They don't want us to know

[stonehart]

Just one of the reasons I have very little time for the religious ways of thinking.

The damage done is unforgivable.

 

[mike]

Concerning the comments of the wars that took place and were ordained by God in the OT. Any conquering army of that time typically completely destroyed the enemy. Why? Because just like cutting a plant back to the root it would return to make war again if not completely eliminated. This wasn't just the Jewish nation. Given half the chance the opposion would have done the same thing.Many armies now try to fight a clean war . This isn't really effective as a long term strategy if you want to win a war.

If the God that you think is so evil got rid of the OT sacrifice and replaced it with the only sacrifice of His Son. If He offered this to every man who accepts it how is it that you think He is so evil?

This is denial pure and simple, That armies of the time did this is not the issue, i get that it makes my point that this book was written by men, documenting the history of the time.

The point is god ordered it, it was his will these things should be done , dont get me wrong i think god is an imaginary entity, he doest exist.
What i question is the mindset of those who would subscribe to any enitity whos attributes are so unspeakably evil as to command the dashing of babies and showing no mercy to children, and even livestock.

That according to the story he got rid of the OT sacrifice, doesnt negate the fact that at one time he did order such sacrifice.
If charlie manson were to convince his parole board tomorrow he was a reformed man, it wouldnt change what was done to his previous victims one bit.

In the book of kings god sends two she bears to maul and tear to bits 42 children for daring to point out his prophet was bald

And the OT is full of examples where god , by his own will and choice orchestrated hideous deaths.

And why when he could have simply forgiven mankind, did he arrange to have his son tortured and killed.
That doesnt make sense, if a father with 10 children who were bad, decided to torture and kill one of them in order to be able to forgive the rest....... he'd be locked up.

The behaviour of humans isnt the issue here, its the behaviour of this god entity.

By modern standards there is no way any entity that has comitted and commanded the unspeakable atrocitys we see in the bible, could be considered good.

Lot is a classic example, impregnates not one but two of his daughters, the bible describes Lot as a just and righteous man.
His excuse, not my fault, my daughters got me drunk, not too drunk to F F Fornicate mind you, but drunk enough to not be responsible.
Try running that excuse up a judges flagpole today.
Yes your honour i did get both my daughters pregnant, but they wanted it and got me drunk......
queue the sound of a cell door clanging shut.

Reading the bible from a modern perspective you are forced to make excuses for god.

Thats because the behavior of this bloodthirsty petty and vengeful entity cannot be reconciled with modern values.

 

[starise]

Ufology, I certainly see your logic in the story of the tower of Babel. God did thwart a progression of knowledge in this case.I only guessed as to why He did it. Since God allows worldwide communications and other modern marvels made by man, it is inferred that God had a specific reason in this case to do what He did.Other commentary from theologians describes the actions on the part of the people as egotistical and proud us....we......ourselves. Mesopotamian ziggurats were viewed as staircases to the heavens or links between heaven and earth( a connection with pyramids perhaps in the theory that they channel energy or might serve to assist as some kind of a gateway?). One commentary reads:"At Babel the ancient human race undertook a united and godless effort to establish for themselves, by a titanic enterprise,a world renown by which they would dominate Gods creation." Further" If the whole human race remained united in the proud attempt to take its destiny into its own hands and, by its self centered efforts,to seize the reigns of history,there would be no limit to unrestrained rebellion against God. A godless human kingdom would displace and exclude the kingdom of God.The Nephilim are referenced in one case as being a part of this activity.........God usually takes serious issue with anyone trying to dominate His creation.

I can see why you might view this as God being cruel and holding mankind back. I think it was the ideology behind it that caused His actions.

The Genesis account of the fall shows some similarities with the Babel account in how God reacts IMO. The idea that some kind of a fruit has the power to change a persons life outlook would be difficult for a skeptic to accept. Perhaps the tree itself was representative of another thing incomprehendable by earlier cultures and referenced as a tree. It could have been a tree endowed with some kind of a really potent effect, whatever the case, They were told not to eat it and they did.

Is it unfair for God to make a rule and a consequence and then enforce it if the rule is broken? I don't see making a rule as an evil thing if you happen to be God.They were told of the consequences before hand. I see knowing good and evil as something similar to if you have a 6 year old and you tell them not to watch the horror channel because you know they will be traumatized by flying body parts and flesh eating zombies. Even some adults can't stomach that. So you tell them not to look at it and they do. They won't go to bed without you for a year after that. I see mankind not knowing of evil as a kind of protection. We would have been far better off not to know.In eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil Adam and Eve sought a creaturely source of discernment in order to be morally independent of God.When Eve committed the first human sin she created the first human example of evil in the human race.The evil they knew was the evil they made.

I agree , we know the difference between good and evil but our discernment is limited because of our imperfection. The other day I was taking my mother-in-law somewhere in her car. She has a handicapped license plate and we need to park in a handicapped space because of her age. We came out and I was carrying some heavy stuff out to the car and putting it into the trunk. You should have seen judgemental looks I got from some people. They didn't see her. They just seen me parked in a handicapped spot healthy and loading a car. We can pass judgement on God in the same way IMO.

