Well, the passage in Job that I quoted for you depicts Satan as appearing before God with the other "sons of God," and he clearly states that he came there from earth. So, it certainly reads to me like he was supposed to be in Heaven at the time. And, Job's story obviously takes place after the events in Eden. Unless you want to posit that Job was one of El's humans that were created in Genesis Chapter 1, prior to Yahweh's failed creations in Eden, that is. If not, then it appears that Satan was still allowed in Heaven after the events in Eden.

Of course, there are several different ways we can contort ourselves if we want to come up with tortured explanations to defend either premise. Some apologists argue that Satan was cast out twice! Again, this only serves to underscore, yet again, my point that God would not have used the written word as a medium to promulgate his all-important instruction manual to us. There are just too many opportunities for confusion and misunderstanding.
Speaking of which...

Isaiah 14 does not refer to Satan, as many scholars, as well as theologians, realize. It is referring to a king of Babylon. There are many reasons that this is obvious, not the least of which is the context of the chapter. But, I can also point to something in the very passage you quoted that indicates this. Note that in verse 13 it says "...I will ascend into heaven..." This makes perfect sense when applied to an earthly king, with aspirations of "godhood," but makes little sense when applied to a being who had already existed in heaven for who knows how long.

Early Christian writers misapplied this passage to Satan, and the tradition has largely continued, despite the efforts of Jewish Scholars and Rabbis (Folks who can actually read Hebrew!) to point out the linguistic and contextual problems associated with this misapplication of parts of their sacred writings.

Sorry, but I'm not the one who has this whole situation mixed up. Because I don't have a sacred cow to defend.



Once again, you are forced to play games with semantics in order to defend Yahweh. The character known as Satan was, according to the story, an angel, regardless of where he was hanging up his wings each night when these events took place. Furthermore, where do you come up with the idea that Satan was kicked out of heaven prior to the events in Eden?

Job 1:6-7
6 Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan came also among them.7 And the Lord said unto Satan, Whence comest thou? Then Satan answered the Lord, and said, From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it.

Besides, whether or not Satan's "Employee of the Month" card had been revoked at the time he screwed with Eve's head, is irrelevant to my point. The point is that Satan, who was an angel to start with, and thus a far more advanced form of life than a human, was like a fully grown adult in comparison to Eve. So, God was at best negligent for allowing an adult to tempt a toddler. (Relatively speaking.)



Still more semantics. God created the angels. Therefore, he gave them life, which makes him their father. Ergo, they are his children. Besides, as I said, this is irrelevant to the point. But, I suspect that you know that anyway. You have to muddy the waters in an attempt to save God's rep.



No, it doesn't. See my comment above.



That depends upon the level of emotional maturity that the child possesses. For example, juveniles are generally not punished as harshly as adults for committing the same crimes, because they do not possess the same level of emotional maturity.



Well, according to most Christians, if I don't toe the GODfather's line, I will be obliterated one day. That not only constitutes a punishment, but it's a real dick punishment, too, since I'm not the one who ate the damn fruit to start with.



What?! The last time I checked, I was very much a mortal.



No, I'm not upset about those things, because that's just the nature of the world, and the truth is, your god had nothing to do with any of it. However, I am arguing the point from your perspective for the sake of argument. And I maintain that we shouldn't have to experience any of the negative consequences of God's judgment against Adam and Eve, because we had nothing to do with it. It is very unloving of Yahweh to punish us in any way for what they did.



Well, now that you mention it...YES! I think it was a total DICK move on Yahweh's part to decree that all women, for all the centuries past should have to suffer the extreme pain associated with passing something the size of a small watermelon through a bodily orifice not nearly large enough to allow a small watermelon to pass through just because he was feeling really pissy with Eve.



Which end of the scroll would you like for me to start with?



Again with the semantics. Can you not see that the point is that the sacrifice was unnecessary? The book of Hebrews says (I don't have time to quote it at present.) that Jesus presented the value of his shed blood to God after he took the stairway to Heaven, right? I maintain that the whole bloody sacrifice ******** is a hold-over from other ancient myths/rituals, and that it is a ridiculous notion to believe that GOD "had" or even "allowed" his son to die a horrible, bloody death in order to pay back a debt to himself!!

