Do you believe in God?

  • Thread starter Patrik
  • 24,489 comments
  • 1,142,165 views

Do you believe in god?

  • Of course, without him nothing would exist!

    Votes: 624 30.6%
  • Maybe.

    Votes: 368 18.0%
  • No way!

    Votes: 1,051 51.5%

  • Total voters
    2,042
So you found one line that you take to mean you can ignore ALL the other rules if you feel like it.

Seems a lot like having your cake and eating it too. if you think they're good rules, you should probably at least make an effort to follow them as much as possible.

In a way it is having our cake and eating it too. America as a whole is based on having our cake and eating it too. There is nothing better than having our cake and eating it too. Most of Old Testament law make sense.
There is a reason why cow meat and cow milk should not be eaten together under Kosher Law. What happens to your body if you eat too many cheeseburgers? People get stomach problems if they have not eaten a cheeseburger in a while, if they eat cheeseburgers every day people get fat. Eventually if those people stay fat, they can get a heart attack.

In moderation, a cheeseburger once in a while can be good for your body, provided that an individual excercises regularly.
This is the American Judeo- Christian way, We can have our Cake, and We can have our Cheeseburgers, and we can eat them both.
 
Last edited:
People get stomach problems if they have not eaten a cheeseburger in a while

dog-srsly.jpg
 
In a way it is having our cake and eating it too. America as a whole is based on having our cake and eating it too. There is nothing better than having our cake and eating it too. Most of Old Testament law make sense.
And what about the ones that don't make sense?


This is the American Judeo- Christian way, We can have our Cake, and We can have our Cheeseburgers, and we can eat them both.
I notice that you have stuck with the safer laws here, food related, etc. However that doesn't make he ones that demand death for homosexual men, blasphemers, etc. go away. Does this nonsense about cakes and moderation apply here as well? So its OK to let the occasional blasphemer live, that still demands death for the majority.

This is also a major back-track on your previous claim that "....there are no better instructions to live by than the Old Testament Jewish Law, and New Testament Christian Law.", it would appear that is not the case given that you are clearly operating a pick and mix system the moment the unpleasant ones come up. If no better instructions exist then why are you not calling for the death penalty for me (I am a regular blasphemer) and many others?
Oh and the bible still contradicts in massive sections and your' 'golden rule' is not unique to Christianity, nor is that even the earliest source of it.
 
Last edited:
And what about the ones that don't make sense?

I notice that you have stuck with the safer laws here, food related, etc. However that doesn't make he ones that demand death for homosexual men, blasphemers, etc. go away. Does this nonsense about cakes and moderation apply here as well? So its OK to let the occasional blasphemer live, that still demands death for the majority
.

To start with I apologize if my tone has now switched to serious.. I would rather be talking about Jerry Seinfeld and Adam Sandler

In response to calling death for sinners, such as stoning to death of an adulteress by a whole community, Jesus said, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." No one from that community could bring himself/herself to casting that first stone because they were all sinners.
I'm not saying Jesus is the first man to say "Love one another" yet Christ presented this concept in a way that is elegant, at least elegant in my eyes.
It would take months possibly years for me to explain how Christianity relates to all the major Judaic laws, and really that's not the point to monotonously pour thru the laws and find some technicality to exploit it.
What the Christian believes is that Christ came to save us from sin. He came to fulfill the law but not to abolish the law. If you want more specific examples look at the Ten Commandments

1. You shall have no other gods before me
2. You shall not make for yourself an idol
3. You shall not misuse the name of the Lord your God
4. Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy
5. Honor your father and your mother
6. You shall not murder
7. You shall not commit adultery
8. You shall not steal
9. You shall not lie
10. You shall not covet


We can still apply these Commandments to modern life right? These laws do not need to be changed or abolished. Commandments 5 thru 10 applies to all mankind weather you believe in God or not.
If you don't agree with Christs ways, well that's your choice. So to give furthether contrast lets briefly look at the 3rd option of Monotheistic Religons which is Islam and the ways of Their Last Prophet. Islam is like an extreme form of Judaism, yet their people follow a different bloodline than the Jews, and they are very strict in prayers, and following rules, memorizing scriptures, dress codes specifically for women...etc...
With respect to Islam, it is the strictest of all other religions, and is just not compatible with my behavioral nature.

