the age of five (no, better make that eight), I knew that I could not believe things that didn't make sense, but I could pretend things made sense.  But no... That wasn't good enough for Grandma.  You go straight to Hell if you're faking it.  It was an impossible situation, and I realized I was Hell bound, no matter how good I tried to be.

With that bleak prognosis, I decided that maybe God wasn't the heartless entity I was given.  So I started imagining an understanding God, or less severe gods, or maybe gods that had no physical form and allowed evolution to create mankind without his direction.  But none of that worked, because no matter how appealing I imagined a god to be, or how fair he might be, or how much he reflected actual reality, the same result always happened; I could not find convincing evidence for the existence of any one of them, even the one's I liked.

So here I am a happy atheist trying to do no harm, and using ethics as my guide.  Granted ethics, might be a subjective as morality, but I like my ethics, and I don't worry about pleasing an overseer who is hiding in the bushes and cannot be seen.


----------



## morgan (May 28, 2022)

The book of James in the New Testament begins with, “Consider it pure joy whenever you face trials of many kinds, because you know that the testing of your faith develops perseverance” (James 1:2-3). 
I’m not a religious nut and not even a regular church goer but I have a belief that supernatural agency inhabits the world and can influence events. You can either believe or not, but I have always found that people who believe in a greater power are the happiest I've met.


----------



## Knight (May 28, 2022)

Lara said:


> C50 said^ The bible is a work of fiction that became a tool used to control others.
> 
> What's wrong with our Creator controlling what He created? He's our heavenly Father, we are His children.
> What's wrong with an earthly father controlling his children?


Control has been lost, or at least recorded history shows mankind worse than the 1s.try when "God" murdered all but Noah & his family.  
2nd. try was setting his "son" up to be murdered.

Obviously that  hasn't worked. With no bible guidance now what should mankind expect?


----------



## Gary O' (May 28, 2022)

Knight said:


> Control has been lost, or at least recorded history shows mankind worse than the 1s.try when "God" murdered all but Noah & his family.
> 2nd. try was setting his "son" up to be murdered.
> 
> Obviously that hasn't worked. With no bible guidance now what should mankind expect?


If you truly believe in those words, in these days of biblical knowledge, then I'll let Lara respond if she so desires.

 I'm too disgusted.


----------



## JonSR77 (May 28, 2022)

well...some thoughts.

Military historians have confirmed that the battle equipment and tactics mentioned in the Bible do, in fact, conform to known military history.

The Israeli government used Bible passages to discover abandoned copper mines and they were able to work them for ore.

The Israeli military was able to find some obscure mountain passes that were militarily advantageous. This was long before satellites and GPS mapping.

So, whatever else the Bible is, it absolutely does include some verifiable history.

++++

The Vatican Science council has hundreds of members who are Noble Prize winners in science. If science and modern science easily dismissed religion as being invalid, there might be an odd scientist or two, who believed in God. But that is not the case. Many of the world's greatest scientists do believe in God. And there was a book...by Eklund (?) who did a study that showed that the percentage of scientists who believe in God is about the same as that of the general public.

So, there is that.

Ben Franklin, one of the founders of all modern science, believed in God. Isaac Newton, one of the founders of all modern math, believed in God.

Johns Hopkins did a professional scientific study which indicated that cardiac patients who were prayed for recovered much better than those who were not prayed for.

There have been a range of professional scientific studies which seem to demonstrate the validity of ESP. A bunch of them were done in the old Soviet Union.

Acupuncture, meditation, Hatha Yoga and hypnotism all have medical benefits that have been proven by scientific studies. Yet each of those disciplines are thousands of years old and were not developed through science, but through spiritual / religious practices.

++

There are You Tube videos of Eben Alexander. He is a neuroscientist who had an NDE. The scary / interesting thing about him is that he reviewed the medical records and could see that at the time he saw the images of the afterlife, his brain was so filled with inflammation and illness, that it could not have produced the kind of images he saw.


So, that would mean that the images he saw were not produced from the brain.

Eben Alexander: A Neurosurgeon's Journey through the Afterlife






+++++++++

People joke that everyone who says they remember a past life, only remembers being famous or a king. But that is not the actual case. A study was done of what people reported as their occupations in past lives. And that reporting did, in fact, conform to the known historical percentages of farmers, merchants and etc. etc. etc.

+++++

People, all throughout history have reported NDEs.

++++

Thousands of people, over the course of thousands of years, have reported interactions with God.


For example, Mahatma Gandhi said that he heard a voice from God. One could say, well..ok, whatever. However, Mahatma Gandhi's life is extremely well documented. And he was known, from the time he was a very little boy, to not only be honest, but the absolute extremes of honesty. So, it is highly unlikely he was simply lying. The other possibility of the falsehood of his reporting is if he suffered from delusion. Again, his life is extremely well documented. And, he was known to have a keen and clear mind, right up to this death. And known to be in excellent health, right up to his death.

And so...if he was not lying and he was not deluded...what is left? What is left is an account of an interaction with God. And He is not alone, we have thousands of reports of that, over the course of thousands of years. If you want to call that a scientific experiment, that would mean there are too many data points to simply consider that information anecdotal. Large amounts of data are significant in an inquiry.

+++

I would also say, that, to my mind, the default of the brain is doubt. And that also means the bias of the brain is toward doubt. Also, we tend to enjoy mocking things that just seem weird to us. I would consider that tendency to be a form of bias. And breaking through bias is not all that easy.


First I believed. Then for about 2 years, I was an atheist. I think what really shook me was reading some scripture and it just felt like truth. Like the opposite of a used car salesman. It was a kind of truth that just could not be faked.

And then, later, I read more deeply. I learned that all science is still very new. That science is constantly changing its ideas. It is not some kind of pristine perfect discipline that deserves an altar or something.

Anyway, that is what I have.


----------



## Lavinia (May 28, 2022)

chic said:


> Catholics still don't like birth control of any kind and consider it a sin.   I guess women were more dispensable and replaceable back in OT days.


The issue of birth control is a complete misunderstanding. The early Church was established by men who thought ****** intercourse should only be indulged in when a couple wanted to conceive a child. Their problem lies in people having sex at other times. It's not contraception which the Church objects to, it's having sex which doesn't lead to pregnancy. If people actually thought about it, they would realise that themselves.


----------



## Lavinia (May 28, 2022)

I believe there are two 'Gods'.....the spiritual God, which Jesus referred to in his teaching, and the 'God' of the Old Testament. (Not sure if I should expand on that).


----------



## David777 (May 29, 2022)

Mr. Ed said:


> I don't read the Bible, never liked reading the Bible. My wife reads the Bible and has morning devotion every day. It's not my thing. Even in Bible college I only read what I had to. Biblical mysticism was interesting but not permanently. Everything I understand about God is in me and cannot be removed because God is the who that I am.


You ask public questions after being critical about the Bible and then personally decline to ever read it as though you've already decided any acceptable answers cannot include your reading parts of the book itself because such weirdly annoys or bothers or manipulates you in some personally unpleasant way?  Odd you ask so many religious questions with that attitude and at the same time relate your own wife is just the opposite that to me reads like part of the real issue tormenting you includes difficult conversation you obviously sometimes have with her?  And that probably means you would decline listening to any of the youtube audiobooks like the below:


----------



## chic (May 29, 2022)

Lavinia said:


> The issue of birth control is a complete misunderstanding. The early Church was established by men who thought ****** intercourse should only be indulged in when a couple wanted to conceive a child. Their problem lies in people having sex at other times. It's not contraception which the Church objects to, it's having sex which doesn't lead to pregnancy. If people actually thought about it, they would realise that themselves.


Yup. Catholics want more Catholics in the world.


----------



## Lara (May 30, 2022)

Lara said:


> What's wrong with our Creator controlling what He created? He's our heavenly Father, we are His children. What's wrong with an earthly father controlling his children? Both leave open the ability for them to also make their own choices as well. Some right, some wrong. Some good, some evil. But the love of these two fathers want their children not to have to suffer the natural consequences of the wrong choices. So a foundation is laid as the children grow and learn.





Capt Lightning said:


> What's wrong with an earthly father controlling his children?
> 
> "Controlling" that's what's wrong.   Guiding, advising - that's hopefully what a father does.  Children will hopefully grow to be individuals, not clones of their father.



Capt Lightning, taking one of my lines totally out of context and then twisting it is taking the most egregious cheap shot "below the belt".
But it got you lots of "Likes", duped members into believing you "won an argument", and made a Christian look like an idiot who is far from that. I suppose that makes it worth it for you. That's disgusting. Please. Use integrity in your postings.
`
My words I posted in response to C50's post #8 regarding both heavenly and earthly father's children, that you chose to OMIT from "quoting" me says:

*"...Both leave open the ability for them to also make their own choices as well. Some right, some wrong. Some good, some evil. But the love of these two fathers want their children not to have to suffer the natural consequences of the wrong choices. So a foundation is laid as the children grow and learn." *

My original post #9 was responding to C50 who had used the word "Control" in his previous post.

Quoting the Bible out of context is also a popular tool used by some unbelievers...not all. That's the reason I enter "religious" threads; to clarify what the Bible is accurately saying.
`


----------



## Lara (May 30, 2022)

Lara said:


> What's wrong with our Creator controlling what He created? He's our heavenly Father, we are His children.
> What's wrong with an earthly father controlling his children?* Both leave open the ability for them to also make their own choices as well. Some right, some wrong. Some good, some evil. But the love of these two fathers want their children not to have to suffer the natural consequences of the wrong choices. So a foundation is laid as the children grow and learn.*


@Knight in his post #46 also misquoted my post #9 out of context in the very same way Capt Lightning did by only quoting my first 3 short sentences...choosing to also OMIT the part (made BOLD in my original quote above). It's okay to post part of one's thread but not for the wrong purpose of deceiving the readers. Please. Again, use integrity in posting. 

And the rest of your post, I agree with Gary O'....it's not worth wasting my time on either.


----------



## Lavinia (May 30, 2022)

Lara said:


> @Knight in his post #46 also misquoted my post #9 out of context in the very same way Capt Lightning did by only quoting the my first 3 short sentences.
> He also chose to OMIT the part (made BOLD above). It's okay to post part of one's thread but not for the wrong purpose of deceiving the readers. Please. Again, use integrity in posting.


It's infuriating when this happens. Just shows what sort of people they are! I'm sure many people come on sites like this just to spout off because they can't get away with it in their real lives.


----------



## Capt Lightning (May 30, 2022)

Lara, Please keep your hat on. Would it have made any difference if I had included your entire post, or for that matter, not quoted any of it?

I meant no offence whatsoever and was only really disputing the term "control".  No trying to score cheap points, no attempts to dupe, make anyone look silly and I'm sorry if anyone feels that I did.
 It is one thing to keep children from straying outside the bounds of acceptable behaviour, but something different if you tell them how to think. By all means advise and guide them.  Get them to think about the consequences of their actions, but "controlling" them is, in my mind,   ordering them to do things your way.   I grew up with parents who thought that I should think as they did and believe what they believed.  Well, I didn't and my real criticism of them is that they could never explain why they did or why I should.  

So, peace be upon you - and it's a nice looking hat.


----------



## morgan (May 30, 2022)

Parenting is not about control, but rather setting expectations and standards, listening, guiding and setting examples. It’s not a power struggle. Same with those who believe in a Heavenly Father. If we are given free will, then why is “control” relevant? A  dangerous word "control."
Many churches have tried to control their congregation, resulting in dire consequences, same with many families. Just my opinion.


----------



## Lara (May 30, 2022)

Nathan said:


> @Lara,  I always enjoy reading your posts, not sure what you mean by "the other side", there's a considerable portion of believers in Christ in this thread(myself included).  I don't know exactly what you mean with the term "faith based believers", but I suspect in your(Fundamentalist? Evangelical?) world that has a specific connotation.   Please feel free to express your beliefs, keep in mind others have just as strong(and valid) beliefs as well.



Thank you for saying you enjoy my posts...much appreciate that.

What I meant by the "other side" is that we have unbelievers of things unseen and believers through faith without seeing. Thus 2 sides.
I believe in the Bible through faith. Thus "faith based". I said that there weren't any Christians in this thread yet because that post was early on before any Christians had entered. I was referring to this thread...Not to SF in general. It's typical that Christians are not as aggressive as atheists and agnostics and may feel uncomfortable joining in.

What's with labels? I'm not fundamentalist nor evangelical nor any particular denomination. I haven't attended church in 2 decades. But, yes, I'm a believer in Jesus Christ which makes me the label of "Christian"...but don't confuse that with some who say they are Christians and not.

Yes, I do feel free to express my beliefs and I do respect others beliefs who are different than mine. I don't wish to change their minds if that's what you're inferring. God would be angry with me if I was making anyone's choice for them in what to believe because God created them with the ability to choose on their own. He only wants each individual to make their own choice to believe in Him if they want to.

But that doesn't mean I can't clarify what the Bible is accurately saying when someone takes something from it out of context or is just plain confused and asking for clarification, or thinks there is an inconsistency. I do "go to bat" for clarification of biblical truth.


----------



## Pepper (May 30, 2022)

"But that doesn't mean I can't clarify what the Bible is accurately saying when someone takes something from it out of context or is just plain confused and asking for clarification, or thinks there is an inconsistency. I do "go to bat" for clarification of biblical truth."

Your clarifications are not truth, but your personal opinions.  If that upsets you, I'm genuinely sorry.


----------



## Lara (May 30, 2022)

Why would that upset me? That is your personal opinion to judge my opinion as an untruth.


----------



## Pepper (May 30, 2022)

I didn't say your opinions are untruths.  I said they are your opinions which may not be actual clarifications, but your own...................

Oh, forget it!  Just gobbledygook.


----------



## Lara (May 30, 2022)

It's getting really nit-picky now so it's time for me to walk away. It's been a pleasure but I'm leaving the thread.


----------



## Pepper (May 30, 2022)

We are in agreement @Lara


----------



## JustDave (May 30, 2022)

Lara's opinions are not necessarily untruths; That is if you define a truth as something one believes to be true (They are being honest and not lying).  So a more accurate description of Lara's opinions is that they are opinions.  Maybe they are true.  Maybe they are not.  Since they cannot be proven, they remain opinions.  Truth or untruth is then irrelevant.  That one believes it is truth does not convince the non-believer.  This is the gap between believers and non-believers.  Believers claim to be telling the truth.  Non-believers know that the believers believe it, but understand that there is no proof.  This makes most debates about religious doctrines exercises in futility.  This frustrates both sides of the argument, and people walk away angry.


----------



## JaniceM (May 30, 2022)

JustDave said:


> Lara's opinions are not necessarily untruths; *That is if you define a truth as something one believes to be true* (They are being honest and not lying).  So a more accurate description of Lara's opinions is that they are opinions.  Maybe they are true.  Maybe they are not.  Since they cannot be proven, they remain opinions.  Truth or untruth is then irrelevant.  That one believes it is truth does not convince the non-believer.  This is the gap between believers and non-believers.  Believers claim to be telling the truth.  Non-believers know that the believers believe it, but understand that there is no proof.  This makes most debates about religious doctrines exercises in futility.  This frustrates both sides of the argument, and people walk away angry.


I'll just jump in here for a brief moment...  
On any topic, simply believing something to be true does not necessarily mean it is true.


----------



## Em in Ohio (May 30, 2022)

David777 said:


> @Mr. Ed >>>" Have difficulty believing the Bible."
> 
> Why ought you simply believe because authorities in denominations you were part of in your past stated such as dogma?  That is and has been for centuries obviously a self-serving agenda to control flocks, especially since it was often hijacked by the powerful and their politicians.  Today, even many prominent scholars and theologians don't believe in inerrancy or infallibility nor do some denominations. Some won't state so publicly while such is obvious from their writings.  Since much scholarly material written over centuries is for the first time given the Internet, now available to the public, one can see many scholars then and now also didn't rigidly believe such. There is much on the Internet one can now read about that controversy.   Inerrancy and infallibility are primarily creations of 19th Century fundamentalists.  The following shows that attitude on a fundamentalist site per below:
> 
> ...


Well presented post.  I would only like to add that there are many _versions_ of "THE BIBLE," edited and interpreted towards specific goals.  It would be helpful if believers cited the version they reference and their religious affiliation, if any.


----------



## Paco Dennis (May 30, 2022)

In one of the Gospels doesn't Jesus ask, "What is truth?" Maybe there is no exact "truth" about things we can not "KNOW" for being absolutely true. Like a statement "The earth has trees." So when Jesus says "I am the truth", maybe he means that he doesn't believe there is absolute 
truth .? I like to think of it that way. It is similar to Buddhism. It is very practical. Generally it teaches that our thoughts produce our reality. So meditation is for learning to be alive without havinng to think about it....just live.  All the inner dialogue about meaning is bound to get our minds jumping around or speaking half truths.


----------



## Alligatorob (May 30, 2022)

I would never consider @Lara 's or any believers beliefs as untruths.  Just things I don't share a belief in.

Most of what I believe I have not verified through science or data, that would be impossible.  I just assume most are provable, and my choice of what I believe is just different.


----------



## Paco Dennis (May 30, 2022)

Em in Ohio said:


> Well presented post.  I would only like to add that there are many _versions_ of "THE BIBLE," edited and interpreted towards specific goals.  It would be helpful if believers cited the version they reference.


Very true

English Standard Version​The English Standard Version is a literal translation of the Bible, firmly rooted in the tradition of Tyndale and King James but without archaic language. Published at the beginning of the 21st century, it is extremely close to the Revised Standard Version and is well suited to public reading and memorisation.

​






King James Version​The King James Version is the world's most widely known Bible translation, using early seventeenth-century English. Its powerful, majestic style has made it a literary classic, with many of its phrases and expressions embedded in our language. Earlier generations were 'brought up' with this translation and learnt many of its verses by heart.

​





New American Standard Bible​
The New American Standard Bible is a literal translation from the original texts, well suited to study because of its accurate rendering of the source texts. It follows the style of the King James Version but uses modern English for words that have fallen out of use or changed their meanings. It uses capital letters for pronouns relating to divinity, eg 'there He sat down with His disciples'.

​





New English Bible​The New English Bible was a translation undertaken by the major Protestant churches of the British Isles. Scholars translated from the best Hebrew and Greek texts, aiming to present the full meaning of the original in clear and natural modern English. The translation was published jointly by the University Presses of Cambridge and Oxford.

​





New International Version​The NIV watchword is ‘balance’. The most widely used of any modern Bible version, the New International Version marries meaning-for-meaning principles with word-for-word renderings. It is an all-round translation, suitable for a wide range of purposes, and has proven especially popular amongst evangelicals. Its straightforward, contemporary language is both clear and dignified in style.

​





New King James Version​The New King James Version was first published in 1982 and is a modernisation of the King James Version of 1611, using the same underlying Greek text for the New Testament. It preserves the KJV's dignified style and its word and phrase order but replaces some words and expressions that may be no longer easily understood. The translators sought 'to preserve the original intended purity of the King James Version in its communication of God's Word to man.'

​





New Living Translation​The New Living Translation was translated from the ancient texts by 90 leading Bible scholars. It employs clear and natural English. It often makes implicit information explicit (e.g. 'disreputable sinners and corrupt tax collectors'.) The NLT's motto is 'the Truth made clear'.

​





New Revised Standard Version​The New Revised Standard Version is a thorough revision of the original RSV by an ecumenical team of scholars. It is growing in popularity, particularly in churches, schools and academia. The translators made full use of contemporary biblical manuscripts, resulting in a clearer understanding of many obscure passages. It uses gender-inclusive language (making it clear where the original texts include both males and females).

