Why the "There are so many interpretations of the Bible" claim is confused

[TheRocketSurgeon]

---

TheRocketSurgeon


I am hoping that I've not done all this work in vain, I went through every verse you posted and answered each one, this all took more time than I thought it would and I've been busy getting my home and property ready for winter. Please don't do like all the others when I post this much in answer to your post, they will ignore all the work I put into it to give them an answer, childish is all I know to say of them. Sorry this took so long, but here it is.

 
There are no word games, what I'm saying is from scripture and you know this if you've studied scripture as you say you have. There's no threat either and you know this also if you are the scholar of the scriptures you say you are. As we have discussed, we are born with a sin nature meaning we are going to sin and man himself created this situation not God. This being so means we are bound for an eternal punishment, unless we find a way out of it. God provided a gift, His Son, to save us from this eternal punishment, this is justice and a gift from God. Please do not come back with a robber threatening someone with their lives, it's old and tiring. The person being threatened in that analogy wasn't in that situation from birth and might not have ever been, it took a decision from someone else to put them in a threatened situation.


Of coarse I know what happens at death, why ask such a silly question. I didn't say God wasn't hidden anymore, so it's not my story, it's what you want others to believe I said, when I did not. God's not hidden from anyone who wants to accept Christ as their Savior, all one needs to do is sincerely seek Him and they will find Him, come to know Him and trust Him. For those who claim God has hidden himself they are trying only to fool themselves so they want have to accept He's real. I have looked at my beliefs about God sincerely and honestly and because I have God has revealed himself to me in ways that gives me personally proof of His existence, not doubts at all. So yes I can reject all others because I know the One True God and He says there are no other gods.



Your condescending statement is not appreciated. Because I believe differently than you doesn't mean either of us is superior to the other. Yes I do believe in the Creation story and the story of the fall, if you believe this makes me something less than you then your mind is smaller than you believe.


I didn't say we are born with sin stain, that's you twisting what I actually said, (sin nature) there's a big difference. Again if you were the scholar of the Bible you claim to be you would know it says we are punished only for our own sin, not others. I did say we are to try and abstain from sin, I also said it was impossible for us because our nature is to sin. Christ was given as a sacrifice to redeem us from our sin, and He is our gift if we decide to accept Him. This is the only way to salvation, you can't earn it as you have suggested in your previous post.


That was a nice story, very enjoyable and did suggest salvation through a sacrifice, how ever C.S. Lewis said he did not write the story as a reflection upon the Christ story.


Salvation can not be earned, you claiming to know the scriptures should know this. Paul teaches this throughout his writings and Jesus himself said that no one can come to the Father except by me. Neither claimed that one must earn salvation, if we could then Christ's death on the cross would not have been necessary. Once someone accepts Christ as their savior then they have a desire to live a life according to His teachings and many of those teachings came from the OT.



Never will I stop using the word free when I speak of salvation. It's only considered a lie by those who run from God, it makes them feel like God doesn't exist, however no matter how you want to look at it you can't wish the living God away.


That's right and that's what scriptures teach.


I don't have to tell you there's a debt to be paid, you know there is, it's the guilt that's being suppressed in your heart that creeps out on occasion to haunt you. You make the debt, why do you think you don't believe you need to repay it. You try that with a bank and you end up in trouble, right, same with God.


You are grasping at straws now or you're showing ignorance of the Bible. We do not have to pay a price for Adam and Eve's sin, the Bible is explicit about this, that's straw one broken. There was no magical necessity, it was a purposeful necessity, either that or hell for the sins we commit.
God murdering you, what kind of thinking is that, IMO it's absolutely ridiculous. Christ's blood has paid for all, if you do not accept the payment then you will not receive the gift. How is it someone as smart as you can't see the truth God presents through the Bible.



They didn't believe Christ was for the world as you have so crudely said, they believed wrongly that Christ was their personal possession, the whole of the Bible teaches that Christ came to save the world.


I didn't say sin was more powerful than God, He will destroy sin forever once it runs it's coarse. Sin is chaos and has no rules, sin goes against who God is, talk about lies, you've thrown out several so far, an intelligent person shouldn't have to resort to such tactics. What child's play tells me, you have found or developed a hate for God to benefit your desires, you have fallen short of His will for your life and put your own self in jeopardy of eternal punishment.



It's your right to have opinions about me, that doesn't mean you're correct though. I have told you before I've considered what I believe through the study of the Bible, very involved study. I find God none of what you claim, actually I find Him loving, truthful, just, responsible, caring and always ready to help even before I know I need help.



You're right, sorry I miss read what you said.


I didn't say we haven't done good things and you know I wasn't advocating such. As for prisoners well we have gone overboard and need to back off on somethings, but that's a discussion for another thread. The depravity I see is such as child porn and slavery, there are more children and women in slavery today than any time in the past. Homosexual marriage, people living together instead of marrying and making a commitment to each other, divorce at an all time high, kids killing each other and teachers, a country wealthy enough to feed all it's own people and many across the world yet greed keeps it from happening, I could write much more but I believe you see what I'm saying.



I been here for over five years and seen all the things said about Dawkins and he has been raised on a very high pedestal, so much so it seems many revere him as a god, don't tell me I haven't seen this when I know I have, why are you defending those who are wrong, it doesn't look good. I do not care what you've read, I've seen Dawkins making his grand stands when he is at different schools, he's as arrogant as they come.



Deut. 13:7-19 These verses were for Israelis to punish Israelis, God wanted to keep corruption from false gods out of the people from which He would bring His Son. You left out verse 6 and part of verse 7 that states that this is meant only for disobedient, covenant breaking Israelis, they made a covenant with God not to worship false gods.

Deut. 17:2-5 These verses are also for Israelis against covenant breaking Israelis, again this pertains to the covenant they made with God not to worship false gods. You also left out the verses following verse 7 that says, you are to have two or three witnesses against the covenant breaker, one will not do. The witnesses are to cast the first stone the the rest of the village is to cast stones, this you left out was to prevent an injustice being committed against an innocent person.

Exodus 22:19 God wanted to protect His people who were chosen to bring His Son into the world from perversions and sexual immoralities, this type of perversion would be dangerous on many levels, one would be to protect the people from sexual diseases. 


