Baalazel

You should first know that many of us have not been atheists our entire lives. It gives rise to inappropriate declaration of unique perspective. I for example was once a Christian. A Bible college educated ordained Fundamentalist minister Christian. I am now an atheist. Everyone has a unique perspective no matter where they started their journey.

This is really too obvious to even respond to other than to say yes, atheists do not accept any type of god.

While the laws of the Bible do offend me it is in fact the people who would force me to bend my life to them that most offend me.

One aspect of Christianity that still amazes me is that so few of you agree on the most basic tenets of your religion. I would hope that during your stay here at IIDB you might tell us just how it is that you are able to recognize real and false Christian doctrine.

I note that you have not included the option to not interpret or apply his laws. This is a type of assumption believers make much too often, that Gods way is the only way and those of us who protest are in fact idiots for not seeing that.

You are a moderate Christian. A liberal Christian? To us, just a Christian.

One of the books that allowed me to begin to heal after my separation from Christianity was The Gnostic Gospels by Elaine Pagels. Is it your contention that though the writings of the Gnostics were not included in the canon they can now reveal teachings from Jesus which are on a par with those found in the Bible?

I trust that after more time here you will not be so condescending as to suggest we read scripture. We do.

Or this one:

“Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am come not to destroy, but to fulfill. For verily I say onto you, Till heaven and earth pass one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.”

Matthew 5:17,18

And we see then why you find agreement so allusive. Even in the same chapter of one book we find conflicting views of the law. Did Jesus abrogate the law or not?

Actually I think you would be hard pressed to find examples of Jesus disagreeing with the accepted religious teachings of his day. As we saw above the Gospels don’t agree even on the most important doctrines.

Is the implication that ancient peoples were too stupid to grasp the deep truths of God? Perhaps you confuse antiquity with intellect and so believe the former lessons the later. We, even in the twenty first century, marvel at the achievements of Sumerians, the Egyptians, the Babylonians, and yes, even the Hebrews. You do your apologia harm by deriding those who came before you. Intelligence knows no boundaries of time.

I remind you of this:

Please, is God any idiot or not. He creates demons by accident, saves his creation by secreting it in caves, allows fake scriptures to abound then sends this to set us all straight.

I have begun to suspect there will be no end of this. Just what is your point?

Ah, the point. I have saved myself thank you. It required that I free myself from such nonsense as this.

I beg you, what is it you would have us assume to be true? Are there two discernable doctrines here? I thought we had reached the point of it all but it seems not. Having read and reread your post I find it too dense to fathom. Are you intent on teaching us or do you adore meaningless essays?

I won’t bother with the rest. Do post again when time and cogency allow.

Baal

Anduin

No it is not, it is a useless moral precept with no practical value whatsoever. Why is that relevant to the OP?

Calilasseia

I would say at this juncture that it is not an entirely "useless moral precept". However, its utility value depends heavily upon the willingness of one's enemies to respond positively. It ceases to have utility value if one's enemies simply take ruthless advantage of one's generosity in this regard, interpret it as a sign of weakness, and as a corollary conclude that your position is a green light to go on the attack without fear of consequences.

Paul2

TLDR. I'm an atheist because I don't believe 2,000+ year old stories are true. I see no evidence of any deities what-so-ever, including but not limited to, your particular god. I see as much evidence for your God, as you see for my god, her majesty, the Invisible Pink Unicorn (pbuh).

Julian

Well, what you are saying is that it is their believing in the books, not the books in, and of, themselves. The problem here is credulity, gullibility, call what you will. The flood story is cute and/or silly but so what? It is the fact that someone would actually, seriously believe it to be factual that causes us to shake our heads in disbelief. I am pretty sure that we don't disagree.

Julian

Stephen T-B

"Because I understand him." (NightmareHero)

So NH doesn't go along with the view that the Jewish god is beyond human understanding?

Fair enough.

It must be nice to understand the eternal, disembodied creating genius which brought us all into existence.
I wonder, then, if NH understands why it did so, having spent an eternity twiddling its metaphorical thumbs.

Worldtraveller

Don't forget arrogant.

Cheers,
Lane

Minimalist

Well, yes. At some point one has to take them at their word when they say they believe in talking snakes and 900 year old men and burning bushes, etc.
By the way, I know a Fundie who is taking the report of a superflood cutting the English Channel 450,000 years ago as "proof" of Noah's Ark. I mean...what the hell can you say to that?

TomboyMom

You're trying to persuade us to accept Christianity by asserting that it contradicts itself and is full of lies? Good luck with that argument.

Sarpedon

Orly? I thought God's ways were mysterious! How can you understand him? Many christian sects would consider such a statement to be blasphemous. Is it a serious statement or were you just being careless?