Just pointing out the stupidity of this argument

[loganonekenobi]

So let me get this straight, if I read the bible, and don't come to the same conclusion about God as you have, that means I didn't read the bible right?

Nope.  It means that at this time God has not drawn you to Himself.  

If you read the Bible and misrepresents what it says, that may mean you didn't read it right.  The conclusions you come to after understanding it, that's a different story.

If you read any other book, and you interpret it differently from me, you don't see me standing there screaming back "WELL READ IT AGAIN BECAUSE MY WAY IS RIGHT".

I couldn't have written that any better than you did.  I agree, fadora's are more July than sleep.

this appears to be typical dodge of the christian. The very clear message i get from reading the bible is that this god made everything and then us. Gave us free will and expected us not to use it. Then when we did he was so angry that he made our lives and hell and worse damned us to an eternal hell unless we did everything in exactly the way he wanted including kill/shun/convert everyone that did not worship him. Then in order to lift that demand he kills his favorite child to satisfy his anger toward us. so now The only way we can avoid the predetermined hell is to grovel in worthlessness at the sacrifice that this god needed to appease himself of our "god" given free will.
If i'm missing the point then the book and most of its interpriters are seriously flawed.

[orangebox21]

Nope.  It means that at this time God has not drawn you to Himself.  

If you read the Bible and misrepresents what it says, that may mean you didn't read it right.  The conclusions you come to after understanding it, that's a different story.
I couldn't have written that any better than you did.  I agree, fadora's are more July than sleep.

The very clear message i get from reading the bible is that this god made everything and then us. Gave us free will and expected us not to use it.

 
If God didn't want us to use our free will, then why did God in his command to Adam give him choices?

Then when we did he was so angry that he made our lives and hell and worse damned us to an eternal hell

Are you making the claim that God made our lives and hell and damned us to an eternal hell solely out of anger?  Not because we have broken His law, nor because He is holy, nor because He is just, solely out of emotion?  

What was the first thing God did when a man used his free-will to break His law?

unless we did everything in exactly the way he wanted including kill/shun/convert everyone that did not worship him.  Then in order to lift that demand he kills his favorite child to satisfy his anger toward us.

 
Are you claiming that the sacrifice on the cross is limited to lifting the demands of the law and satisfying God's wrath towards us?  Does that mean you are excluding the forgiveness of sins and the imputation of Christ's righteousness to us?

so now The only way we can avoid the predetermined hell is to grovel in worthlessness at the sacrifice that this god needed

So groveling is the means by which we receive the lifting of God's demands and the satisfaction of His wrath towards us?  No grace or faith involved, just groveling?

to appease himself of our "god" given free will.

So you are claiming that God is only appeasing himself of our "God" given free will attribute, and not from the results of having used that attribute to break God's law?

If i'm missing the point then the book and most of its interpriters are seriously flawed.

That's an odd premise:  "If I'm missing the point then the book and most of it's interpreters are seriously flawed."  In order to prove the conclusion you're implying, namely that the book and most of it's interpreters are seriously flawed you'd need to prove the antecedent.  In other words the only way for you to logically prove your conclusion is if you 'miss the point.'

[thesummerqueen]

If you read any other book, and you interpret it differently from me, you don't see me standing there screaming back "WELL READ IT AGAIN BECAUSE MY WAY IS RIGHT".

You've never been around a bunch of lit nerds, have you.

Or Ayn Rand supporters.

[Wyrd of Gawd]

So let me get this straight, if I read the bible, and don't come to the same conclusion about God as you have, that means I didn't read the bible right?

If you read any other book, and you interpret it differently from me, you don't see me standing there screaming back "WELL READ IT AGAIN BECAUSE MY WAY IS RIGHT".


Just my short little rant.

The more you read it over time the more likely you will be to reach different conclusions about what you've read. 

However, all "holy books" are based upon the idea of complete belief and obedience without exception.  The biblical stories are meant to show one of the Ten Commandments as found in Exodus 34:10-28 in action.  If you understand those Commandments then you will be able to make sense of the stories.    