And, if we were talking about any other deity doing the same thing, you would agree with me.

On the contrary, it is not. Rather than have his son killed in order to pay back a debt to himself, he should have just forgiven the debt.
Furthermore, it is not at all loving for god to hold all of us accountable for Adam and Eve's ****-up. Particularly since said ****-up supposedly came about as a result of one of his angels screwing around with Eve's mind. Sort of like a father letting his teenage son manipulate his toddler daughter into doing something wrong, and then holding the toddler responsible for it.

Sorry, but three nails and one cross prove nothing other than the fact that three nails and one cross exist. But, I infer your point, so...

While I agree in principle that anyone, or any god, that sacrifices his/her life for others is unquestionably loving, there is almost zero evidence that the Passion story is legit. There is scant little evidence that Jesus even existed, as far as that goes. But if he did, and IF he was crucified by the Romans...that was it. He was just a man. Nothing more, nothing less. So, sorry, but the Passion story provides no reliable evidence that God is a loving god.

Furthermore, as I said before, if the Passion story were true, taking it at face-value still doesn't demonstrate a loving God, for he had his son killed in order to pay back a debt to himself! That's not very loving.

With all due respect, if you had read my previous posts, you would see that I used to believe in God. That's when I prayed to him. Every day. I never heard, or saw evidence of, any sort of reply.

Of course I don't pray to him now. As you implied, it would be pretty ridiculous to pray to a god I no longer believe in.



I'm sorry but one of the points I have been stressing here is that God does NOT straight up TELL us anything. Unless God is directly talking to you, then everything you just claimed comes directly from the Bible, which is not a credible source of information or evidence.

And, if God is directly talking to you, I would respectfully ask you the same question that I asked Cowboy: What makes you so special, that God speaks directly to you, yet so many other ardent believers who call out to him every day never hear from him, and so have to squint really hard and look for "signs" of his possible reply?

Sorry, but I do not accept your premise as stated. There are many, many other possibilities that you are excluding. First off, evolution and abiogenesis are two completely different things. So, are you actually talking specifically about abiogenesis vs. the Bible, or are you talking about evolution vs the Bible? Also, bear in mind that evolution and the Bible are not actually mutually exclusive. Many Christians these days believe that God provided the spark of life, and then let evolution take it from there.

Furthermore, there are many ancient myths that purport to explain how life began that are much older than the Bible, and it can be demonstrated that the Bible writers likely "borrowed" heavily from some of these previously existing myths. Therefore, we must decide which creationism model is the oldest and/or most reliable before we should even think about comparing one of them to evolution.



There are a number of different theories about exactly how abiogenesis took place. This is far too deep a topic to cover in much detail here, but if you wish, some Google-ing will provide you with a lot of reading material on the topic. For now, I'll just throw this out: How do you know that the primordial seas were as salty as they are now? Besides, who says the amino acids formed in the ocean? Some of the theories that I have read state that the amino acids in question formed in ponds. Also, here's an article that discusses another solution to your problem: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/04/130405064027.htm
Finally, even if every theory on the topic out there at present is wrong, that still doesn't mean that the Bible or its predecessors are automatically correct. It just means that we haven't found the correct answer yet. But, I have no doubt that, whenever we do completely solve this riddle, it will, like every other scientific discovery in human history, have nothing to do with the supernatural.



No, it's not. Some of the information in the Bible is factual, of course, but not all. I have demonstrated this to a degree already. For the record, I have read the Bible, cover-to-cover, three times in my life, in addition to countless times studying select passages. While context is indeed important, many apologists overuse the word as a "catch-all" tool, whipping it out every time a critic focuses on a particular passage. In some of these cases, the context does make a difference as regards the particular interpretation that is being debated, other times it doesn't. If you read the last several pages of this thread, you will see some examples.

Also, your "War and Peace" illustration doesn't work here, for "War and Peace" is an actual book, by a single writer, whereas the Bible is an anthology of separate books, written by many different authors. The only overarching plot that you will find that encompasses the whole Bible is one that you project upon it, like seeing shapes in the clouds. For example, ask a Rabbi (A person who actually reads Hebrew!) about what the overall point of the Tanakh is, and how it relates to the NT. You will find that his "plot" is quite a bit different from your own.

