I understand that for you the whole thing is "justified".

But for me it's not.

Authority dose not automatically equate to being worthy of respect.

Hitler had "authority", does that make him worthy of respect?

Also, the mere act of "creation" does not automatically equate to authority worthiness of respect. Abusive parents can chose to partake in the act of "creating children". Does that make them "worthy of respect"?

You don't EARN authority, you TAKE authority.

What you need to EARN is RESPECT.

The stories told of the actions, decision, and behavior of the "God" depicted in the Bible, have not EARNED my RESPECT.

I disagree with many of the characteristics of the biblical God, especially it's the claim is that it's supposedly all-wise, and even more importantly all-righteous.

The stories of Zeus did not claim that Zeus was all-righteous. If Zeus wanted to do something nasty to you just because he felt like it, that was ok, because Zeus was allowed to do anything and no one could question it.

But the Biblical God is supposed to be a "righteous God" so there's no excuse for this God to do unrighteous things. Nor unwise things, for that matter.

The bottom line is pretty simple MsHarmony. The authors of the Bible have not convinced me that their God is either 'all-wise" or 'all-righteous'.

And since "GOD" is supposedly the "cerebral author" of these stories, (i.e. these stories are supposed to be the inspired word of God). Then clearly a supposedly "all-wise" God was unable to convince me that he is "all-righteous".

But how could that be possible?

It's not possible.

Therefore I can only come to a single conclusion: These stories cannot be the word of any supposedly all-wise, all-righteous God. They necessarily must be the flawed fables of men.

You simply can't expect me to believe that a supposedly "all-wise" God would not be able to sufficiently communicate his wisdom to me via a book that he supposed inspired people to write for him.

Siddhartha Gautama makes more sense!

How can it be that a mortal man could make more sense then God?

perhaps because your ears are more open to mortal men than to God,,,who knows

but I would never EXPECT everyone else to see things with the same perception of what 'makes sense'

Actually I think it may be the other way around, considering man wrote the Bible. Inspired or not, man did write it, and people who believe it seem to put more faith in men, what they wrote and say is true, rather than actually taking a critical look at what God really may be like, leaving all the bias and preconceived notions to prove their beliefs right at the door.

If one were to do that, they might indeed find the truth they thought they knew would quickly fall apart, as people who actually have done it can prove.

Pride does come before the fall though as they say. It's always easier to stay with what you know, rather than be challenged with the idea that maybe just maybe reality is different than what you were told it is.

Who knows?

I know.

I know my own heart and sincerity.

And I'm the only one who needs to know.

In fact this is a huge problem with this whole religion, in order to believe in it, I must believe claims made about me that I know to be false.

Like I'm choosing to "turn against God".

I know without the slightest shadow of a doubt that such accusations are totally false.

And the mere fact that the Hebrew scriptures themselves try to make these exact same accusations about "non-believers" of their stories clinches the fact that they are indeed written by liars who will say anything to try to brainwash people into believing their nonsense.

I know my own heart and sincerity. Therefore any doctrine that claims that my heart and sincerity is not in the "right place" is necessarily lying.

And it makes no sense to have people who's heart and sincerity are in the right place being condemned by a supposedly "righteous God", simply because they found the Hebrew tales to be unreasonable and absurd.

In a very real sense, this alone proves the fallacy of these stories.

This is one claim that I can know beyond any shadow of a doubt that they have indeed lied about.

That's a very good point Kleisto.

I renounce the tales of the ancient Greeks as being nothing more than the fables of men.

I renounce the tales of the ancient Hebrews as being nothing more than the fables of men.

Why should either one of these be any more or less a renunciation of the writings of mere mortal men?

It's just nonsense to suggest that "If you aren't believing in the Hebrews stories then maybe you're not open to God?"

The same thing could be said about any religion or spiritual philosophy.

thats a relevant perception as well,,,

Really that's just a copout, and a good way to keep one binded to a belief system, be it Christianity or otherwise. Anytime an issue in what it teaches come up, you blame the person for not studying hard enough or being easily deceived, rather than really listening to the point being made and giving it some thought before dismissing it away as faulty.

Sad thing is, it's really a rather unconscious reaction. This type of thing happens through no fault of their own. They are so conditioned from a young age, that there is but one truth, that being the one they are taught. They literally cannot see beyond that, so whenever anyone challenges them, they'll come back with anything they can to defend their beliefs, no matter how nonsensical it may sound.

They don't even realize what they are doing. They truly think they have an open mind, and have the truth, are thinking their own thoughts. But they're really not at all, their own thoughts have been replaced, subjugated with the thoughts of the religion.

You cannot have a truly open mind to what the truth is, if the answers all skew in one direction. This is something that those deeply into their chosen religion simply cannot see.

it definitely could be, we could live life without knowledge or faith in ANYTHING but what are five physical senses have experienced for ourself

but we DO put our faith in what has been written by men on paper to record historical events and 'facts',,,,,based upon what our experiences have affirmed to us 'makes sense' or doesnt 'make sense'

there are few topics I can think of that I have 'learned' merely by personal observation with no reference to the writings of men either verifying or refuting ,,,,and most topics have had men who wrote to both verify and refute,,,,so we pick a side based upon what makes 'sense' to us,, but what makes sense certainly picks up or loses momentum by what we experience in our own lives


so, if years from now, someone wrote a book about me, writing all the charity work and 'good deeds' I performed, my iq, etc,,, and then included that I was opposed to abortion and disagreed with the homosexual lifestyle,,,,,,some may feel that combination of information 'made sense' and some may not

likewise it is with the Bible, people get what they get out of it, they apply their personal experience of what 'makes sense' and then go about with a natural human grouping process of 'which fact belongs' and 'which fact cant possibly belong'


call it openness to God, call it reliance on documentation of men, call it grouping and observation or perception based upon personal experience and emotions,,,,,it is what it is,,,

I think it is pretty good reason to believe in a TRUTH if all the answers seem to come back to the same point.