​





The Revised English Bible​The Revised English Bible updates the New English Bible, retaining the latter’s elegant literary style, but removing its archaisms. The REB employs a modest amount of inclusive language and is good for public reading. Like the NEB before it, the REB is a British translation, sponsored by all the main Christian denominations.

​





Tyndale​William Tyndale’s seminal contribution to the development of the Bible in English is universally recognised. Translating directly from the Hebrew and Greek scriptures, he produced a text of enduring quality that underpinned Bible translations in English from the sixteenth century to the present day

​





Revised Version​The Revised Version was produced in the nineteenth century by British and American scholars, benefiting from the discovery of some early and important manuscripts which threw new light on many aspects of biblical scholarship. It was the first real revision of the KJV and the basis for the American Standard Version of 1901.

​


----------



## oldaunt (May 30, 2022)

Em in Ohio said:


> Well presented post.  I would only like to add that there are many _versions_ of "THE BIBLE," edited and interpreted towards specific goals.  It would be helpful if believers cited the version they reference.


And that is the very reason the whole thing is suspect. Remember, God did not write the bible. MAN did.


----------



## Paco Dennis (May 30, 2022)

oldaunt said:


> And that is the very reason the whole thing is suspect. Remember, God did not write the bible. MAN did.


Believers of various religious texts know that man wrote them but they believe they were directly inspired by God.


----------



## oldaunt (May 30, 2022)

Paco Dennis said:


> Believers of various religious texts know that man wrote them but they believe they were directly inspired by God.


That will never actually make it truth. One can believe the earth is flat but it won't make it true.


----------



## Paco Dennis (May 30, 2022)

I hard for me to put into words but I think that a believers faith IS truth for them. Those that require proof are often times scorned in religious sects. THAT is our problem. On both the believer in God/s and those that don't sides they are hard core RIGHT/CORRECT about their position. Why is it so volatile I wonder?


----------



## Alligatorob (May 30, 2022)

Paco Dennis said:


> Very true


Interesting post.  And of course you do not show the original language in which this was written, thousands of years ago.  Not that anyone here could understand it.  

Translation and interpretation is as much art as science, and often pretty subjective.  Even words and expressions in the same language take on different meanings over time.  Hard to really know what these words meant to the original author(s).


----------



## JustDave (May 30, 2022)

Paco Dennis said:


> Why is it so volatile I wonder?


I think it's because the whole thing exists in a knowledge vacuum.  Without proof one way or the other, people can either fill in the blanks with a preferred belief or choose to opt out until more information is available.  We don't generally argue when everyone agrees on the validity of all the information.


----------



## JustDave (May 30, 2022)

Maybe a better way to put it is that without actual knowledge, there is more room to disagree.


----------



## Em in Ohio (May 30, 2022)

JustDave said:


> My grandmother was a baptist, and had the biggest effect on my religious indoctrination. My mother was Lutheran, but encouraged me to think on my own, although I don't think she imagined that might lead to atheism. But my grandmother!  Oh boy, did I get a load from her.  None of this thinking on your own stuff.  If something doesn't make sense, disregard it and believe it anyway, or you go straight to Hell.  By the way, Hell was a place where the Devil whipped you and made you shovel coal into a furnace.  I guess that came from the fact that we heated our two flat with coal, and she considered that a burden, although she never actually did it.
> 
> Now, even at the age of five (no, better make that eight), I knew that I could not believe things that didn't make sense, but I could pretend things made sense.  But no... That wasn't good enough for Grandma.  You go straight to Hell if you're faking it.  It was an impossible situation, and I realized I was Hell bound, no matter how good I tried to be.
> 
> ...


I was faced with a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" scenario in the Catholic church.  As a child, we were told to repeat "I believe in God, the Father Almighty,..."  Since I didn't believe, I refused.  Well, okay.  If I lied and repeated this mantra, I was sinning and would go to hell (or to Confession, the easy out).  If I didn't repeat it, I was hell-bound for not believing.  

After a meeting with a Monsignor, it was mutually decided that I wasn't good Catholic material and that I would burn in hell.  My Catholic relatives already told me that my father was going to burn in hell because _he didn't believe_. 

If a man with my father's natural morality and high ethical standards was going to be sent to eternal hell, while the "good Catholic" hypocrites flourished in heaven,  this god was either a work of fiction or a totally-off-his-rocker sadist.

I was withdrawn (banned) from "Confirmation classes."


----------



## JustDave (May 30, 2022)

Em in Ohio said:


> After a meeting with a Monsignor, it was mutually decided that I wasn't good Catholic material and that I would burn in hell.  My Catholic relatives already told me that my father was going to burn in hell because _he didn't believe_.
> 
> If a man with my father's natural morality and high ethical standards was going to be sent to eternal hell, while the "good Catholic" hypocrites flourished in heaven,  this god was either a work of fiction or a totally-off-his-rocker sadist.
> 
> I was withdrawn (banned) from "Confirmation classes."


At a very young age, maybe around 7 or so, my Catholic friends were already making a pitch for their religion.  Now we were kids and our needs in life only represented kids.  One of their strongest points was that kids in Catholic School got more days off from school.  I told my Baptist grandmother that I thought I might like to become a Catholic, which horrified her no end, because she told me that if I became a Catholic, I would go to Hell.  So I scratched that idea.  It seemed as though according to every religion everyone was going to Hell for being in the wrong religion, but they usually agreed that some religion was better than none... but you still go to Hell.


----------



## Capt Lightning (May 30, 2022)

A man had four sons.  Three became priests and one became a doctor.  One morning at breakfast, the first priest said, " I had a strange dream.  I dreamt that I was in heaven and it was just like being at home sitting round the fire."
The second priest said, "That's strange,  I had exactly the same dream "  "So did I" said the third priest .
Then the doctor said, "I had a dream last night and I dreamt I was in Hell.  It was just like home, you couldn't get near the fire for bloody priests!"


----------



## Em in Ohio (May 30, 2022)

Paco Dennis said:


> Believers of various religious texts know that man wrote them but they believe they were directly inspired by God.





> oldaunt said:
> And that is the very reason the whole thing is suspect. Remember, God did not write the bible. MAN did.


And herein lies the rub:  Portions of bibles have been eliminated because of someone's judgement that they were NOT handed down from god-brain to human brain directly.  Who has the right to say that the eliminated parts weren't direct god-speak, but just the philosophizing of some human?  If all are god's children, isn't it possible that it is *all* god-speak or, conversely, that it is *all* just human-think?


----------



## JonSR77 (May 30, 2022)

JustDave said:


> Lara's opinions are not necessarily untruths; That is if you define a truth as something one believes to be true (They are being honest and not lying).  So a more accurate description of Lara's opinions is that they are opinions.  Maybe they are true.  Maybe they are not.  Since they cannot be proven, they remain opinions.  Truth or untruth is then irrelevant.  That one believes it is truth does not convince the non-believer.  This is the gap between believers and non-believers.  Believers claim to be telling the truth.  Non-believers know that the believers believe it, but understand that there is no proof.  This makes most debates about religious doctrines exercises in futility.  This frustrates both sides of the argument, and people walk away angry.



Well, respectfully, saying "there is no proof" is an assertion. It is, in itself, a theory. There is no formalized proof that that assertion is true. There are many people who do believe there is proof.

As I mentioned... in my post. Studies done that prove that prayer has an effect. ESP studies. Professional interactions with psychics.

There is an enormous amount of proof out there. My proof, I mean evidence really. If ESP exists, that is evidence that the supernatural exists. Or that an undefined experience exists (which, of course, is what the supernatural means in the first place). Maybe magic is just the ability to access another plane of existence. Does it matter if there is an explanation or not?


So, for example....the neurosurgeon Eben Alexander said he had an NDE. And being a neurosurgeon, he looked at his medical chart and saw that at the time he had his NDE experience, his brain was so inflamed with illness, the brain could not have produced those images.

No one has come forward to dispute that his brain was too damaged to produce images.

Now, that is proof that in his state of being...whatever you want to call it, his brain was not producing images.

Now, you can say he lied about seeing those images, if you want. But you can't say that his brain produced those images, because there is, in fact, scientific proof that that is not the case.

Further, if he were to take a polygraph and pass, then there would be about a 70% chance that his reporting of seeing those images was accurate reporting.

Then, you could say, oh, well...he believes it, but that merely means he is deluded.

Then you could test him for delusion, prove he had never experienced delusion, and then that line of argumentation fails.


And then, you know, you have more proof of the truth of his experiences.


But the mind is locked in. If you want to not believe in God and the supernatural, you will then move to find other lines of argumentation that support your theory.

But what you can't dispute are the facts that already exist. That people like Gandhi and Socrates report hearing a voice from God.

That thousands of people over the course of thousands of years, report spiritual experiences.

You can come to a different conclusion about what those experiences are. But you can't pretend they don't exist.


And if some of the smartest people who ever lived believed in God? What then? Is the idea that somehow, they did not explore the theories of doubt themselves...and, nevertheless, come to a different conclusion?

You can say that you don't believe. But you can't say that your own IQ is anywhere close to that of Benjamin Franklin (historians believe his IQ was something like 205). And if a guy that much smarter than us believed in God? Well, then you have to admit of the possibility that he understood things more clearly than us.

Now, there are also a few, rare, very high IQ who don't believe in God. But that still does not allow us to entirely dismiss the testimony of one of the smartest men in history. And Franklin was one. And Newton was another. Tesla believed also. Many Nobel Prize winners in science also believe...


----------



## JonSR77 (May 30, 2022)

Em in Ohio said:


> And herein lies the rub:  Portions of bibles have been eliminated because of someone's judgement that they were NOT handed down from god-brain to human brain directly.  Who has the right to say that the eliminated parts weren't direct god-speak, but just the philosophizing of some human?  If all are god's children, isn't it possible that it is *all* god-speak or, conversely, that it is *all* just human-think?



That is commonly reported on the internet, but is really not historically all that accurate.

There were other writings by the Apostles themselves, that did not make it into the final version of the New Testament.

Some of them still exist and can be found in the Gnostic Gospels. St. Peter, for example, wrote a treatise about the origins of evil (and how to overcome and avoid evil).

This was a very different period in history. This was a very different period for literature. Most of the literature was the collection of orally transmitted stories.

And there was no sense of, oh...we simply have to include everything.

No, back in the ancient world, when they collected the various accounts, maybe they thought St. Peter's discussion of evil was too frightening for people. So, they simply decided not to include it. But that does not mean there was some kind of grand, manipulative strategy going on.

That was really, very simply, how information, at the time, was collected into one format....


----------



## oldaunt (May 30, 2022)

JonSR77 said:


> Well, respectfully, saying "there is no proof" is an assertion. It is, in itself, a theory. There is no formalized proof that that assertion is true. There are many people who do believe there is proof.
> 
> As I mentioned... in my post. Studies done that prove that prayer has an effect. ESP studies. Professional interactions with psychics.
> 
> ...


It is also true that some of the most intelligent people ever were proven insane.....


----------



## JonSR77 (May 30, 2022)

JustDave said:


> At a very young age, maybe around 7 or so, my Catholic friends were already making a pitch for their religion.  Now we were kids and our needs in life only represented kids.  One of their strongest points was that kids in Catholic School got more days off from school.  I told my Baptist grandmother that I thought I might like to become a Catholic, which horrified her no end, because she told me that if I became a Catholic, I would go to Hell.  So I scratched that idea.  It seemed as though according to every religion everyone was going to Hell for being in the wrong religion, but they usually agreed that some religion was better than none... but you still go to Hell.



Well, of course, you now realize that the entirety of the religious history of the world, can hardly be summed up by the rumors that the kids were passing along at school.

My wife works for a major Catholic University. And, oh yes, we hear all the criticisms of the Church. Corruption, pedophilia.

And we ourselves hate and want to end the problems. One of Laurie's best friends was a nun who fought against anti-Semitism in the Church...and, in fact, won significant victories. 

Every major institution is composed of people. And people are flawed.

Does that mean that the Christian teachings of kindness are not true.

For every one story about pedophilia and corruption there are 1000 priests and nuns, going into the Third World, at great risk to themselves, to bring food and medical care to the poor and desperate.

But, do those stories get covered as much as the corruptions? Of course not, because it is boring to always hear stories about how wonderful priests and nuns can be.

Anyone who thinks that the Church, or other religions for that matter, are one long history of corruption, is absolutely living in a cartoon, entirely divorced from reality.

The secular historians, absolutely confirm that the single major civilizing force in the development of modern society has been the force of religion. It ended the Roman gladiator games. The moral codes became the laws that forbade murders, rapes, theft and etc.

Over the course of human history the Church's influence has prevented millions of murders and other serious crimes.

But, how many stories about that?  Actually, I have never seen even one.


----------



## JonSR77 (May 30, 2022)

oldaunt said:


> It is also true that some of the most intelligent people ever were proven insane.....



Ok, do you have specific evidence that any of the following people were /are insane???


Benjamin Franklin
Thomas Jefferson
Abraham Lincoln
Mahatma Gandhi
many modern winners of the Nobel Prize

by all means, please provide a professional, credible source, which indicates that any of these folks were / are insane...


----------



## JonSR77 (May 30, 2022)

oldaunt said:


> It is also true that some of the most intelligent people ever were proven insane.....



Oh, and by the way...reasonably nasty comment. You know, outside the bounds of civility.


So, would it be ok, for me to take people you respect...oh, like your doctor or a favorite teacher and just say to you...

"Oh, sure you respected them, but are you so sure that they were not flat out insane?"

Because it would be rude of me to say that to you.

So, accord me the same respect, please.


----------



## Em in Ohio (May 30, 2022)

Em in Ohio said:


> And herein lies the rub:  Portions of bibles have been eliminated because of someone's judgement that they were NOT handed down from god-brain to human brain directly.  Who has the right to say that the eliminated parts weren't direct god-speak, but just the philosophizing of some human?  If all are god's children, isn't it possible that it is *all* god-speak or, conversely, that it is *all* just human-think?


Adding to my own post:  Portions of some bibles have also been _included_ because of someone's judgement that they were handed down from god-brain to human brain directly.


----------



## JonSR77 (May 30, 2022)

Em in Ohio said:


> Adding to my own post:  Portions of some bibles have also been _included_ because of someone's judgement that they were handed down from god-brain to human brain directly.



You can say that. But there is zero...absolutely ZERO historical evidence that this was the case.

You are projecting modern ideas about manipulation into an ancient culture that did not have it.  They had manipulations, but not the ones you are describing.

And by that, I don't mean that Egypt did not engage in spectacular lies and manipulations, they did.

I am talking, specifically, about the farmers and tradesmen in that region of ancient Israel, who became Christ's followers.  They were not sophisticated enough in, oh, PR techniques, to create those kinds of ideas.  It just was not in their thinking.


----------



## JonSR77 (May 30, 2022)

I mean, I can say that you are, in fact, not human, from an alien race and making the comments you make to undermine and destroy human civilization.

But just because I say that, that makes it true?


Hey, maybe you do want to do destroy all goodness on earth.  I don't know.  But I have zero evidence to make that conclusion.


----------



## Knight (May 30, 2022)

@Lara
I copied the entire post # 9 so nothing will be taken out of context.

Quote

What's wrong with our Creator controlling what He created? He's our heavenly Father, we are His children.
What's wrong with an earthly father controlling his children?
****************************
It's the way control was established. If an earthly father decided to control by murdering there would consequences. 

https://www.vocativ.com/news/309748/all-the-people-god-kills-in-the-bible/index.html


Both leave open the ability for them to also make their own choices as well. Some right, some wrong. Some good, some evil. But the love of these two fathers want their children not to have to suffer the natural consequences of the wrong choices. So a foundation is laid as the children grow and learn.
***********************************
So Jesus grew, learned & obviously didn't do what was expected. The bible story of Jesus plain & simple was used to instill more fear. 

Without the benefit of being bible taught as far back as the 18th. century B C murder wasn't condoned 

https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/facts-...th-penalty/early-history-of-the-death-penalty

Claiming "God" has the right to murder because he is the father doesn't work for me. 

I should include asking your definition of the atrocity by a benevolent "maker". The bible story that claims to eliminate all mankind except Noah & his family


----------



## JonSR77 (May 30, 2022)

Really, folks...

just go take a moment, call the local archdiocese and talk to an actual priest for a minute.

Meet him for a cup of coffee. Get to know him as a person...


These ideas you guys are presenting have nothing to do with the actual Church and its actual people.

They are just intellectual ideas about manipulative control.

Maybe the CIA and the KGB have that culture. But it is not in the Church.

Oh, not saying that there isn't some odd lunatic in the Church who does lunatic stuff. But, you know, that is the 1 in 10,000 person, not the everyday people who are the Church.

I have met hundreds of priests and nuns. A couple of them were cold-hearted jerks. But, in my own personal experience, I would say over 95% were not just nice normal folks...but over 95% were incredibly nice people.


----------



## David777 (May 30, 2022)

An important communication facet of the issue of inerrancy of the Bible that few casually discussing the matter understand is the nature of oral history especially how it was used in those ancient times. Very very little was written down and rather information was passed through oral tellings that were never for audiences expected to be the exact words of an event or what someone actually stated but rather communicated the essence of whatever.  A good storyteller was supposed to make whatever interesting.  

That is why the same stories wording in the synoptic gospels tend to all vary somewhat.  That someone will doggedly try to argue each gospel's differing words were exactly true is obvious logical nonsense.  But to steer an argument into rejecting oral history because it wasn't what exactly actually happened shows an ignorance of how ancient oral history functioned.  I would highly recommend those many that don't understand the nature of ancient oral history to spend a little time on the web reading how historical experts interpret such.  

If say all 3 synoptic gospels had exactly the same wording, it would indicate they were copied from the same source.  By being slightly different, that significantly shows the essence of whatever to more likely be reasonably accurate.  The same logic plays out in this modern era in courts when multiple witnesses with possible agendas suspiciously state identical stories as though conspirantly rehearsed.


----------



## Serenity4321 (May 30, 2022)

horseless carriage said:


> My teachings of Christianity came straight out of the draconian Roman Catholic version. Whenever I questioned whether Adam & Eve, were the first humans, which according to the Jewish, Islamic, and Christian religions, they were, and all humans have descended from them.
> 
> As stated in the Bible, Adam and Eve were created by God to take care of His creation, to populate the earth, and to have a relationship with Him. I asked, was that a metaphor? Remember, they had two sons, Cane & Able.
> 
> ...


LOL I enjoyed your take on the Church..I am a non-practicing Catholic..I find so many who have been turned off by the Church ..my youngest at 8 in Catechism asked the nun why she said _God was up heaven_ when she had been told God was everywhere..


----------



## Knight (May 30, 2022)

David777 said:


> An important communication facet of the issue of inerrancy of the Bible that few casually discussing the matter understand is the nature of oral history especially how it was used in those ancient times. Very very little was written down and rather information was passed through oral tellings that were never for audiences expected to be the exact words of an event or what someone actually stated but rather communicated the essence of whatever.  A good storyteller was supposed to make whatever interesting.
> 
> That is why the same stories wording in the synoptic gospels tend to all vary somewhat.  That someone will doggedly try to argue each gospel's differing words were exactly true is obvious logical nonsense.  But to steer an argument into rejecting oral history because it wasn't what exactly actually happened shows an ignorance of how ancient oral history functioned.  I would highly recommend those many that don't understand the nature of ancient oral history to spend a little time on the web reading how historical experts interpret such.
> 
> If say all 3 synoptic gospels had exactly the same wording, it would indicate they were copied from the same source.  By being slightly different, that significantly shows the essence of whatever to more likely be reasonably accurate.  The same logic plays out in this modern era in courts when multiple witnesses with possible agendas suspiciously state identical stories as though conspirantly rehearsed.


