HelenM

Cats need catfood.

Maybe I have too much bathwater - but I don't want to throw out any babies...

So I have read, here, many times. Not usually in italics though.

Oh I know that. You're some person on the internet who likes to write in italics! No more, no less...

How you spend your time is your choice. I only hope you'll be pleased with the choice you make.

take care
Helen

[ October 21, 2002: Message edited by: HelenM ]</p>

Ronin

Now, HelenM, you are just asking me to dance ~ but the music I play is dire and quiet and for solitude.

Perhaps another time, in another thread.

HelenM

No, the only request I made of you was that you explain what you meant by calling my Christianity zen-like and using 'zen' with reference to Sabine Grant also.

But evidently you chose not to explain it. Which is your choice to make.

But you may as well wait until I ask!

Helen

Stephen T-B

There are just so many inconsistencies, Joel.
Obviously they don’t trouble you, but I hope you’ll understand why they trouble me.
Here’s one: you read the Bible and in it found your salvation.
I started to read the Bible and gave up in Deuteronomy when I found myself wading through all those Commandants Moses had from Yahwey and passed on to the Children of Israel.
Until then, I’d thought there were only ten, but verse after verse beginning “Thus Saith the Lord” made me realise that my Scripture teacher at school had given us a lot less than half the picture.
I wondered: “Why are we taught the Ten Commandments but none of this? Who decided we should observe the Sabbath, but that it was OK to eat shellfish? Who decided we should not worship graven images, but that a woman didn’t have to make a sin offering after her period?”
“Who decided it was important that we shouldn’t covet our neighbour’s ox or ass or wife, but that it was OK to commit usury?”
Some people open the Bible at random, Joel, and find themselves reading a passage which turns them into a Christian. I opened it at random and found myself reading about Samuel instructing Saul to kill every single Amalakite, including women and children and even all their animals. And how Saul kept the king, Agag, alive, and when Samuel found out about it, he called for Agag to be brought before him and “in the sight of the Lord” he hewed him to pieces.
I opened the Bible again and read about Ahab; how he got god’s forgiveness, despite being the most despicable king the Israelites ever had, by bowing down just before he died and making abeyance to god; and how god then had all 72 (was it?) of his children beheaded; I read how god killed thousands of Jews because David had “counted them,” I read about Elisha being called “baldy’ by a bunch of kids, and god causing a she bear to come out of a wood and “tear them.”
Such violence! Such viciousness! Such spite! Such vengefulness! Such vanity! Such jealousy! Such waywardness! And this god really liked the smell of burnt offerings. If then, why not still?
So much for the god of the Old Testament. Not much sign of it, I thought, in the New Testament. Indeed, one could be forgiven for thinking that these two books refer to two completely different deities.
The one thing they have in common is a fondness for miracles - and the miracles described are so astonishing that no-one who saw them could possibly have questioned the existence of god. Consider the Raising of Lazarus: who, having witnessed that, would have needed to have had Faith either in the existence of god or the reality of Jesus’s divinity?
So if god was laying it on the plate for the people around at that time, why had he stopped and begun playing a game of hide and seek? He could make a donkey talk, for heaven’s sake! So why not send one to me?
Then there are the inconsistencies surrounding answered and un-answered prayers - this child is ill, is prayed for and lives; that child is ill, is prayed for and dies. Hallelujah!
Christians are among the happiest, most contented people you can meet; they are among the most disagreeable, mean-minded, uncharitable, miserable ones I’ve met. They can be kind and humane; they can be exceedingly cruel. They can be virtuous; they can be depraved. If Christianity can be said to make this person good, it can be said with equal justification that it has made that person horrible. Christians operated and defended the slave trade; Christians put an end to it; Christians created and supported Apartheid - others worked to overthrow it.
Here’s a loving, omnipotent god which sends to hell those who do not believe in it, and refuses to provide them with the evidence that would convince them that it does exist, choosing instead to lurk in the shadows so Joel peers into them and declares: “I can see God!” and Stephen peers into them and says “I can’t.”
And Joel goes to heaven and Stephen goes to hell.
The inconsistencies make Belief impossible for me; the lack of evidence makes it impossible, and while I was, many years ago, willing to believe, I now see it as not being worth the struggle. And if it wasn’t a struggle, I don’t think you’d be here. I think you’re here because our unbelief is discomforting. You have a delusion which you want us to share because as long as we don’t, there is, at the back of your mind, the unbearable possibility that it is, after all, only a delusion.

Goliath

Brian63,

Yes, I'm afraid we sometimes can say such things when people use words incorrectly. For example, I could define a banana to be a blackboard. That would not make me correct on the matter of what a banana is.

There most certainly is in the example above when I referred to a banana as a blackboard. I could define a banana to be a blackboard if I wanted to. However, it would be rather useless of me to do so, since most everyone else does not. Without common meanings of words, communication becomes difficult (to say the least).

And I should care because.............?