I rather Choose Judeo-Christianity than any other religion. I just feel more freedom by being a Christian, witnessing the miracles of everyday life, and the amazing genius of Adam Sandler and Robbie Schneider, and Marvel Comics, and David Stern when he was Commisioner of NBA Basketball.... I could keep rambling but I'll break for now.....
 
What the Christian believes is that Christ came to save us from sin. He came to fulfill the law but not to abolish the law. If you want more specific examples look at the Ten Commandments

1. You shall have no other gods before me
2. You shall not make for yourself an idol
3. You shall not misuse the name of the Lord your God
4. Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy
5. Honor your father and your mother
6. You shall not murder
7. You shall not commit adultery
8. You shall not steal
9. You shall not lie
10. You shall not covet

The reason I don't believe in God can easily be allocated to what I have quoted.

"You shall have no other Gods before me". Completely totalitarian and completely implemented on the basis that God knew of other Gods.

"You shall not misuse the name of the Lord your God". Again, completely totalitarian and punishes me for using free will.

No mention of slavery in those commandments either. Also no mention of protecting children from abuse. Two of the most wicked crimes and two of the most important things that a civilised society will try to combat.
 
In response to calling death for sinners, such as stoning to death of an adulteress by a whole community, Jesus said, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." No one from that community could bring himself/herself to casting that first stone because they were all sinners.
I'm not saying Jesus is the first man to say "Love one another" yet Christ presented this concept in a way that is elegant, at least elegant in my eyes.
And yet you have claimed that the bible doesn't contradict, yet that's exactly what you are describing here.

God clearly laid out death as a punishment for numerous infractions, yet when he pops back as a man he clearly contradicts himself. I guess it was just tough on all the people murdered in the years before he bothered to change his mind (and the many since who have died because christians certainly cant agree on this point).


It would take months possibly years for me to explain how Christianity relates to all the major Judaic laws, and really that's not the point to monotonously pour thru the laws and find some technicality to exploit it.
If god is truly infallible then we should not be able to find issue with them, so either god isn't or it wasn't written by a god or isn't the words of a god.


What the Christian believes is that Christ came to save us from sin. He came to fulfill the law but not to abolish the law. If you want more specific examples look at the Ten Commandments

1. You shall have no other gods before me
2. You shall not make for yourself an idol
3. You shall not misuse the name of the Lord your God
4. Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy
5. Honor your father and your mother
6. You shall not murder
7. You shall not commit adultery
8. You shall not steal
9. You shall not lie
10. You shall not covet


We can still apply these Commandments to modern life right?
Once again you seem to have missed out the punishments for these, such as death for children who do not honour parents.

You also seem to be forgetting that 40% of those are utterly dedicated to ensuring that the populous remain loyal to the church, something that I find has no place at all in modern life at all.


These laws do not need to be changed or abolished. Commandments 5 thru 10 applies to all mankind weather you believe in God or not.
40% of them have no place in modern life at all, the remaining 60% don't need a religion to be valid (nor are they exclusive to your chosen religion) or are they complete (as has been pointed out).


If you don't agree with Christs ways, well that's your choice. So to give furthether contrast lets briefly look at the 3rd option of Monotheistic Religons which is Islam and the ways of Their Last Prophet. Islam is like an extreme form of Judaism, yet their people follow a different bloodline than the Jews, and they are very strict in prayers, and following rules, memorizing scriptures, dress codes specifically for women...etc...
With respect to Islam, it is the strictest of all other religions, and is just not compatible with my behavioral nature.