Short version. Story telling was how the imagination of the teller was passed down. Bible stories are the written version of that imagination.


----------



## chic (May 30, 2022)

oldaunt said:


> And that is the very reason the whole thing is suspect. Remember, God did not write the bible. MAN did.


I agree. Man did write the bible. I'm a religious person in crisis. I believe in God but get no comfort out of the bible. I haven't for a long time and this creates a lot of conflict within me.


----------



## Serenity4321 (May 30, 2022)

JonSR77 said:


> Really, folks...
> 
> just go take a moment, call the local archdiocese and talk to an actual priest for a minute.
> 
> ...


Unfortunately, the Church did great harm to itself during the priest sex scandals and IMO the worst of it was the cover-up and the keeping silent by those not involved. I understand the power of forgiveness and greatly admire those who stayed with the Church and tried to make it stronger. I no longer practice Catholicism exclusively as I have found peace and spirituality in almost all religions. Buddism is one of my favorite and IMO there is no conflict among religious phylosophies  except among the man-made rules


----------



## Serenity4321 (May 30, 2022)

chic said:


> I agree. Man did write the bible. I'm a religious person in crisis. I believe in God but get no comfort out of the bible. I haven't for a long time and this creates a lot of conflict within me.


IMO religion is not as important as a relationship with God/Spirit whatever anyone calls the Force/Energy of which we are all One...


----------



## JonSR77 (May 30, 2022)

Knight said:


> Short version. Story telling was how the imagination of the teller was passed down. Bible stories are the written version of that imagination.



That is just some stuff that got passed around. There is much known about the history of that time.

You are ascribing concepts about imagination and thought and ideas...they all come from a much more modern era.

People did not think like that at the time.  And they had a lot of mystical ideas.  They believed in portents and omens and spells.
And those ideas were in their heads.

This is 1500 years before universities existed.  Very different era.  They engaged in very different thought.

We are living in an era with modern fiction novels. They did not exist at the time. Fiction, as a literary form, did exist, but it was very very very limited. And even then, most of the fiction contained moral instruction or other things.


----------



## oldaunt (May 30, 2022)

JonSR77 said:


> Oh, and by the way...reasonably nasty comment. You know, outside the bounds of civility.
> 
> 
> So, would it be ok, for me to take people you respect...oh, like your doctor or a favorite teacher and just say to you...
> ...


Before your brain implodes, please note I did NOT say THOSE people were insane, just that history has noted there were some who were. As for the rest, no I wouldn't be upset by your suggestion, since I can use my common sense pretty well and decide for myself. Please think about why you consider truth to be "nasty", especially when you misunderstood the statement, being all defensive and such.....


----------



## David777 (May 30, 2022)

Knight said:


> Short version. Story telling was how the imagination of the teller was passed down. Bible stories are the written version of that imagination.


To use the term "imagination" injects some bias into that terse statement.  Better would be enhanced for the sake of an audience, "recollection".


----------



## JonSR77 (May 30, 2022)

well, thanks for the discussion.

I am done...don't want to dwell on this topic endlessly.

I guess I have really come to the point in life that I no longer really believe that anyone changes their ideas. Except in rare circumstances.

So, not really sure what the point of debate really is, to tell the truth.

I guess, the bottom line is that I am just doing this to engage in conversation, rather than to really discuss the ideas. Because, again, I don't think atheists start to believe. And I don't think believers turn into atheists.

I think we really just stay with where we are...with a few rare exceptions.


----------



## Serenity4321 (May 30, 2022)

Em in Ohio said:


> I was faced with a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" scenario in the Catholic church.  As a child, we were told to repeat "I believe in God, the Father Almighty,..."  Since I didn't believe, I refused.  Well, okay.  If I lied and repeated this mantra, I was sinning and would go to hell (or to Confession, the easy out).  If I didn't repeat it, I was hell-bound for not believing.
> 
> After a meeting with a Monsignor, it was mutually decided that I wasn't good Catholic material and that I would burn in hell.  My Catholic relatives already told me that my father was going to burn in hell because _he didn't believe_.
> 
> ...


Em   I will admit, being a non-practicing Catholic, I laughed at the absurdity involving ridiculous and very outdated and old-fashioned practices by the church. It still blows my mind that a monsignor was actually so ignorant and did not comprehend his wrongfulness in declaring anyone will go to hell...


----------



## JonSR77 (May 30, 2022)

oldaunt said:


> Before your brain implodes, please note I did NOT say THOSE people were insane, just that history has noted there were some who were. As for the rest, no I wouldn't be upset by your suggestion, since I can use my common sense pretty well and decide for myself. Please think about why you consider truth to be "nasty", especially when you misunderstood the statement, being all defensive and such.....



I said that I felt your comment was rude...and instead of you, you know, saying something like..."oh, sorry, did not mean to offend you..."

You kept going with more criticism about me.

Absolutely not interested in that.


----------



## Pepper (May 30, 2022)

JonSR77 said:


> I guess I have really come to the point in life that I no longer really believe that anyone changes their ideas. Except in rare circumstances.
> 
> So, not really sure what the point of debate really is, to tell the truth.


I just like hearing the views of other people.  I want to better understand my fellow humans.


----------



## Serenity4321 (May 30, 2022)

JonSR77 said:


> well, thanks for the discussion.
> 
> I am done...don't want to dwell on this topic endlessly.
> 
> ...


Interesting..I feel people do change their minds   but  I come here not so much to change anyone's mind but to hear what others believe...that in some cases helps me change my mind on some issues..


----------



## oldaunt (May 30, 2022)

JonSR77 said:


> well, thanks for the discussion.
> 
> I am done...don't want to dwell on this topic endlessly.
> 
> ...


Wrong again. I USE to be very much a believer, til I was about 45 or so.


----------



## oldaunt (May 30, 2022)

JonSR77 said:


> I said that I felt your comment was rude...and instead of you, you know, saying something like..."oh, sorry, did not mean to offend you..."
> 
> You kept going with more criticism about me.
> 
> Absolutely not interested in that.


Nice that you could call me rude while insulting me, wasn't it? Enjoy your superiority, guy.


----------



## Serenity4321 (May 30, 2022)

Lavinia said:


> The issue of birth control is a complete misunderstanding. The early Church was established by men who thought ****** intercourse should only be indulged in when a couple wanted to conceive a child. Their problem lies in people having sex at other times. It's not contraception which the Church objects to, it's having sex which doesn't lead to pregnancy. If people actually thought about it, they would realise that themselves.


Yet today I would think the Catholic Church could relax its position on birth control. I understand their stance on abortion, but the world is populated enough so why not allow or even promote birth control? Science has proven sex is physically healthy and so the_ conception goal only_ should be lifted..maybe it has been?? LOL I do not really keep up with the Church teachings anymore..and what about those who can not have children..or the older people like us..are we to give up sex because we can no longer have children


----------



## Mr. Ed (May 30, 2022)

Life as I understand it to be has been conflictual since it began. On one hand the illusive similarities of authority dad behind the pulpit and God likewise unreachable authoritarian I must obey according to the word. 
I know enough about the Bible to choose it is not for me and the same is true about Christianity. Faith is not an option for believing.


----------



## JustDave (May 30, 2022)

JonSR77 said:


> Well, respectfully, saying "there is no proof" is an assertion. It is, in itself, a theory.





JonSR77 said:


> There is no formalized proof that that assertion is true. There are many people who do believe there is proof.
> There is an enormous amount of proof out there.
> Many Nobel Prize winners in science also believe...


No formalized proof exists.  That many people believe there is proof is not proof.  It's belief.  There is no enormous amount of proof.  There is none.  I think what you are referring to is evidence.  Evidence does not meet the standard of proof.  But it can be convincing to many, which is why many innocent people have been convicted and even executed.

OK, I'm being nit-picky.  But formalized proof in formal logic is  nit-picky.   Formal logic has to be.  Logic  weeds out the leaps of logic and gaps in our thinking.  If there was proof that God exists, it would provide information that is transferable and wipe out areas of disagreement between reasonable people.  But God is a personal thing, one person's god is not another persons god, and not everyone has one.

Maybe there IS a god.  Who can say?  Well lots of people say there is based on faith.  Faith can be powerful and convincing, but it is only faith.


----------



## Sunny (May 30, 2022)

From Porgy and Bess:

 It ain't necessarily so
It ain't necessarily so
The things that you're liable
To read in the Bible
It ain't necessarily so

Little David was small but oh my
David was small but oh my
He shot Goliath
Who lay down and dieth
Little David was small but oh my

Old Jonah he lived in a whale
Old Jonah he lived in a whale
He made his home in that fish's abdomen
Old Jonah he lived in a whale

… Moses was found in a stream
Moses was found in a stream
Floated on water till old Pharoah's daughter
She fished him (she says) from that stream

They tell all your children
The devil's a villain
Live clean, don't have no fault,
Now I takes dat Gospel whenever it's poss'ble
But with a grain of salt

Methuslah lived 9 hundred years
Methuslah lived 9 hundred years
But who calls dat livin'
When no gal will give in
To no man what's 9 hundred years?

I'm preachin' this sermon to show
It ain't necessa, ain't necessa, ain't necessa, ain't necessa,
Ain't neccesarily so!


----------



## JustDave (May 30, 2022)

JonSR77 said:


> Well, of course, you now realize that the entirety of the religious history of the world, can hardly be summed up by the rumors that the kids were passing along at school.
> 
> My wife works for a major Catholic University. And, oh yes, we hear all the criticisms of the Church. Corruption, pedophilia.
> 
> ...


I'm sorry you didn't enjoy my story.  I didn't mean it to be a profound insight into religions of the world, nor did I expect it would necessitate a defense.  It was just an anecdote about kids, an opinionated grandmother, and a playful poke at religion, as well as the idiosyncrasies of humans.


----------



## Mr. Ed (May 30, 2022)

God exists by perception


----------



## mrstime (May 30, 2022)

A lot of Christians profess to love Jesus but also hate others because the old testament said so, but they sure don't follow everything the old testament says. They just choose some of the old testament to believe. Bunch of hypocrites!


----------



## Alligatorob (May 30, 2022)

mrstime said:


> Bunch of hypocrites!


Unfortunately the world is full of hypocrites, all religions or lack there of.


----------



## Knight (May 30, 2022)

JonSR77 said:


> That is just some stuff that got passed around. There is much known about the history of that time.
> 
> You are ascribing concepts about imagination and thought and ideas...they all come from a much more modern era.
> 
> ...


Relating to the bible that man wrote how do you explain the story about Adam & Eve, then later  Noah if not borne of imagination? For me I would classify those as being mystical ideas. 

I agree. Ideas about how mankind began IMO was no different then, than when Jules Verne wrote 20,000 leagues under the sea. At that time it was fantasy & a way to describe the unknown. Now traveling under the sea is common.


----------



## JustDave (May 30, 2022)

JonSR77 said:


> I have met hundreds of priests and nuns. A couple of them were cold-hearted jerks. But, in my own personal experience, I would say over 95% were not just nice normal folks...but over 95% were incredibly nice people.


My closest friends for the past 9 years are fundamentalist Christians, a husband and wife, so yes there are good people that are religious, and some that are very smart.  I went hiking with my friend's wife this morning (the husband is infirm).  We often hike and enjoy the woods together, but religion or lack thereof just remains a personal matter in the background.

But pointing out good Christians or good atheists doesn't really disqualify any arguments here, unless someone has said that all Christians are stupid, or all atheists are angry.  Then exceptions to the rule can be cited and used to clarify that generalizations are often flawed.


----------



## chic (May 30, 2022)

Pepper said:


> I just like hearing the views of other people.  I want to better understand my fellow humans.


Ditto and we can learn something new, even a new way of looking at something old from someone else.


----------



## morgan (May 30, 2022)

Shame some people can't discuss the topic of religion without getting hot under the collar.


----------



## oldaunt (May 30, 2022)

morgan said:


> Shame some people can't discuss the topic of religion without getting hot under the collar.


Most of us don't.


----------



## chic (May 30, 2022)

morgan said:


> Shame some people can't discuss the topic of religion without getting hot under the collar.


I don't get angry over religion. It would be a contradiction wouldn't it?


----------



## JustDave (May 30, 2022)

JonSR77 said:


> I don't think atheists start to believe. And I don't think believers turn into atheists.


It does happen both ways.  I can't find statistics like percentages of either group that had converted.  But when I googled that, there were many more anecdotal accounts of this or that atheist or theist that had converted.  Anecdotes don't really tell us much, but they do tell us that people change.  Over the years in talking with other atheists, I get the impression that a lot were former theists.  I'd take a stab and say 30 to 50%, but I don't know that my sampling is representative of the whole, and of course many theists say they were atheists at one time.  But none of this answers the critical question, "Is there a god?"  And that is most important, because religions depend on it.  While for atheists and agnostics, knowing that would totally change most atheists' orientation toward belief.  It's an important question, at least to me when I was younger.


----------



## Nathan (May 30, 2022)

morgan said:


> Shame some people can't discuss the topic of religion without getting hot under the collar.


Religion and politics are two "hot button" emotionally driven topics....


----------



## Knight (May 30, 2022)

Nathan said:


> Religion and politics are two "hot button" emotionally driven topics....


And generate a lot of responses, here we are with mine @124. 

Pepper's post @104 is what a lot of input should be about.


----------



## JustDave (May 31, 2022)

Mr. Ed said:


> God exists by perception


I'll give you that.  The concept of God most certainly exits.


----------



## Em in Ohio (May 31, 2022)

JustDave said:


> It does happen both ways.  I can't find statistics like percentages of either group that had converted.  But when I googled that, there were many more anecdotal accounts of this or that atheist or theist that had converted.  Anecdotes don't really tell us much, but they do tell us that people change.  Over the years in talking with other atheists, I get the impression that a lot were former theists.  I'd take a stab and say 30 to 50%, but I don't know that my sampling is representative of the whole, and of course many theists say they were atheists at one time.  But none of this answers the critical question, "Is there a god?"  And that is most important, because religions depend on it.  While for atheists and agnostics, knowing that would totally change most atheists' orientation toward belief.  It's an important question, at least to me when I was younger.


I would still need a god version that I could respect.  While "proof positive" would be interesting, it would not alter my behavior.  I forced myself to read bible(s), including Old and New Testaments.  I believe a person born of a woman, later named Christ, probably existed and that he was an okay guy with some positive messages.  Beyond that, I can't buy into most of it and am deeply disturbed by much of it and at organized religions as well.   All that being confessed (haha - ex-catholic humor), I am probably just a run-of-the-mill agnostic.  I don't say there is no such thing as god(s), I just say that I don't know and it hasn't been proved to my satisfaction one way or the other.  I do know that the god of this thread isn't on my favorites list.


----------



## David777 (May 31, 2022)

Knight said:


> Relating to the bible that man wrote how do you explain the story about Adam & Eve, then later  Noah if not borne of imagination? For me I would classify those as being mystical ideas.
> 
> I agree. Ideas about how mankind began IMO was no different then, than when Jules Verne wrote 20,000 leagues under the sea. At that time it was fantasy & a way to describe the unknown. Now traveling under the sea is common.


On past threads, I've challenged members to question me about interpreting Genesis scripture differently than church dogmas but to this point none have done so.

It isn't that the basic scriptures for those events was not real or parts of that scripture had a level of truth but rather, Levite priest sects misinterpreted scripture, God probably rarely corrects mistakes men have made in creating scripture, and as the early Christian church rose in the first 3 centuries AD, much more dogma crept in that has since been designated inspired dogma.  

The Flood scripture as interpreted by churches in particular, is a significant excuse many former believers lazily use to leave religion.  It may surprise many that this person does not see that scripture as fully mythical. Before the modern science, information, telecom era, it was easy to defend by churches, but now the notion water covered the whole planet is nonsense.  Regardless, for every link one might find critical of the dogma versions, there are probably several dozen links by young earth creationists and inerrancy advocates desperately trying to rationalize it.  A favorite tactic is to state some science evidence supporting a worldwide flood to make it seem controversial at a science level just like is done with climate change as they know most of their intended audience hasn't the education and knowledge to be critical of whatever statements.  

There is scholarly work that proposes Flood scriptures come from what Moses passed on to be a non-supernatural large local flood where they saved mostly domesticated animals into what during the Babylonia exile centuries later, the priestly sect incorporated parts of the Mesopotamian story and modified it to be world wide.  Of course that makes their god read more powerful.  The two Hebrew writings have in fact been separated by scholars.   The same sect is hypothesized to have added the now seeming nonsense beginning creation sections of Genesis because Mesopotamian science was more advanced.  The actual Moses text begins at Chapter 2 verse 4.  Read these brief links:

https://www.thetorah.com/article/the-mesopotamian-origin-of-the-biblical-flood-story

https://gavinortlund.com/2015/01/03/why-a-local-flood/

https://bibleinterp.arizona.edu/articles/flood357903
snippet:

_The worldwide flood described in Genesis 6-9 is not historical, but rather a combination of at least two flood stories, both of which descended from earlier Mesopotamian flood narratives. Note that this does not mean all of the claims made in the Bible are false (or true for that matter); I am dealing here only with the biblical stories of the flood. (Also understand that the "slippery slope" claim of "*all of the Bible is true or none of it is true*" is simply an unnecessary rhetorical device* designed to keep readers from doing precisely what scholars do every day: analyze each claim in the Bible on a case-by-case basis.* It is not necessary to accept an "all or none" stance towards the Bible.)_

In other words, if you value possible salvation and eternal life, have kept the Ten Commandments, believe Jesus was sent by God, don't discard your faith because of man's self created dogma.


----------



## David777 (May 31, 2022)

morgan said:


> Shame some people can't discuss the topic of religion without getting hot under the collar.



Fair numbers of people cannot even casually discuss trivial subjects without becoming emotional if someone disagrees with them as though that threatens their ego.  Often that reflects a background where most others in their life often family and friends had that same emotional behavior.  A common reason otherwise intelligent, educated, young persons may fail in corporate professional level work cultures where calm professional teamwork and productive groups discussions are important.


----------



## Nathan (May 31, 2022)

David777 said:


> In other words, don't discard your faith because of man's self created dogma.


Over the years it has been repeatedly demonstrated that man-made institutions become corrupt, with religious organizations being right there in the lead.   But, as I(and others) have said: _don't throw the baby out with the bath water_. An archaic term, one that this group understands(younger generations probably not). Jesus is still Jesus, and His teachings are still valid, despite the ever present greed of some so-called Christian groups.


----------



## JustDave (May 31, 2022)

Em in Ohio said:


> I would still need a god version that I could respect.  While "proof positive" would be interesting, it would not alter my behavior.  I forced myself to read bible(s), including Old and New Testaments.  I believe a person born of a woman, later named Christ, probably existed and that he was an okay guy with some positive messages.  Beyond that, I can't buy into most of it and am deeply disturbed by much of it and at organized religions as well.   All that being confessed (haha - ex-catholic humor), I am probably just a run-of-the-mill agnostic.  I don't say there is no such thing as god(s), I just say that I don't know and it hasn't been proved to my satisfaction one way or the other.  I do know that the god of this thread isn't on my favorites list.


When I was trying to fashion my own gentler kinder god, I was looking for a more believable god.  I hoped this would give me the faith to be a better Christian.  But there was no more evidence for my personal god than there was for the Bible God, either the New Testament God or the Old.