In truth, there are so many issues with the Bible (Translation issues, for instance.), that the "Context Card" will only save you once in a while. For instance, all the context in the world won't salvage the Noah story from all the scientific errors and absurdities contained therein.
Speaking of which:



All you have done there is to paraphrase the Bible story. In the first place, I have demonstrated previously that the Bible is not a real reliable witness, so your statements are not backed by much in the way of evidence. Also, they do nothing to ameliorate the aforementioned scientific problems with the story. Finally, they don't even begin to address the issues with this story that I have brought up in this thread. (Like why an All-Wise God would employ such a clumsy, inelegant solution in the first place. It's like using a nuclear bomb to kill your dog's fleas.



Again, your statement is wholly dependent upon the Bible. There is no extra-Biblical evidence to support your assertion. (These "little ones" are not sending us post cards from Heaven saying "Wish You Were Here!" or anything like that.) Just because you fervently believe something, that doesn't make it true.



You know this how?! From the Bible. Well...mostly. In this case, some of what you just claimed here isn't even in the Bible! After all, the Bible only mentions one archangel, and that is Michael. The other archangels are merely a part of church tradition. And, the name "Lucifer" for the character known as Satan isn't really Biblical, either. That name appears only in the 14th chapter of Isaiah, a chapter that Christians misapply to the Satan (Ironically, THIS name is wrong, too, as the Hebrew word "saw-tawn" is not a proper name.) character when it actually applied to the king of Babylon. In fact, the Satan character wasn't even invented until after the Jews were exposed to Persian dualism following the Babylonian exile. That's why he isn't even mentioned until the latest-written books of the Tanakh. (Note that he isn't mentioned anywhere in the Garden of Eden story, for instance. He has been retro-jected back into that story by Christian writers.)



Pure speculation, based upon preconceived religious notions. I will offer you a more common-sense, and scientifically sound alternative theory: Men generally have significantly higher levels of testosterone in their bodies than women, and testosterone has been observed to generate higher levels of aggressive behavior.

No sin required.



Excuse me, but the bottom line is that you have merely offered more very definitely-stated assertions that are totally dependent upon the Bible, a demonstrably unreliable source of evidence. But, if you have any actual evidence with which to support your claims, I'd be happy to hear it.

Yep. George Carlin was great! And he did do a lot of excellent religion material. I'm sure you've seen it, but here's a good example:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8r-e2NDSTuE

Here's a few other good examples of comics taking the piss out of religion/the Bible:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O6lXGkOWBzM&index=1&list=RDO6lXGkOWBzM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o4prBWqOGdM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tlw9zmS-6Gw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NuZSe8y05jA

Obviously, there's a lot more, but that's a pretty good sampling. :D

Heh, heh. The raisins have struck again!

This fits in perfectly here as well:
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=9a7_1279044523&comments=1
"Give me two fire breathing whores any day of the week!" Haha!

I agree with you, Lazarus. And, I am just as hopeful as you that the current trends will continue, and our species will eventually outgrow the need for superstition. However, we aren't there yet. So, I was using the situation as it stands right now to refute Cowboy's statement about society molding our thinking into blocking out God. At present, it is still more a matter of society forcing us to at least pretend that we believe, for there are still at times some negative consequences that come from openly stating that one doesn't believe in God. Even here, in the "somewhat enlightened" US.

As a side-note, I'd like to comment on your statement about the 72 virgins. It seems that the Bible doesn't have a monopoly on translation issues, as the virgins in question might actually be "raisins."
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/04/opinion/martyrs-virgins-and-grapes.html?_r=0

Imagine the crushing disappointment many of these martyrs will feel when they awaken, expecting 72 Ultra-hot "Untouched-ables," but getting a plate of dried grapes, instead.

This ties in perfectly with Cowboy's reply to you, so...





You're missing Lazarus' point, Cowboy. Sure, there are some wonderful after-death promises in most religions. But, promises are often unfulfilled. And, given the dearth of solid evidence that any of these promises are ever fulfilled, (Or that these promises are even translated correctly in the first place.), more and more people are deciding to make the most of the ONE life that they know for CERTAIN that they have; This one. One of the ways they do this is by refusing to allow the Spokesmen/Spokeswomen for God/Jesus/Allah/Yahweh, etc. to dictate to them how they should live their lives.

