So, in other words, from your perspective either the biblical stories of a God are true, or atheism is true, and there can be no other possibilities. So rather than face the potential reality of atheism you cling to the idea that the biblical fables must be true.

Your stance in #3 implies that you have divine knowledge, and therefore unlike the vast majority of mortal humans you have no need for faith because you have absolute divine knowledge on the matter.

How does that fit in with your stance that to believe in the bible is a matter of Free Will Choice? How can you be asked to make a Free Will Choice if you claim to know for a fact that it's true?

It would be pretty stupid to reject something that you know to be true don't you think?

Yet, this is precisely what the authors of the biblical stories expect us to believe. We are to believe that all of the Egyptians and all of the Canaanites knowingly and willfully make a FREE WILL CHOICE to reject God.

I personally find this to be one of the greatest flaws in the stories and a blatant display that these stories were just made up rumors and accusations of one culture against other cultures.

The reason should be obvious to everyone.

Both the Egyptians and the Canaanites were worshiping a God (or Gods).

Well, if they had made a FREE WILL CHOICE to reject God then they wouldn't be trying to worship God. Clearly they were under a belief that they were indeed worshiping God (i.e. the creator of life)

The Canaanites were so sincere in their worship of God that they were sacrificing their own babies to God. That's some pretty powerful devotion right there.

As far as I'm concerned, in order for the biblical stories to have any merit at all both the Egyptians and the Canaanites would have had to have actually rejected God. They couldn't be worshiping "false Gods" because that's not "rejecting God", on the contrary they were obviously under the belief that they were desperately attempting to worship God and do God's will.

If there was any mis-communication going on that would have been God's failing. Obviously, according to you, you have absolute knowledge that the biblical God is true. Well, if God can give you that kind of knowledge then why couldn't he give it to the Egyptians and Canaanites?

The only way the biblical stories could be true about the Egyptians and Canaanites is if both of those cultures refused to even acknowledge God at all. Period. In fact, they couldn't even be have been atheists. In order to knowingly and willfully reject the Biblical God they would have had to recognize that the biblical God is indeed their creator, and then they would have to simply refuse to obey or worship him.

But that wasn't what either of those cultures were doing. Both of those cultures were heavily into worshiping their "Creator" in the only way they knew how. So the accusation that they were turning against God is a false accusation made by the Hebrews against other cultures who simply refuse to accept the Hebrew picture of God.

So as far as I can see, the stories have proven themselves to be false.

So just as you believe that you "know" these fables are true, I'm just as convinced that I "know" they are false.

Unlike you, however, I don't run off jumping to the conclusion that if one man-made fable is false then atheism must be true.

There are other spiritual philosophies to be had. And many of them are quite reasonable. They are self-consistent in their own claims. They are also compatible with all known scientific observations of the real world.

So, for me, it doesn't come down to either the Bible or Atheism.

That is the kind of thinking that Christian evangelists would love for everyone to believe. Once you get people thinking in that narrow band, then it's a lot easier to try to lure them into an idea of a potential spiritual essence to life, rather than pure atheism which obviously has nothing to offer but sure spiritual death.

Get people thinking in terms of that little ON/OFF box and many people will be enticed to explore the spiritual possibility.

Like I say, fortunately real life is not so restricted. There are other spiritual philosophies to be had, and many of them make far more sense than the biblical picture of a Zeus-like male Godhead who is clearly associated with blood sacrifices as atonement for sin. There's no getting around that, even though you obviously try very hard to dismiss those things yourself.

Most Christians believe, and most Christian Clergy preach that Jesus died on the cross to pay for our sins.

For you to brush that off as being a mere aside would not go over well with most Christians, IMHO.

So when you say,


I personally find your interpretations of the "gospel" to be quite unique and not on harmony with the vast majority of preachers I've heard who also claim to be "spreading the gospel".

And that just drives home yet another obvious truth:

Everyone who reads these biblical stories reaches different conclusions about what they are supposedly even saying. And this is why the religion as a whole has become so fragmented over the centuries.

We now have Judaism, Islam, Catholicism, and the myriad of different views of the protesting Protestants. They all have totally different stories and idea of what this Biblical God wants and expects from us. The Jews and Muslims don't even believe in the divinity of Jesus.

And what the "Good News" that Jesus brought to us?

That the path is straight and the gate is narrow to the kingdom of God and only FEW will make it?

That's supposed to be "Good News"?

I guess it could be if you have convinced yourself that you'll be one of those FEW who make it.

But for people who are concerned about others, this would not be good news at all, all it says is that the vast majority of humans are not going to make it into the kingdom of God.

That's not "Good News" for anyone who cares about people in general IMHO.

It can only be "Good News" for individuals who have convinced themselves that they have a shot at being one of the FEW who make it.