The existence of a guy named Jesus, is pretty well accepted by most Bible Scholars, although they do have a dog in that race.  But it's likely a guy named Jesus existed if the name was as popular back then as it is now, but the Bible Jesus walked on water, and I'm pretty sure that guy didn't exist.  Whether there was a preacher sort is also debatable, because there are no secular records of such a major personality and leader of people that mirror any of the comings and goings of Bible Jesus.  Maybe one existed, but other than popular opinion, I don't see any real evidence that would lock that idea down for me.  The New Testament describes such a person, but the new testament reads much like Homer's Illiad, filled with the same magical mythological sounding stories, and it's the only written material about a guy named Jesus who is the center of Christian dogma.


----------



## Teacher Terry (May 31, 2022)

The founding fathers believed that God was like  a clockmaker. In essence wind up the world and let it go with no interference. If I am remembering correctly they were called Theists. I was raised Lutheran but after taking a minor in religion at a Lutheran college and spending years thinking about it I have concluded that it’s just not possible for god to exist.

 Life is random and horrible people do unspeakable things. Religion is comforting with it’s rituals but I believe it’s a way to control people and is certainly a money maker.


----------



## David777 (May 31, 2022)

JustDave said:


> When I was trying to fashion my own gentler kinder god, I was looking for a more believable god.  I hoped this would give me the faith to be a better Christian.  But there was no more evidence for my personal god than there was for the Bible God, either the New Testament God or the Old.
> 
> The existence of a guy named Jesus, is pretty well accepted by most Bible Scholars, although they do have a dog in that race.  But it's likely a guy named Jesus existed if the name was as popular back then as it is now, but the Bible Jesus walked on water, and I'm pretty sure that guy didn't exist.  Whether there was a preacher sort is also debatable, because there are no secular records of such a major personality and leader of people that mirror any of the comings and goings of Bible Jesus.  Maybe one existed, but other than popular opinion, I don't see any real evidence that would lock that idea down for me.  The New Testament describes such a person, but the new testament reads much like Homer's Illiad, filled with the same magical mythological sounding stories, and it's the only written material about a guy named Jesus who is the center of Christian dogma.


A favorite Jesus denial view spread by some atheists for audiences of simpletons just like is now the fashion in politics. You need to do more homework to reasonably understand why Bible scholars think so, even those that have become atheists.  To expect absolute evidence is flawed, a lazy way of rejection.  Luke's Book of Act chronicles is best.  There are NT writings and also external Christian sources that cross reference each other making single source manipulations too unlikely.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus


----------



## HoneyNut (May 31, 2022)

I watched some interesting Great Courses lectures on Ancient Mesapotamia, and it was obvious that the OT borrowed (and presented as if newly received) laws that had existed for hundreds of years.


----------



## Em in Ohio (Jun 1, 2022)

Inferring that others are lazy simpletons is quite rude.


----------



## JustDave (Jun 1, 2022)

Em in Ohio said:


> Inferring that others are lazy simpletons is quite rude.


Well, yes it is, but where people are heavily invested in beliefs of the unknown, they sometimes resort to the ad hominem fallacy as they feel it strengthens their case.  I believe 777 wants to make a defense of the Jesus controversy (whether Jesus did exist in person or as an exaggeration of an actual itinerant preacher).  The issue is irrelevant to me.  At one time I believed a Jesus proxy must have existed, because as a former Christian, well... he had to exist, because then I could cut the religion some slack on the miracle nonsense.  So I never gave much thought to an opposing view. I doubt that most Christians do.

The controversy 777 refers to is not that well known, and is mostly a debate between Bible scholars, and the link to Wikipedia goes into both sides of the issue quite deeply.  But atheists paying close attention to Christianity know about the controversy, many near the depth of the Wiki article, and often more than many believers. I think there were two other links provided too, but they must have been removed before I had a chance to read them.

Teaching the controversy requires a lot of spinning of intellectual wheels to conclude with finality that a controversy exists.  But it's not that helpful. That was one of the strategies used by Young Earth Creationists to try do get their beliefs into the public school system, but the courts concluded that controversy was a religious issue and not a significant enough to be taught in school.  That could change with the new Supreme Court too.


----------



## David777 (Jun 1, 2022)

If one web searches with "jesus never existed" one will receive plenty of link hits.  Read some of their arguments and what jumps out are they are obvious attempts to affect the understanding of those they know have little interest in bothering to research the subject any deeper and will instead parrot that view to others.  The same manipulative game is rampant in Internet social media, some news sites over politics, and radio talk shows.  A balanced argument would at least address some points they argue against however the way that game is played today, such are often purposely crafted for maximum effect conveniently leaving out anything that might weaken their positions.  Worse, some will invent statements they know are lies because they realize their audience again won't bother to research whatever while will more likely pass on the same untruths. That is why I linked to much more acceptable Wikipedia article that tells a much different story.  

Every day our medias are full of stories and articles playing that game that itself has become news.  My comment about "simpletons" stands and was obviously not addressed to members herein but rather the term "politics" in the same sentence.  A simpleton is a person easily deceived and our society has always had significant numbers.  It is just now in this Internet era that they have become a target.


----------



## JustDave (Jun 1, 2022)

^ I don't disagree with any of that.


----------



## JaniceM (Jun 1, 2022)

David777 said:


> Fair numbers of people cannot even casually discuss trivial subjects without becoming emotional if someone disagrees with them as though that threatens their ego.  Often that reflects a background where most others in their life often family and friends had that same emotional behavior.  A common reason otherwise intelligent, educated, young persons may fail in corporate professional level work cultures where calm professional teamwork and productive groups discussions are important.


It depends on what a person considers trivial.  A subject one person might simply shrug at could be very personal to another.  

When it comes to Bible and related topics, I'm willing to hear everybody's viewpoints, if they're radically different from mine I take it as "agree to disagree," but when the other speaker or poster starts hurling insulting remarks, that's when I get mad.  Usually, though, I walk away from the "conversation."  

Regarding your viewpoint in general, though (discussions), on most topics I'm like 'water running off a duck'- not taking things personally, etc.  On some topics, though, it's like an old country singer said 'thems are fighting words.'  

On a side note, are you familiar with The Big Five personality test?  Unlike most online tests that are just for fun, this was professionally-created.  Curious, I took the test a few years ago.  Was somewhat surprised at the results showing my predominant characteristic was I rarely get rattled over much of anything.. but more surprised to see the score on this characteristic was almost off the charts.  My late father was the same way, and so is one of my kids.


----------



## chic (Jun 1, 2022)

I've always had trouble with Jesus and I'm a Catholic so that's a biggie. But So much of it doesn't make sense. I don't know if he really existed because he left no writings behind though he would have been literate. I don't understand why he had to be executed in such a horrific way to pay for OUR mistakes, we are told. I would have been much more impressed if he had stepped down off the cross and everyone would have seen and many believed and people would have changed, perhaps on the spot, and I always have the ghastly feeling that is what was supposed to happen but didn't because he said, according to scripture as he was dying, "My God, my God why hast thou forsaken me?" 
I'm in a crisis of faith anyway in my personal life due to the way everything changes daily since the pandemic and the high cost of everything is seriously beginning to hurt. Everyday someone says to me they don't like the way the world is anymore and the way it is becoming and no longer wish to live in it. I have no comfort to offer because I feel the same.  
I was always a charitable person but now I have nothing left over to be charitable with.
If anyone has watched the movie "The Last Temptation of Christ" I think it explains the Jesus story the best of any book/film I have ever experienced. The solution is right in the title. Cleverly done.


----------



## David777 (Jun 1, 2022)

The reason Jesus ONLY appeared to believers after his execution is the same reason God never appeared to rulers, priest sects, and others God would have viewed generally as evil doers.   Repeatedly in gospels, Jesus refused to perform so-called miracles in front of religious and political authorities and that same plan carried through his execution. The same is true today for those that complain that if god is real, then why doesn't he just do something out in the open everyone would forever not be able to deny like flying across the sky with legions of angels trumpeting his laws.  

If that happened even evil doers would know for certain he exists.  That would cause many seeing value in possible eternal life, though not all, to change their ways depending on what that might mean for their future.  Without the threat of an eternity in Hell, if people otherwise just ceased to exist when dying that I suspect is generally the case, many sinners would continue their ways just accepting a finite eternal end.  Obviously god if he exists, has understandably chosen to not help those that by their own free choice that have chosen to disregard him even at minimal Ten Commandment levels.  It isn't fair for the individual since one's personal circumstances may strongly influence how moral they become.  So rather it is against our whole human civilization that we must help each other.   

As to why Jesus was sacrificed for our sins, there are plenty of explanations one will receive if web searched for.  The following link short read sums up most of why.  Even if one has read such explanations, it may still be difficult for one to accept such reasonings.  My own hypothesis is Mary was impregnated while under anesthesia by advanced entities by DNA sourced from the same enhanced from ordinary human genetic line as Adam and Eve.  That also means I don't believe Adam was the first human being that in this science era reads like nonsense but rather they were genetically enhanced from normal humans of that age in an experiment that eventually failed due to inherent earth creature aggressive tendencies that proved impossible to remove. 

If so Jesus would be the ultimate sacrifice for the rest of us.  Otherwise god might just ignore we earth monkeys and let us be.  However if our probably rare in the universe planet Earth and its amazing DNA organic life has been a billions year old project of UIE's as I suggest, then such a race would feel somewhat responsible for all its life including we humans. That they might have foreseen a future era where we destroy that whole creation with weapons lends argument to them trying to influence us at least at some minimal levels even though they may have preferred to allow nature to run its course naturally.

https://www.faithward.org/why-did-jesus-have-to-die-for-us/

John 3:17, “_God did not send the Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.” By sacrificing himself for us on the cross, he took the punishment for all of our sins at once. This made him the ultimate sacrifice —once and for all satisfying the demands God’s justice required. That is why we call Jesus “Lamb of God.”_


----------



## Just Jeff (Jun 9, 2022)

Lara said:


> That's why there aren't any faith based believers in this thread...yet.


Do you believe or hope or think there are at least ten in the whole forum ?


----------



## Capt Lightning (Jun 9, 2022)

The statement that "he (Jesus) took the punishment for all our sins at once", suggests that the 'slate was wiped clean' for all 'sins' committed up to that time. This begs two questions.  1.  What happened to those who had been punished previously?, and 2. What about everyone who has 'sinned' since?  This was 2000 years ago after all.


----------



## Em in Ohio (Jun 9, 2022)

Capt Lightning said:


> The statement that "he (Jesus) took the punishment for all our sins at once", suggests that the 'slate was wiped clean' for all 'sins' committed up to that time. This begs two questions.  1.  What happened to those who had been punished previously?, and 2. What about everyone who has 'sinned' since?  This was 2000 years ago after all.


If you are Catholic, you pop into a confessional for five minutes, apologize for killing your children, and you are good to go (to heaven) after a dozen assigned "Hail Mary's" and an "Our Father" or two.

Ridiculous.


----------



## IFortuna (Jun 9, 2022)

Mr. Ed said:


> I’ve heard one of the main objections regarding homosexuality is same-sex relationship do not procreate the species. If this is true, the same law should apply planned parenthood, birth control and contraception.
> 
> Why is God so angry in the Old Testament. God ruled as a dictator, opposing God meant suffering and death sometimes in great numbers. God caused all kinds hardships to Job and his family on wager with the devil. However, to be fair, God limited the things the devil could do to Job.
> 
> ...


Because His son, Jesus, offered himself to save us.   God realized that no one could ever follow the 10 commandments.  Break one and you have broken them all.  So, instead, Grace was implemented because He loves His children, God is always faithful to us, we can never be faithful to Him.  He loves us anyway.  That is true love, when you can love someone even though they don't deserve it.


----------



## Just Jeff (Jun 9, 2022)

G_d is also a righteous, perfect, holy, always right Judge of all.   
If sinners repent,  He May Forgive them, but He has not always, and is not required to - He Does As He Pleases, including showing Mercy to whom He Chooses to show Mercy.
If a sinner does not repent (turn to the Creator , look to Him trusting and stop sinning) ,  they pay the penalty same as everyone historically who did not repent.


----------



## Just Jeff (Jun 9, 2022)

Em in Ohio said:


> I would still need a god version that I could respect.


Answer only if you want to -  when you are driving (if you drive) do you stop at red lights, even if you hate the mayor of the town your in ?   
Or,  if it becomes possible to steal a hundred dollar bill someone dropped and did not realize,  would you steal it or alert them , let them know and make sure they retain it ? 
I'm thinking of this "on the fly" ,  not having an agenda - just seeking to understand more what kind of Creator you think you would respect,  and wondering if you respect human laws or mayors or proper behaviour when a choice to break the law seemingly without penalty is given you ?


----------



## Knight (Jun 9, 2022)

Just Jeff said:


> G_d is also a righteous, perfect, holy, always right Judge of all.
> If sinners repent,  He May Forgive them, but He has not always, and is not required to - He Does as He Pleases, including showing Mercy to whom He Chooses to show Mercy.
> 
> If a sinner does not repent (turn to the Creator , look to Him trusting and stop sinning) ,  they pay the penalty same as everyone historically who did not repent.


G_d is also a righteous, perfect, holy, always right Judge of all.

Stated as fact?

If sinners repent, He May Forgive them, but He has not always, and is not required to - He Does As He Pleases, including showing Mercy to whom He Chooses to show Mercy.

Since no one has returned from dying how is this known?

If a sinner does not repent (turn to the Creator , look to Him trusting and stop sinning) , they pay the penalty same as everyone historically who did not repent.

Same question. Since no one has returned from dying how is this known?


----------



## Just Jeff (Jun 9, 2022)

Jesus "returned from dying",  and He Says So.  His Word is Proof - there is none greater than His Name, He has no one 'higher' as if to swear by.

No religion on earth has "an empty grave", so to speak.   Jesus' grave was empty when He was raised up from the grave by the Father in heaven, exactly as written, in perfect harmony with all of Scripture.


----------



## Em in Ohio (Jun 9, 2022)

Just Jeff said:


> Answer only if you want to -  when you are driving (if you drive) do you stop at red lights, even if you hate the mayor of the town your in ?
> Or,  if it becomes possible to steal a hundred dollar bill someone dropped and did not realize,  would you steal it or alert them , let them know and make sure they retain it ?
> I'm thinking of this "on the fly" ,  not having an agenda - just seeking to understand more what kind of Creator you think you would respect,  and wondering if you respect human laws or mayors or proper behaviour when a choice to break the law seemingly without penalty is given you ?


I'm compulsively honest and blatantly honest.  I've stood in long lines for long times to return items sent to me by mistake or taken out of a store by mistake, including a 40 cent balloon. I got one traffic ticket in 56 years of driving for speeding 10 miles over the speed limit when I finally got tired of the car in front of me going 15-25 in a 35 mile per hour zone on my way to a job at a church.

I do not see the relevance.

So now to the only part of this post that I understand:  the all-powerful god/creator under discussion who doesn't bother intervening in the killing of innocent children is a real jerk (among many other things) in my opinion and not deserving of respect.


----------



## Knight (Jun 9, 2022)

Just Jeff said:


> Jesus "returned from dying",  and He Says So.  His Word is Proof - there is none greater than His Name, He has no one 'higher' as if to swear by.
> 
> No religion on earth has "an empty grave", so to speak.   Jesus' grave was empty when He was raised up from the grave by the Father in heaven, exactly as written, in perfect harmony with all of Scripture.


And you know that how?


----------



## Em in Ohio (Jun 16, 2022)

David777 said:


> ... A balanced argument would at least address some points they argue against however the way that game is played today, such are often purposely crafted for maximum effect conveniently leaving out anything that might weaken their positions....


This is the essence of debate.  Throughout history, all those clustered to interpret the ten commandments and the various biblical passages did (and continue to do) the same thing:  include what fits their desired narrative and dismiss or debunk what goes against their grain.  I doubt that the goal was ever to present a balanced argument, just to squabble over interpretation of minutia.  And whoever held the chisel or quill or pen had the last word.


----------



## Em in Ohio (Jun 16, 2022)

Lara said:


> Why did God change His demeanor in the New Testament? Because He loved man despite their sins and wanted to show us His love and offer His forgiveness of our wrongs, a gift for the taking, by sending a Savior (Jesus) to save us from our sins and pay our punishment.


What a nice father figure that would create a sacrificial lamb of a mortal woman and his own god-stuff and sit by while the child is slowly tortured until dead.  My own biological father was far better than that.  As someone else here said, why didn't the all-powerful father just forgive us without all the brutality?


----------



## Lavinia (Jun 16, 2022)

Em in Ohio said:


> What a nice father figure that would create a sacrificial lamb of a mortal woman and his own god-stuff and sit by while the child is slowly tortured until dead.  My own biological father was far better than that.  As someone else here said, why didn't the all-powerful father just forgive us without all the brutality?


Assuming that what is written is genuine, on the cross Jesus is reported as saying 'Father, Father, why have you forsaken me?' That tells me that Jesus himself was preaching what he personally believed, which was  not necessarily the truth.


----------



## Pepper (Jun 16, 2022)

Lavinia said:


> Assuming that what is written is genuine, on the cross Jesus is reported as saying 'Father, Father, why have you forsaken me?' That tells me that Jesus himself was preaching what he personally believed, which was  not necessarily the truth.


Psalm 22:
_My God, my God, why have you forsaken me? Why are you so far from saving me, so far from the words of my groaning? O my God, I cry out by day, but you do not answer, by night, and am not silent.  _

He was reciting a prayer.  Dying and praying.  Not unusual.  Common, I'd say.


----------



## Sunny (Jun 16, 2022)

Imagine a human ruler (dictator? tyrant?) who ruled in the same style as "God" does. Demanding allegiance, fear, love for him no matter what he does, loyalty, no worship of any other gods (even though there aren't any), endless babbling about how wonderful he is.

No matter what cruelty or torture is inflicted on mankind, no matter what diseases, suffering, natural disasters, and so on, we are _ordered _to love this deity.

Would we admire a human head of state who behaved like that? 

As for the Ten Commandments, here they are:


You shall have no other gods before Me.
You shall not make idols.
You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain.
Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.
Honor your father and your mother.
You shall not murder.
You shall not commit adultery.
You shall not steal.
You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
You shall not covet.
The first four are all about honoring God, once again. (That fourth one is because God rested from creating the earth on the seventh day, so again it's about him.)

Then the Commandments move on to human behavior. OK, some of those ideas are pretty good, such as not murdering or stealing. But coveting (being envious) is bad enough to be up there with the big sins?  Should all fathers and mothers necessarily be honored, no matter what? If you don't honor the Sabbath, you should be put to death?

The whole thing sounds pretty slapdash to me; Moses had to come up with something, so he scribbled down a bunch of rules. If there even was a Moses, and if any of it really happened.  More likely, somebody wrote the original story, then, over the centuries, various scribes added their advice to the list, which is why it's so discombobulated and inconsistent. And the narcissistic stuff in it is just plain crude.

Difficulty believing the Bible?  I'd say that's the understatement of the century!  I agree with Capt Lightning, C50, and all the others here who believe it is a work of fiction (or at best, a distorted version of history), used down through the centuries to control people and give power to organized religions.  Belief in the Bible as literal truth (both old and new testaments) does not make people good; it just makes them credulous.


----------



## grahamg (Jun 16, 2022)

Sunny said:


> Imagine a human ruler (dictator? tyrant?) who ruled in the same style as "God" does. Demanding allegiance, fear, love for him no matter what he does, loyalty, no worship of any other gods (even though there aren't any), endless babbling about how wonderful he is.
> No matter what cruelty or torture is inflicted on mankind, no matter what diseases, suffering, natural disasters, and so on, we are _ordered _to love this deity.
> 
> Would we admire a human head of state who behaved like that?
> ...