Lev. 20:10-16 I've added verses here, these verses show how much God hates sexual impurity and wants to save His chosen people from something that could destroy them, also this is a way of transmitting sexual diseases, they had no cure for them then, sexual purity was the only sure preventative.

Deut. 22:20-21 Again God hates sexual immorality and if the daughter disgraces her father by an act of sexual immorality she is put to death. This is to protect the family name and more so the name of Israel before the nations around them. You also left out the verses preceding verse 20, they are about the man accusing a fathers daughter of not being a virgin because the man hates her or whatever the accusation may be. If the daughter was a virgin then the man must pay the father and remain the daughters husband for the rest of their lives. God wants His people to live honest and just lives to honor Him before the other nations.


Deut. 13:15 You've already brought this up, it was the very first one but I want to add something I left out in my earlier answer. God said the people had to be certain that men of a town lead the town astray to worship false gods. He also said to destroy the people and the town and everything in it, they were not allowed to keep anything from that town, it was to all be burnt. God wanted to keep His people pure to keep out the corruption of false gods because this was the people chosen to bring His Son into the world.

Deut. 18:20-22 Again you're leaving out verses relative to the ones you posted. This is a prophecy in itself about the Son of God and that the people shall know this prophet by his truths, truths from the Father. Then God says that the false prophet or prophet from a false god is lying to them and they should not be afraid of him because what he says can bring no fear to them. God also says that prophet shall die, He gives no command for him to be killed nor does He say how the false prophet will die.

Zech. 13:3 Verse 1 is about the second coming of the Messiah, this is prophecy, God the Father is saying He will cleans the earth and there will be no use for prophets again. God says if any man prophecies during this time he is a liar and his father and mother will tell him he will not live for what he has done and will pierce him through. God is cleaning up the world and will not allow such things to go on to corrupt others.

Lev. 24:10-16 Once again this is law for Israelis against Israelis, they are a chosen people (actually a nation made by God) for the purpose of bring into the world God's Son. God asked for respect from this people and they made a covenant with God not to do these things you complain about, things that apply to only the Israelis, why because they know Him personally.

Ezekiel 9:1-7 This is a prophecy, a vision given Ezekiel by God, this is what God shows Ezekiel will happen when the Persian Empire puts Jerusalem under siege. God shows Ezekiel that the unrighteous will die and God will save the ones He sees as righteous for a remnant to preserve Israel. To put it simply, God was showing Ezekiel what was going to happen to Israel by the Persians and that He would save a righteous remnant of Israelis to preserve the nation. If you had wanted to know what was actually happening in that chapter, you would have read the chapter after chapter 9 and discovered God told Ezekiel what would happen to other nations when the Persians came rolling through.

Exodus 31:12-15  Keeping the Sabbath in these verses was given specifically to the Israelis, nothing to do with the NFL, or any other sport played on any day. Since Christ we have worshiped on Sundays they were worshiping on the last day of the week, so tell me which is the seventh day, by the calendar Saturday is, we worship a God who is eternal and keeps no real calendar. To answer your concern, God wanted His people to be holy as He is holy and keep His commandments to show the world who He is and to have a good nation to bring His Son into the world, this is a day intended for God and His people to have fellowship in a more personal way.


Lev. 25:44-46 Since you seem to pick verses out of the middle of several verses meant for an understanding of what God wants for His people, I'm having to show how what you're doing here is wrong. The beginning of this teaching starts at Lev. 25:35 and this teaching is about how Israelis are to treat each other. They are not to take advantage of those Israelis who are down in life, they are to help each other without taking advantage of them in any way. This is also how the teaching ends in Lev. 25:46. The verses you have pulled from the teaching is to show how the Israelis are to treat each other in contrast to how the world treats other people and even their own people. God gave them permission to have slaves from other nations for many reasons, but I believe the one that's foremost here, is that before the nation of Israel was ever established the world was using slaves everywhere. God was working through the history of man. Nevertheless the teaching here is how Israelis are to help each other.

Exodus 21:20-21 In these verses God calls for the slave owner to be punished if the slave dies, if the slave lives the slave owner is not to be punished. This continues in Exodus 21:26 if that same slave suffers the loss of an eye or tooth the slave is to be freed, seems to me God didn't want slaves mistreated. In Exodus 21:21 the word translated survives literally means stands, which to mean would actually indicate the slave lives. I know you will take it as you desire but the possibility is there that the slave lives.

Deut. 22:28-29 Surely you know your ancient history well enough to know that a young woman was only worth to the family what would be given for her by the groom's family. If she is raped then she will become a burden to the family, she becomes someone to take care of without any means of contributing to the finances of the family. This is why this law is given among others, the family is financially satisfied and the woman gets her husband that has to take care of her for the rest of his life, this was set up as a deterrent to rape, a man might think twice about raping a women he doesn't desire to spend the rest of his life with. Unfortunately men held women in low regard then and didn't consider what they might think of the man who raped her, though she knew that he was the only one she could marry, because no other man would want her, not in that day.


In Numbers 31, God was taking vengeance on the Midians and He used the Israelis to do so, God is cleaning out the land for His people, this isn't murder it's war, the same kind of war many nations waged against Israel (which you do not complain about, strange). The women who were keep were children, still virgins and nothing was said in those verses that the men could rape them, there were penalties for that behavior.
In Deut. 20:10 The Israelis were to ask for a peaceful resolution first, if the peoples agree then the people of that city became forced labor, this was a standard of wars during those days. Again there is no mention of the women being used for rape or sexual slavery (if you actually see a difference in the two).
Judges 5:28-31 This is part of a song sang to the LORD, the verses you posted said nothing about sexual slavery nor rape, sure you know the scriptures as you profess.
Zech. 14:1-2 This is a continuation of the prophecy in chapter 13, this is yet to come. The ravished women in this verse are those that the nations warring against Jerusalem will ravage, this isn't anything God is commanding, it is what He sees happening in the future it is those who are against God will do. You have given a poor account of yourself as one who claims to b the best Bible scholar on this forum. What did you really do Google this stuff up, were you just being lazy. I would expect someone who knew the scriptures as well as you've claimed would have taken in all the relevant verses before and after the verses you posted, were you even thinking when you posted this stuff.



