(September 28, 2009 at 7:40 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: I personally don't think that the Bible explains how God can really be Just.

That statement flies in the face of accepted interpretation so for you to make it surely required some logic. Are you saying that you can't back it up?

Point 2: Questioning ≠ agreement

(September 29, 2009 at 6:40 am)fr0d0 Wrote:

(September 28, 2009 at 7:40 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: I personally don't think that the Bible explains how God can really be Just.

That statement flies in the face of accepted interpretation so for you to make it surely required some logic. Are you saying that you can't back it up?

Point 2: Questioning ≠ agreement

That is only because the accepted interpretation is self-serving for the believers. There are a number of biblical events that allow the conclusion of God being at the very least a sadist, if not schizophrenic.

(October 4, 2009 at 5:45 pm)theVOID Wrote: There are a number of biblical events that allow the conclusion of God being at the very least a sadist, if not schizophrenic.

None stand up to scrutiny though.

Quote:There is no reason to worship a God, any other higher being, animal, etc

I believe that true for you, as it is for me.However, I'm not convinced it's correct as general principle.

I argue that all human behaviour has a reason, little of which is determined by logic or or objectivity.

All human behaviour meets a need. (or at least gives the illusion of doing so).That religion is all but universal and differs so much suggests different needs. Religions always reflect the societies which create them.


PS: I'm looking fora deconversion story on another forum,I'll post it if I can find it,to illustrate my point. viz;no need,no religion.--------- Found it: A book,called "'Don't Sleep There Are Snakes" by Daniel Everett,a deconverted missionary.

Review clip:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dr3q6Cid1...re=related

(October 4, 2009 at 6:13 pm)fr0d0 Wrote:

(October 4, 2009 at 5:45 pm)theVOID Wrote: There are a number of biblical events that allow the conclusion of God being at the very least a sadist, if not schizophrenic.

None stand up to scrutiny though.

Yes they do, the character of God in the bible often contradicts himself, changes his mind, takes on multiple personas, makes a talking snake knowing it would be able to trick A&E into eating from the tree, floods the world, and then has to sacrifice himself to himself in order to make up for the sin he created. Judging this persona God as is written in the bible by our psychological analysis would not result in a favorable conclusion.

All blind assertions VOID

(October 4, 2009 at 7:08 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: All blind assertions VOID

Not assertions, thoughts, and shared by many:

http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?/t...n-version/

Shared by many. That makes it right then

(October 4, 2009 at 7:21 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Shared by many. That makes it right then

I never said it did, rather stupid of you to draw that conclusion considering my atheism certainly isn't the view shared by most. In fact i reject arguments from authority conclusively, there has to be substance behind the claim, and there is plenty of substance in a psychological analysis of God - which as i said, is far from favorable to God...

So you reject my conclusion as "stupid" because your view is unpopular according to you, and now substitute "substance". Back to point #1 then... you are making blind assertions.