In fairness you've given us only one interpretation of what is being said, and forgotten at the same time just how many statements there are few would wish to disagree with, such as "Love one another", (as embroidered on to a tapestry behind me in a mates kitchen, left there by his late mother).
" Do unto others as you would be done unto", (no arguments we'd all like a world where that applies, or applies and is followed a little more wouldn't we!).


----------



## grahamg (Jun 16, 2022)

Em in Ohio said:


> This is the essence of debate.  Throughout history, all those clustered to interpret the ten commandments and the various biblical passages did (and continue to do) the same thing:  include what fits their desired narrative and dismiss or debunk what goes against their grain.  I doubt that the goal was ever to present a balanced argument, just to squabble over interpretation of minutia.  And whoever held the chisel or quill or pen had the last word.


It is certainly a great question as to what was in the minds of those holding the chisel, quill or pen, in times we can only really try to imagine, where everyone's life must have been so uncertain due to warfare, pestilence, famine, the whim of a despotic ruler, lack of basic medical assistance, (anaesthetics, antibiotics etc.).
One thing challenging those despotic rulers to an extent was the statement, "Grant unto Caesar what is Caerars, grant unto God what is Gods"!


----------



## grahamg (Jun 16, 2022)

Lavinia said:


> Assuming that what is written is genuine, on the cross Jesus is reported as saying 'Father, Father, why have you forsaken me?' That tells me that Jesus himself was preaching what he personally believed, which was  not necessarily the truth.


What any of us would truly have in our minds as we face our own ends is something I'd suggest we find it hard to imagine or think about!
My brother heard my mother tell him she loved him a week or so before she died, but wondered about it when he found she'd left him out of her will, (but I still think she did, in spite of this fact!)


----------



## Lavinia (Jun 16, 2022)

grahamg said:


> What any of us would truly have in our minds as we face our own ends is something I'd suggest we find it hard to imagine or think about!
> My brother heard my mother tell him she loved him a week or so before she died, but wondered about it when he found she'd left him out of her will, (but I still think she did, in spite of this fact!)


I interpret it to mean that he was expecting a miraculous rescue, even though he believed he would be resurrected. Jesus was not working alone, he was part of a group.


----------



## grahamg (Jun 17, 2022)

Lavinia said:


> I interpret it to mean that he was expecting a miraculous rescue, even though he believed he would be resurrected. Jesus was not working alone, he was part of a group.


I've heard it said expressing doubt showed a kind of link to earthly life, or the life we all lead, (if I've remembered that correctly which I wouldn't take for granted?)


----------



## Em in Ohio (Jun 17, 2022)

Sunny said:


> Imagine a human ruler (dictator? tyrant?) who ruled in the same style as "God" does. Demanding allegiance, fear, love for him no matter what he does, loyalty, no worship of any other gods (even though there aren't any), endless babbling about how wonderful he is.
> 
> No matter what cruelty or torture is inflicted on mankind, no matter what diseases, suffering, natural disasters, and so on, we are _ordered _to love this deity.
> 
> ...


My difficulty with the bible begins with the described nature of "God."  Without going into a long list of derogatory adjectives, I just can't respect the personage described.  The problems that I have with the bible include the time-table of events, the plagiarism, the translations, editing, and perpetual revisions.  Certainly, there are some worthy behavioral guidelines - specific to the places and times - but they were not original ideas and they would fit on one page.

I'm in the process of writing my own behavioral guidelines.  Perhaps they are words given to me directly by this biblical god:  _The Newest New Testament_ by Em !  I demand that everyone listen and obey or else!  (-;


----------



## Alligatorob (Jun 17, 2022)

Em in Ohio said:


> I demand that everyone listen and obey or else!


An order I'd like to give!  

And be paid attention to anyway, around here it would just be laughed at.


----------



## Em in Ohio (Jun 17, 2022)

grahamg said:


> It is certainly a great question as to what was in the minds of those holding the chisel, quill or pen, in times we can only really try to imagine, where everyone's life must have been so uncertain due to warfare, pestilence, famine, the whim of a despotic ruler, lack of basic medical assistance, (anaesthetics, antibiotics etc.).
> One thing challenging those despotic rulers to an extent was the statement, "Grant unto Caesar what is Caerars, grant unto God what is Gods"!


Haha - or in other words, "Despite your life being total crap, you still have to pay your taxes!"


----------



## Forerunner (Jun 17, 2022)

I believe in God. I believe I know God. I believe the bible is the word of God. I don't believe in people...much. 
I don't believe in trying to force what I believe on others. I believe in respecting others. It would be nice if others responded in kind. I believe this life is but one stage in my journey, so I don't get too upset about things. After all, I'm not God.


----------



## Gary O' (Jun 17, 2022)

Sunny said:


> Imagine a human ruler (dictator? tyrant?) who ruled in the same style as "God" does


On the flip side;
Imagine ruling over billions of Helen Kellers

Ann Sullivan comes to mind


----------



## Just Jeff (Jun 17, 2022)

The Lord is King forever and ever;
The nations will perish from His land.
17 
O Lord, You have heard the desire of the humble _and_ oppressed;
You will strengthen their heart, You will incline Your ear to hear,
18 
To vindicate _and_ obtain justice for the fatherless and the oppressed,
So that man who is of the earth will no longer terrify them.


----------



## David777 (Jun 17, 2022)

@Mr. Ed >>>I_’ve heard one of the main objections regarding homosexuality is same-sex relationship do not procreate the species. If this is true, the same law should apply planned parenthood, birth control and contraception._

God's terse, simple to understand 10 Commandments were addressed towards Israelites primitives of that era, not other nations, and especially not 2 millennium later. It is true that Moses and then the Levite priest sect over centuries used the OT as a base to expand those laws and not surprisingly claimed they were directly from God that was probably somewhat true in Moses days but later a convenient means of manipulating people by using supposed God's authority. Laws that were not necessarily addressed towards other nations or future eras, something critics avoid mentioning.  Jesus wisely in most cases didn't openly object to parts of OT scripture he disagreed with or knew to be lies, lest even his followers would have left.

For centuries after Jesus was executed, other NT church authorities again claimed they were inspired by God's Holy Spirit (likely a di-hydrogen oxide nanorobot cloud) that while IMO true in some cases, was obviously not in others regardless of how much church authorities for the sake of their own agendas have insisted so. Simple logic says churches with different dogma cannot both be correct nor gospel writings showing Jesus direct statements that differed somewhat, a result of the nature of ancient oral communication.  Critics point to scripture that they claim is from God and then conveniently leave out how Jesus in a list of gospel scriptures condemned SOME of that same scripture as obviously the work of men.

Mat 15:5>14
_“But you say, ‘Whoever says to his father or mother, “Whatever I have that would help you has been given to God,” he is not to honor his father or mother.’ And by this you have invalidated the word of God for the sake of your tradition. “You hypocrites, rightly did Isaiah prophesy about you, by saying: ‘THIS PEOPLE HONORS ME WITH THEIR LIPS, BUT THEIR HEART IS FAR AWAY FROM ME. ‘AND IN VAIN DO THEY WORSHIP ME,
*TEACHING AS DOCTRINES THE COMMANDMENTS OF MEN*.’” 

After Jesus called the crowd to Him, He said to them, “Hear and understand! “It is not what enters the mouth that defiles the person, but what comes out of the mouth, this defiles the person.” Then the disciples came and *said to Him, “Do You know that the Pharisees were offended when they heard this statement?”But He answered and said, “Every plant which My heavenly Father did not plant will be uprooted. “Leave them alone; they are _*blind guides of blind people. *_And if a person who is blind guides another who is blind, both will fall into a pit.”_


----------



## David777 (Jun 17, 2022)

@Mr. Ed >>>_Introduction of the New Testament changed God’s demeanor to lovey-dovey giving direct access to God through Jesus Christ. God becomes love, a far cry from Old Testament God. Why?_

Actually that is another cherry picked exaggeration often tossed by critics at simple minded audiences. For example, Jesus below related the fate of evildoers:

_Mat 13:47>50  [Jesus] “Again, the kingdom of heaven is like a dragnet that was cast into the sea and gathered fish of every kind; and when it was filled, they pulled it up on the beach; and they sat down and gathered the good fish into containers, but the bad they threw away. “So it will be at the end of the age: the_* angels*_ will come forth and remove the wicked from among the righteous, and they will throw them into the _*furnace of fire*_; in that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth._

That scripture also tends to reflect another thing I often relate, that God with his "*angels*" are part of a race of UIEs.  To state Jesus thought differently concerning love and evil is simple minded as though critics expect he would be the actual physical mechanism for destruction.  So no... sorry, Jesus didn't personally smite the Pharisees or Romans.  This also is clear scripture that logic shows *God does not have omniscience, omnipotence, and omnipresence, powers*.  If God had such magic like powers, he could just think something without help from angels and it would happen.  In like matter Jesus's disease curing miracles probably used physical mechanisms that sound much like nanorobots many scientist today are actively developing. 

Jesus obviously disgusted with morals of average humans, did expect the above destruction would happen during that first century period while his followers were still alive.  It was only months afterward that Jesus resorted to using a literate Greek educated enemy Saul (Paul), since actually writings would be absolutely necessary for a church over generations to succeed. I expect God decided Peter's church had such a good start with St. Paul's work that he didn't need to interfere with humankind at least for the foreseeable near non-technological centuries the UIE race probably greatly wanted to avoid.  The whole OT history outside the Moses era, is a testament to very limited interference with a few prophets over centuries with Jesus our last chance of redemption that is not going well.


----------



## grahamg (Jun 17, 2022)

Em in Ohio said:


> Haha - or in other words, "Despite your life being total crap, you still have to pay your taxes!"


Where would we be without taxes though, if you think about it?

I must not get too political but wealth redistribution may be necessary unless you're prepared to see any or all of your fellow citizens starve, (if all wealth in a country became concentrated in your hands, and your hands alone, to use an extreme example!)?


----------



## oldaunt (Jun 17, 2022)

grahamg said:


> Where would we be without taxes though, if you think about it?
> 
> I must not get too political but wealth redistribution may be necessary unless you're prepared to see any or all of your fellow citizens starve, (if all wealth in a country became concentrated in your hands, and your hands alone, to use an extreme example!)?


Not difficult. I have always been good to help a neighbor who needed it. Too bad more can't say the same, or there would be a lot less need for taxes. People USED to do that...


----------



## grahamg (Jun 17, 2022)

oldaunt said:


> Not difficult. I have always been good to help a neighbor who needed it. Too bad more can't say the same, or there would be a lot less need for taxes. People USED to do that...


You and a few others maybe, (not me obviously, its all their own fault they're all in the gutter in my view!), so maybe you'll concede a bit of taxing tight skinflints may be necessary to make up for folks like me(?).


----------



## Gary O' (Jun 17, 2022)

Sunny said:


> Imagine a human ruler (dictator? tyrant?) who ruled in the same style as "God" does. Demanding allegiance, fear, love for him no matter what he does, loyalty, no worship of any other gods (even though there aren't any), endless babbling about how wonderful he is.
> 
> No matter what cruelty or torture is inflicted on mankind, no matter what diseases, suffering, natural disasters, and so on, we are _ordered _to love this deity.
> 
> ...




"God is Love" by definition -
1John 4: 7
Beloved, let’s love one another; for love is from God, and everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. 8 The one who does not love does not know God, because God is love. 9 By this the love of God was revealed in us, that God has sent His only Son into the world so that we may live through Him.

God is infinite in wisdom and power, is omnipresent - which means there is an infinite gap in wisdom, ability, power, presence for all finite beings between themselves and God - by definition.

The fallacy that finite created humans - should "set the standard" for how one is to be worshiped as a God - is not logical, even a little.

God created a pristine perfect sinless universe with flawless sentient beings like Angels and humans. God's paradise universe had no suffering, no death, no disease and it had a tree of life that would enable living forever.

God "is love" which means he also gave them free will. And over time "some" angels chose rebellion. The Bible says both Adam and Eve were duped into rebellion by Satan the leader of the fallen angels. And He (God) informed them (all intelligent life) of the consequence of rebellion. The first death and also the Rev 20 "second death" - "lake of fire"

Instead of instantly zaaaping Lucifer into vapor the moment he sinned God was merciful. Instead of zaaaping the angels that reveled as soon as they sinned - God was merciful. Instead of zaaaping Adam and Eve into vapor the moment they sinned - God was merciful and setup the plan of salvation for them -- the Gospel.

In the Gospel - God would offer Himself in the form of the incarnate Son of God - as Jesus the Christ. Paying for the second death torment and suffering of all mankind. Paying the full price of the penalty for each and every sin.

In the Gospel God will once again restore the universe of free will intelligent beings back to its pristine, sinless paradise state.

And Like the ultimate "surgeon" He will excise the cancer of rebellion , crime, sin, atrocity ... from the universe.


----------



## JustDave (Jun 18, 2022)

Quoting the Bible to people who don't believe in the Bible seems like a waste of time.  Quoting Darwin to a fundamentalist is likewise a waste of time.


----------



## Moon Rat (Jun 18, 2022)

I mainly read the New Testament.


----------



## Em in Ohio (Jun 18, 2022)

JustDave said:


> Quoting the Bible to people who don't believe in the Bible seems like a waste of time.  Quoting Darwin to a fundamentalist is likewise a waste of time.


Probably quite true.  However there are people who are interested in the topics and controversies raised (like me) and those who are "undecided."  Personally, I'm okay with the quotes, but would like to know which version of the bible they are from.


----------



## Pepper (Jun 18, 2022)

The Bible is western history.  Not the book itself, not necessarily, but the impact of the book formed much of western thought, the other main thoughts being greco-roman.  It's influence is undeniable whether one believes it or not.


----------



## JustDave (Jun 18, 2022)

Em in Ohio said:


> Probably quite true.  However there are people who are interested in the topics and controversies raised (like me) and those who are "undecided."  Personally, I'm okay with the quotes, but would like to know which version of the bible they are from.


For me, the first order of business is to know the source of the quotes and the authenticity of the source.  The quotes themselves sometimes offer bits of common wisdom, but most of the time the conversation goes along lines of, "How do you know God exists," followed by "Something 8:27 There shall be a great light upon the Earth that all men shall see."  It doesn't provide any information to the question.  It's just throwing out a Bible verse.  It would be like saying, "I don't think Alice in Wonderland is a true story," and someone responds, "The Queen of Hearts says, "Off with their heads!"


----------



## David777 (Jun 18, 2022)

It is nonsense on an informal web board to suggest members presenting terse comments ought include the level of source information one would present in a legal case or book bibliography citation.  In the case of the Bible, anyone today can themselves bother to look up any presented numbered scripture and the ways different authors have interpreted text including the original Hebrew.  (ie. see below link) Just because someone presents a premise during a discussion or debate that tends to support a conclusion doesn't mean it was intended to be taken as black and white true or false.  That noted, I do tend to extensively use relative terms because during informal conversation many people may otherwise absorb statements rigidly.  Also if Iincluding news article snippets, always post a link.

https://www.blueletterbible.org/


----------



## garyt1957 (Jun 18, 2022)

Gary O' said:


> Just to get man's attention
> We would've annihilated ourselves
> 
> Gensis 6
> ...


Why didn't God just create man without the "evil" gene?


----------



## garyt1957 (Jun 18, 2022)

Lavinia said:


> The issue of birth control is a complete misunderstanding. The early Church was established by men who thought ****** intercourse should only be indulged in when a couple wanted to conceive a child. Their problem lies in people having sex at other times. It's not contraception which the Church objects to, it's having sex which doesn't lead to pregnancy. If people actually thought about it, they would realise that themselves.


Isn't that the same thing said differently?


----------



## David777 (Jun 18, 2022)

Criticizing Christians by framing their beliefs like the minority of Creationists?

God didn't "make" humans, per overwhelming science evidence, humans obviously DNA organically evolved over 4 billion years.  That noted, I lean towards the probability as a race of UIE's, they genetically improved early homo species that resulted in Adam & Eve.  An experiment that was not adequately successful. That is also why they lived for centuries before diffusion after Noah's time resulted in current maximum 120 year lifespans.


----------



## Marie5656 (Jun 18, 2022)




----------



## Serenity4321 (Jun 18, 2022)

Capt Lightning said:


> The statement that "he (Jesus) took the punishment for all our sins at once", suggests that the 'slate was wiped clean' for all 'sins' committed up to that time. This begs two questions.  1.  What happened to those who had been punished previously?, and 2. What about everyone who has 'sinned' since?  This was 2000 years ago after all.


I have always had a problem with being expected to take the Bible literally...there is more than one meaning to almost everything and the fascinating fact is that different people will interpret things differently. That is the beauty of the book as well as any great work of art...


----------



## Serenity4321 (Jun 18, 2022)

Em in Ohio said:


> I'm compulsively honest and blatantly honest.  I've stood in long lines for long times to return items sent to me by mistake or taken out of a store by mistake, including a 40 cent balloon. I got one traffic ticket in 56 years of driving for speeding 10 miles over the speed limit when I finally got tired of the car in front of me going 15-25 in a 35 mile per hour zone on my way to a job at a church.
> 
> I do not see the relevance.
> 
> So now to the only part of this post that I understand:  the all-powerful god/creator under discussion who doesn't bother intervening in the killing of innocent children is a real jerk (among many other things) in my opinion and not deserving of respect.


I find it fascinating that we all see God and creation and what happens in the world differently. One school of thought says God has nothing to do with evil..it is all man created and God allows it because God gave us free will..we are co-creators and powerful enough to do great things and evil things.


----------



## garyt1957 (Jun 18, 2022)

David777 said:


> An important communication facet of the issue of inerrancy of the Bible that few casually discussing the matter understand is the nature of oral history especially how it was used in those ancient times. Very very little was written down and rather information was passed through oral tellings that were never for audiences expected to be the exact words of an event or what someone actually stated but rather communicated the essence of whatever.  A good storyteller was supposed to make whatever interesting.
> 
> That is why the same stories wording in the synoptic gospels tend to all vary somewhat.  That someone will doggedly try to argue each gospel's differing words were exactly true is obvious logical nonsense.  But to steer an argument into rejecting oral history because it wasn't what exactly actually happened shows an ignorance of how ancient oral history functioned.  I would highly recommend those many that don't understand the nature of ancient oral history to spend a little time on the web reading how historical experts interpret such.
> 
> If say all 3 synoptic gospels had exactly the same wording, it would indicate they were copied from the same source.  By being slightly different, that significantly shows the essence of whatever to more likely be reasonably accurate.  The same logic plays out in this modern era in courts when multiple witnesses with possible agendas suspiciously state identical stories as though conspirantly rehearsed.


You ever see that game they play at parties where one person is told something and they have to repeat it down the line to the next and so on for about 5 people and how at the end  the statement told is nowhere near the original?


----------



## Serenity4321 (Jun 18, 2022)

chic said:


> I've always had trouble with Jesus and I'm a Catholic so that's a biggie. But So much of it doesn't make sense. I don't know if he really existed because he left no writings behind though he would have been literate. I don't understand why he had to be executed in such a horrific way to pay for OUR mistakes, we are told. I would have been much more impressed if he had stepped down off the cross and everyone would have seen and many believed and people would have changed, perhaps on the spot, and I always have the ghastly feeling that is what was supposed to happen but didn't because he said, according to scripture as he was dying, "My God, my God why hast thou forsaken me?"
> I'm in a crisis of faith anyway in my personal life due to the way everything changes daily since the pandemic and the high cost of everything is seriously beginning to hurt. Everyday someone says to me they don't like the way the world is anymore and the way it is becoming and no longer wish to live in it. I have no comfort to offer because I feel the same.
> I was always a charitable person but now I have nothing left over to be charitable with.
> If anyone has watched the movie "The Last Temptation of Christ" I think it explains the Jesus story the best of any book/film I have ever experienced. The solution is right in the title. Cleverly done.


