That's a good illustration, Lazarus.
In a similar vein, I have frequently referred to God as a cosmic-level deadbeat dad. If you think about it, all the parallels are there, including the part where some of his abandoned children defend anything he does, including bending over backwards to make excuses for him and his absence.

First off, that didn't answer my question. To paraphrase Captain Kirk: "What does GOD need with a holding cell?" He's GOD.

Second, if God is allowing all of this human suffering to go on and on just as payback for Adam and Eve's ****-up, something none of us had ANYTHING to do with, then he's a cosmic-level dick. You have just bolstered Lazarus' contention in this thread.




No, I'm not frightened of God at all. It would be highly irrational to fear something that doesn't exist; and I'm not irrational.
But, you are evading the point again. If you assert that God never tried to frighten you, I have to say that it sounds like you haven't read the entire Bible.

Well, the word "el" or its related forms have been around for roughly five-thousand years. It was used either as a generic term for gods or as the name of specific deities. It is worth noting that the Canaanites and the Mesopotamians worshiped a god named "El" long before the OT was written, or even before Israel existed. And, in some of those myths, Yahweh is depicted as one of El's sons. Ironic, given how much ink is wasted in the OT depicting Yahweh as bitching about the Canaanites, and ordering their obliteration.

Heck, even the name "Israel" contains the word "el." It means, possibly, "Wrestles with God," "Triumphant with God," or "God contended." (See Genesis 32:28) Which once again illustrates just how much uncertainty there is in translating God's All-important Instruction Manual. Thanks, God.

The more one studies mythology, the more one sees just how much newer myths built upon the framework of older ones.

You're absolutely right, of course, Lazarus. There are many examples of words (Particularly Hebrew words in the OT.) that scholars cannot translate, and many more words in which the translation is debated.

For instance, the phrase "God Almighty" is so common that everyone has heard it at one time or another. Yet, that phrase, while coming from the Bible, may be incorrect. The phrase "el shaddai" appears several times in the OT, and though the word "el" is accepted as meaning "god," there is much debate surrounding the actual meaning of the Hebrew word "shaddai."

Again, there are many other examples, if anyone wants to research it.

In keeping with the theme of your thread, Lazarus, I have to say that it wasn't very loving of God to not make sure that his Instruction Manual was clear to everyone.

How does that statement relate to my statement about God supposedly saying contradictory things depending upon which middleman/sect is speaking?
Why does God need a holding cell for Satan, anyway? He's GOD.
Why wait for the final judgement? All of us little peons down here have to suffer while he delays the inevitable. That's also not very loving.




Apparently God and many of his spokesmen don't share that opinion with you.
I do, though.



Well, I have to agree with you there. Living forever while being compelled to worship a cosmic tyrant doesn't sound like much fun to me, either.

While you will get no argument from me about the JWs being wrong in their beliefs, saying that they are not "Christians" is a "No True Scotsman" logical fallacy. Besides, I mentioned the JWs as a means of illustrating how religion can have such a negative impact on ones life, both through the influence it has on ones decision-making process, and by the way it can destroy ones social network when one decides he/she no longer believes the doctrines of said religion.

So, whether or not you consider JWs to be "real" Christians has no bearing on my point.

While I personally agree with you as regards what Hell was supposed to be (One of the few things that the Witnesses got right, IMO.), I'm sure that you know that there are many other passages that can easily be interpreted as saying that Hell is a place of fiery torment. (So, I won't bother quoting them.) And, this is another example that makes my earlier point about the vast differences in beliefs even among different sects of the same religion; a situation that shouldn't be observed, if ONE god were behind said religion.

But, that still doesn't overturn Lazarus' point. If your human father told you that he would reward you for obeying him, but would literally kill you if you don't, would you feel impelled to love him? Or, would you just fear him?

Yep! The Pudding scene was funny! Castiel was also hilarious at times. The scene where Dean took Cas to visit a prostitute was an outstanding example.