Remember, the Jesus character said that he spoke in parables so that everyone wouldn't be able to understand what he was talking about.  So be careful when reading what he says because it may not be what he actually meant.  Therefore it's foolish to take the stories at face value.

[loganonekenobi]

I don't have to prove anything because the whole point is how one interprets the Bible.

If you want to think that it is a message of love then so be it.

I see it as abuse.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_abuse

I'll give an example that works in my mind. The religious often like to point out that there must be a god since all of reality had to have a beginning. You can't prove or disprove it but it does seem logical to the human mind.

The same can be said for interpreting the Bible. once I read it it makes much more sense from a primitive bronze age goat herder point of view than that of an all knowing god.

There fore my logical conclusion is that the Bible (like all other holy books) was written by man who claimed to be inspired by a god so as to propagate their way of thinking. You can't prove that i'm wrong about that nor can I prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that I am right. However, logic says it is much more likely.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Reminds me of the (very) old joke about the missionary and the native.

The missionary has just finished relating the principle behind the salvation offered by Jesus. The native scratches his head for a bit and says, 'Ok, let me see if I've got this straight. You've told me all about your Jesus. If I believe in him, I'll go to Heaven and be happy, but if I don't believe in him, I'll got to Hell and be miserable, is that right?'

'Excellent!' crows the missionary. 'You've got it exactly!'

The native ponders a few more moments, then asks, 'Suppose you had never come to my country and told me about Jesus. Would I still go to this Hell place?'

'Oh no, my son. Jesus would forgive your savage ignorance and you'd go to Heaven just as if you believed in him with all your heart.'

The native grips his spear a little tighter and says through clenched teeth, 'Then WHY did you tell me about him?'

Boru

[brewer]

Reminds me of the (very) old joke about the missionary and the native.  

The missionary has just finished relating the principle behind the salvation offered by Jesus.  The native scratches his head for a bit and says, 'Ok, let me see if I've got this straight.  You've told me all about your Jesus.  If I believe in him, I'll go to Heaven and be happy, but if I don't believe in him, I'll got to Hell and be miserable, is that right?'

'Excellent!' crows the missionary.  'You've got it exactly!'

The native ponders a few more moments, then asks, 'Suppose you had never come to my country and told me about Jesus.  Would I still go to this Hell place?'

'Oh no, my son.  Jesus would forgive your savage ignorance and you'd go to Heaven just as if you believed in him with all your heart.'

The native grips his spear a little tighter and says through clenched teeth, 'Then WHY did you tell me about him?'

Boru

I like this. Ignorance of the law IS an excuse.

Theists, want more people to go to heaven? Yes, then shut the fuck up!

[orangebox21]

I don't have to prove anything because the whole point is how one interprets the Bible.

Does not having to prove anything include the statement "the whole point is how one interprets the Bible?"  

I'll give an example that works in my mind.  The religious often like to point out that there must be a god since all of reality had to have a beginning.  You can't prove or disprove it but it does seem logical to the human mind.

The same can be said for interpreting the Bible.  once I read it it makes much more sense  from a primitive bronze age goat herder point of view than that of an all knowing god.

What would the point of view of an all knowing God be like?

There fore my logical conclusion is that the Bible (like all other holy books) was written by man who claimed to be inspired by a god so as to propagate their way of thinking.  

You can't prove that i'm wrong about that nor can I prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that I am right.  However, logic says it is much more likely.

No...... your argument from ignorance says it is much more likely.

---

Reminds me of the (very) old joke about the missionary and the native.  

The missionary has just finished relating the principle behind the salvation offered by Jesus.  The native scratches his head for a bit and says, 'Ok, let me see if I've got this straight.  You've told me all about your Jesus.  If I believe in him, I'll go to Heaven and be happy, but if I don't believe in him, I'll got to Hell and be miserable, is that right?'

'Excellent!' crows the missionary.  'You've got it exactly!'

The native ponders a few more moments, then asks, 'Suppose you had never come to my country and told me about Jesus.  Would I still go to this Hell place?'