I guess I worded my term destiny wrong here in relation to the outcome of our life. The humanist will say that our direction is totally determined by us.I don't need to think very long or very hard to see the holes in this philosophy. I think we can be all we can be but indeed we can't control if we age or not or exacly where we are born, so in that sense I was "destined" to live in the US while someone else may have been "destined" to live in Scotland. We can only experience destiny, however we have free will to choose within the confines of that destiny. My actions decide what I do in this life and who I choose to follow or not follow. Any outcome of those choices will follow us into eternity and greatly influence our lives presently.

Unfortunately human sacrifice was a common denominator in many cultures to appease the Gods. It still exists but has gone underground.I believe Jesus did die willingly for our sins. He presented Himself as a sacrifice.I don't see it necessarily as God forcing Him to comply. Many people throughout history have given their lives for a good cause to save others and this is always viewed as the most heroic of acts. Remember the movie with Bruce Willis where he died to save earth from a huge meteor? They are heros in the highest order.He was the only one capable of paying the price.Unethical? I don't see it that way. Is the mother who allowed her son to go to war in defense of the country unethical?

I never looked at the Leviathan that way. Certainly possible I suppose. Interesting take on that passage. I think that there is the strong possibility that there were huge animals in the sea that would fit that description. I have read elsewhere that apparently there were creatures whose stomachs were some kind of a catalyst that actually gave off smoke and heat.Seems far fetched I know, but maybe the dragons were not as much of a myth as once thought.If the heat was created at the point of a mixture then there would not be any fire in the creature itself.Similar to an oxy/acetylene torch.

Some passages in Ezekiel are referenced frequently used in conjunction with ufos and high tech is inferred by several ufologists.Satan is referred to as"the prince and power of the air".

 

[trainedobserver]

Mike, you make great points but I think one important point to make in all of this is that the god of the Bible and the god of the Christian mythos (which are two distinct things) are both fictional characters. I understand that you are demonstrating how the god held up in the Christian myth that is believed by millions, is different from the god of the Bible. However, I think that might be lost on some who interpret your actions as hatred for something that actually exists outside of the human imagination. I dislike a lot of fictional characters for various reasons. Smurfs and those damn "my little pony" mooks are high on my list as well. However, I don't have the emotional makeup to actually hate fictional characters. The thing I hate is the terrible evil perpetrated largely through the promotion of ignorance and superstition by living people hopelessly caught up in a fantasy that permeates every aspect of their existence. We can point out the logical fallacies and inconstant nature of the their beliefs until we are blue in the face but until their will to believe is supplanted by a willingness to know the truth it will do no good.

 

[mike]

Let me ask do you subscribe to this

The Bible says the world is about six thousand years old. How do we arrive at that number?
The Bible provides a complete genealogy from Adam to Jesus. You can go through the genealogies and add up the years. You'll get a total that is just over 4,000 years. Add the 2,000 years since the time of Jesus and you get just over 6,000 years since God created everything.
Is there anything wrong with figuring out the age of the earth this way? No. There is nothing to indicate the genealogies are incomplete. There is nothing to indicate God left anything out. There is nothing in the Bible that indicates in any way that the world is much older than 6,000 years old.
The Bible does tell us, however, that the fossils we find could not have been buried before God created Adam. The animals whose bones became fossilized had to have died after God created Adam. That means those fossils must be less than 6,000 years old. Here's why:
How do we get fossils?
The animal has to first die. That's rather obvious. When did death enter the world? Not until Genesis chapter three when Adam and Eve disobey God. So up until that time neither people nor animals died. So, based on the Bible, there could not be any bones to create fossils until after the fall.
Here's another Biblical reason why the fossils we find could not have been buried before God created Adam:
When we examine fossils, in some of them we see evidence of sickness, disease and cancer. There is evidence of violence and of one animal eating another. So there were some problems. Not everything was good.
Yet, at the end of day six of creation: "God saw all that He made and behold. It was very good." (Genesis 1:31 NASB)
A world with sickness, disease, cancer and violence is not good. So, the fossilized bones we now find had to have come from animals that died after God created Adam, and after the fall.

The Earth Is 6000 Years Old

You say

That new discoveries in science tend to back up what is in the Bible is apparent.

So were there dinosuars on the ark ?

there would have been only about one hundred dinosaurs on the Ark—not thousands.

Dinosaurs on the Ark - Answers in Genesis

Do you subscribe to the answersingenisis.org's answer ?

Oh and finding shells inland and on mountains

The mountains of the Himalayas are made of fossilised shells. The carbonate shells of tiny marine algae to be precise. The limestone rocks of the Himalayas used to be sediments on the bed of a shallow sea which lay between the south coast of Asia and what was then the island of India, about 50 million years ago.
India (which was originally attached to Africa) travelled north and collided with the Eurasian plate, and the force of the collision piled what had been the sea bed up into a huge mountain range. It is still happening, India is still moving north at about 3cm per year relative to the rest of Asia, so the Himalayas are still growing.