Agreed. My experience was the same as yours. I was disappointed that their beliefs turned out to be even wackier than JW beliefs. But, their treatment of apostates is disturbingly similar. Of course, that is one of the constants in the word of high-control cults.

Well, Cowboy, I agree with you that, in principle, that's how it should be. And, I also know full well that Romans 6:23 says that eternal life is a "gift" from God, not something that's earned:

Romans 6:23

"23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord."

But, you have to admit that there are many passages in the NT (I won't quote or refer to all of the many examples in the OT, since you'll just tell me that those don't count. Even though supposedly the same god uttered them.) that hammer home the point that, if we don't toe God's line, we will be stomped on, but if we do toe his line, we will get a great big cookie.
And, most churches really emphasize those points, too, as they have such a challenge on their hands keeping all their members in line and their pants up.

I haven't read every post here, so I may have missed it, but I haven't seen anyone being bullied, or antagonized. We're just having a discussion. As for Satan, speaking for myself, I have mentioned him a few times. Personally, I think that Satan is a mythical character. As I have said before, "Satan" isn't even a name, anyway. The Hebrew word in question ("saw-tawn'") means "adversary," and it was applied to more than one entity in the OT. (Including the angel in the Balaam talking-donkey story.) The character of "Satan" was invented to be Yahweh's enemy (And scapegoat.) after the Jews were exposed to Persian dualism, following the Babylonian exile. In this way, Yahweh could be credited for all the good things, while Satan would take the blame for all the bad stuff.

Good point, Sir. By demanding love, and promising compensation for it, God diminishes it. For, true love has to be given, not taken.

Or, to put it another way: It is far better to be a good and loving person for the sake of being that way, rather than trying to be that way in order to receive a reward and/or avoid punishment from Skydaddy.

Heh, heh...
Maggot food!
I'll keep an entire colony fed for years...
;)

I mean no disrespect, Lovely Lady, but...you really cannot believe that a discussion about whether or not God is a loving god would go on for 45 pages?! As deep as that subject is, and as many varying opinions as there are on it, this thread could go on for decades if we all chose to keep it going.

Furthermore, it's not as cut and dry as just waiting until we die to find out whether or not God is a loving god. After all, we have to live however many years we still have until we die, and unless we just want to meander through life we have to decide how we are going to live it. I can tell you from experience that living your life allowing a stupid cult to influence your life-decisions can cause you to make some really bad decisions!

So, the discussion about the nature of God is a valuable one, for it helps us to make an informed decision about whether or not God is even worthy of devoting any portion of our all-to-brief lives to. Assuming he exists at all.

Well, I like it, anyway. I really like the way they manage to work a little humor into each episode, to break the tension, without turning it into a farce. I've never seen Game of Thrones, so I can't comment on it, but I'm glad that you like it.

Well, hey, it's your thread, so by golly you can talk about whatever you want, right?

Good point about the lifespans back in ancient times. Fear of death was a more pressing concern back then!

You're right about religion providing a purpose in life for many, too. That's a good point. In fact, the cult I was raised in (Jehovah's Witnesses) often touted the fact that serving God gave our life purpose. And, in a similar vein, religion also provides a social network for people who might not otherwise have one. (Like me.)

Of course, that can be a two-edged sword in some cases. In the case of the JWs, if a member decides that he/she no longer believes in the Witness dogma, he/she is labelled an "apostate," and is shunned. So, any member who is having doubts has to consider the possibility that if he/she speaks up about them, it could cause him/her to suddenly lose all of his/her "friends." (And family.)

Once again, the dark side of religion rears its ugly head.