I wrote off their ideologies, not the people and you know that's what I said, now how's playing word games. I haven't philosophies that condemn people for their race or thoughts. I have very specific beliefs about how and why people treat those they do not like ie. hate. Are you telling us you're a White Supremacist, if you're not why are you spending so much time with them, is the bold by me above a way of trying to hide the fact.


Now I see your problem when you say you were a Christian, you hated others and you had to because you said you were freed from it by your atheism. Christians are not to hate anyone, we can hate the sin but not the person, we are not to hate those of different religions, different beliefs or non-beliefs. We are not to judge others until we examine ourselves and then only by what the scriptures say and our judgement is never to be condemning. Yes Christians make mistakes and do things we shouldn't just like others do, but it seems as a christian you were doing everything Christ said not to do, no wonder you weren't happy as a Christian, you were living a life outside of what Christ called us to live, maybe you should try again and this time doing it with the love of Christ, the real love for mankind, a love that was given to save people from a destination the couldn't otherwise escape.


I've been in the home of the Grand Wizard of the KKK and I understand exactly what goes on with their twisted ideologies, for one killing people because their different is hate period. Hatred and murder have no place in Christianity, a definite teaching of Christ and His disciples.
I think you can't find a difference in how you conducted yourself as a Christian and what you see in them, I see this as a very sad thing, especially for someone with your intelligence.




I thought you were saying I was submissive.



I wasn't insulting you, I was pointing out that changing morals do not have to always be a good thing for people and at times they are not. If you really followed the teachings of Jesus you would see we do not need to change morals.


I guess will have to agree to disagree on this, guess you haven't seen all the post where I take a stern stand against depriving blacks or any other race for any reason, it's just plain wrong. I don't support any of the other stuff you posted either.





You forget I've had real experiences with God, He has revealed himself to me in ways that give me no doubts He's real.


I used "spiritual knowledge" because it means knowing for sure, spiritual discernment is knowing the differences of spiritual truths and the false things people call spiritual. The way you tried to use those verses you posted doesn't speak to highly of spiritual knowledge on your part, you showed how little you know about the scriptures. I'm not trying to say anything bad about you, I'm saying spiritual knowledge come from God, giving us the ability to understand His word and purposes.


When I say self interest I mean you think your way is right and that God doesn't mean anything to you, in other words you put yourself above the God of creation and salvation. It's the same thing Eve did when she listened to the serpent in the garden and then chose herself over God.


I don't need your forgiveness unless I've offended you purposely which I don't think I have. I have full confidence in my beliefs, I know God is real, no doubts, none at all, that's why I seek His forgiveness daily, I know I offend Him, the holy, righteous God of salvation.
Don't fell like you need to answer this post I know we've stretched this thing out, sorry it took so long to answer, I wanted to make sure I answered all of it and I've been tied up with things around here.

GC

---

Well, well. Someone took a "big boy" poop...

Anyone willing to wade though this should have their head examined...

Without a doubt, my friend. Without a doubt.

[Losty]

---

I am hoping that I've not done all this work in vain, I went through every verse you posted and answered each one, this all took more time than I thought it would and I've been busy getting my home and property ready for winter. Please don't do like all the others when I post this much in answer to your post, they will ignore all the work I put into it to give them an answer, childish is all I know to say of them. Sorry this took so long, but here it is.

I'll do my best. However, I have already read your answers and found most of it to be willfully-crafted bullshit. You have to know that much of what you said is unsustainable, but I'll go through and gladly dissect it for you.

 
There are no word games, what I'm saying is from scripture and you know this if you've studied scripture as you say you have. There's no threat either and you know this also if you are the scholar of the scriptures you say you are. As we have discussed, we are born with a sin nature meaning we are going to sin and man himself created this situation not God. This being so means we are bound for an eternal punishment, unless we find a way out of it. God provided a gift, His Son, to save us from this eternal punishment, this is justice and a gift from God. Please do not come back with a robber threatening someone with their lives, it's old and tiring. The person being threatened in that analogy wasn't in that situation from birth and might not have ever been, it took a decision from someone else to put them in a threatened situation.

"From scripture" is something that the Christians with whom you would fiercely disagree also claim to base their theology upon. It's disingenuous of you to claim that you have the only solid understanding of the scriptures when I, after having this discussion with you, will be unlikely to go a week before having another discussion with a Christian who holds an entirely different POV on what "from scripture" means.

As to our "sin nature", man did not create "the situation" alone. According to your story, God put the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil "in the midst" of the Garden, where it would be a certain temptation to mankind. Regardless of what Adam and Eve did, in any case, it is ridiculous to claim that there is justice for me to serve prison time for something my grandfather did. It is an infinite amount worse to say that I have a debt that can result in an infinite punishment for something my grandfathers's great great gr.........great grandfather did. What is old and tiring is your claim that subjugating my will to that of the writers of Bronze Age fables who claim to speak for God, and accepting that a vicarious blood sacrifice would work a magic cure if only I will surrender my reason and "just believe" first, is "free" or a "gift". It is clearly neither; it is a precondition of being "saved" from the punishment which I will automatically incur if I do not accept the terms of this contract. A contract offered at gunpoint is null and void, even if it says "I freely accept this contract" right above the signature line.

 

Of coarse I know what happens at death, why ask such a silly question. I didn't say God wasn't hidden anymore, so it's not my story, it's what you want others to believe I said, when I did not. God's not hidden from anyone who wants to accept Christ as their Savior, all one needs to do is sincerely seek Him and they will find Him, come to know Him and trust Him. For those who claim God has hidden himself they are trying only to fool themselves so they want have to accept He's real. I have looked at my beliefs about God sincerely and honestly and because I have God has revealed himself to me in ways that gives me personally proof of His existence, not doubts at all. So yes I can reject all others because I know the One True God and He says there are no other gods.