I rather Choose Judeo-Christianity than any other religion. I just feel more freedom by being a Christian, witnessing the miracles of everyday life, and the amazing genius of Adam Sandler and Robbie Schneider, and Marvel Comics, and David Stern when he was Commisioner of NBA Basketball.... I could keep rambling but I'll break for now.....
Why chose any religion?
 
Since this has become the thread for picking holes in people's posts due an utter lack of the understanding of certain words....

Damnit, I was going to point out the same thing :lol: shame he can't use his amazing genius to do something useful like cure cancer.

Also the "witnessing the miracles of everyday life" part made me laugh :P
 
Since this has become the thread for picking holes in people's posts due an utter lack of the understanding of certain words....
Indeed. There's a word for it and it isn't genius.

Now enough on the gurning gimp of lowbrow "comedy" movies - it's one of the most ridiculous off-topic jaunts I've ever seen.
 
The reason I don't believe in God can easily be allocated to what I have quoted.

"You shall have no other Gods before me". Completely totalitarian and completely implemented on the basis that God knew of other Gods.

"You shall not misuse the name of the Lord your God". Again, completely totalitarian and punishes me for using free will.

No mention of slavery in those commandments either. Also no mention of protecting children from abuse. Two of the most wicked crimes and two of the most important things that a civilised society will try to combat.

In a way it does protect children from abuse " you shall not murder" as far as slavery there is no commandment, but exodus clearly shows the abuses of slavery and the Jews escape from slavery.
 
"If anyone comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple." - Luke 14:26
“Hate” in this case basically means to love less.
Other example of “hate”(Gen 29:30, 31) (De 21:15, 16)
Obviously Jesus didn't literally mean to hate your family members. Jesus is really telling his followers to love their family members less than God. (Matt 10:37)

"Everyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him." First Book of John 3:15
The apostle John is talking about a murderous hatred,“A soul murderer, as the Ethiopic version renders it” not someone who just dislikes his brother. (James 1:20 Leviticus 19:17)

What about the part where God commands Abraham to kill Isaac as a sacrifice? Even as a test of faith, that's pretty harsh... and a dirty trick on Abraham, since God himself also said: "Say to the people of Israel, Any one of the people of Israel or of the strangers who sojourn in Israel who gives any of his children to Molech shall surely be put to death. The people of the land shall stone him with stones."
So in other words, it's OK to sacrifice your own children to God, but not to the competition?

God told Abraham what was going to happen to his “seed” Isaac (Gen 21:12) before telling Abraham to sacrifice his son. (Gen 12:7 15:13)
For God to be loyal he would have to resurrect Isaac if he had died and Abraham knew this.(Heb. 11:19)

Also Isaac could easily not have taken part if he wanted to, unlike the young children sacrificed to Molech. http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=11&article=1272

The child sacrifices made by the Canaanites and some of the Israelites to the false “god” Molech are incomparable to Abraham and Isaac. (Ephesians 4:5)"There is but one Lord, one faith, one baptism"
_______

God foretold He would replace the Law covenant with a new covenant that would allow sin to be forgiven, which wasn't possible under the Old Law. (Jeremiah 31:31,32)
The Law covenant God made with ancient Israel is obsolete. (Ephesians 2:15 Hebrews 8:13) (Galatians 3:19, 24,25)
________

One can never acquire accurate Bible knowledge and understanding without genuine interest in it, or never asking for help to understand it. (James 1:5 Psalm 119:33-37 Proverbs 3:5-8)
We need to "put away the old personality" (Ephesians 4:22-24) to discover what is truth.







 
“Hate” in this case basically means to love less.

"Hate" is pretty much the opposite of "love", not a lesser amount of love.

Obviously Jesus didn't literally mean to hate your family members.

So why did he say "hate" then? Something wrong with "love less"?

The apostle John is talking about a murderous hatred,“A soul murderer, as the Ethiopic version renders it” not someone who just dislikes his brother. (James 1:20 Leviticus 19:17)

So "hate" means different things, depending on context? We have "love less" and "murderous hatred". How about "murderous loving less"? Does "hate" cover that too?