Is the Bible the Word of God, or isn't it? I contend that, if it is, then the factors you mention are irrelevant, for God (According to the Bible) is the same yesterday, today, and forever. And, if gender has no meaning when it comes to God, then perhaps he should have made a point to tell his ghostwriters to stop portraying him as a "him." After all, this could have prevented some misconceptions, such as the idea that, since God is a "he," then men are somehow superior to women. Of course, my thought on this is that the reason men are elevated in these primitive stories is NOT really a result of God creating man in his image, but rather man creating God in his image, and going from there.

This conversation actually ties in well with another situation that supports Lazarus' contention that God is NOT a loving god; the misogyny that is obvious throughout the OT. Apologists always try to "paper over" that by using the same excuse you are using here, i.e. "that's just how things were back then." That's total BS. We're talking about GOD here. You know...GOD!! Creator of the universe! Phenomenal cosmic power! Yet, we're supposed to accept that this All-Powerful entity who droned on for page after page detailing who we could and couldn't boink with (With a MUCH higher ratio of "couldn't" than "could."), didn't dare rock the boat by correcting some of the primitive behavior and mistaken notions about him on the part of his fans? He didn't dare tell them, for instance, that owning another human being is wrong? Or that women should be treated with respect, as equals, rather than like cattle? Was he THAT concerned that they might "Unfriend" him on "Facescroll?"

Sorry, I'm not buying it. If he didn't hesitate to bore the living daylights out of everyone with his many restrictions on an activity as wildly popular as SEX, then I have no doubt that he wouldn't have hesitated to speak up about these other issues, too. Yet again, I give God more credit than that.

Of course, I contend that the REAL reason that God never corrected his minions on any of those topics is because he more than likely doesn't even exist, and all those restrictions on sex were just the deluded rantings of some jealous, crusty, old farts who were pissed off because they weren't gettin' any, and therefore didn't want anyone else gettin' any, either.



And, AGAIN, I am asking you how you know this? This is a very definite statement about a very nebulous topic. HOW do you KNOW this?

I'm not saying that it has any benefit. My point is that you made a very definite statement about the gender of God and the angels-



-and I'm asking how you can be so certain about this? Especially since the Bible always refer to Yahweh and the angels as being males, rather than referring to them with gender-neutral descriptors.

This might seem a trivial point, but it really isn't, for it speaks to a larger point, which is that there is much that you state with similar certainty, that is actually not supported by any solid evidence.

-How can you be so certain? Does the voice tell you that it's God?
-Why is it irrelevant? I'm curious what it looks like. Besides, we identify fellow humans by differences in appearance, so the appearance of whatever is talking to you could be useful in determining if it really is God.
-Well, that doesn't surprise me, seeing as how God supposedly created all the languages in the first place. Of course, there are older legends that say that Enki/Ea was the god who "confused" the language of humans. Are you sure it isn't Enki that's talking to you? He was the one that saved Utnapishtim from the big flood that his brother Enlil caused, too. So, he has shown a definite interest in humans before. :)
-I never said that God put the Bible together. However, he supposedly "inspired" it. As the Bible itself says:

2 Timothy 3:16

"16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:"

At the time this passage was penned, the NT didn't exist yet. So, the writer no doubt had in mind either the Tanakh, or perhaps the Septuagint. (Interestingly, many of the scriptural quotes in the NT are from the Septuagint, and the Septuagint includes a few books that didn't make it into the final canon. Once again..."God's Word." Right.) So, there's no reason to assume that any of the NT books were "inspired" of God, other than wishful thinking. Therefore, why should we assume that the NT is of any value as far as teaching us about God? It's just the opinions of men.

Furthermore, what we have here is a passage written by a man, that does not claim to be inspired of God, telling us that the Tanakh or the Septuagint is inspired of God. What possible reason exists for us to take this author's word for it, and assume that either of those books is of any value for learning about God?
-Whoa! "God speaks to everyone?!" Right!! I have heard lots of people, both in person and on forums, who were believers in God, who nonetheless admitted that God had never talked to them. Again, what makes you so special, that he/she/it speaks to you? And, every day, no less.
Finally:



I'm sorry, Sir, but you have it totally "***-backwards" there. As children, we have no concept of God whatsoever until someone plants the notion into our brains. Furthermore, while the percentage of people who self-identify as "atheist" or "agnostic" has grown in the last several years, we are still very much in the minority. Again, you have it backwards. If anything, societal pressure tries to mold our collective thinking into accepting the idea of God, despite the lack of evidence.