Again with the "accept first" stuff. You're saying "become a believer, then you'll see if becoming a believer is a reasonable thing to do". That is the peak of insanity, in any other context. Why hide at all? My point was that the Salvation Plan you speak of is unavailable after death, when actual, unquestionable proof is finally available... prior to that, I must simply accept your word (and that of the writers of the Bible which you follow) that any of this is not like all the other cults on earth. It is especially the case, since I can see in your Holy Book a great many things that are absolutely contrary to logic, reason, and scientifically-verifiable fact. To suggest that the only way I can see that what you believe is true is to believe it in-advance is no different than the claims of a thousand other cults, worldwide. I am sure you can understand my anger at this suggestion, if you picture having a conversation with a Hari Krishna, who tells you that the only reason you don't believe in Lord Krishna is because you are "running from the Truth", and just don't want to accept that it is real. Can you really not see how ridiculous you would find that Hari Krishna, in that situation? No matter how assured you are of the truth of your beliefs, you still sound not a shred different to me than that HK would sound to you, or to me for that matter.

 
Your condescending statement is not appreciated. Because I believe differently than you doesn't mean either of us is superior to the other. Yes I do believe in the Creation story and the story of the fall, if you believe this makes me something less than you then your mind is smaller than you believe.

I apologize for the condescending tone, but truly it is very hard for me to have a serious conversation with someone who doesn't understand evolution, since that is what I did professionally for the first decade of my adult life. You're trying to tell me that after all my work at understanding population genetics, cellular biochemistry and chemical genetics, zoology, physics, etc, that I should throw all that out the window and accept a Bronze Age story written by people who thought that Lamarckian acquired-characteristic inheritance was a thing (Genesis 30). When you tell me stories about magic trees, humanity coming from a single pair of individuals, and talking snakes... it's hard not to think of you in the same light I see someone who tells me that he has conversations with aliens unless he wears his special tinfoil hat.

 

I didn't say we are born with sin stain, that's you twisting what I actually said, (sin nature) there's a big difference. Again if you were the scholar of the Bible you claim to be you would know it says we are punished only for our own sin, not others. I did say we are to try and abstain from sin, I also said it was impossible for us because our nature is to sin. Christ was given as a sacrifice to redeem us from our sin, and He is our gift if we decide to accept Him. This is the only way to salvation, you can't earn it as you have suggested in your previous post.

I deliberately used the term to indicate the permanence of the condition "inherited" from Adam, and also to break out of the cycle of rhetoric you don't seem to realize you're using. New terminology to describe old concepts helps us both to look at the idea fresh. And many, many Christians do believe that our sin nature is a taint that was acquired from Adam, meaning that we are flawed from before our birth. Others (as you appear to do) believe that we are born flawless, and "fall" when we begin to commit sins at some age when we are old enough to understand the consequences of our actions in defiance of God, as a way to avoid saying that God would send a toddler to hell for being a sociopathic little shit (which they are, as you know if you've ever raised a child). In any case, there's no effective difference between "unable to avoid sinning" and "sinners from birth", so really your point is rhetorical. Either way, we are doomed from the moment we enter this world, according to your mythology, and we "earn" our salvation by paying the price of giving up our own reason and "accepting in advance" that belief in Christ fixes this (entirely fictional, to anyone who doesn't already believe) problem of "sin", sin being defined as defiance of God's will.

So God makes the problem (by having a will in the form of a set of behavior-commandments which can be defied, to our eternal detriment in the form of torturous hellfire), and then offers the solution, which you claim we are free to accept as a gift... only it's not free, since it's to our eternal torturous detriment not to do so. That's called a protection racket, in any other context.

As I said before:

You keep saying "all I have to do is accept", except that's a bald-faced lie, isn't it? There's a host of other "accessories" that accompany this "free gift" of salvation, mainly to do with obeying the rules written down by priests in the name of God, called sins by believers and bullshit by everyone else.

(Emphasis mine.)

 
Salvation can not be earned, you claiming to know the scriptures should know this. Paul teaches this throughout his writings and Jesus himself said that no one can come to the Father except by me. Neither claimed that one must earn salvation, if we could then Christ's death on the cross would not have been necessary. Once someone accepts Christ as their savior then they have a desire to live a life according to His teachings and many of those teachings came from the OT.

Accepting Christ is the process of 'earning' this salvation of which you speak. I'm not claiming works. I'm claiming that the acceptance of the religious teachings of Paul and the Apostles (or whomever the writers of the Gospels actually were, since different Christian theologians and historians differ on this point; don't bother, I already know what you fundamentalists think about the authorship question) as to who Jesus of Nazareth was, and what I must do to "accept his 'free' gift of salvation", is the price. What you call "a desire to live a life according...", I call giving up my own free will. That is the price, and it is the most expensive thing that can be asked of anyone.

 
Never will I stop using the word free when I speak of salvation. It's only considered a lie by those who run from God, it makes them feel like God doesn't exist, however no matter how you want to look at it you can't wish the living God away.

Run from God? Really, dude?

I run from God like you run from Lord Krishna. They are fiction. Fake. Made up. Invented nonsense, as are the sins of disobeying these gods, whose motives all sound suspiciously like the motives of the priests who appear to have invented them. More on that later.

And by "the Living God", I'm assuming you mean Horus. Or Mithras. Perhaps Adonis?

I don't have to tell you there's a debt to be paid, you know there is, it's the guilt that's being suppressed in your heart that creeps out on occasion to haunt you. You make the debt, why do you think you don't believe you need to repay it. You try that with a bank and you end up in trouble, right, same with God.


You are grasping at straws now or you're showing ignorance of the Bible. We do not have to pay a price for Adam and Eve's sin, the Bible is explicit about this, that's straw one broken. There was no magical necessity, it was a purposeful necessity, either that or hell for the sins we commit.
God murdering you, what kind of thinking is that, IMO it's absolutely ridiculous. Christ's blood has paid for all, if you do not accept the payment then you will not receive the gift. How is it someone as smart as you can't see the truth God presents through the Bible.

I left the above intact, as I think the exchange is worth noting. It's interesting that you keep saying I'm showing ignorance of the Bible, because I can't think of a single thing I've said wrong, it's only phrasing one mine that you seem to take issue with. I've already addressed that other Christians have a different view of Adam & Eve's "original sin" than you have, but fine I'll go with your version for the sake of this argument, while noting that those other Christians would say it is you who lack the understanding of the Bible. That's the problem with arguing with you types; it's like trying to nail Jell-O to a wall! Anyway, on to your point:

What does Christ's blood pay for, according to your version of this story? My sins. Why do my sins matter? Because God will torture me (or allow me to be tortured, if you prefer) in the place that He created for those who don't receive atonement, if I don't confess that I am a sinner and accept the payment that was made in blood, the only source of blood that is considered good enough for this atonement-- the coin of the realm being the product of his own preconditions.

