Doctor X

Which one? El? YHWH? The Elohim?

Is he--ala the Perpicaciously Predigiously Potently Pedagogical Pontine Tumor Problem [Tm.--Ed.] previously proposed to the poster perturb'd predominantly by the persistent placement of "n" in his nom d' plumb--non-existent, evil, incompetent, irrelevant, or some combination of the later three?

This question--indeed the entire problem--has remained ignored by the postner. However, if hen wishes to assume the existence of a deity in these discussions--as if mere declaration "makes it so"--then nhe would do well not to flee from the implications of hins assumptions.

--J.D.

Skyfurnace

Paradox, anyone?

Mageth

Originally posted by Magus55
It was a joke.

Amlodhi's observation applies again here:

1) Must defend original untenable remark at all costs rather than admit error.

Atheists like to act superior compared to theists.

I'll refer you to your own statements fron later in this very post:

And of course, Biblically speaking, atheists can't understand the things of God, for they are spiritually discerned. You will always find fault with the Bible because you are separated from God
...

Atheists seem to create a correlation between belief in God, and low intelligence.

Yes, I've seen some atheists do that; I and other atheists have strongly disagreed with such a view.

I don't think lack of understanding the Bible has anything to do with reading level, other than atheists generally only reading it superficially. Why would atheists bother to read the Bible on a deep level, when they have the presupposition that its false and meaningless anyway. When you read the Bible from that attitude, I don't expect you to understand anything about it other than what you can skim off the top in order to fit your agenda of disproving the Bible.

When one actually deeply studies the bible, its history, its intended purpose, and also studies human history and particularly the history of myth and religion in general, one comes to the realization that the majority of the Bible is myth and metaphor, with parallels in other great mythologies. The majority of the Bible is actually not about historical facts and extant spiritual Beings (Gods, angels, devils and demons) but about common interpretations of the world around us, and metaphors that express the same, that emerged from the human psyche.

The "lack of understanding" actually lies with the theists who believe in a literal translation of the bible. The basis for this lack of understanding is their error in interpreting what was intended as myth and metaphor as history; in interpreting poetry as prose.

And of course, Biblically speaking, atheists can't understand the things of God, for they are spiritually discerned.

You've got this backwards; theists like yourself can't understand the (human) spirit, for they are blinded by the concept of an external God.

You will always find fault with the Bible because you are separated from God.

And you will never see the faults in the Bible because you are blinded by your belief.

Until an atheist admits their need for salvation, and completely turns themself over to God - they will never understand the majority of the Bible.

Until a theist understands the roots in the human psyche of concepts such as the need for salvation, they will never understand the Bible at all.

And since atheists have too much pride to ever do that, I don't expect you to ever understand why Christians find no faults with the Bible. (And no it isn't because we are brainwashed, its because we see the deeper meaning that atheists only look at superficially ).

You are hardly qualified to speak for all Christians. Many Christians I know find "fault" with the bible. It's those who do (who don't mistakenly interpret the myth as history) who have access to what deeper meaning is there.

You think you see the "deeper meaning"; in actuality, in interpreting myth as history, metaphor as fact, poetry as prose, you (the literal theist) are missing whatever deeper meaning might be found in the myths completely; even worse, you're giving it meaning that's simply not there, trying to persuade or force the rest of humanity to agree with your wrong interpretation, and threatening them with damnation or "separation" if they do not.

Zucco

In what other realm of existence do humans ever "love" something that they have absolutely no interaction with? It's not possible. And yet according to Christianity, we are supposed to love an entity who purposely removes himself from us. How does this make any sense?

And don't say that God doesn't operate on a human level -- it's the humans who are supposed to worship him. And before you start babbling about "personal experience" let me tell you that I actually believed this tripe for the first 30 years of my life and had absolutely no personal experience with God. I actually thought there might be something wrong with me.

So I have no interaction, no personal experience, yet I am supposed to love and follow unconditionally. It's impossible.