Really, it's almost comical the way people twist words to fit the meaning they wish it said. Kinda reminds me of SCJ here.
 
In a way it does protect children from abuse " you shall not murder" as far as slavery there is no commandment, but exodus clearly shows the abuses of slavery and the Jews escape from slavery.

Yes, don't murder them but no word on molestation, child slavery or even general mistreatment of a child. Slavery is the ultimate breach of human rights. It's so important that any reasonable human being would include it if they were to re-write the commandments. In my opinion, a reasonable every day human being is far more perfect, far more loving and far more moral than any of the mainstream Gods and I believe the reason for this is because the religious texts were written by uneducated, uncompassionate, sexist, racist and fearful human beings.

Consider this, a God asked for a human being to sacrifice their son to prove their faith. Think about that for a second. What kind of person would use a child (and fear) to test someone. It's sadistic. Can you imagine doing that yourself? No, well that makes you better than God in my view.
 
Last edited:
Obviously Jesus didn't literally mean to hate your family members.
Obviously... just as Genesis is obviously not a literal account of creation.

Jesus is really telling his followers to love their family members less than God. (Matt 10:37)
Even with your reinterpretation of the word 'hate', it's still a vile sentiment.
 
Indeed. There's a word for it and it isn't genius.

Now enough on the gurning gimp of lowbrow "comedy" movies - it's one of the most ridiculous off-topic jaunts I've ever seen.

Not really. After all, the fact that those movies exists should be a sign that if there's a God, he's a bit of a dick.

Also, why do we say God is a "he"?
 
It's actually quite a refreshing viewpoint. They're aware that what they believe isn't particularly rational, but lots of stuff in our lives isn't rational. And there's lots of stuff in life that isn't well defined or explained and is open to people to interpret however they like.

If it makes them happy and doesn't adversely affect others, I say all the best. It's very hard to object to someone who says "I know that there's no particular reason to believe in God, but I do so because it makes me happy and I feel like I lead a better life".

This applies to all religions. They're not that common, but occasionally you meet people who are aware that their beliefs are a choice and are OK with that.

Nice commentary.

Everyone approaches these things from their own individual perspective.

This will certainly come as know surprise to anyone here.
My approach was somewhat different.
Call it "belief," call it "trust," call it whatever you want to... It's still completely unnecessary. Knowledge that is gained through, and can be verified by, objective means (mathematics, scientific observation and experimentation, etc.) only requires one to be aware of it.

In fact of reality, no, thats not the case.
An individual always has the choice to accept or reject it.
Obviously, if it is truly objective evidence, it would be only rational and logical to choose to trust it, and as I elaborated on earlier, this can be done, skipping any evaluation and automatically trusting and embracing it as factually solid.

Exactly. No belief or trust required.
That statement is after the fact.

It's exactly 50/50. Normally, I wouldn't feel compelled to call out the careless use of the word "generally" here, but considering your penchant for redefining words whenever you please, I'm erring on the side of caution.

Well, yes and no.
Theoretically, it is 50/50.
In reality, it can be weighted to either side.
For example, if you have three coins and you toss each one once.
They may all come up heads, or all tales.
Granted, this is against the theoritical odds, but can and does happen.
If your call was what came up all three times, your outcome odds were 100/0.
Or of course, 0/100 if you chose the side that didn't come up.
Likewise if you toss a coin say, 50 times it will rarely come up 25/25.
However, it usually won't be extremely weighted either way, but can be sometimes.

This makes no sense at all. If he knows that there isn't a position to take that put the odds in his favor, he has every reason to not take the bet.

If he believes in the odds and won't take action until he has more favorable odds, thats true.
But again that is a decision he has to make.
The knowledge cannot make it for him, unless he believes and trusts in it.