So the only person here playing word games is you, trying to shift the burden on to me by saying that it was my doing (I didn't set the preconditions you allege, and all I did was live a normal, human life), trying to assert that I somehow inherently know something that your religion made up-- which is why missionaries are even a thing, since they have to go tell people that they are sinners, and convince them that there was this guy named Jesus Christ who had to be murdered on their behalf, etc etc.

I "know" no such thing as having a debt to be paid. I find the concept as ridiculous as the claim that one day Shiva the Destoyer will eat my soul if I have not become Enlightened before end of the world. It is plain to me that I am a vertebrate mammal, a bipedal Great Ape, and that I live and die according to the same rules of physics/chemistry that operate on every other animal on this planet. So I hear your story and all I can see is the basic principles of a Mafia shakedown, and I've seen nothing in your reply that remotely suggests otherwise.

I didn't say sin was more powerful than God, He will destroy sin forever once it runs it's coarse. Sin is chaos and has no rules, sin goes against who God is, talk about lies, you've thrown out several so far, an intelligent person shouldn't have to resort to such tactics. What child's play tells me, you have found or developed a hate for God to benefit your desires, you have fallen short of His will for your life and put your own self in jeopardy of eternal punishment.

You keep saying how I feel about God. You could not be more wrong. I hold exactly the same anger toward your pathetic deity-concept as I hold toward Lord Voldemort. It's a story. The only thing that makes me hateful is to have to hear people telling me how Lord Voldemort is going to punish me for my disobedience if I don't join House Slytherin and become one of the Death Eaters.

I say that sin is more powerful than God, according to your story, because most of the Christians of your obviously-fundamentalist stripe say that sin is something that God hates so much he cannot bear to be in its presence, which is why we must be banished to hell if we remain without the blood atonement. I say that makes Him pathetic, according to your story, since it means he lacks the power to wash us all clean regardless of our behavior while on the planet, and wipe our sins from us by fiat rather than by blood magic.

[At this point I skip a bunch of stuff that's partly us agreeing, and partly stuff I didn't feel warranted a particular reply, since it's social commentary and, as you point out, is better saved for another thread.]

I been here for over five years and seen all the things said about Dawkins and he has been raised on a very high pedestal, so much so it seems many revere him as a god, don't tell me I haven't seen this when I know I have, why are you defending those who are wrong, it doesn't look good. I do not care what you've read, I've seen Dawkins making his grand stands when he is at different schools, he's as arrogant as they come.

Um, if you say so. I'd be just as likely to challenge Dawkins as anyone on the planet, on any point he raised with which I did not fully agree. He says things a great many people like, but I'm sure you'd object to a popular preacher being described as "being on a pedestal", when in reality you're not deifying that preacher, and it would be wrong of me to characterize you as doing so. I think you project onto us a "savior figure" because you can't imagine us operating without one. We simply do not. You might find Billy Graham to be a man worthy of respect and admiration, but you don't think he's anything more than a bearer of a message that he's just a little bit more talented at presenting than some; likewise, I think Dawkins is very skilled at presenting some of the teachings of science and the methods of skepticism in a way that is sometimes clever, always illustrative, and generally fun to listen to. That's it! Same with the rest of us.

On to the Bible verses, now.

Deut. 13:7-19 These verses were for Israelis to punish Israelis, God wanted to keep corruption from false gods out of the people from which He would bring His Son. You left out verse 6 and part of verse 7 that states that this is meant only for disobedient, covenant breaking Israelis, they made a covenant with God not to worship false gods.

Deut. 17:2-5 These verses are also for Israelis against covenant breaking Israelis, again this pertains to the covenant they made with God not to worship false gods. You also left out the verses following verse 7 that says, you are to have two or three witnesses against the covenant breaker, one will not do. The witnesses are to cast the first stone the the rest of the village is to cast stones, this you left out was to prevent an injustice being committed against an innocent person.

Exodus 22:19 God wanted to protect His people who were chosen to bring His Son into the world from perversions and sexual immoralities, this type of perversion would be dangerous on many levels, one would be to protect the people from sexual diseases. 

So, rather than seeing this as being instructions by God to destroy people of "wrong" faiths, you see it as (what was the term?) corruption prevention? It's genocide in the name of ideological purity. It's religious intolerance on a scale unimaginable in the modern age, but totally normal in the Bronze Age. It's Bronze Age tribalism written down by priests as being justified commands of God.

As for the "dangerous on many levels"... really? Is that why there are no Palestinians, Egyptians, Syrians, etc., today? Because they all got wiped out by perversions and sexual diseases?

Also... what sexual diseases? Are you familiar with a dangerous Bronze Age STD heretofore unknown to science and history?

Lev. 20:10-16 I've added verses here, these verses show how much God hates sexual impurity and wants to save His chosen people from something that could destroy them, also this is a way of transmitting sexual diseases, they had no cure for them then, sexual purity was the only sure preventative.

They didn't have modern STDs of that sort. Look it up. Let's deal in facts, not speculation. Most likely the prohibitions against "sexual immorality" had more to do with establishing Patriarchal rule, maintaining wealth in family lineages, and breeding lots of warriors and sheepherders.

Deut. 22:20-21 Again God hates sexual immorality and if the daughter disgraces her father by an act of sexual immorality she is put to death. This is to protect the family name and more so the name of Israel before the nations around them. You also left out the verses preceding verse 20, they are about the man accusing a fathers daughter of not being a virgin because the man hates her or whatever the accusation may be. If the daughter was a virgin then the man must pay the father and remain the daughters husband for the rest of their lives. God wants His people to live honest and just lives to honor Him before the other nations.

See, now we're talking truth. Except it wasn't God who had the issue, here, it was the men who had control of the women in their society, and who placed great value on "the family name" (and of course, the wealth that went along with it). It's no surprise to me to find these verses in there about sexual and other behavioral control of the population. That you attribute the "Creator of the Universe and Its Hundreds of Billions of Galaxies Each with Hundreds of Billions of Stars" as having the same concerns over where we put our penises/vaginas that the men who ran those desert tribes would have... let's just call it "curious coincidence", from my point of view. To put it as nicely as I can.

