Can you make a God claim?

[The Grand Nudger]

-Continuing. Of course, it wasn't just the jews who saw something in god that Frodo doesn't see. Que the christian "love" and "light" Jimmy!

So I will cast her on a bed of suffering, and I will make those who commit adultery with her suffer intensely, unless they repent of her ways. I will strike her children dead. Then all the churches will know that I am he who searches hearts and minds, and I will repay each of you according to your deeds.

Suffer not the little children, indeed. I'm spotting a pattern here. Do something god doesn't like, and your kids, pets - maybe a tree or two...all of that is ash. Take that promise to the bank heathens, it's money.

[fr0d0]

Circle jerk

[The Grand Nudger]

Feel free to grab mine, and I'll grab yours. It's not like you aren't invited.

[Nope]

That's the message of the anti Christian Rob, not Christians. To me all of what you say there, and all of that which has become cliché: the skeptics annotated bible; is an obvious misrepresentation and very easily disproved one. It's like me blindly quoting bible verses at you. I'd rather hear original thoughts on the subject.

E

Does the Skeptics online bible have verses that aren't in the bible?

I usually go to another online bible verse site when I need to quote the bible so that I can copy and paste without having to type out from my own bibles. The Skeptic Bible has the same verses that other bibles do so, even if someone copied and pasted from it, what would be the problem?

---

Um no were just anti stupid. We just don't believe in god. Like most of the newer generations that are growing up are most likely going to be atheists because well religion only can be around for so long and children guess what are smart and they know fact from fiction.

No but saying Christianity ruined the world or saying sacrificial religions are better is really saying something

Many of the Christians who visit here have an agenda and don't mind being asses about that agenda. Unfortunately, that means that those Christians who want to have a serious discussion are going to be met with skepticism and maybe even derision. Give posters time to know you and they will realize if you are a different sort of Christian and treat you with less suspicion.

---

Yes sir!

I agree the bible is a pile of shit, but you can't make the case that the church is teaching to not take it seriously. If stuff is bollocks, untrue and actually harmful rather than valuable, then the church could just take it out of the bible. But they refuse to do so because it is "gods word".

Just so you know, jesus was at best very loosely based on some preacher(s) around at the time, and almost his whole life story is mythical in nature: written after his death by non-eye witnesses. Jesus is a story, just as made up as the OT. And you may already agree with this but Christianity doesn't.

I'll make another thread in a while, I have to go polish my chainsaw a bit, eat some babies and swear at my ceiling.

I answered this in another thread so I made myself clear. I don't believe Paul and the apostles made a fictional character up in the much populated Jerusalem in danger of getting beaten, whipped, threatened, hated, crucified, beheaded just so they could write letters to people teaching them a better way to live. You'd have to be idiots of the highest class. One or two "so called" disciples gone retarded? Sure. But not 70

The thread is waaa...aaay off topic. LOL

Anyone who dies for their religion obviously believes in that religion. That belief doesn't make the religion true but it does make their deaths seem pointless and tragic.

People were wiling to drink poisonous kool aid for Jim Jones but that doesn't make their beliefs any more true.

[fr0d0]

That's the message of the anti Christian Rob, not Christians. To me all of what you say there, and all of that which has become cliché: the skeptics annotated bible; is an obvious misrepresentation and very easily disproved one. It's like me blindly quoting bible verses at you. I'd rather hear original thoughts on the subject.

E

Does the Skeptics online bible have verses that aren't in the bible?

I usually go to another online bible verse site when I need to quote the bible so that I can copy and paste without having to type out from my own bibles. The Skeptic Bible has the same verses that other bibles do so, even if someone copied and pasted from it, what would be the problem?

What do you think Nope? What do you think the purpose of the Skeptics Annotated bible is? Why do you think the site exists? Do you think their job is to present the accepted understanding of text or present something else? Do you think that I think they bastardised the text or do you think it's in their cherry picking and pulling out of context to make false conclusions from that I'm talking about?

---

Feel free to grab mine, and I'll grab yours. It's not like you aren't invited.

Thanks for the offer.

[The Grand Nudger]

"Context" cries the apologist as god kills the women, livestock, and children (though not necessarily in that order - he kind of starts on his plate wherever he wants).

[Nope]

E

Does the Skeptics online bible have verses that aren't in the bible?

I usually go to another online bible verse site when I need to quote the bible so that I can copy and paste without having to type out from my own bibles. The Skeptic Bible has the same verses that other bibles do so, even if someone copied and pasted from it, what would be the problem?