Yeah, though I haven't read the entire thread, I did read a lot of the earliest posts. That's the way it generally goes. When you apply logic to these stories, they fall apart. So, anyone trying to defend them generally ends up either:
1.As you said, tossing any type of definable, objective evidence out the window, and falling back totally on faith.
2. Claiming that God actually IS literally talking to them. (A safe haven for them, since you cannot disprove the notion across the internet, no matter how much you point out how unlikely that notion is.)
3.Spinning like a tornado, in an attempt to make it look like certain words or phrases might kinda', sorta', perhaps if you squint real hard from fifty feet away, mean what they claim they mean, rather than the most obvious and generally accepted meanings. (Like your example about when someone farts, that is somehow God "talking" to us. Or, torturing the term "generation" used in Matthew 24:34, so as to rescue Jesus' "prophecy" there.)
4. Again, as you said, getting angry at you.

Or, any combination of the above.

I think that the anger stems from fear. I believe it was Freud who observed that as long as our species fears death, there will be religion. Regardless of who said it, however, it makes a lot of sense. Hence, the anger when you challenge their religion, as religion provides a comfort zone from death, and offers the hope of seeing dead loved ones again. When you appeal to them with logic, their mind tries to respond to it, but then fear of losing the comfort zone, i.e. facing death, kicks in.

I understand the appeal. I would love to be wrong about all of this. Not only would I love to see some of my departed family members again, but I would also love to have another life to look forward to, since the current one was largely wasted on a stupid cult and a really bad marriage. But, I just don't see enough solid evidence to warrant actually believing that it's going to happen. Like you, I can separate fantasy from reality.

Ironically enough, my favorite TV show is Supernatural.

Thanks, Rooster.
It's nice to see that you can have a sense of humor about this topic. :)

But, Jesus better count his lucky stars that Zeus has a god-sized libido, as indicated in this passage from the ancient text of X-ratedus, Chapter 69, Verse 1:

"Almighty Zeus is the bomb! He is awesome and powerful, what with his lightning bolts, super-strength and all! And, his testosterone flows like a mighty river! His lust is never sated! He is also SO handsome that he makes Brad Pitt look like DavidM616! So, all the chicks really dig him! Of course, all of his amorous conquests leave no time for kicking the living **** out of lesser deities, but we KNOW that he could do it, if he could spare a moment or two!"

That's my own personal translation of the ancient Greek, of course. I have tried to preserve the original intent while employing modern vernacular so as to make the passage easier to understand. Also, please note the prophetic prowess of the inspired writer, as she (Yes, she. Worshipers of Zeus weren't misogynists, like some writers I could mention.) directly referred to both Brad Pitt and myself. I certainly couldn't find our names anywhere in the Bible. What's that tell ya'?

Thanks, Lazarus. Breaking out of the circular logic loop is one of the most difficult obstacles to overcome in these kinds of discussions, as you no doubt know. It's like:
"This is true because the Bible says so."
"Why should we take the Bible's word for it?"
"Because the Bible is the word of God."
How do you know that the Bible is the word of God?"
"Because the Bible says that it is the word of God?"
"Why should we take the Bible's word for it?"

And...repeat.

As for how Cowboy will reply...well, I imagine it won't be long before we find out. ;)

Are you kidding me?! I'm not a moron. Of COURSE English wasn't in existence yet. My point in mentioning the languages was to indicate yet another barrier to our receiving and understanding God's all-important message; the language barrier. All the more reason an All-Knowing God wouldn't have employed the written word for this purpose. Especially since he was supposedly the one who "confused" our languages, anyway. (Of course, the much older Mesopotamian myths credit Enki/Ea with this, but that's another story.)




Important according to whom? Who gets to decide which of the books are the most important? And, what makes him/her so special?



And, what makes you so certain that the Jews are wrong and you are right? Perhaps the Jews stayed on the correct path, while Paul (Assuming he even existed.) was a heretic who misled a bunch of people. After all, nowhere in the NT did Paul see Jesus; he just saw a bright light, and heard a voice claiming to be Jesus. Hmm...let's see...bright light...why does that sound familiar? Oh, yes:

2 Corinthians 11:14

"14 And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light."