---

Deut. 13:15 You've already brought this up, it was the very first one but I want to add something I left out in my earlier answer. God said the people had to be certain that men of a town lead the town astray to worship false gods. He also said to destroy the people and the town and everything in it, they were not allowed to keep anything from that town, it was to all be burnt. God wanted to keep His people pure to keep out the corruption of false gods because this was the people chosen to bring His Son into the world.

Deut. 18:20-22 Again you're leaving out verses relative to the ones you posted. This is a prophecy in itself about the Son of God and that the people shall know this prophet by his truths, truths from the Father. Then God says that the false prophet or prophet from a false god is lying to them and they should not be afraid of him because what he says can bring no fear to them. God also says that prophet shall die, He gives no command for him to be killed nor does He say how the false prophet will die.

Zech. 13:3 Verse 1 is about the second coming of the Messiah, this is prophecy, God the Father is saying He will cleans the earth and there will be no use for prophets again. God says if any man prophecies during this time he is a liar and his father and mother will tell him he will not live for what he has done and will pierce him through. God is cleaning up the world and will not allow such things to go on to corrupt others.

Lev. 24:10-16 Once again this is law for Israelis against Israelis, they are a chosen people (actually a nation made by God) for the purpose of bring into the world God's Son. God asked for respect from this people and they made a covenant with God not to do these things you complain about, things that apply to only the Israelis, why because they know Him personally.

Ezekiel 9:1-7 This is a prophecy, a vision given Ezekiel by God, this is what God shows Ezekiel will happen when the Persian Empire puts Jerusalem under siege. God shows Ezekiel that the unrighteous will die and God will save the ones He sees as righteous for a remnant to preserve Israel. To put it simply, God was showing Ezekiel what was going to happen to Israel by the Persians and that He would save a righteous remnant of Israelis to preserve the nation. If you had wanted to know what was actually happening in that chapter, you would have read the chapter after chapter 9 and discovered God told Ezekiel what would happen to other nations when the Persians came rolling through.

Exodus 31:12-15  Keeping the Sabbath in these verses was given specifically to the Israelis, nothing to do with the NFL, or any other sport played on any day. Since Christ we have worshiped on Sundays they were worshiping on the last day of the week, so tell me which is the seventh day, by the calendar Saturday is, we worship a God who is eternal and keeps no real calendar.

---

To answer your concern, God wanted His people to be holy as He is holy and keep His commandments to show the world who He is and to have a good nation to bring His Son into the world, this is a day intended for God and His people to have fellowship in a more personal way.

I hid most of that, since you're mostly just repeating the same thing. It's amazing to me that you think any of that is justification for jack shit. I am an American, one who values deeply our nation's commitment to religious pluralism, the notion that government shall not establish one religion over another. Regardless of the reasons why "God" (as you put it) and "priests and kings of the Hebrews" (as I would put it) wanted them to be "ideologically pure", it defies everything I consider moral and decent, and looks entirely like religious tribalism and barbarity. Justifying it in the name of a "coming soon Messiah" is just silly. You're telling me that God had to command the murder of how many hundreds of thousands (millions?) of people, just so conditions could be right in one tiny patch of earth in one particular year for him to send down the Salvation Sacrifice Plan?

REALLY!?!

Lev. 25:44-46 Since you seem to pick verses out of the middle of several verses meant for an understanding of what God wants for His people, I'm having to show how what you're doing here is wrong. The beginning of this teaching starts at Lev. 25:35 and this teaching is about how Israelis are to treat each other. They are not to take advantage of those Israelis who are down in life, they are to help each other without taking advantage of them in any way. This is also how the teaching ends in Lev. 25:46. The verses you have pulled from the teaching is to show how the Israelis are to treat each other in contrast to how the world treats other people and even their own people. God gave them permission to have slaves from other nations for many reasons, but I believe the one that's foremost here, is that before the nation of Israel was ever established the world was using slaves everywhere. God was working through the history of man. Nevertheless the teaching here is how Israelis are to help each other.

Exodus 21:20-21 In these verses God calls for the slave owner to be punished if the slave dies, if the slave lives the slave owner is not to be punished. This continues in Exodus 21:26 if that same slave suffers the loss of an eye or tooth the slave is to be freed, seems to me God didn't want slaves mistreated. In Exodus 21:21 the word translated survives literally means stands, which to mean would actually indicate the slave lives. I know you will take it as you desire but the possibility is there that the slave lives.

I didn't "pick them out of the middle", I mentioned only the ones that are relevant. The version prior to 25:44-46 are about Israelite "indentured servitude", and the verses 44-46 are about "inheritable, permanent-property racial-based slavery", as I said. Trying to deflect onto the prior verses about what the system was for fellow Hebrews is deceitful.

The same is true for verses endorsing just how hard you can beat your slaves. Just because there were limits and regulations doesn't make it okay! God could just has easily have called slavery a forbidden abomination, not "regulated" it. Again, we see here the hand of man, not the words of a God.

Deut. 22:28-29 Surely you know your ancient history well enough to know that a young woman was only worth to the family what would be given for her by the groom's family. If she is raped then she will become a burden to the family, she becomes someone to take care of without any means of contributing to the finances of the family. This is why this law is given among others, the family is financially satisfied and the woman gets her husband that has to take care of her for the rest of his life, this was set up as a deterrent to rape, a man might think twice about raping a women he doesn't desire to spend the rest of his life with. Unfortunately men held women in low regard then and didn't consider what they might think of the man who raped her, though she knew that he was the only one she could marry, because no other man would want her, not in that day.

Um... really? A "burden to her family", who is better off with her rapist? Are you insane?

I agree with your assessment of why that verse says what it says... but wow, you speak of it as if it's okay. You also ignore the other laws-of-rape, which say things like if she doesn't cry out "enough", then she's to be murdered too because it's assumed that she was complicit in fornication, not rape... except we know that women who are brutally attacked are often paralyzed by fear, overpowered and rendered unconscious, or have their mouths covered so they cannot cry out. These are the kinds of things a God would know, but which ignorant and woman-devaluing Patriarchal male societies would not take into consideration, even if they did know it. Not the work of a God. The work of men.