I have always found it amusing that Christians believe they are one of the chosen tribes anyway. They can't know that for sure from what is in the bible.

So when they get judged and god sends them to hell for being the wrong religion what then?

"The one true son of God, healer of the sick,prophet to the world, leader of 13 disciples, sent here to die for our sins and raised on Sunday.Eat of his body and drink of his blood. All praise MITHRA !!!"

"The one true son of God, healer of the sick,prophet to the world, leader of 13 disciples, sent here to die for our sins and raised on Sunday. Eat of his body and drink of his blood. All praise HORUS !!!"

We know of approximately 2800 "Gods" who have been worshipped by mankind.....Jesus is just another in a long succession of Gods...

Today's religion will be tomorrow's mythology

It is interesting how fables and imagination add up to "truth"

I knwo I'm behind a LOT OF POSTS but I just had to post the following reply - I thought it was important.



There is AMPLE information out there in the historic archives of libraries. A good beginning and very short book, inexpensive – free if you borrow it from the library – Here’s the information about it.

Author: Lowell J. Satre
Chocolate on Trial: Slavery, politics & the ethics of business /1st ed.
Ohio University Press, Athens, Ohio 45701
© 2005 by Ohio University Press

The days when abolition was a source of mass popularity had ended as most of Europe had instituted laws preventing slavery and slave trade. However, the colonization process of Africa was far away and out of site.

The book is about a William Cadbury (yes the great chocolate magnet) and about his actions when word reached him that slavery was in effect on the plantations of Sao Tome and Principe, whose principle crops were the cocoa bean. Cadbury and the other Friends (all Quakers) were very concerned because this was their greatest source of cocoa.

For over 10 years (beginning about 1901) Cadbury and the other chocolate moguls “researched” the claims and found many justifications which allowed them to CONTINUE doing business and making their fortunes as the slavery continued.

OH – DID I SAY SLAVERY? Actually it was a form on indentured servitude, which often how this kind of slavery slips under government radars (or sometimes, the excuse the governments backs). These slaves were most often purchased from Chief’s. At first there was some minor attempt to have paperwork, but the Africans had no idea what that was all about, eventually there was no more paperwork.

Once the slaves had been shipped to the islands – they were never freed. Some didn’t go to the islands, they were still being shipped to America – similarly passing government trade agreements via indentured contracts of which the poor slaves had no knowledge or understanding of.

This book contains a powerful message, one that is relevant to our modern world. The message is all the greater because it is relayed with the greatest respect for maintaining the integrity of history as a source of knowledge.

In the end, like Satre, (the author) we also discover that there are others, (freedom fighters) willing to sacrifice, to give up wealth and power in order to preserve the human dignity. They are with us today pointing out the injustice to the mass consumers who are unaware that they support slavery by another name, sweatshops, child labor, and the selling of humans into servitude.

YES, it continues - that indentured lie and consumers who are too worried about the latest seasonal fashions refuse to accept that they are in way a party to slavery’s continuance.

Colonial America – another - easy enough to look up, hundreds of thousands of indentured servants were brought here. Some contract were seven or more years – of course those could be extended for bad behavior, trying to escape, or being caught stealing. Of course there was no trial, just the accusation of the master and the contract was extended. Look it up – right here in America and no they were not black slaves.

The Chinese – did you know they were not even allowed to become citizens, and they were often told it was too costly to ship them back so they had to work more years – but of course the “company store” made sure to sell them the necessities of life for the same amount of their pay checks.

There IS A REASON why the U.S.A. does not allow any person to enter into an indentured labor contract. It’s the reason why the out of work handyman who sold lottery tickets for a chance to win his knowledge, skills, and services for a year (or two) was not allowed to complete the transaction and he had to return all the money.

Indentured labor IS SLAVERY and there is absolutely no reason to believe it is any different TODAY, from the early 19th century to biblical times. In fact the following bible verse was posted and it DOES seem to be slavery.

Exodus 21:1-4 "If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing. If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself: if he were married, then his wife shall go out with him. If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out by himself."

What do you suppose that means for the wife and children who now BELONG to the master? Sounds a lot like cattle or like the ways in which African slaves were treated – doesn’t it?

Context is important, what is being discussed is how long the man will be a servant and under what conditions he'll leave.

If she's Hebrew...

It means the wife and children stay until they are freed at the end of the wife's 6 years of service. Just because her husband has served his six years of service, doesn't meant the wife has served hers.

If she's Canaanite...

She and her children belong to the master. The husband has the right to stay with his wife and children or even not accept her as his wife in the first place. He would also have the ability to buy or trade for his wife.

Slavery isn't God's highest will for us, but because of the hard hearts and stiff necks of the Israelites, they wanted to own slaves, get divorces and have a king like their neighboring countries. God allowed his people to commit some sins, because any stronger controls put upon them would have caused greater rebellion.