In the last couple days there was a incident at the Apollo theater in London that illustrates my point.
A completely unexpected collapse of a balcony section took place.(correct me if I'm wrong on the details)
I'm sure many many people had sat in that section over the years never even giving a thought to the structural integrity of it. And by all objective evidence to date, there was no reason to think otherwise.
However, on this particular occasion, under apparently just the right conditions it gave away.

To the contrary, all but one of us in this thread is quite clear on the reality of how belief works.

I'm not so sure.
Just because a "belief" is logically, rationally and soundly based, does not mean it is still not a "belief".


In the last couple days there was a incident at the Apollo theater in London that illustrates my point.
A completely unexpected collapse of a balcony section took place.(correct me if I'm wrong on the details)
I'm sure many many people had sat in that section over the years never even giving a thought to the structural integrity of it. And by all objective evidence to date, there was no reason to think otherwise.
However, on this particular occasion, under apparently just the right conditions it gave away.
Assumptive belief, on that point by those involved was certainly misplaced.
 
Well, yes and no.
Theoretically, it is 50/50.
In reality, it can be weighted to either side.
For example, if you have three coins and you toss each one once.
They may all come up heads, or all tales.
Granted, this is against the theoritical odds, but can and does happen.
If your call was what came up all three times, your outcome odds were 100/0.
Or of course, 0/100 if you chose the side that didn't come up.
Likewise if you toss a coin say, 50 times it will rarely come up 25/25.
However, it usually won't be extremely weighted either way, but can be sometimes.
Looks like we can add probability to the list of things you'll happily misrepresent.
In the last couple days there was a incident at the Apollo theater in London that illustrates my point.
A completely unexpected collapse of a balcony section took place.(correct me if I'm wrong on the details)
I'm sure many many people had sat in that section over the years never even giving a thought to the structural integrity of it. And by all objective evidence to date, there was no reason to think otherwise.
However, on this particular occasion, under apparently just the right conditions it gave away.
Assumptive belief, on that point by those involved was certainly misplaced.
While I'm sure some people would actively believe it wouldn't collapse, some would actively believe it would. The majority would, of course, have given it no special thought of any kind and believe in neither outcome.

Objective evidence - its collapse - gave the outcome, regardless of who believed what about it.
 
Well, yes and no.
Theoretically, it is 50/50.
In reality, it can be weighted to either side.
For example, if you have three coins and you toss each one once.
They may all come up heads, or all tales.
Granted, this is against the theoritical odds, but can and does happen.
If your call was what came up all three times, your outcome odds were 100/0.
Or of course, 0/100 if you chose the side that didn't come up.
Likewise if you toss a coin say, 50 times it will rarely come up 25/25.
However, it usually won't be extremely weighted either way, but can be sometimes.
I'm not at all sure where you are going with this, but it doesn't change anything...

The probability of correctly guessing a coin toss three times in a row is 7/1... (or 1 chance in 8, or 12.5%).

All you are talking about here is improbable outcomes... but when it comes to 'belief' versus 'knowledge', the principles are exactly the same.

No matter how many coin tosses you do, you can know in advance what the chances are of guessing the outcome correctly - it's simple math(s).

If you toss a coin 50 times, the 25 heads and 25 tails outcome is not a "rare" outcome - it is the most probable outcome (roughly 5.6%, 1 chance in 18, or a 17/1 bet). Other outcomes, such as all heads - now that is rare - with just 1 chance in 2.2 quadrillion - a 50/0 outcome is possible, but it is extremely improbable.

SCJ
If he believes in the odds and won't take action until he has more favorable odds, thats true.
But again that is a decision he has to make.
The knowledge cannot make it for him, unless he believes and trusts in it.
You clearly haven't taken in much about the difference between knowledge and belief.

Once again, I don't "believe" in the odds - I know the odds. I don't "believe I know" or "believe in the knowledge of the odds", or "trust" the odds - I know the odds because it's simple arithmetic. I don't place bets based on belief.
 