Sorry to hear you are feeling this way. I had a 'crisis of faith in my 20's. I have looked at many different philosophies and found joy and truth in most of  them. I especially liked Buddism though I am a non-practicing Catholic. I have concluded this is such a personal journey each of us must find it for ourselves. Different ideas and philosophies will resonate differently with everyone but the pursuit is worth it IMO. Charity can also  be in good thoughts, and words and does not necessarily have to be material. All the best!


----------



## David777 (Jun 18, 2022)

garyt1957 said:


> You ever see that game they play at parties where one person is told something and they have to repeat it down the line to the next and so on for about 5 people and how at the end  the statement told is nowhere near the original?



You obviously need to do some basic homework understanding how oral history in ancient civilizations worked.  Do a web search.


----------



## Serenity4321 (Jun 18, 2022)

garyt1957 said:


> You ever see that game they play at parties where one person is told something and they have to repeat it down the line to the next and so on for about 5 people and how at the end  the statement told is nowhere near the original?


And that is why we each have to find the truth for ourselves..all the great philosophers have said 'look within' because that is where we can all find the answers...meditation in some form like prayer can help but everyone has to find their own path..and there are many to choose from


----------



## oldaunt (Jun 18, 2022)

garyt1957 said:


> Isn't that the same thing said differently?


It only seems so in today's sex-obsessed society


----------



## Sunny (Jun 18, 2022)

Marie5656 said:


>


God, I loved that show!


----------



## Sunny (Jun 18, 2022)

Serenity, if we were to follow that "free will" example, if I was a parent of a young child who wanted to take a large knife out of the kitchen and go next door and kill the kid who lives there, I would have to allow him to do it, because he had free will. That's basically what the "free will" argument is suggesting.

That's part of the fallacy with the "all-powerful, all-loving, all-good" deity that many keep conjuring up.  If all that was true, what about evil, violence, hatred, and all the other horrors that mankind inflicts on each other? We would have no choices at all.

Gary, I remember that game. It was called Telephone.


----------



## garyt1957 (Jun 18, 2022)

David777 said:


> You obviously need to do some basic homework understanding how oral history in ancient civilizations worked.  Do a web search.


So you're suggesting that the story never changed from one telling to the next? OK


----------



## Pepper (Jun 18, 2022)

oldaunt said:


> It only seems so in today's sex-obsessed society


People, particularly young, single people, are having less sex than our age group at their age.


----------



## Em in Ohio (Jun 18, 2022)

Serenity4321 said:


> Sorry to hear you are feeling this way. I had a 'crisis of faith in my 20's. I have looked at many different philosophies and found joy and truth in most of  them. I especially liked Buddism though I am a non-practicing Catholic. I have concluded this is such a personal journey each of us must find it for ourselves. Different ideas and philosophies will resonate differently with everyone but the pursuit is worth it IMO. Charity can also  be in good thoughts, and words and does not necessarily have to be material. All the best!


I need a refresher course in Buddhism, but I do recall thinking it made more sense to me than the Catholic missal (edited bible) or others.  Many times I have looked for something to believe in that provided guidance and comfort - not necessarily religious nor spiritual.  For me, I settled on two poems - Invictus* for strength and Desiderata for relationships. 

I agree, it's a personal journey and we must find our own way. The pursuit of knowledge and understanding is always worthwhile, in my opinion.

* I believe that I was 7 or 8 when I memorized the poem Invictus by William Ernest Henley.  That was after I researched what all the lines meant!  But, the thing that stood out for me was that this was the first time I heard of anyone not absolutely convinced of the reality of god, yet still open to the possibility.  I thought I was all alone in my doubts.  It was comforting!  "I thank _whatever gods may be_ for my unconquerable soul."


----------



## oldaunt (Jun 18, 2022)

Pepper said:


> People, particularly young, single people, are having less sex than our age group at their age.


Yet it is constantly in your face in movies, TV, news media, and all over the internet. As for "our age group", ALL those young single people are having FAR more than I did, or anyone I knew. We had parents with morals, and they were determined to pass them on.


----------



## grahamg (Jun 18, 2022)

Marie5656 said:


>


Perhaps we should celebrate having been given the gift of reason, by however this might have happened, and use it to inform ourselves questions such as those raised in the OP aren't likely to find easy answers acceptable to everybody.

Lets all give ourselves too the chance to think deeply, whatever conclusions we might draw from that, and try to remember the best of us won't have all the answers, no matter how implaccably we might believe we do, or say we do!


----------



## grahamg (Jun 18, 2022)

garyt1957 said:


> Why didn't God just create man without the "evil" gene?


Keep scratching your head and who knows you might figure that one out for yourself, (if you do be sure to come back and tell us all)!


----------



## Em in Ohio (Jun 18, 2022)

oldaunt said:


> Yet it is constantly in your face in movies, TV, news media, and all over the internet. As for "our age group", ALL those young single people are having FAR more than I did, or anyone I knew. We had parents with morals, and they were determined to pass them on.


I think what Pepper may have been referring to is that the youth of today are too busy being attached to their phones and their video games - hands on electronics instead of each other!    (I could be wrong, but that's how I took it.)  As for my generation's parental role models, some had morals - but I know of several who had none.  /-;


----------



## Just Jeff (Jun 18, 2022)

grahamg said:


> Keep scratching your head and who knows you might figure that one out for yourself, (if you do be sure to come back and tell us all)!


It is not possible for man to figure out.

The Creator did create man and woman without an "evil" gene.  

The Creator did not create automatons / robots to fill the earth,  but man and woman.   He Created them with the 

ability to think, and to choose,  with free will .


----------



## Just Jeff (Jun 18, 2022)

Gary O' said:


> We would've annihilated ourselves
> 
> Gensis 6
> The Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.


Likewise very much so today.  

The wickedness was so great,  the earth was so full of evil ,  at that time/ the day of Noah, 
that it could hold no more wickedness, 
and mankind would have destroyed itself soon.  This is true today also, or close to it now.


----------



## grahamg (Jun 19, 2022)

Just Jeff said:


> It is not possible for man to figure out.
> The Creator did create man and woman without an "evil" gene.
> The Creator did not create automatons / robots to fill the earth,  but man and woman.   He Created them with the ability to think, and to choose,  with free will .


That's as good an answer as anyone can manage, so if you are asserting "man cannot figure out" (or not figure out the mind of God), then you've still used your "God given abilities" to get as close as most of us probably could in my opinion, as I've said!


----------



## grahamg (Jun 19, 2022)

Just Jeff said:


> Likewise very much so today.
> The wickedness was so great,  the earth was so full of evil ,  at that time/ the day of Noah, that it could hold no more wickedness, and mankind would have destroyed itself soon.  This is true today also, or close to it now.


Its possible, though let's hope not inevitable!


----------



## Lavinia (Jun 19, 2022)

Em in Ohio said:


> My difficulty with the bible begins with the described nature of "God."  Without going into a long list of derogatory adjectives, I just can't respect the personage described.  The problems that I have with the bible include the time-table of events, the plagiarism, the translations, editing, and perpetual revisions.  Certainly, there are some worthy behavioral guidelines - specific to the places and times - but they were not original ideas and they would fit on one page.
> 
> I'm in the process of writing my own behavioral guidelines.  Perhaps they are words given to me directly by this biblical god:  _The Newest New Testament_ by Em !  I demand that everyone listen and obey or else!  (-;


This is the argument I have when the Jehovah's Witnesses call. The 'God' of the Old Testament does not sound like the loving father Jesus referred to.


----------



## grahamg (Jun 19, 2022)

Just Jeff said:


> It is not possible for man to figure out.
> The Creator did create man and woman without an "evil" gene.
> The Creator did not create automatons / robots to fill the earth,  but man and woman.   He Created them with the ability to think, and to choose,  with free will .


I thought I'd responded to this but it must have gotten lost on the tablet computer system somehow!

What I think I said is that you've done as good a job there of trying to come close to understanding the "mind of God", though of course this is something beyond human understanding, (as are so many things of course!).


----------



## Em in Ohio (Jun 19, 2022)

Marie5656 said:


>


Very powerful video clip!  I have never watched the show, so this is appreciated.


----------



## JustDave (Jun 19, 2022)

David777 said:
You obviously need to do some basic homework understanding how oral history in ancient civilizations worked. Do a web search. 
[/QUOTE]



garyt1957 said:


> So you're suggesting that the story never changed from one telling to the next? OK



We can't even get written history to reflect truth accurately.  I attended a class on oral history one time.  It was put on by Native Americans, who praised it highly, but they said nothing to explain why it was as good, let alone better than written history.  It takes more than deep reverence to preserve truth.


----------



## oldaunt (Jun 19, 2022)

LANGUAGE has shifted so much in all that time that a LOT of things don't even mean the same thing now. I can remember when gay meant happy. What will it mean 1000 years from now?


----------



## David777 (Jun 19, 2022)

Expected someone else to push back on the reliability of ancient oral history that gives me a reason to educate those who won't bother to research it themselves.  While it is true that ancient oral tradition was widely criticized by form criticism scholars a century ago, since then, modern archeology and research scholars including secular, have overwhelmingly abandoned that view though anti-religious may still try and use that argument to a general public audience. Importantly, ancient oral tradition did not exactly record conversations but then that is not important except to the minority that push absolute inspired inerrancy.

https://reknew.org/2021/11/how-reliable-was-the-early-churchs-oral-traditions/
snippets:

_The view that the oral traditions of the early Jesus-movement were unreliable became a widespread conviction within New Testament scholarship with the advent of a discipline known as “form criticism” in the late 19th and early 20th century... 

1) It has been widely assumed by form critics that the early Christian movement was entirely illiterate and thus that writing played no regulative role in the transmission of oral material about Jesus. With no authoritative writing to keep oral traditions in check, it has been widely assumed, oral material about Jesus was easily altered in the process of transmission.

2) It has been almost unanimously assumed by form critics that oral traditions aren’t capable of passing on extended narratives, which is one of the reasons many critical New Testament scholars have assumed that the narrative structure in which the various literature forms are found in the Gospels was created by the Gospel authors themselves. That is, it does not go back to the historical Jesus.

3) It has been widely assumed that orally dominated communities have little genuine historical interest. That is, it has been assumed that the needs and interests of the community shaped oral performances much more than a concern to pass on past events and teachings accurately. Hence, it has been assumed by form critics that the oral Jesus material arose more out of needs within the community than out of true historical remembrance.

4) Finally, it has been wildly assumed by form critics that individuals play little role in the origination, transmission and regulation of oral traditions . Communities, not individuals, pass on oral traditions. Hence, it’s been widely assumed that the eyewitnesses of Jesus (if there were any) would have played little or no regulative role in what form the earliest oral traditions about Jesus took. Without eyewitness safeguards, the oral traditions about Jesus could be easily altered.

Clearly, if each of these assumptions is correct, the legendary-Jesus thesis becomes more plausible than if they’re mistaken...

We shall now argue that recent archeological research, and especially a revolution that has been taking place in orality studies over the last several decades, strongly suggest that, as a matter of fact, each of their assumptions was dead wrong...

The overall narrative framework and essential content of the portrait of Jesus we find in these texts is quite consistent, but there is also considerable freedom in how the material is presented. The order of events and wording of Jesus’ sayings, for example, is slightly different in each Gospel, though the basic content is the same. In light of the new discoveries in orality studies, this suggests that we should view the Gospels as written versions of specific oral performances of traditional Jesus material. And the gist of it all is that it reinforces the view that the oral traditions that lie behind the Gospels — including their overall narrative framework– are solidly rooted in history._

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_reliability_of_the_Gospels


----------



## Serenity4321 (Jun 19, 2022)

Sunny said:


> Serenity, if we were to follow that "free will" example, if I was a parent of a young child who wanted to take a large knife out of the kitchen and go next door and kill the kid who lives there, I would have to allow him to do it, because he had free will. That's basically what the "free will" argument is suggesting.
> 
> That's part of the fallacy with the "all-powerful, all-loving, all-good" deity that many keep conjuring up.  If all that was true, what about evil, violence, hatred, and all the other horrors that mankind inflicts on each other? We would have no choices at all.
> 
> Gary, I remember that game. It was called Telephone.


No ... Humans are not God and God is not a parent...far more is involved and on a different level. Again, evil is created by man not God...and man suffers the effects imo..we have the choice to do good or not..and we will suffer the consequences if we chose evil. There is another element..we are all one..connected on a level we don't necessarily feel or realize.  It is almost impossible to explain what I believe in the few words allowed here and the limited time.  

I remember _telephone_ too!!


----------



## Serenity4321 (Jun 19, 2022)

garyt1957 said:


> Why didn't God just create man without the "evil" gene?


my opinion.. because God gave us free will...knowledge of good and evilEve should not have eaten that apple!...lol I suppose if God had not given us knowledge of both sides we would all be good, wonderful, beautiful people..then what would we do?
LOL I have in the past wondered what will we all do once everyone is enlightened ...They say too, without bad/evil we can not appreciate good..so we wouldn't enjoy the good as much!!
...but I kind of agree with you..why is all this nec essary..


----------



## Serenity4321 (Jun 19, 2022)

grahamg said:


> That's as good an answer as anyone can manage, so if you are asserting "man cannot figure out" (or not figure out the mind of God), then you've still used your "God given abilities" to get as close as most of us probably could in my opinion, as I've said!


I believe we are not yet 'evolved' enough to fully understand our lives ...


----------



## Knight (Jun 19, 2022)

Serenity4321 said:


> my opinion.. because God gave us free will...knowledge of good and evilEve should not have eaten that apple!...lol I suppose if God had not given us knowledge of both sides we would all be good, wonderful, beautiful people..then what would we do?


Why not create  good, wonderful, beautiful people? 
To do otherwise sounds like an experiment. One that an attempt was made to correct but failed. 
2000 years later were wishing for peace & harmony knowing full well that isn't going to happen.


----------



## oldaunt (Jun 19, 2022)

Serenity4321 said:


> I believe we are not yet 'evolved' enough to fully understand our lives ...


There are serious signs we are actually DEvolving now.


----------



## Serenity4321 (Jun 19, 2022)

oldaunt said:


> There are serious signs we are actually DEvolving now.


Sure seems that way doesn't it. IMO there are times it is 2 steps back to one step forward..


----------



## Serenity4321 (Jun 19, 2022)

Knight said:


> Why not create  good, wonderful, beautiful people?
> To do otherwise sounds like an experiment. One that an attempt was made to correct but failed.
> 2000 years later were wishing for peace & harmony knowing full well that isn't going to happen.


 I do not know why God did what God did. I have often thought the same ..why couldn't we all be wonderful and perfect from the start...but we weren't and we are not so I suppose there must be a reason we can not fully as yet grasp..lol I realize that is a cop-out but it's all I have


----------



## Just Jeff (Jun 19, 2022)

grahamg said:


> That's as good an answer as anyone can manage, so if you are asserting "man cannot figure out" (or not figure out the mind of God), then you've still used your "God given abilities" to get as close as most of us probably could in my opinion, as I've said!


No.   The Creator did not give "God given abilities" for man to know God nor to find Him.   All the "abilities" in the flesh are fleshly, worldly, carnal,  and not spiritual at all.

Faith,  a gift from The Creator, is needed.  Without Faith, it is Impossible to please The Creator.   

Seek for Him,  little children,  stay free from idols /overwhelming today/ 
Keep Seeking Him, while /if possible/ He May Still Be Found.  

As He Permits,  As He Purposes, As Is Written.


----------



## Just Jeff (Jun 19, 2022)

Serenity4321 said:


> I do not know why God did what God did. I have often thought the same ..why couldn't we all be wonderful and perfect from the start...but we weren't and we are not so I suppose there must be a reason we can not fully as yet grasp..lol I realize that is a cop-out but it's all I have


Good Start.   Even if it was or is a cop-out,  it is necessary to admit we do not know, before we can find out.

The answers, to your questions, btw,  are clearly written in Torah/Scripture.

May the Father in Heaven Reveal to you the Truth, True Peace/serenity/ and Joy in Healing,  in Perfect Harmony with all Torah/Scripture.


----------



## Just Jeff (Jun 19, 2022)

Serenity4321 said:


> Sure seems that way doesn't it. IMO there are times* it is 2 steps back to one step forward..*


Yes,  that's a common phrase I heard decades ago,  and yes,  is true at times.


----------



## Just Jeff (Jun 19, 2022)

oldaunt said:


> There are serious signs we are actually DEvolving now.


Well,  yes, that is, 
yes, society/ people/ are getting worse over the years, not better.


----------



## Just Jeff (Jun 19, 2022)

grahamg said:


> Its possible, though let's hope not inevitable!


It's happening.  
Totally inevitable.


----------



## Just Jeff (Jun 19, 2022)

oldaunt said:


> LANGUAGE has shifted so much in all that time that a LOT of things don't even mean the same thing now. I can remember when gay meant happy. What will it mean 1000 years from now?


Death?


----------



## Just Jeff (Jun 19, 2022)

Serenity4321 said:


> .we have the choice to do good or not..and we will suffer the consequences if we chose evil.


Yes, 
and we will be rewarded by the eternal consequences if we choose good.
Cain was told that sin is crouching at the door,  resist it.
We are told, resist the devil, and he will flee.   Little children can resist the devil,  and the devil flees as The Creator Promises.


----------



## Serenity4321 (Jun 19, 2022)

Just Jeff said:


> Good Start.   Even if it was or is a cop-out,  it is necessary to admit we do not know, before we can find out.
> 
> The answers, to your questions, btw,  are clearly written in Torah/Scripture.
> 
> May the Father in Heaven Reveal to you the Truth, True Peace/serenity/ and Joy in Healing,  in Perfect Harmony with all Torah/Scripture.


TY there is truth and beauty in almost all religions..


----------



## Just Jeff (Jun 19, 2022)

Serenity4321 said:


> TY there is truth and beauty in almost all religions..


Look around.
Observe the last two thousand years, YHVH Willing and Granting.

No truth.  No lasting beauty, in ANY religion.


----------



## Just Jeff (Jun 19, 2022)

grahamg said:


> I thought I'd responded to this but it must have gotten lost on the tablet computer system somehow!
> 
> What I think I said is that you've done as good a job there of trying to come close to understanding the "mind of God", though of course this is something beyond human understanding, (as are so many things of course!).


Yes,  way way way beyond human understanding.  
The Creator's Ways are as high above/and different from/ man's 
as Heaven is above the earth and totally different from worldly ways.


----------



## Serenity4321 (Jun 19, 2022)

Just Jeff said:


> Look around.
> Observe the last two thousand years, YHVH Willing and Granting.
> 
> No truth.  No lasting beauty, in ANY religion.


I think it depends on how you are defining truth and beauty...and of course, nothing here is lasting....except us, ( meaning our spirits not our bodies) The made man parts of many religions are lacking but IMO there is some "Divine" influence somewhere in most...


----------



## Mitch86 (Jun 19, 2022)

The bible was written by primitive nomads 3,000 years ago.  It's mere mythology.  Frankly, I hold Zeus up as just as good a God as Jesus.  I always pray to Zeus AND Jesus.  I do like listening to songs about Jesus. however, like these songs:

https://music.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLXlEVp8uHTXWQWfqT5eInJUe3C2TgrB6v&feature=share


----------



## Just Jeff (Jun 19, 2022)

Serenity4321 said:


> I think it depends on how you are defining truth and beauty...and of course, nothing here is lasting....except us, ( meaning our spirits not our bodies) The made man parts of many religions are lacking but IMO there is some "Divine" influence somewhere in most...