In Numbers 31, God was taking vengeance on the Midians and He used the Israelis to do so, God is cleaning out the land for His people, this isn't murder it's war, the same kind of war many nations waged against Israel (which you do not complain about, strange). The women who were keep were children, still virgins and nothing was said in those verses that the men could rape them, there were penalties for that behavior.

Holy shit, dude, did you just say "cleaning out the land"? You know there's a word for that: ethnic cleansing. Genocide. It's NOT OKAY. EVER. Why in the fuck would you think I think it's okay when others did it to Israel?!?

Ethnic cleansing isn't war, ever. It's always murder. It's often enacted via war, but it's still murder any time you kill noncombatants. When you order a war of genocide, you are Hitler. Claiming that God commanded you to do it makes you a liar, or makes God a genocidal maniac. There's really no way around that either/or.

What's the point in keeping "virgins who have not known a man" if not for sexual conquest? Indeed, there are several verses which deal specifically with the men of Israel going to capture women to "make brides of them", which in no way implies a choice or consent on the part of the women!

In Deut. 20:10 The Israelis were to ask for a peaceful resolution first, if the peoples agree then the people of that city became forced labor, this was a standard of wars during those days. Again there is no mention of the women being used for rape or sexual slavery (if you actually see a difference in the two).
Judges 5:28-31 This is part of a song sang to the LORD, the verses you posted said nothing about sexual slavery nor rape, sure you know the scriptures as you profess.
Zech. 14:1-2 This is a continuation of the prophecy in chapter 13, this is yet to come. The ravished women in this verse are those that the nations warring against Jerusalem will ravage, this isn't anything God is commanding, it is what He sees happening in the future it is those who are against God will do. You have given a poor account of yourself as one who claims to b the best Bible scholar on this forum. What did you really do Google this stuff up, were you just being lazy. I would expect someone who knew the scriptures as well as you've claimed would have taken in all the relevant verses before and after the verses you posted, were you even thinking when you posted this stuff.

"This is a standard of wars in those days" does not mean it's something The Chosen People had to indulge. You spend all that time, above, talking about how they were special, had to behave differently than their neighbors, etc... but when it comes to justifying the most brutal, execrable crimes known to man, you say "well that's just how it was back then!"

The "Song of Deborah", a Judge (leader) of Israel, celebrates (in song!) a historical telling of the brutal things done to those who opposed the God-led (via the Judges) tribes of Israel, in the time before the coming of Samuel who finally granted their request for a king, instead of God's Judges. You should know the Bible better than that, instead of accusing me with such narrow straws to grasp at.

I quoted Zechariah because it is a prophecy that specifically spells out what God will allow to happen to them, "in the sight of" the men of the nation, as a penalty for continued disobedience to God. Whether or not it's a direct command of God is somewhat irrelevant, at that point, don't you think?

I wrote off their ideologies, not the people and you know that's what I said, now how's playing word games. I haven't philosophies that condemn people for their race or thoughts. I have very specific beliefs about how and why people treat those they do not like ie. hate. Are you telling us you're a White Supremacist, if you're not why are you spending so much time with them, is the bold by me above a way of trying to hide the fact.

Dude, really? You got "you're a white supremacist" from that? Pull the other one! You see what was bolded there and thought, "oh he's just trying to hide his supremacist leanings by claiming to think they're ridiculous"?

Fuck, man, you can't be that dishonest, can you? I know them because I spent nine years in a Maximum Security prison, surrounded by them, and I've listened to them telling me how Jesus loves the white race (and getting really mad when I explain that Jesus was a Jew). If you don't believe that Christianity is connected to White Supremacy, check out their Church Website. Right here in Missouri!

Now I see your problem when you say you were a Christian, you hated others and you had to because you said you were freed from it by your atheism. Christians are not to hate anyone, we can hate the sin but not the person, we are not to hate those of different religions, different beliefs or non-beliefs. We are not to judge others until we examine ourselves and then only by what the scriptures say and our judgement is never to be condemning. Yes Christians make mistakes and do things we shouldn't just like others do, but it seems as a christian you were doing everything Christ said not to do, no wonder you weren't happy as a Christian, you were living a life outside of what Christ called us to live, maybe you should try again and this time doing it with the love of Christ, the real love for mankind, a love that was given to save people from a destination the couldn't otherwise escape.

I've been in the home of the Grand Wizard of the KKK and I understand exactly what goes on with their twisted ideologies, for one killing people because their different is hate period. Hatred and murder have no place in Christianity, a definite teaching of Christ and His disciples.
I think you can't find a difference in how you conducted yourself as a Christian and what you see in them, I see this as a very sad thing, especially for someone with your intelligence.

Dead wrong. I thought I loved others, as a Christian, just like you do. I didn't realize the amount of hurt that our views caused in others, because I was so myopic about the culture in which my faith-tradition sprang up, and what it did to those who were not a part of that in-group. It is only in looking back that I am amazed at how I used to sound, when I talked the way you talk now. You have no idea how much damage you do, in the name of what you call love. It is because I know it is unintentional on your part (and that of others like you) that I still bother to take the time to engage you on these subjects, even as you look me straight in the face (so to speak) and tell me that the reason I talk about God with you is because I still (secretly, actually, because I talk about it but don't realize it's why) believe in your fairytale stories. You yourself said it several times, above, not realizing how condescending and ignorant such statements are. You won't listen to me now, I know, but in the name of fairness I have to keep telling you. All of you.

It's simply astounding to me to hear you tell me I wasn't happy as a Christian; those were some of the best years of my life. To this day, every day is a struggle to be an atheist, because every member of my family are religious, and they put me under constant pressure to "rejoin the herd"... it's a carrot-and-stick approach, and they don't even realize that what they're doing is wrong. They think of it as love. There's that word again.

And yet, the things I hear spewed out of their mouths, in defiance of almost everything I have learned since taking off the blinders I didn't even know I was wearing, back when I was one of you, are pure hatred disguised as love. Telling atheists what we "really" think; telling gays they're "perversions" and sick and sinful; telling scientists that looking at the universe for ourselves is "prideful" and "man's knowledge". Trying to push their faith into the lives, societies, and governments of those who don't want it there. Endlessly.

I compare you to the Klan because they, too, think what they're doing is for a better world, and in the name of God's Will for Human Society, not because your ideologies are exactly the same. And for you to pretend that I was saying they were is disingenuous enough that I feel I cannot discuss this any farther with you.