Last edited:
Well, yes and no.
Theoretically, it is 50/50.
In reality, it can be weighted to either side.
For example, if you have three coins and you toss each one once.
They may all come up heads, or all tales.
Granted, this is against the theoritical odds, but can and does happen.
If your call was what came up all three times, your outcome odds were 100/0.
Or of course, 0/100 if you chose the side that didn't come up.
Likewise if you toss a coin say, 50 times it will rarely come up 25/25.
However, it usually won't be extremely weighted either way, but can be sometimes.

You'd be one of those people who bets on tails after three heads in a row, wouldn't you? Because you're due for tails.

You have absolutely no idea how probability works. Just because you tossed a head, doesn't mean that the probability was 100% for heads.
 
"Hate" is pretty much the opposite of "love", not a lesser amount of love.
So why did he say "hate" then? Something wrong with "love less"?
So "hate" means different things, depending on context? We have "love less" and "murderous hatred". How about "murderous loving less"? Does "hate" cover that too?

Really, it's almost comical the way people twist words to fit the meaning they wish it said. Kinda reminds me of SCJ here.


Numerous Greek scholars have added their combined years of study to the discussion to testify that the word “hate” (miseo)in Luke 14:26 does not mean “an active abhorrence,” but means “to love less.” E.W. Bullinger, in his monumental work, Figures of Speech Used in the Bible, described the word “hate” in Luke 14:26 as hyperbole. He rendered the word as meaning “does not esteem them less than me” (1968, p. 426). W.E. Vine, the eminent Greek scholar, said the word miseo could carry the meaning of “a relative preference for one thing over another.” He listed Luke 14:26 under this particular definition (1940, p. 198). Lastly, A.B. Bruce, in The Expositor’s Greek Testament, stated that “the practical meaning” of the word “hate” in this verse is “love less” (n.d., p. 575).
 
Yes, don't murder them but no word on molestation, child slavery or even general mistreatment of a child. Slavery is the ultimate breach of human rights. It's so important that any reasonable human being would include it if they were to re-write the commandments. In my opinion, a reasonable every day human being is far more perfect, far more loving and far more moral than any of the mainstream Gods and I believe the reason for this is because the religious texts were written by uneducated, uncompassionate, sexist, racist and fearful human beings.

Consider this, a God asked for a human being to sacrifice their son to prove their faith. Think about that for a second. What kind of person would use a child (and fear) to test someone. It's sadistic. Can you imagine doing that yourself? No, well that makes you better than God in my view.

Remember these 10 Commandments were written in stone, not paper, or a type writer, or a laptop, or a touch tablet. It was 10 Commandments written on 2 pieces of stone. These were the first fundamental rules that God gave us, you know like the fundamental rules of Football. It would not have been efficient to write an entire legal document covering all the facets of life such as Child Abuse, Racial Equality, gender Equality, Slavery, house building, how to cook food, and don't commit incest all summarized in 10 Commandments,( not even in 11 Commandments as Mel Brooks Comically portrayed. ) Later In Leveticus the bible does cover many of these issues.

It would have been a serious mistake if God would have sent the Hebrews the 10,000 Commandments written in stone and in fine print, and Moses would have came down the mountain telling the first 10,000 Commandments to his people in a camp gathering story telling fashion. the Jews would of been asleep by the time he read of the 300th Commandment.

Does the Old Testament Cover every single human issue known to man past and present,and future? no it does not. The Old Testament was not written to cover Child Labor in a Nike Shoe Making factory based in China. It does not specifically cover Digital Music Copying and Distribution.

The Bible as the Word of God is not a just a reference book of rules and regulations, it is a Guidebook for life, and an elegant path to learning what true Love really is.
 
Numerous Greek scholars have added their combined years of study to the discussion to testify that the word “hate” (miseo)in Luke 14:26 does not mean “an active abhorrence,” but means “to love less.” E.W. Bullinger, in his monumental work, Figures of Speech Used in the Bible, described the word “hate” in Luke 14:26 as hyperbole. He rendered the word as meaning “does not esteem them less than me” (1968, p. 426). W.E. Vine, the eminent Greek scholar, said the word miseo could carry the meaning of “a relative preference for one thing over another.” He listed Luke 14:26 under this particular definition (1940, p. 198). Lastly, A.B. Bruce, in The Expositor’s Greek Testament, stated that “the practical meaning” of the word “hate” in this verse is “love less” (n.d., p. 575).