What do you think Nope? What do you think the purpose of the Skeptics Annotated bible is? Why do you think the site exists? Do you think their job is to present the accepted understanding of text or present something else? Do you think that I think they bastardised the text or do you think it's in their cherry picking and pulling out of context to make false conclusions from that I'm talking about?

---

Feel free to grab mine, and I'll grab yours. It's not like you aren't invited.

Thanks for the offer.

Unless someone publishes the commentary from the Skeptic Bible, the verses they use are the same ones that every other bible uses. They aren't cherry picked because the entire bible is on their site.

If the verses someone uses are not in context, it should be easy for you to show the true meaning of that verse by explaining what it was supposed to mean instead.

Many of the people here were Christians. Some individuals probably held onto their faith as hard as they could before letting go. That means that people(like me) went on Christian apologetic sites or with 'approved' bible commentary and tried to retain their faith. We already know what is on those types of sites and we still reject your religion. Besides, if the writing of your bible was really guided by an omnipotent, omniscient god, why do I need someone else's words to understand it? I should be able to use my own mind to grasp it.

---

Feel free to grab mine, and I'll grab yours. It's not like you aren't invited.

Thanks for the offer.

Get a room you two.

[Crossless2.0]

Do you think their job is to present the accepted understanding of text or present something else? Do you think . . . they bastardised the text or do you think it's in their cherry picking and pulling out of context to make false conclusions . . . ?

Perhaps off-topic, but this perfectly captures what the early Christians did when they offered their interpretations of OT messianic 'prophecies' concerning Jesus. They certainly weren't concerned with accepted understanding of the texts, nor were they above bastardizing, cherry picking, and pulling out of context these scriptures to reach their own preferred (i.e., 'false' as the orthodox Jews would have it) conclusions. But that doesn't trouble you in the least, does it Frodo?

[The Grand Nudger]

Get a room you two.

Two men enter, one man leaves.

Honestly though, if Frods and I were just hanging out - not here....and not talking god...we'd probably get along like peas and carrots.

[fr0d0]

What do you think Nope? What do you think the purpose of the Skeptics Annotated bible is? Why do you think the site exists? Do you think their job is to present the accepted understanding of text or present something else? Do you think that I think they bastardised the text or do you think it's in their cherry picking and pulling out of context to make false conclusions from that I'm talking about?

---

Thanks for the offer.

Unless someone publishes the commentary from the Skeptic Bible, the verses they use are the same ones that every other bible uses. They aren't cherry picked because the entire bible is on their site.

If the verses someone uses are not in context, it should be easy for you to show the true meaning of that verse by explaining what it was supposed to mean instead.

Many of the people here were Christians. Some individuals probably held onto their faith as hard as they could before letting go. That means that people(like me) went on Christian apologetic sites or with 'approved' bible commentary and tried to retain their faith. We already know what is on those types of sites and we still reject your religion. Besides, if the writing of your bible was really guided by an omnipotent, omniscient god, why do I need someone else's words to understand it? I should be able to use my own mind to grasp it.

Easy for them too, should they want an unbiased source. You'd think the site title would be a clue.

Misunderstanding is not beyond anyone. You can operate in a vacuum. Sure. I guess you don't see the point of the internet and shared information either?

What were the logical reasons that you believed? Many people here were ex christians but I haven't found one that understood any reason for their belief. (because I was ignorant/ told I didn't have to think about it/ otherwise had no reason are not acceptable answers. Blind faith is not biblical faith. You either believed with reason or you didn't). It either magically disappeared once the gave up believing or they never had any good reason to believe in the first place.

---

Do you think their job is to present the accepted understanding of text or present something else? Do you think . . . they bastardised the text or do you think it's in their cherry picking and pulling out of context to make false conclusions . . . ?

Perhaps off-topic, but this perfectly captures what the early Christians did when they offered their interpretations of OT messianic 'prophecies' concerning Jesus. They certainly weren't concerned with accepted understanding of the texts, nor were they above bastardizing, cherry picking, and pulling out of context these scriptures to reach their own preferred (i.e., 'false' as the orthodox Jews would have it) conclusions. But that doesn't trouble you in the least, does it Frodo?

Thanks for telling me what I think.

Why doesn't it bother me? What is to stop anyone from any period of time misinterpreting anything? I don't dismiss any serious attempt at making sense of reality, including atheism.