I think it is also rather natural for the mind to form a BASE which it can return to to assess the constant flow of information taken in from our surroundings.

I think my truth coming from the Bible follows a similar pattern to those whose truth come from Science. We stand firm upon our BASE so that we can assess other information. Being open minded, may be more about accepting others based upon an understanding of their BASE than it is about having a base that is unstable and everchanging,,,

I understand what you are saying, but......you have to be willing to look at other ways of thinking from time to time. Just because you think you know what the truth is, does not make it so neccessarily. If there's one thing I've learned in the last few years, and even moreso the last few months, when you think you know everything, you still have plenty to learn.

This is something Christianity and religion in general seems to frown upon. You are told you MUST accept their truth or be gone with you basically. That is not a good basis for an open mind towards truth, when any thinking that goes against it is seen negatively.

If all the answers tend to go back to the same point on their own, fine. But the problem with religion is...you really can't find that out objectively without the cloud hanging over one's head of: "you either believe it or burn". What you believe and what you don't can very much be effected by that. It's not conducive to a truly open, unbiased look at what the truth is.

But that's the whole point right there.

All answers do not keep going back to the same point unless a person is determined to make that be the case.

I'm in total agreement with Kleisto. Christians refuse to see the flaws and fallacies in the biblical stories and demand that they make sense, even when they don't.

They have a single solitary mindset, "The Bible is the infallible word of God and anyone who suggests otherwise is simply wrong".

But the TRUTH is that it's not anywhere close to being infallible. On the contrary it's riddled with inconsistencies, contradictions, and utter absurdities.

So the very idea that all the answer some back to the same point doesn't wash.

Moreover, most Christians who argue this mindset often are totally clueless about any other religions of spiritual views. Thus proving that they aren't even taking the possibility that the Bible could potentially be false seriously.

They have already made up their minds that it's either the Bible or atheism, and they aren't going to touch atheism with a 10-foot pole, so for them, it's either believe in the Biblical stories or face atheism!

If there's one thing I've learned in the last few years, and even moreso the last few months, when you think you know everything, you still have plenty to learn



with this I totally agree, which is why those grounded in faith are similar to those grounded in science and its hard to truly 'objectively' look at one while being grounded in the other


saying something doesnt 'make sense' comes from a base that assumes there is nothing more than what they have already learned, it forms an opinion based upon what one has already learned and a perception that deems anything out side of what has been learned to not 'make sense'

I also agree that you cant be 'objective' if your motivation is to not burn, which has never been my motivation,,,

Ok so now let's take what you are saying an apply it to your own beliefs. In the terms of your defenses of the Bible, are you not doing exactly this?

As for the motivation thing, what is your motivation then in trying to prove it right?

I probably am basing my perceptions on My experiences and what 'makes sense' to me. Thats my point, both sides are pretty much doing the same thing in their 'proving' or 'disproving' responses

Although I have made no conscious decision to 'defend' the bible as much as I have to answer questions people ask about why one should believe , or why I believe

I also have no real motivation to prove the bible right, I just take part in interesting threads which tend to ask questions about its 'right' ness.....

is this open to agnostics? as one my view is that the existence gods, the afterlife and other supernatural phenomena cannot be known by the human mind.

Hi Jrbogie,

What is your definition of "the human mind?" Is it separate from the physical brain? How would you describe "self?" Is it the brain, the body, the soul, or the mind?

Check out my thread about brain scans and free will in the science section.

.http://mingle2.com/topic/show/300970

Such a good question...

Let me warp my two cents into it...?

"What is your definition of "the human mind?" (thanks JB)

Which one?

The HUMAN MIND?... Which is the 'consciousnes' of us all.

or the individual mind...?

Have you ever touched the HUMAN MIND?

Sure, But when they die, They are just all just dressed up and with no where to go!

the human mind envolves those functions of the brain that are not dedicated to life funcion, geanie. by life function i mean such tasks as regulating breathing, hearbeat, etc. everything else, thought, emotion, logic and such is what i mean by "the human mind." it's not separate from the physical brain so much as a funtion of the human brain. self is my mind's opinion of me. my self may be very different from what you see me as. as for "soul", no evidence that such a thing exists.

Hi Jrbogie,


"Self" you say, is your mind's opinion of you. Very interesting, but then that defines YOU as simply "an opinion."

Do you exist or are you just "an opinion" of your mind which is just a function of your brain? You may have to answer that question like this:

"In my mind's opinion, my opinion of myself is that I exist. But that's just an opinion."


No evidence that such a thing as "soul" exists? Of course, in the scientific field that is a well established statement. But I was not actually asking for evidence. Oh well. You are saying then, that you accept the scientific conclusion that there is probably no soul because they have no evidence of it. Or are you a soul agnostic?

So, have you ever had any kind of personal sense of self (or inner self) besides the awareness that your mind has an opinion that self exists?