Utter nonsense. Just more people redefining the meaning of words to suit themselves, and a few other people agreeing with them so it must be true.

I have decide to redefine the following words:

Up now means down.
Left now means right.
Hot now means cold.

Easy isn't it.
 
Numerous Greek scholars have added their combined years of study to the discussion to testify that the word “hate” (miseo)in Luke 14:26 does not mean “an active abhorrence,” but means “to love less.” E.W. Bullinger, in his monumental work, Figures of Speech Used in the Bible, described the word “hate” in Luke 14:26 as hyperbole. He rendered the word as meaning “does not esteem them less than me” (1968, p. 426). W.E. Vine, the eminent Greek scholar, said the word miseo could carry the meaning of “a relative preference for one thing over another.” He listed Luke 14:26 under this particular definition (1940, p. 198). Lastly, A.B. Bruce, in The Expositor’s Greek Testament, stated that “the practical meaning” of the word “hate” in this verse is “love less” (n.d., p. 575).

If there is a perfect God he would have made sure thst his scripture was 100% clear. After all, obeyance of this scripture could decide whether someone goes to hell. We're talking about a serious issue, the difference between eternal torture and eternal peace.

Theologians will always manipulate and twist the words of holy texts to ensure their God doesn't look bad.

Even the Pope has said atheists can go to heaven. Can you imagine a Pope saying that a few hundred years ago? Religion evolves where necessary to hold its power and wealth. Those who follow religion as it was followed in our early history are now a minority, they are extremists.

Here's my message to God; if he's going to create a living organism with real and severe punishments then the guidelines for punishment need to be clear. Don't allow a book to be created with childish fables and passages that are open to interpretation. And please don't allow there to be numerous contradictory revisions with bad translations.
 
Last edited:
The Bible as the Word of God is not a just a reference book of rules and regulations, it is a Guidebook for life, and an elegant path to learning what true Love really is.

You can sort of see how some people might look at it the same way that most people look at horoscopes though, vague statements that are universally applicable enough that they could be said to apply to any situation.

Maybe that wasn't the intention of the people who wrote the Bible. But it's sure hard to tell now what those intentions may or may not have been. And so it's pretty difficult for people who are not devoted Christians to look at a book full of vague statements and say "Yes, those would help me live my life better".

Frankly, most of the good advice in the Bible can be arrived at by any person on normal intelligence simply by working from the axiom of "Don't Be A Dick".


Maybe that's the point. Maybe the Bible isn't supposed to be giving hard and fast advice at all, it's just supposed to be forcing people to think and interpret their own lives while giving them the sense that they're receiving advice from a higher authority. A tutorial to learn how to find your own answers, instead of handing them to you. That would be quite clever.

But I sort of doubt that was the original intention at all. And it still leaves all of us who learned to find answers in our own way up the River Styx without a paddle.
 
Utter nonsense. Just more people redefining the meaning of words to suit themselves, and a few other people agreeing with them so it must be true.

I have decide to redefine the following words:

Up now means down.
Left now means right.
Hot now means cold.

Easy isn't it.

Miseo is a Greek word, not an English word. If you know language you should know some words have no exact translation when switched to another language.

Take the word Aloha in Hawaiian, it has no exact meaning in English. We have a feel for what it means but there is no exact word to describe Aloha.

even in English the Word hate can take on a less malicious meaning, like if I say I hate the Lakers. In this usage it means I mean I want them to Lose. Or what if I say I hate it when the Sacramento Kings Lose.. It means I really want the Kings to Win.

I could also say "I hAtE my Parents when they Cook Pork Adobo, I Prefer Chicken Adobo."
 
Back