And, assuming that it was Satan who used the snake as a ventriloquist dummy in order to trick Eve, as Christian tradition states (Even though Genesis says nothing of the sort.), it's not hard to imagine him using the same tactic in order to dupe Paul.



That's a "No True Scotsman" Fallacy. Nominally, they are Christians.
But, hey, I'll play along. Okay, we have many different sects of "Christians," all claiming to be the RIGHT one; the "TRUE" Christians. How can anyone really know which of them, if any, really IS the true one?
Like I said...God could settle it once and for all, if he would just speak up.



Well, obviously I agree with your last sentence there, as I don't think anyone is any closer to God than anyone else, since one can't be closer to something that doesn't exist.That said, I must point out that, despite your issues with Catholics, the Catholic church has been around longer than any of the other Christian denominations.

Furthermore, if you can't read Greek, then you not only don't even know what, if anything, Jesus really said, you don't even know what the NT authors claimed he said.





Where does it say that in the Bible?



Again, maybe they're right. After all, Jesus didn't fit the image of the messiah that was expected for centuries. Also, I would recommend that you look into the ways the early Christian writers played fast and loose with their interpretation of the Hebrew in the Tanakh in an effort to provide the illusion that their Jesus character "fulfilled" OT scriptures.

Furthermore, those same writers quite often quoted from the Septuagint, which had its share of mistakes. I'll give you an example, the "prophecy" of the miraculous virgin-birth:

Isaiah 7:14

"14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel."

Which was "fulfilled" by Jesus, as recorded in the gospel attributed to Matthew. (And, amazingly enough, ONLY in the gospel attributed to Matthew. I guess the other Gospel writers weren't impressed with a virgin-birth.)

Matthew 1:18-23

"18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.19 Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her away privily.20 But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name Jesus: for he shall save his people from their sins.22 Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying,23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us."

Why, I declare! As if a virgin-birth wasn't impressive enough, it was even foretold centuries in advance!
Ehh...not really. The passage in Isaiah doesn't refer to Jesus, it refers to Hezekiah. There is nothing in the context (Remember to keep it in context.)to suggest a secondary fulfillment centuries later. Also, the author of the gospel attributed to Matthew is quoting from the Septuagint here, and the translators of the Septuagint erred here, because they used the Greek word "parthenos," which means "virgin," while the Hebrew word used in Isaiah 7:14 is "almah," which means "young woman." It CAN be used to denote a virgin, but it is not a given. And, there is nothing in the context to indicate that Isaiah was referring to a virgin. This was a strained interpretation on the part of the author of the gospel attributed to Matthew.




According to you. The only evidence you could possibly offer, short of claiming that God personally told you this, is to quote the Bible, which would bring us back to the start of this conversation.




And, all of what you just said is once again your opinion. What makes your opinion of greater value than other Christians who argued for the inclusion into the canon other books that eventually didn't make it? (After much wrangling, and voting, by the bishops.)

Again, God could've prevented all that hassle, by just saying which books he wanted collected together and preserved, if he insisted on employing the written word.




He CAN'T repeat himself until he actually speaks up the first time. And, again, a bunch of ancient books that claim to be speaking for him is NOT the same thing as him actually speaking. How can you not see the distinction?

I'll use Ra again. If I told you something along the lines of "Ra is the true god. He has been worshiped for five-thousand years; much longer than Jesus or Yahweh. And, Ra says...blah, blah, blah..." and I started quoting stuff from tomb inscriptions and Egyptian myth, you would be telling me the same thing I'm telling you; that Ra hasn't SAID anything. All we have is preserved writings attributed to him.

Well, that was interesting. So, the translators of the KJV followed the Septuagint translators lead when rendering the "unicorn" passages. One thing I will point out, however, is that the Greek word in question, monokeros, means "having one horn." Since there are a number of animals with one horn, like rhinos for instance, we still don't know for certain what kind of animal is being referred to.

Yeah...I can see that, too.
But, he made me think of Tom Hiddleston right out of the gate.