I'm gonna skip most of what's in the end, here, since most of it was one-line rehashes after mountains of previous quotes, and I suspect at that point you were as tired as I am, right now, facing this mountainous set of replies and formatting!

I don't need your forgiveness unless I've offended you purposely which I don't think I have. I have full confidence in my beliefs, I know God is real, no doubts, none at all, that's why I seek His forgiveness daily, I know I offend Him, the holy, righteous God of salvation.
Don't fell like you need to answer this post I know we've stretched this thing out, sorry it took so long to answer, I wanted to make sure I answered all of it and I've been tied up with things around here.

GC

I'm not offended at the delay. I get it. Life comes first! But I am offended that you keep insisting on telling me what I "really" think about God, and why I "really" left the faith, in order to justify your prejudices, but want to get mad when I state the wrong version of Christianity, mistaking your particular view for another branch of the faith, or citing doctrine in a way that doesn't suit your esoteric shibboleth wording. And in truth, you genuinely pissed me off when you tried to suggest that I'm a White Supremacist sympathizer. I had to really take a moment to breathe and force myself to give you the benefit of the doubt that you really could have read what I said that inaccurately, and legitimately come to such an awful and incorrect conclusion.

---

I don't know how you had the energy to read that huge wall of garbage. Let alone respond to it.

[SofaKingHigh]

I'm not offended at the delay. I get it. Life comes first! But I am  offended that you keep insisting on telling me what I "really" think about God, and why I "really" left the faith, in order to justify your prejudices, but want to get mad when I state the wrong version of Christianity, mistaking your particular view for another branch of the faith, or citing doctrine in a way that doesn't suit your esoteric shibboleth wording. And in truth, you genuinely pissed me off when you tried to suggest that I'm a White Supremacist sympathizer. I had to really take a moment to breathe and force myself to give you the benefit of the doubt that you really could have read what I said that  inaccurately, and legitimately come to such an awful and incorrect conclusion.

Patience of a fucking saint (pardon the pun) dude......cap doffed.

[Mister Agenda]

A common claim about Christianity is "There are so many interpretations of the Bible! How can you know if any of it is true!"

What people who make this claim don't realize is that the differences over interpretation account for a minuscule fraction of what the Bible really says. So, while the Bible's stance on certain issues might not be wholly precise, the main claims are pretty clear. 

For instance, it's pretty clear, not just from the Bible, but from historical record, that there was a man named Jesus. The Bible is pretty clear about most of his claims, and the basic facts of his life, etc.

The problem with people who make this claim is the overly broad and inaccurate generalizations.

The vast majority of discovered Biblical texts are for the most part identical to each other, and the minor discrepancies that do exist are over things like grammar and prepositions (like "on" versus "upon").

What knowledgeable atheists can rationally affirm is that only certain parts of the Bible might be ambiguous. The others are more or less clear.

Yes, atheists frequently say there's 38,000 Christian denominations, or whatever the number is that month. But, over 90% of those accept the apostle's creed.

Everyone who's bothered to check how many denominations there are says that, it's not a peculiarly atheist claim. I'd be interested to know how you determined the percentage that accept the creed, though I don't particularly doubt that it's (roughly) true.

[Cyberman]

Even if it were true, it still leaves around ten percent that don't follow the creed. That's almost four thousand denominations to account for.

[Mister Agenda]

So what?

So why do atheists frequently bring up the number of denominations? It's disingenuous to assert that it's a problem, then when it's defended, pretend like no one thought it was a problem.

That's really what you think Minimalist was saying with his two words? It's clear the creed isn't enough glue to stop all the splitting.

[Mister Agenda]

So why do atheists frequently bring up the number of denominations? It's disingenuous to assert that it's a problem, then when it's defended, pretend like no one thought it was a problem.

To point out to you fools how you can't even agree among yourselves.  It's amusing to us.  One god but 40,000 religions.

Nothing dumber than a xtian.

Christians aren't particularly dumb. They just use their intelligence to justify continuing to believe what they already believe. Almost everyone does that, to some degree. As a social species, we largely use our brains to maintain our relationships, and continuing to believe what those closest to us believe is helpful for that.

[Mister Agenda]

I find much in this thread very re-assuring!

It was very amusing one time, I was discussing with an atheist and started using the same tactics and reasoning that he was using against the Bible and God, against some of his arguments.  Needless to say, the alledged Dr. Krauss still hasn't showed up at my house to show me a universe popping into existence from nothing, nor has "empty chair" Richard Dawkins given me a call either.  So apparently I'm to assume on this alone, that their stories are just "fairy tales".  

I had a guilty satisfaction when he called my arguments "silly".

If your atheist friend was trying to use the "God should pop up on my command, or strike me down" argument in anything other than an ironic/rhetorical context, then he's an idiot.  On the other hand, the "argument from silence" is a much more nuanced and serious position.

And if you think that we "assume on this alone, that their stories are just 'fairy tales'", then you're  an idiot.

I gave the benefit of the doubt and assumed his or her post was a joke, in which case I thought it was kind of funny.

[Mister Agenda]

Well, good for you. Isn't that why religion is so popular - because it allows dumb people to feel smug, through shameless violation of logic?

Here are some key differences between Richard Dawkins and your god, that may explain/clarify your confusion:
1. Richard Dawkins is not omnipotent, or omnipresent, as your god - allegedly - is.
2. Richard Dawkins doesn't claim to have any super-powers, that you claim your god has.
3. Dawkins' claims are disprovable - even though you can't disprove them. It's impossible to disprove an imaginary being, like god that can be redefined at any time to suit the needs of its proponent - with no concern for testability, or even consistency.
4. Richard Dawkins doesn't give a f*** about you. Your god - allegedly loves you and wants to be your boyfriend.

Please enlighten me on my violation of logic...  And I wasn't being smug, just trying to be consistent.  Am I incorrect in believing that logic/reason should be consistent?

I'm very disappointed that you were being serious. I thought your post was supposed to be ironic.

[Mister Agenda]

It would seem that I don't need to do any of those things... I'll just make claims of myth and magic and have a cheerleading squad to back me up.

To disprove evolution? As a reply, that does not make sense.