Just one quick example that comes to my mind...good luck in seeking a Presidential nomination here in the US if you are an atheist, regardless of your qualifications. Ain't gonna' happen.

That's a very definite statement. You know this how?
If it has no "bearing, meaning, or importance, why does the Bible always refer to Yahweh and the angels as being males? Why not refer to them with gender-neutral descriptors?

Gotcha. Well, it does sound interesting. I enjoy it when writers manage to find new ways to present established characters.

When it's done well, of course!

That's a good one, all right. That is true in many cases. It's all that cognitive dissonance.

BTW, I've heard that Gotham is a good show, but I've never seen it. Would you say that it's a pretty good show, Lazarus?

No problem. I understand totally. :)
I have an off the wall sense of humor, anyway.

I was just kidding you on that part, Sir.

In keeping with the topic of the thread, i.e. "Driven by God," I thought some of you might like this:

https://www.thrillist.com/cars/what-would-jesus-drive-all-the-cars-in-the-bible-from-the-old-to-the-new-testament

I've been expecting you, Sir. And, I assumed that you would say pretty much exactly what you said.

First off, circumcision isn't actually a "Jewish" thing. The Egyptians practiced circumcision before the Jews did, and it was probably from them that the Jews picked up the barbarous practice.

But, even assuming that what you say is true, and Yahweh really did tell the Jews to circumcise themselves, while everyone else was free (And is free to this day.) to remain un-snipped, that is totally irrelevant to my point.

The idea that an All-Wise intelligent designer would create human males with a foreskin, and then tell ANY of them to snip it off, is asinine.

That said, I see that you are asserting that the point of this hideous practice was not to correct a manufacturing error, but rather:



So, God likes looking at penises, eh? Perhaps God is female, after all.
Or, gay. Come to think of it...perhaps all that stuff in the OT about stoning homosexuals was a result of his own feelings of self-hate and guilt.
Yes, I admit it, I'm just winding you up with that one. Couldn't resist.

Anyway, you say that circumcision was:



While I am certainly not looking a gift-horse in the mouth, as I'm all for this practice being done away with, why would Yahweh change his mind about this? If this was such an important means of showing our gratitude, and was such for many centuries, why was it suddenly deemed unnecessary? By the way, I realize the we already covered the fact that you don't know why God chose to use two different covenants, in the other thread. I'm asking these questions rhetorically, to inspire thought. To me, it seems far more likely that an All-Knowing and All-Wise god wouldn't use two different covenants, because he would be smart enough to come up with the correct solution the first place. But, maybe I give God too much credit.

Furthermore, don't you find it a trifle sick that a supposed All-Loving god would require some of his children to mutilate their genitalia as a means of showing him how much they love him? Particularly in light of how many of them likely died from infections as a result of the procedure. And please don't tell me about how the procedure was done on the eight day, and how modern science has found that that is the point in the infant's life where clotting factors are highest, etc, etc, etc. I've heard all that before. We're still talking about very unsanitary conditions, and death from infections after injuries were VERY common. Besides, many adult converts had to go through the unnecessary procedure as well.

Besides:

1 Samuel 16:7

7 But the Lord said unto Samuel, Look not on his countenance, or on the height of his stature; because I have refused him: for the Lord seeth not as man seeth; for man looketh on the outward appearance, but the Lord looketh on the heart.

Based on Yahweh's words there, such outward displays were completely unnecessary, anyway. And, if you like, I can also quote the passages that state that Yahweh picked Jeremiah and Paul to be his buds even while they were still in the womb. Kinda' hard to demonstrate ones "gratitude and faith" while still floating around in amniotic fluid.

Bottom line: I maintain that the notion that God demanded that sharp implements be used on ANYONE'S penis is ridiculous.

I agree with you about Tmommy, as she is fine, but I have to part company with you on "intelligent design by an intelligent maker." What kind of intelligent maker would do dumb **** like create men with foreskins and then tell them that they have to snip them off?!