'Oh no, my son.  Jesus would forgive your savage ignorance and you'd go to Heaven just as if you believed in him with all your heart.'

The last statement is factually inaccurate.  There is no Biblical evidence that Jesus would forgive a man of his sins if he is ignorant of the gospel.  Point of fact God says it is evident (Galatians 3:11), and it is written that there will be people saved from every nation, tribe, people and language (Revelation 5:9,7:9).  Therefore there will be no nation, tribe, people, or language, in all of history that will have not had the gospel preached to them.

[Heat]

Reminds me of the (very) old joke about the missionary and the native.  

The missionary has just finished relating the principle behind the salvation offered by Jesus.  The native scratches his head for a bit and says, 'Ok, let me see if I've got this straight.  You've told me all about your Jesus.  If I believe in him, I'll go to Heaven and be happy, but if I don't believe in him, I'll got to Hell and be miserable, is that right?'

'Excellent!' crows the missionary.  'You've got it exactly!'

The native ponders a few more moments, then asks, 'Suppose you had never come to my country and told me about Jesus.  Would I still go to this Hell place?'

'Oh no, my son.  Jesus would forgive your savage ignorance and you'd go to Heaven just as if you believed in him with all your heart.'

The last statement is factually inaccurate.  There is no Biblical evidence that Jesus would forgive a man of his sins if he is ignorant of the gospel.  Point of fact God says it is evident (Galatians 3:11), and it is written that there will be people saved from every nation, tribe, people and language (Revelation 5:9,7:9).  Therefore there will be no nation, tribe, people, or language, in all of history that will have not had the gospel preached to them.

Stop with the religious non-sense you nay-sayer seeking barbaric piece of Adam & Eve creation dust Jesus defending almighty egotistical heaven-risen clown of a god created baffoon.

You're a scumbag low-life bible-born empathy lacking cross-medallion wearing piece of shit for essentially taking a light-hearted fun religious based joke and turning it in to a platform to state that every disease-ridden, poverty-stricken, deformity born infant will be going straight to hell simply for at no fault of their own tragically having been born in a location opposite to yourself.

[Wyrd of Gawd]

---

I don't have to prove anything because the whole point is how one interprets the Bible.

Does not having to prove anything include the statement "the whole point is how one interprets the Bible?"  

I'll give an example that works in my mind.  The religious often like to point out that there must be a god since all of reality had to have a beginning.  You can't prove or disprove it but it does seem logical to the human mind.

The same can be said for interpreting the Bible.  once I read it it makes much more sense  from a primitive bronze age goat herder point of view than that of an all knowing god.

What would the point of view of an all knowing God be like?

There fore my logical conclusion is that the Bible (like all other holy books) was written by man who claimed to be inspired by a god so as to propagate their way of thinking.  

You can't prove that i'm wrong about that nor can I prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that I am right.  However, logic says it is much more likely.

No...... your argument from ignorance says it is much more likely.

---

Reminds me of the (very) old joke about the missionary and the native.  

The missionary has just finished relating the principle behind the salvation offered by Jesus.  The native scratches his head for a bit and says, 'Ok, let me see if I've got this straight.  You've told me all about your Jesus.  If I believe in him, I'll go to Heaven and be happy, but if I don't believe in him, I'll got to Hell and be miserable, is that right?'

'Excellent!' crows the missionary.  'You've got it exactly!'

The native ponders a few more moments, then asks, 'Suppose you had never come to my country and told me about Jesus.  Would I still go to this Hell place?'

'Oh no, my son.  Jesus would forgive your savage ignorance and you'd go to Heaven just as if you believed in him with all your heart.'

---

The last statement is factually inaccurate.  There is no Biblical evidence that Jesus would forgive a man of his sins if he is ignorant of the gospel.  Point of fact God says it is evident (Galatians 3:11), and it is written that there will be people saved from every nation, tribe, people and language (Revelation 5:9,7:9).  Therefore there will be no nation, tribe, people, or language, in all of history that will have not had the gospel preached to them.

What is the gospel and who said that it's the right gospel?