Seek The Divine One, The One and Only Creator, and Keep Seeking Him, and you will find Him, yes.

Believers in the old time russia used to listen to broadcasts over the radio during wwII by the nazis who quoted Scripture and condemned it.

The Believers were so joyous to hear ANY Scripture,  they fervently listened to the quotes of Scripture and remembered it,  wrote it down if they could, and ignored the cursing and blasphemy of the nazis .


----------



## Just Jeff (Jun 19, 2022)

Mr. Ed said:


> Introduction of the New Testament changed God’s demeanor to lovey-dovey giving direct access to God through Jesus Christ. God becomes love, a far cry from Old Testament God. Why?


YHVH told His people not to sin.
Jesus , total agreement with His Father, 
told His disciples they must be perfect, because their heavenly Father is perfect.  /not meaning what it means in English, btw/ 
Jesus said ,  if someone sins in their heart,  in their thoughts, without even doing anything,  then they are already guilty.

Much much much stricter than the Old Testament, where thoughts were not so addressed, were they ?


----------



## grahamg (Jun 19, 2022)

Just Jeff said:


> It's happening.
> Totally inevitable.


You're showing too much certainty there, so far as the "imminent end of the world" goes, (though in my school days it was often said by our teachers mankind would destroy itself by 2050)!


----------



## grahamg (Jun 19, 2022)

Just Jeff said:


> Yes,  way way way beyond human understanding.
> The Creator's Ways are as high above/and different from/ man's
> as Heaven is above the earth and totally different from worldly ways.


That's okay isn't it, we're all pretty humble souls with limited imaginations aren't we, (though lucky to have them of course, "our imaginations", that are said to have taken over half of human evolution to develop or appear since the first hominids were known to have existed in the fossil record!).


----------



## Just Jeff (Jun 19, 2022)

grahamg said:


> You're showing too much certainty there, so far as the "imminent end of the world" goes, (though in my school days it was often said by our teachers mankind would destroy itself by 2050)!


Start by listening to your teachers.  Then keep searching for truth daily.
  It is not a happy face thing for mankind.


----------



## Just Jeff (Jun 19, 2022)

grahamg said:


> That's okay isn't it, we're all pretty humble souls with limited imaginations aren't we, (though lucky to have them of course, "our imaginations"


KJ21
casting down imaginations and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God


----------



## grahamg (Jun 19, 2022)

Just Jeff said:


> Start by listening to your teachers.  Then keep searching for truth daily.
> It is not a happy face thing for mankind.


My old boss didn't believe that was the inevitable outcome during the "Cold War" so you're wasting your time trying to influence me more than he did, were to start to reconsider my outlook on life, though I'll grant you it doesn't look so good for future generations!


----------



## Mr. Ed (Jun 20, 2022)

The end of the world is not 100% certain and yet we are concerned.


----------



## Mr. Ed (Jun 20, 2022)

Should people fear god? Why?


----------



## Just Jeff (Jun 20, 2022)

Mr. Ed said:


> The end of the world is not 100% certain and yet we are concerned.


How many people over sixty years old do you think will live past the year 2260 ?


----------



## Mr. Ed (Jun 20, 2022)

Just Jeff said:


> How many people over sixty years old do you think will live past the year 2260 ?


Everyone dies


----------



## Just Jeff (Jun 20, 2022)

Mr. Ed said:


> Should people fear god? Why?




It is better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in man. Psalm 118:8

Act 2:40
*And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves **G4982** from this untoward generation.*


 *Act 2:21*
And it shall come to pass, _that_ whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved. G4982


*Jde 1:23*
*And others save **G4982** with fear, pulling them out of the fire; hating even the garment spotted by the flesh.*


*Jde 1:5*
*I will therefore put you in remembrance, though ye once knew this, how that

 the Lord, having saved **G4982** the people out of the land of Egypt, *

*afterward destroyed them that believed not.*



 *Jhn 12:47*
*And if any man hear my words, 
and believe not, I judge him not: 
for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world.

He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, 

hath one that judgeth him: 

the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.

For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak.

And I know that his commandment is life everlasting: whatsoever I speak therefore, even as the Father said unto me, so I speak.*


 *Luk 13:23*
*Then said one unto him, Lord, are there few that be saved? And he said unto them,
Strive to enter in at the strait gate: for many, I say unto you, will seek to enter in, and shall not be able.*


*Mar 13:13*
And ye shall be hated of all _men_ for my name's sake: but he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved. G4982


*1Pe 4:18*
*And if the righteous scarcely be saved, **G4982** where shall the ungodly and the sinner appear?*

 *Jas 2:25*
*Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way?*

 *Jas 2:26*
*For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.*


*Jas 2:14*
*What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?*





 *Jas 2:15*


*If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food,
And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit?

Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.*


*Jas 1:21*

*Wherefore lay apart all filthiness and superfluity of naughtiness, and receive with meekness the engrafted word, which is able to save **G4982** your souls.*


*2Th 2:7*
*For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.*

 *2Th 2:8*
*And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming:*

 *2Th 2:9*
*Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders,*

 *2Th 2:10*
*And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.*

 *2Th 2:11*
*And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:*

 *2Th 2:12*
*That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.*


*1Co 15:2*


----------



## Just Jeff (Jun 20, 2022)

Mr. Ed said:


> Doesn't matter what age people everyone dies.


That's the point.   The end of everyone is death.  "The end of the world", whenever it happens, won't change that. 
   Except Jesus and those who are resurrected with Him.


----------



## Mr. Ed (Jun 20, 2022)

Just Jeff said:


> It is better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in man. Psalm 118:8
> 
> Act 2:40
> *And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves **G4982** from this untoward generation.*
> ...


It's ironic to quote scripture to an ex-christian who doesn't believe the bible.


----------



## Just Jeff (Jun 20, 2022)

No matter what someone thinks of gold,  the gold remains gold.

Scripture is unchangeable and is much more valuable than gold,  than all the gold in the world, 
and is not changed if someone does not accept it.  They simply suffer the consequences,  as written,  perfectly described in Scripture.



Mr. Ed said:


> It's ironic to quote scripture to an ex-christian who doesn't believe the bible.


----------



## RadishRose (Jun 20, 2022)

Mr. Ed said:


> It's ironic to quote scripture to an ex-christian who doesn't believe the bible.


Then why did you even start this thread?


----------



## grahamg (Jun 20, 2022)

Mr. Ed said:


> Everyone dies


Don't remind me, I've been feeling like curling my toes up for a few days now!


----------



## grahamg (Jun 20, 2022)

Mr. Ed said:


> It's ironic to quote scripture to an ex-christian who doesn't believe the bible.


You created a "perfect storm" there, (but no bad thing in my view!  )?


----------



## Paco Dennis (Jun 20, 2022)

Just Jeff said:


> No matter what someone thinks of gold,  the gold remains gold.
> 
> Scripture is unchangeable and is much more valuable than gold,  than all the gold in the world,
> and is not changed if someone does not accept it.  They simply suffer the consequences,  as written,  perfectly described in Scripture.


You have a interesting interpretation of the Bible. Do you belong to a church? What denomination? I know many Christians who are non-denominational.


----------



## grahamg (Jun 21, 2022)

Here is a take on those maybe "playing God" in our lives, (though they deny it here):

https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/law/the-courts-are-secular-says-top-family-judge/5038456.article

Quote:
"The law has a neutral view of religious belief, the president of the Family Division said today, stressing the secular nature of the judges’ job.

In a keynote address to the first annual conference of the Law Society’s family law section, on the theme ‘the sacred and the secular’, Sir James Munby (pictured) said that the courts and society as a whole face ‘enormous challenges’ in today’s largely secular and religiously pluralistic society.

‘We live in a society, which on many of the medical, social and religious topics that the courts recently have to grapple with, no longer speaks with one voice,’ he said. ‘These are topics on which men and women of different faiths or no faith at all hold starkly different views. All of these views are entitled to the greatest respect, but it is not for a judge to choose between them,’ he said.

Although historically the country has an established Christian church, Munby insisted judges sit as ‘secular judges serving a multicultural community of many faiths sworn to do justice to all manner of people’.

‘We live in this country in a democratic and pluralist society in a secular state, not a theocracy,’ he said, in which judges have long since ‘abandoned their pretensions to be the guardians of public morality’."

Break
"For example, he said: ‘A child’s best interests have to be assessed by reference to general community standards, making due allowance for the entitlement of people, within the limits of what is permissible in accordance with those standards, to entertain very divergent views about the religious, moral, social and secular objectives they wish to pursue for themselves and for their children.’"


----------



## Mr. Ed (Jun 21, 2022)

RadishRose said:


> Then why did you even start this thrIt was relavent at the





RadishRose said:


> Then why did you even start this thread?


It was relevant at the time of creation.


----------



## grahamg (Jun 21, 2022)

You may like this I found in a library book compiled by a lady called Pam Rhodes who regularly presents religious programmes on the BBC:

*THE ADVENT VIRUS*​*BE ON THE ALERT FOR SYMPTOMS OF INNER HOPE, LOVE, JOY AND PEACE.*​*The hearts of a great many have already been exposed to this virus and it is possible that people everywhere could come down with it in epidemic proportions. This could pose a serious threat to what has, up to now, been a fairly stable condition of conflict in the world.*

Some signs and symptoms of The Advent Virus:


A tendency to think and act spontaneously rather than on fears based on past experiences.
An unmistakable ability to enjoy each moment.
A loss of interest in judging other people.
A loss of interest in interpreting the actions of others.
A loss of interest in conflict.
A loss of the ability to worry. (This is a very serious symptom.)
Frequent, overwhelming episodes of appreciation.
Contented feelings of connectedness with others and nature.
Frequent attacks of smiling.
An increasing tendency to let things happen rather than make them happen.
An increased susceptibility to the love extended by others as well as the uncontrollable urge to extend it.


----------



## Knight (Jun 21, 2022)

Mr. Ed said:


> Should people fear god? Why?


Deuteronomy 21:18-21
“If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey the voice of his father or the voice of his mother, and, though they discipline him, will not listen to them, then his father and his mother shall take hold of him and bring him out to the elders of his city at the gate of the place where he lives, and they shall say to the elders of his city, ‘This our son is stubborn and rebellious; he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton and a drunkard.’ Then all the men of the city shall stone him to death with stones.

Proverbs 23:2 and put a knife to your throat if you are given to gluttony.

Leviticus 19:14 You shall not curse the deaf or put a stumbling block before the blind, but you shall fear your God: I am the Lord.


Some bible verses tell you to fear others just give guidelines as to why.

Thankfully though picking & choosing which to follow is in our free will.


----------



## Pepper (Jun 21, 2022)

re:  Deuteronomy 21:18-21
i. Perhaps just the presence of this law was deterrent enough; we never have a Scriptural example of a son being stoned to death because he was a _stubborn and rebellious son_.

ii. “Yet the Jews say this law was never put into practice, and therefore it might be made for terror and prevention, and to render the authority of parents more sacred and powerful.” (Poole)
https://enduringword.com/bible-commentary/deuteronomy-21/

Rabbis have told me there is no evidence it was ever actually practiced.


----------



## Knight (Jun 21, 2022)

Pepper said:


> re:  Deuteronomy 21:18-21
> i. Perhaps just the presence of this law was deterrent enough; we never have a Scriptural example of a son being stoned to death because he was a _stubborn and rebellious son_.
> 
> ii. “Yet the Jews say this law was never put into practice, and therefore it might be made for terror and prevention, and to render the authority of parents more sacred and powerful.” (Poole)
> ...


Reason to fear


----------



## grahamg (Jun 21, 2022)

Knight said:


> Deuteronomy 21:18-21
> “If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey the voice of his father or the voice of his mother, and, though they discipline him, will not listen to them, then his father and his mother shall take hold of him and bring him out to the elders of his city at the gate of the place where he lives, and they shall say to the elders of his city, ‘This our son is stubborn and rebellious; he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton and a drunkard.’ Then all the men of the city shall stone him to death with stones. Proverbs 23:2 and put a knife to your throat if you are given to gluttony. Leviticus 19:14 You shall not curse the deaf or put a stumbling block before the blind, but you shall fear your God: I am the Lord.
> Some bible verses tell you to fear others just give guidelines as to why.. Thankfully though picking & choosing which to follow is in our free will.


you will remember the case coming before King Solomon, where two mothers claimed the child/baby was theirs, and King Solomon gave an order for the child/baby to be cut in half and shared between them, causing the real mother to reveal herself by giving up her claim to the child/baby, whilst the other woman kept silent.
I'd always assumed this example of the wisdom of Solomon, sorting out a problem before DNA tests were an option, could not be challenged, but I once came across an expert claiming the king had been guilty of child abuse by threatening the child in this way, though what their solution might have been in similar circumstances we never learned, (it was enough they thought themselves wiser than he had been, perhaps they'd have chosen to share the time the child spent with each of the women instead?!).

The pont really though is to try to remember the context in which all the things in the bible were said, where life was so uncertain, there were absolute rulers wherever you looked, and life expectancy was pretty short, thus though what seems brutal, and is brutal, maybe in the times was considered differently, as parents so much at their wits end with one of their offspring to consider the solution on offer, is beyond our comprehension.


----------



## Just Jeff (Jun 21, 2022)

grahamg said:


> an expert claiming the king had been guilty of child abuse


It is best to never listen to that expert or anyone like him.


----------



## Just Jeff (Jun 21, 2022)

grahamg said:


> and life expectancy was pretty short,


Maybe, maybe not.
They were much smarter, stronger and healthier than Americans have been ever.


----------



## grahamg (Jun 21, 2022)

Just Jeff said:


> It is best to never listen to that expert or anyone like him.


It was a female expert who said she had had responsibility for writing reports on parents and their children, (so hard to ignore when the courts almost take their word verbatim nowadays I believe).


----------



## grahamg (Jun 21, 2022)

Just Jeff said:


> Maybe, maybe not.
> They were much smarter, stronger and healthier than Americans have been ever.


If you say so though child mortality was extremely high wasn't it!


----------



## Just Jeff (Jun 21, 2022)

grahamg said:


> If you say so though child mortality was extremely high wasn't it!


In some groups it might have and/or was higher than other nations.
In some nations it was always better than anything in our lifetimes.

It is thousands of times higher in the usa today than it ever was.


----------



## Just Jeff (Jun 21, 2022)

grahamg said:


> It was a female expert who said she had had responsibility for writing reports on parents and their children, (so hard to ignore when the courts almost take their word verbatim nowadays I believe).


The courts have been an abomination , not for justice, for decades or longer. 
Experts have never been trustworthy , overall. 

Yes,  it is "so hard to ignore",  because our parents/ most parents taught most children to trust the wrong people and authorities and yes, 'experts' who were profit-mongers in error so often, with the whole system.


----------



## Pepper (Jun 21, 2022)

In NY Family Court, a Guardian Ad Litem is appointed for the child to represent the child's "best" interests.  I worked in Family Court for several years and only saw dedication & professionalism applied by these guardians to protect his/her rights as the parents feud.  I acted on behalf of one or other of the parents, usually the mother, but not always.  Saw lots of stuff, most often fathers hiding assets which they showered on their new families, leaving their "former" kids in the lurch.


----------



## Knight (Jun 21, 2022)

grahamg said:


> you will remember the case coming before King Solomon, where two mothers claimed the child/baby was theirs, and King Solomon gave an order for the child/baby to be cut in half and shared between them, causing the real mother to reveal herself by giving up her claim to the child/baby, whilst the other woman kept silent.
> I'd always assumed this example of the wisdom of Solomon, sorting out a problem before DNA tests were an option, could not be challenged, but I once came across an expert claiming the king had been guilty of child abuse by threatening the child in this way, though what their solution might have been in similar circumstances we never learned, (it was enough they thought themselves wiser than he had been, perhaps they'd have chosen to share the time the child spent with each of the women instead?!).
> 
> The pont really though is to try to remember the context in which all the things in the bible were said, where life was so uncertain, there were absolute rulers wherever you looked, and life expectancy was pretty short, thus though what seems brutal, and is brutal, maybe in the times was considered differently, as parents so much at their wits end with one of their offspring to consider the solution on offer, is beyond our comprehension.


I understand that bible stories are an attempt to provide and explanation for what wasn't possible then to understand. Other stories to give guidance that isn't possible in society now. 

I view bible stories much the same as I view Star Trek stories about space & what aliens might look like & how alien cultures might not be the same as we experience. 

Imagination is a wonderful thing.


----------



## grahamg (Jun 21, 2022)

Knight said:


> I understand that bible stories are an attempt to provide and explanation for what wasn't possible then to understand. Other stories to give guidance that isn't possible in society now. I view bible stories much the same as I view Star Trek stories about space & what aliens might look like & how alien cultures might not be the same as we experience. Imagination is a wonderful thing.


Where I differ from you then is in terms of the significance of the bible compared to a cultish tv space travel show based all upon human imaginations, (whilst I'd suggest the bible is built upon both human history and as well as it can be understood "human nature"!).


----------



## grahamg (Jun 21, 2022)

Just Jeff said:


> In some groups it might have and/or was higher than other nations.
> In some nations it was always better than anything in our lifetimes.
> It is thousands of times higher in the usa today than it ever was.


I'm thinking it so I'd better say it, I just believe you're wildly exaggerating the situation there!


----------



## grahamg (Jun 21, 2022)

Just Jeff said:


> The courts have been an abomination , not for justice, for decades or longer.
> Experts have never been trustworthy , overall. Yes,  it is "so hard to ignore",  because our parents/ most parents taught most children to trust the wrong people and authorities and yes, 'experts' who were profit-mongers in error so often, with the whole system.


My experience has been like this so far as court appointed experts goes.
I couldn't have paid anyone to try to support my contact with my child in 1988, under an earlier family law, (one I believe giving fathers like me more protection than the subsequent law afforded in practise).
I believe the court appointed experts who found against me ten years later, under the new family law, sought to protect the " nuclear family", i.e. my ex, her new partner, the man she told them our child saw as her real daddy, and my daughter of course).
Could they be trusted, maybe not, and the woman I mentioned earlier on the thread who compiled reports on fathers/parents, came across as wanting to understand us excluded dads. 
However, anyone, and any system basing its arguments upon what they believe is best for the child isn't going to be able to avoid undermining nonresident dads in my view, so the issue starts and ends with the law for me, (whilst that provides weak protection there is no hope!)


----------



## grahamg (Jun 21, 2022)

Pepper said:


> In NY Family Court, a Guardian Ad Litem is appointed for the child to represent the child's "best" interests.  I worked in Family Court for several years and only saw dedication & professionalism applied by these guardians to protect his/her rights as the parents feud.  I acted on behalf of one or other of the parents, usually the mother, but not always.  Saw lots of stuff, most often fathers hiding assets which they showered on their new families, leaving their "former" kids in the lurch.


 One take on matters, (other I know will disagree with you very largely!).
You won't really know whether what you and fellow professionals did was ultimately contributing to human good, and you've not walked in the shoes of dads doing all they could to stick in their children's lives, whilst dealing with those prepared to show no mercy towards them, (the law wouldn't allow people doing your job such latitude I'd guess, in any case!).


----------



## Just Jeff (Jun 21, 2022)

grahamg said:


> (whilst that provides weak protection there is no hope!)


