What does an atheist...

[tackattack]

If both scenarios amount to the same thing then why would you assume I think the Bible is an accurate description of God? It's similar to the picture of bigfoot. It still doesn't capture the whole of the experience that is God. I've tested the bible and I believe I see enough reason through the dogma to find truth. Do I think the bible should be taken litterally of one line at a time without context? No, now that's crazy talk

I never said it was your image of god, you asked what i thought of biblical atrocities and to that i can only respond with the biblical god. I still don't know enough about what you think god is to make any statements about how your idea relates to atrocities.

Let me ask you, how can you reconcile the suffering of innocent people in the world with your image of god?

As for the bible and literal translations, how do you decide what passages you accept as literal and what ones you write off as metaphor or forgery? Do you have a method that anyone could use and come to the same distinctions as you? And have you applied your method of testing the bible to other texts from other religions to see if they also meet the standard you used?

---

If both scenarios amount to the same thing then why would you assume I think the Bible is an accurate description of God? It's similar to the picture of bigfoot. It still doesn't capture the whole of the experience that is God. I've tested the bible and I believe I see enough reason through the dogma to find truth. Do I think the bible should be taken litterally of one line at a time without context? No, now that's crazy talk

I never said it was your image of god, you asked what i thought of biblical atrocities and to that i can only respond with the biblical god. I still don't know enough about what you think god is to make any statements about how your idea relates to atrocities.

Let me ask you, how can you reconcile the suffering of innocent people in the world with your image of god?

I've already wrote this once and then the browser got jacked-up. anyways, let me start by defining what is my perception of the World and God. Your world consists of cause and effects compunded over time into incalculable possibilities of effects. If God is sentient then he created the big bang and has a perspective from outside time and space and is satisfied with the end results of the initial cause so why would he change anything. If he is non-sentient then he caused the big-bang simply by existing and a random or compouned sum of his radiation. If he doesn't exists then something caused the Big Bang and the world view doesn't change.

As for the bible and literal translations, how do you decide what passages you accept as literal and what ones you write off as metaphor or forgery? Do you have a method that anyone could use and come to the same distinctions as you? And have you applied your method of testing the bible to other texts from other religions to see if they also meet the standard you used?

Let me give you an example. I've stated elswhere what I feel is the difference between God's Love and human loving. The Bible isn't contradictory of what's God's Love. The Torah reflects this view. The view is counter to the logical progression of emotions developed through communal evolution. The Quran has some similar points but mostly (with the perspective of the other 2) seems self-serving and humanistic.
I can percieve God's love from strangers and children. I percieve the same feeling when not being "selfish, self-righteous, rude, distrusting, delighting in evil, etc." So basically I use several reeference to come up with an idea, strip the humanity and self-serving aspects, test it in my world and see what surfaces. It was better when I wrote it the first time but I'm in need of a nap.