"Kettle, this is pot, over..."

Kindly back up your claim or retract it ("the claim" being that a majority of the population agrees with your narrow definition of atheism).

Sincerely,

Goliath

Evil Milkman

Ronin,

You're assuming, of course, that Joel thinks you're wearing pants in the first place.

Philosoft

RE: reading the Bible

How do you make this determination without independent confirmation and in light of this statement:

<strong> I would daresay there are no two Christians who agree exactly on the contents of the various messages allegedly contained in the Bible. How do you reconcile 2 billion or so slightly different Christian interpretations of the Bible? How do you know that Fred Phelps' militant Christianity isn't correct and the stuff about tolerance isn't erroneous?

Mageth

A sabbath is a day of rememberance or acknowledgment. So some scholars believe that it was a day in rememberance of Christ which followed him being crucified, which would've been on a Thursday. Just as Saturday (the 7th day) was a day of rememberance, acknowledgement, and of course rest.

No, the Sabbath is the Jewish Holy Day established in the Law and is always on Saturday. The Day of Preparation is Friday, when the Jews make ready for the Sabbath (which starts at sundown Friday).

Redefining words with known, obvious meanings is not a good way to get around a contradiction.

Yes, that's why I gave the example in Esther of the same kind of phrase being used as a figure of speech, which is somewhat common in Hebrew writing.

Referring to OT examples in no way gets around the fact that you can't squeeze three days and three nights out of &lt; 40 hours.

Again, these are only suggested reconciliations for the scripture. I wasn't there, and that's why I don't favor one of the other.

Neither holds water with critical examination.

Because God does not intervene all the time does not mean God doesn't show love. Even the most loving parents don't always intervene when they see their children doing wrong. And I see no reason to blame God for what others do. I say, blame the people doing those things that are wrong. Many times, the things that go wrong in life are the things that we learn the most from.

Note that you originally posted:

Would you intervene on behalf of the world if they denied you and said you didn't exist? Personally, I would take it like a slap in the face.

to which I replied:

So god doesn't hold himself to the "love your enemies", "do unto others...", and "turn the other cheek" credos?

Your above response doesn't seem to address this question. God not intervening to help someone because "they denied [god] and said [god] didn't exist" seems contra to Jesus's teachings.

HoosierGuy28

Stephen,

I've been trying to approach responses in the order in which I receive them, but after reading your post, I have decided to at least start a response to it.

A lot of horrible events and actions by people are recorded in the Bible. I consider the Bible to be honest because it gives the good with the bad. It doesn't attempt to cover up the mistakes of others. A lot of the deaths that occurred were do to resistance against God. Now, I can understand that to many this doesn't seem very fair, but these people where also preventing others from embracing God. God is who He is and not who we choose Him to be. No matter what I personally think is or isn't fair doesn't change the reality of God.

I can sympathize with you that the Bible can be overwhelming at times. Life in itself can be overwhelming. Now throw in many different belief systems and things just start getting more confusing.

Personally I don't recall anywhere in the Bible where God claims to be nurturing to anyone who rejects Him. God never says that you can do anything you want and that is just fine with Him. We are given the ability to choose, and our choices have consequences, whether they be good or bad.

I would now like to address a more specific part of your post.

I agree with you 100%. Christians can be horrible people. But Christians can also be loving people who treat others kindly. When one claims to be a "Christian", that is a claim of wanting to be "Christ-like". It's not realistic to expect someone to maintain this standard 24/7, but I believe the idea is for one to stay as close as they can to this standard. If Christians are mistreating others, they are not acting Christ-like, and to put it bluntly, they are making themselves look like liars. Needless to say, as I Christian I have made my share of mistakes, but it is also a growing process. The more I study and seek to have a better understanding of God, the closer I see myself coming to deserving the title of "Christian". I can flip through the scriptures and I know from experience that I will never read of Christ committing some horrible act. Actually, Christ showed us in many scriptures how we need to be acting. He experienced temptation first hand, and showed us how to deal with other many trials we may face in life. So I would ask, don't judge Christianity based on the acts of "Christians", but base it on doctrine of Christ. Christ himself told Christians to becareful of their actions.

Jesus isn't telling people to treat anyone in a cruel or unjust manner. If Christians are doing so, then they are clearly wrong.

Anyway, thanks for your response.

Joel

Mageth

HoosierGuy28:

On the previous page, you said:

Now personally, I have no doubt in my mind about the existence of God. I've stopped questioning whether God exists, and I've started building on that knowledge that God does in fact exist.

But on this page, you say:

Also, I do keep [up] on a lot of the criticism that the Bible/Christians receive. In fact, I wouldn't dare have posted in this forum if I was not prepared to deal with criticism of God, the Bible, and myself.

How can you honestly deal with criticism of God and the Bible if you no longer question the existence of God? It would seem to me that to honeslty evaluate a criticism of God and/or the Bible you would have to be willing to question his very existence.