Like all 'experts' apparently, and systems , guvernmnts and agencies,  
in a perfect world they might only seek to do what is right, 
but since they are all dependent on and started by money to start with, 
they don't


----------



## Just Jeff (Jun 21, 2022)

grahamg said:


> I'm thinking it so I'd better say it, I just believe you're wildly exaggerating the situation there!


No actually,  I'm conservatively understating.   The truth cannot be handled by most - it is too much.


----------



## grahamg (Jun 21, 2022)

Just Jeff said:


> No actually,  I'm conservatively understating.   The truth cannot be handled by most - it is too much.


You shouldn't try to classify yourself as being superior to "the rest of us idiots", in my humble opinion!


----------



## Just Jeff (Jun 21, 2022)

grahamg said:


> You shouldn't try to classify yourself as being superior to "the rest of us idiots", in my humble opinion!


Your opinion is not always right,  but you are correct here, yes.

I simply sought information that was the truth, and kept searching, same as you can if you choose to. 

Be like a little child.    Not superior.   Seek and learn the truth,  instead of society falsehoods.


----------



## grahamg (Jun 21, 2022)

Just Jeff said:


> Your opinion is not always right,  but you are correct here, yes.
> I simply sought information that was the truth, and kept searching, same as you can if you choose to.
> Be like a little child.    Not superior.   Seek and learn the truth,  instead of society falsehoods.


There an awful lot I won't swallow, especially on fathers/parents rights and who might know best as you can clearly see.

A dad or nonresident parent has the chance to give to their child something that may assist them in their understsnding and what they might accept or reject.

This is another aspect I feel comes into this having a dad, or nonresident parent putting a different viewpoint or perspective, and not just being fed one narrative_!


----------



## Just Jeff (Jun 21, 2022)

grahamg said:


> There an awful lot I won't swallow, especially on fathers/parents rights and who might know best as you can clearly see.
> A dad or nonresident parent has the chance to give to their child something that may assist them in their understsnding and what they might accept or reject.
> This is another aspect I feel comes into this having a dad, or nonresident parent putting a different viewpoint or perspective, and not just being fed one narrative_!


The government is a lousy, terrible parent, and should not by trying to parent children.   If they stayed out of it,  it would be much better,  like it was a century ago .  Oh,  there are and were a lot of 'bad' parents,  but the government intervention/laws/and such only makes everything worse it seems.


----------



## grahamg (Jun 21, 2022)

Just Jeff said:


> The government is a lousy, terrible parent, and should not by trying to parent children.   If they stayed out of it,  it would be much better,  like it was a century ago .  Oh,  there are and were a lot of 'bad' parents,  but the government intervention/laws/and such only makes everything worse it seems.


I'd argue a little differently, (as might be expected here!  ).

As far as how good parents were a century ago, the first point is they largely stayed together, (be they happy or not, so strong was the feeling against divorce, the far stricter rules, whether you could afford to split, and then the general view of what used to be called "immoral behaviour"!).
Secondly the government through its family laws, and its court appointed officials has to play a role, its silly to argue against that altogether!
However, other than those two arguments I'm with you!!!!


----------



## Just Jeff (Jun 23, 2022)

grahamg said:


> Secondly the government through its family laws, and its court appointed officials has to play a role,


Why do you think they have to play a role ?   It seems always better when the government stays out of business and family and medicine and politics.


----------



## Paco Dennis (Jun 23, 2022)

Just Jeff said:


> Why do you think they have to play a role ?   It seems always better when the government stays out of business and family and medicine and politics.


Government is ruled by big corporate monopolies, so making laws to regulate a products use is determined by the ruthless oligarchs. Without regulation many people are harmed and even die because warnings and regulation is lacking. How can we keep our world safe from these predators?


----------



## grahamg (Jun 23, 2022)

Just Jeff said:


> Why do you think they have to play a role ?   It seems always better when the government stays out of business and family and medicine and politics.


They get called upon by one or other of the warring parties, so in that case what you think doesn't apply!


----------



## JaniceM (Jun 23, 2022)

grahamg said:


> My experience has been like this so far as court appointed experts goes.
> I couldn't have paid anyone to try to support my contact with my child in 1988, under an earlier family law, (one I believe giving fathers like me more protection than the subsequent law afforded in practise).
> I believe the court appointed experts who found against me ten years later, under the new family law, sought to protect the " nuclear family", i.e. my ex, her new partner, the man she told them our child saw as her real daddy, and my daughter of course).
> Could they be trusted, maybe not, and the woman I mentioned earlier on the thread who compiled reports on fathers/parents, came across as wanting to understand us excluded dads.
> However, anyone, and any system basing its arguments upon what they believe is best for the child isn't going to be able to avoid undermining nonresident dads in my view, so the issue starts and ends with the law for me, (whilst that provides weak protection there is no hope!)


Not meaning to butt into you guys' argument, but what the heck kind of 'experts' didn't even know what a 'nuclear family' is?!?  It doesn't mean 'whomever happens to be there,' and from what you said long ago (unless I missed updates) your ex wasn't even married to the guy!!!  

You may have mentioned it before, but if I can ask:  what was the child's age when this was going on?


----------



## grahamg (Jun 23, 2022)

JaniceM said:


> Not meaning to butt into you guys' argument, but what the heck kind of 'experts' didn't even know what a 'nuclear family' is?!?  It doesn't mean 'whomever happens to be there,' and from what you said long ago (unless I missed updates) your ex wasn't even married to the guy!!!
> You may have mentioned it before, but if I can ask:  what was the child's age when this was going on?


Happy enough for you to butt in but I'm struggling to understand your questions!

You say an expert didn't understand what a nuclear family is, (did I say that, where I can't remember doing so?)?

What age of child was "it",(which child and when?)?

However, putting aside those questions for a second, I wish to implant in someone's head the thought that a "child's best interest" is tantamount to something that is "unknowable ", and even if it were knowable I'd argue courts making a decision or call against a decent dad/parent is reaching too far into peoples private lives where there is no question of abuse! 

Asking a child whether or not they love one of their parents is intrusive, asking a child to publicly attack or criticise a loving parent, "because their views must be listened to and taken seriously" fuels any trouble there might be, and encourages the more manipulative resident parent to play a game where only they are likely to win, (and we know darn well some of these resident parents can truly be, so there's no kidding us here!).

I think I've said enough for now, so back to thread topic whatever that was!


----------



## JaniceM (Jun 24, 2022)

grahamg said:


> Happy enough for you to butt in but I'm struggling to understand your questions!
> 
> You say an expert didn't understand what a nuclear family is, (did I say that, where I can't remember doing so?)?
> 
> ...





> My experience has been like this so far as court appointed experts goes.
> I couldn't have paid anyone to try to support my contact with my child in 1988, under an earlier family law, (one I believe giving fathers like me more protection than the subsequent law afforded in practise).
> I believe the court appointed experts who found against me ten years later, under the new family law, sought to protect the " nuclear family", i.e. my ex, her new partner, the man she told them our child saw as her real daddy, and my daughter of course).
> Could they be trusted, maybe not, and the woman I mentioned earlier on the thread who compiled reports on fathers/parents, came across as wanting to understand us excluded dads.
> However, anyone, and any system basing its arguments upon what they believe is best for the child isn't going to be able to avoid undermining nonresident dads in my view, so the issue starts and ends with the law for me, (whilst that provides weak protection there is no hope!)


Not meaning to butt into you guys' argument, but what the heck kind of 'experts' didn't even know what a 'nuclear family' is?!? It doesn't mean 'whomever happens to be there,' and from what you said long ago (unless I missed updates) your ex wasn't even married to the guy!!!

You may have mentioned it before, but if I can ask: what was the child's age when this was going on?


----------



## Just Jeff (Jun 24, 2022)

grahamg said:


> They get called upon by one or other of the warring parties, so in that case what you think doesn't apply!


What does apply ?  As noted, 'they' are controlled by the rich/ corporations/ pharmBig and world religion.   Just as written.



Paco Dennis said:


> Government is ruled by big corporate monopolies, so making laws to regulate a products use is determined by the ruthless oligarchs. Without regulation many people are harmed and even die because warnings and regulation is lacking. How can we keep our world safe from these predators?


The world has never been safe from 'these predators',  the same rich oligarchs etc who spawned the evil of pharmaBig,  world bank,  credit debt,  corrupted food supply,  rampant air pollution 40,000 per day die from,  false pandemics for control (the plan for the pand was broadcast several times years ago, years before it was devastating the world) . 

Why would you think anyone can or should or would keep the world safe from druglords and oligarchs and so forth ?


----------



## grahamg (Jun 24, 2022)

JaniceM said:


> Not meaning to butt into you guys' argument, but what the heck kind of 'experts' didn't even know what a 'nuclear family' is?!? It doesn't mean 'whomever happens to be there,' and from what you said long ago (unless I missed updates) your ex wasn't even married to the guy!!!
> 
> You may have mentioned it before, but if I can ask: what was the child's age when this was going on?


Didn't I answer well enough for the purposes of this thread?

Do you wish to see any divisions between loving parents and their child made wider by a court process whatever age they are?

Lack of privacy in close personal relationships is an issue, cleverer people than I have said so, do you disagree?

The other aspect is this, you're endorsing the actions of the bullies who wish to destroy others relationships with their children, why should I or any other father married to the mother when their child was born, and not having let their child down in any way have to hear "the real father" is whoever the mother has chosen, (it occurs similarly when fathers who have custody do the same thing to exclude the mother)?

Then there is all this business of all and sundry claiming they only want what's best for the child whilst sticking their noses in, and I'd feel it was creepy, or the person was "virtue signalling" when claiming they have no selfish interests when destroying the nonresident parents relationship with the child, (wouldn't you find it creepy if I stated I was only concerned about your interests?).

Btw if I'm going at you too hard in this post please accept my apologies, but some of the things above needed saying!


----------



## JaniceM (Jun 24, 2022)

grahamg said:


> Didn't I answer well enough for the purposes of this thread?
> 
> Do you wish to see any divisions between loving parents and their child made wider by a court process whatever age they are?
> 
> ...


Somehow you entirely reversed everything I said..  I asked two questions on your topic- specifically from the post I quoted-  and have no idea where you came up with anything you said in this last post.


----------



## grahamg (Jun 24, 2022)

JaniceM said:


> Somehow you entirely reversed everything I said..  I asked two questions on your topic- specifically from the post I quoted-  and have no idea where you came up with anything you said in this last post.


I know, I know,..., (been having bad day, ready for a holiday, and as luck would have it there's a chance of a getaway to the Yorkshire Dales shortly!)


----------



## Just Jeff (Jun 24, 2022)

The Yorkshire Dales - When are you coming?​


----------



## grahamg (Jun 25, 2022)

JaniceM said:


> Break
> "You may have mentioned it before, but if I can ask: what was the child's age when this was going on?"


Age was child, let me see now, I think there was a two and a one, but not three, (2+1=3!), so it could have been twenty one, no, no wait a minute twelve maybe,...., "let's just say somewhere between one and twenty one then we've covered all the possible bases as to when authorities might wish to stick their noses in and start asking whether or no they love their dear old da, (or ma!)"!!!!


----------



## Judycat (Jun 25, 2022)

I don't think the Bible is something you believe. To me it's something you read for comfort during trying times. I had some very tough times where no one could say anything that would make me feel less bad. Picking up the Bible and asking God to help me out with a chapter or more gave me great comfort. Very little came from the New Testament though. Most of it came from the Psalms, Proverbs, and the Prophets. It spoke to something inside of me that no other human being had the words to describe. I think reading the Bible for proof of God's existence is a fool's errand, you have to let it speak to you personally.  I think it's the way it's meant to be understood. Yes I know, other writings can do the same thing. Whatever floats your boat. I'm not here to debate. I hate that. I'm old enough to know what's good for me, so go fly a kite.


----------



## grahamg (Jun 25, 2022)

Judycat said:


> I don't think the Bible is something you believe. To me it's something you read for comfort during trying times. I had some very tough times where no one could say anything that would make me feel less bad. Picking up the Bible and asking God to help me out with a chapter or more gave me great comfort. Very little came from the New Testament though. Most of it came from the Psalms, Proverbs, and the Prophets. It spoke to something inside of me that no other human being had the words to describe. I think reading the Bible for proof of God's existence is a fool's errand, you have to let it speak to you personally.  I think it's the way it's meant to be understood. Yes I know, other writings can do the same thing. Whatever floats your boat. I'm not here to debate. I hate that. I'm old enough to know what's good for me, so go fly a kite.


I once heard Saint Luke's gospel recited by a guy who had been an actor of some note once to a group of women prisoners.
The man said he wanted to use, or make the most of his ability to remember lines, and of course his religious beliefs, and allow everyone to feel the benefit in this way!
My feeling I must say was, much as we were all impressed by his ability to remember such a long text, and of course no one had anything negative to say about his effort, the thought had to be considered, "whatever benefit their might be from listening to this gospel", hadn't those women prisoners suffered enough?!!


----------



## oldaunt (Jun 26, 2022)

JaniceM said:


> Somehow you entirely reversed everything I said..  I asked two questions on your topic- specifically from the post I quoted-  and have no idea where you came up with anything you said in this last post.


Thats pretty typical actually. Kind of like discussing with a wall, except the wall is more straightforward.


----------



## grahamg (Jun 26, 2022)

oldaunt said:


> Thats pretty typical actually. Kind of like discussing with a wall, except the wall is more straightforward.


Some kind of expert are you, (on talking to walls?!)?  
(my forum friend btw does okay in our discussions generally, so not everyone is the same thank goodness!)


----------



## Mr. Ed (Jun 28, 2022)

Christianity and the Bible are based on faith. Faith makes you think and do things based on belief. The Old Testament is a guide for Jewish laws and customs. New Testament for Gentiles and non-Jewish believers. The bible is referred to as a roadmap for life. 
I used to be tormented by memories of dad & church. suffered a lifetime until a few weeks ago I stopped being a Christian and believing in the bible. I actually feel better now.


----------



## grahamg (Jun 28, 2022)

Mr. Ed said:


> Christianity and the Bible are based on faith. Faith makes you think and do things based on belief. The Old Testament is a guide for Jewish laws and customs. New Testament for Gentiles and non-Jewish believers. The bible is referred to as a roadmap for life.
> I used to be tormented by memories of dad & church. suffered a lifetime until a few weeks ago I stopped being a Christian and believing in the bible. I actually feel better now.


Torments are no one's sole preserve obviously, whatever the cause, (I'm sure you'd agree).
My parents were certainly controlling, but didn't go to church often, (though certainly would have described themselves as Christians, even if dad thought religion was for "weak people").
However, "as what you might describe as a weak person myself",(having had a few breakdowns), my parents could be forgiven for being too overprotective couldn't they!
Whether their behaving differently towards me as a child would have made much difference is a mute point, though I'd guess it wouldn't, (even where they capable of doing anything other than they did, especially when saying to each other "I love you", was never uttered in my earshot, in spite of the fact they certainly did!  ).


----------



## JustDave (Jun 29, 2022)

Mr. Ed said:


> suffered a lifetime until a few weeks ago I stopped being a Christian and believing in the bible. I actually feel better now.


Really, just a few weeks ago? Granted it took me a long time too.  That is the nature of indoctrination.  Was this a sudden epiphany, or a slow realization that just rounded a turning point?


----------



## oldaunt (Jun 29, 2022)

If you study Egyptian, Roman and Greek mythology, along with Druidism and Paganism, you will find almost all of the same stories you read in the bible, with very little change, and ALL of this was pre-christian.


----------



## grahamg (Jul 4, 2022)

oldaunt said:


> If you study Egyptian, Roman and Greek mythology, along with Druidism and Paganism, you will find almost all of the same stories you read in the bible, with very little change, and ALL of this was pre-christian.


It is certainly true Christianity grew out of Judaism, no one would argue with that statement would they, (and I'm not arguing with your comments there, just unsure whether I've ever heard scholars say what you have done of either Roman, Greek or Egyptian "mythology", or their "Gods" you could say too, though I've heard it said Christianity coopted pagan festivals before).

The "new" aspect Christianity was said to have brought to religious thinking concerned what happens after death I believe, (but apologies my recollections are very sketchy on this, though more detail may come back to me later).


----------



## JustDave (Jul 6, 2022)

The roots of Christianity were not in Roman, Greek, Egyptian religions as much as they were from more current and little known cults of the time.  Rome, Greece, and Egypt were important centers of the world during their time, but but religions come and go over the years, just as civilizations fail.  Christianity was a conglomeration of the then current cults, and searches for new vehicles of faith, and pagan religions of the past still influence Christianity to a large extent.  Today in America, we see this search for something more meaningful evolving as many spiritual oriented people are drifting away from established churches.  They are still religious, but are innovating new approaches to the mystery that are more appealing, and I would speculate, create fewer conflicts with the reality they experience around them in the modern world.


----------



## grahamg (Jul 6, 2022)

JustDave said:


> The roots of Christianity were not in Roman, Greek, Egyptian religions as much as they were from more current and little known cults of the time.  Rome, Greece, and Egypt were important centers of the world during their time, but but religions come and go over the years, just as civilizations fail.  Christianity was a conglomeration of the then current cults, and searches for new vehicles of faith, and pagan religions of the past still influence Christianity to a large extent.  T*oday in America, we see this search for something more meaningful evolving as many spiritual oriented people are drifting away from established churches.  They are still religious, but are innovating new approaches to the mystery that are more appealing, and I would speculate, create fewer conflicts with the reality they experience around them in the modern world*.



I acknowledge the pressure being put on any religious organisation so that as you say, quote: " Today in America, we see this search for something more meaningful evolving as many spiritual oriented people are drifting away from established churches.  They are still religious, but are innovating new approaches to the mystery that are more appealing, a*nd I would speculate, create fewer conflicts with the reality they experience around them in the modern world."*

I acknowledge too that whoever gets to decide what "the experience around them in the modern world", to use your words, this is nothing new so far as most religions goes I'd suggest, (and believe I'd heard being said this last weekend in a local church near the Yorkshire Dales, UK).

However, what appears to be new is giving way to persecution, (even psychological pressure placed upon folks "in the modern world" is a kind of persecution), and again who indeed gets to decide what it is now okay for anyone interested in any religion at all, should be permitted to believe, without being condemned for thinking as they do?


----------



## Pepper (Jul 6, 2022)

It only matters if the government 'condemns' religion.  Other people's opinions have no legal condemnation attached and therefore shouldn't matter to a believer, unless, of course, the believer has doubts or requires universal acceptance in order to feel good about believing.


----------



## JustDave (Jul 6, 2022)

grahamg said:


> I acknowledge the pressure being put on any religious organisation so that as you say, quote: " Today in America, we see this search for something more meaningful evolving as many spiritual oriented people are drifting away from established churches.  They are still religious, but are innovating new approaches to the mystery that are more appealing, a*nd I would speculate, create fewer conflicts with the reality they experience around them in the modern world."*
> 
> I acknowledge too that whoever gets to decide what "the experience around them in the modern world", to use your words, this is nothing new so far as most religions goes I'd suggest, (and believe I'd heard being said this last weekend in a local church near the Yorkshire Dales, UK).
> 
> However, what appears to be new is giving way to persecution, (even psychological pressure placed upon folks "in the modern world" is a kind of persecution), and again who indeed gets to decide what it is now okay for anyone interested in any religion at all, should be permitted to believe, without being condemned for thinking as they do?


Yes. Everyone should be free to experience spirituality in any way they want, free from persecution. However, in recent years Christianity has tried to dictate, and is now experiencing a mini push back, and sometimes reacts as if it is being persecuted.  That may have been so in Roman times, but Christianity is NOT the victim today.  At least not in America, and it never has been.


----------