Spider,

May I ask how you have arrived at that last conclusion?

Great substantive post Di...

The Pharisees tested Jesus on divorce and here was the result...



Knowing God's character, I feel very safe in assuming that Jesus' answer to a question on slavery would have resulted in a very similar answer.

Spider,

I have no idea how you arrived at this...



from what you just posted, other than the connective...

"Knowing God's character..."

That section of scripture on divorce had nothing to do with the Israelites or slavery, as far as I can see. Can you explain how you got to from the divorce scripture to the conclusion about slavery?

Maybe two similar semi sins god allowed?

Hey I read the post (shrug)

Not that is as it should be at all.

What I posted shows God's attitude towards some immoral acts allowed in the Law of Moses. In particular: Divorce. I know God's character from reading the Bible. God is merciful, loving and just. Slavery is none of those things. I also know that the Israelites begged and eventually demanded for a King of Israel, because they wanted to be like other nations. The Israelites wanted to live like other nations lived, which is a part of human nature. It isn't unreasonable to assume that God allowed Moses to write laws pertaining to slavery, because the people demanded to own slaves. A law forbidding slavery entirely probably would have caused the Israelites to rebel, which would have resulted in far worse things than some Israelites owning slaves.

You are correct.

You say you have read the Bible, so you must know that the purpose of Israel was to act as a cradle to Jesus. The culture was molded by God to make them receptive to Jesus. In another society, Jesus might not have been able to gain followers or his teachings might have been forgotten. The Israelites had an extremely strong oral tradition, it was common for an Israelite man to memorize the entire Torah (they still have Torah memorizing competitions in Israel). This was important, so that the story of Jesus would be correctly remembered until someone thought to write it down. God had to allow the Israelites to sin, so that they would stay together and form a society that would be receptive to his message.

I see.

There is not mis-communication on God's part. How can it be the speakers fault the listener didn't hear and or understand what the speaker was saying if the listener is covering their ears humming? How is it God's fault that YOU choose not to believe what has been said? What good would it do for God to reveal himself once again? When Jesus was crucified God said "This is my son, in whom i'm well pleased". You choose not to believe he said such a thing. So if God made another appearance say today, then tomorrow people such as you would claim well that's just hearsay rumors, why doesn't he do it again, ect ect. With your view on things God would have to make an appearance with EVERY generation that shows up on earth. And that's not God's job. Must we forget again, it was the human race that turned away from God? So if one wishes to have a relationship with our father one must return back to where we left. It is not God's obligation, duty, job, or anything of such. God has shown himself and has spoke. Nothing more God can do, has done, or anything of such would change anything. It all lays in your hands and what you wish to do and or believe.

The O.T. Fundy god was nothing if not extremely unreasonable in his alleged dealings with his non-Isrealite creations. He allegedly wiped out entire nations for far less. But according to this theory, he'd turn a blind eye to immorality out of expediency?

I'm not buying it. This sounds like an all-too-human rationalization masquerading as an excuse to be able to do as they pleased while setting double standards for everyone else.

A far more plausible theory is that fundamentalist religion, as usual, is an old war horse that was rode hard and put away wet.


-Kerry O.

The O.T. Fundy god was nothing if not extremely unreasonable in his alleged dealings with his non-Isrealite creations. He allegedly wiped out entire nations for far less. But according to this theory, he'd turn a blind eye to immorality out of expediency?

I'm not buying it. This sounds like an all-too-human rationalization masquerading as an excuse to be able to do as they pleased while setting double standards for everyone else.

A far more plausible theory is that fundamentalist religion, as usual, is an old war horse that was rode hard and put away wet.


So you don't think that God would allow his people some sins, so they wouldn't rebel into greater sins? What do you base this on? Jesus clearly taught that was the case with divorce, why is it such a leap to assume the same is true of slavery?

I think the leap was assuming to know God's character/will. One cannot get there unless they deny the scripture. Taken from there, all things can be rationalized.

So you don't think that God would allow his people some sins, so they wouldn't rebel into greater sins? What do you base this on? Jesus clearly taught that was the case with divorce, why is it such a leap to assume the same is true of slavery?

marriege is not slavery. It is a mutual contract between consenting people.

slavery is a totally different option in all of its various forms. Slavery is a contract forced by circumstances or outright violence upon on human or group by another.

It matters not if the 'slave' is payed or simply 'used' FORCING another person to ACCEPT 'employment' is slavery no matter what 'gentle' method is used to accomplish the force.

there is a persistence to make the 'most common' english understanding of a word its only POSSIBLE reference,,,


sigh

side note...

Anyone alive today that claims to KNOW the will of GOD is either telling US a bold faced lie...

Or telling him or her self a delusional lie.

god by its essence is unknowable.

else it would be not god.