The process behind all this movement is called plate tectonics

Continental Uplift and Biodiversity Cycles

The "global" flood did not happen, its not possible given the evidence.

The chinese and egyptian cultures were well established at the alleged time of noahs flood, they have no record of being submerged.

The Great Pyramid of Cheops was built about 2589-2566 BC, about 230 years before the flood, yet it has no water marks on it. The Djoser Step Pyramid at Saqqara, Egypt, built about 2630 BC doesn't show any signs of having been under water. Likewise for many other ancient structures. But even more importantly, the Egyptians have continuous historical records for hundreds of years before and after the time of the flood that make no mention of a great flood. This shows that they were not only not aware of a global flood, they certainly were not greatly affected by one. Outside of the Bible, there is no historical or physical evidence that would place a worldwide flood during the time period specified by the Bible for the great flood.

Where did the water needed for the flood come from? Where did it go? The atmosphere only holds enough moisture to account for about an inch of water worldwide. To cover even Mount Ararat, where Noah's Ark supposedly landed after the flood, in 40 days would require over 400 feet of water per day. That's not 400 inches, but 400 feet a day. And Everest would require 725 feet per day - that's 30 feet of water per hour! Some claim that the mountains didn't exist before the flood. But even Bible speaks of great mountains in the time before the flood. Were these great mountains mentioned in the Bible only a few feet high?
Some propose a massive vapor canopy existed in the times before the flood. But, the pressure at the base of such a canopy would be so high that it would need to have a temperature of over 500 degrees Fahrenheit. Any cooler and it would come down as rain.

Noah's Flood - What does the Evidence Say?

If a purported miracle gives an indication of the mechanism – as is the case with the flood story – then one might expect the evidence left behind to be consistent with that mechanism. But when narrative and evidence is closely examined there is much that does not seem to add up.
Consider now three articles[4] – available on the internet – that strongly criticize the flood story as interpreted by AIG/ICR. The following bullets are my words but the ideas are redacted from those articles. They represent only a small subset of the objections concerning the veracity of the YEC interpretation. I would encourage you to read the articles in their entirety, to get a clearer sense of the arguments employed.
Critics’ objections to the flood story as understood by YEC apologists:
· “all living creatures” into the ark means:
- species now extinct must be included.
- insects, arachnids, worms, bacteria, amphibians etc., that we usually don’t think of, must also go into the ark.
- all aquatic creatures including whales, jellyfish, fresh-water fish, mollusks, coral, etc. must be preserved in the ark as most water-resident life could not survive the sediment-filled waters of a YEC-style flood event.
- Gathering the animals probably must be attributed to miracle, otherwise:
. Some land animals would have to swim oceans.
. How would they bring their various special diets with them during the long journey?
· Ark space issues:
. YEC estimates on the number of animals vary, trying to get the total down as much as possible. But the various totals either ignore large categories (like extinct or marine animals) or they think a representative sample (a “kind”) can, post-flood, produce the genetic variety we see today. But to get present diversity from a single “kind” pair would constitute massive post-flood evolution, far exceeding anything we observe.
. Non-animal space: food for about a year, water for at least part of that time (after the rain stopped), flooring, compartments, human living quarters – would consume a significant percentage of the Ark’s capacity.
. storage for all kinds of plants/seeds because almost nothing would regenerate on its own post-flood from outside the ark after the amount of postulated violence, then sediment deposited.
. The ark had 1,518,750 cubic feet maximum (assuming a rectangle), perhaps half consumed for non-animal purposes. Even a very low example figure of 50,000 animals (at 2 or 7 per “kind” this doesn’t represent many species), would give an average of 15 cubic feet per animal. However, one critic states the number of species that would have to have been alive (to provide the fossil diversity found) would be more like 1.87 million species – of which at least a pair of each would be required.
· Loading the ark: 7 days and, even if we assume a low figure of 50,000 animals, then 1 animal must be loaded every 12 seconds – from gangplank to cage.
· Boat limitations: A 450 ft long boat exceeds the physical limit of wooden boat design. 300 feet is an upper limit before structural deformation and instability is inevitable. The longest known wooden ship ever built (19th century) was 329 feet and was found to be an untenable design. Thus 450 feet challenges the laws of physics.
· Caring for the animals:
. How would special food be obtained by Noah for some animals – e.g. eucalyptus leaves for koalas, bamboo shoots for pandas, plankton for whales, etc.
. The amount of turbulence during the voyage (given the presumed catastrophic external activity) would have been very harmful to the animals’ health (let alone structural integrity of the boat).
. Even considering a low figure of 50,000 animals, if all eight of the crew worked every day, 16 hrs/day, then each individual animal would wind up with about 1 hour of attention during the entire year. This would not have kept them fed/watered and their waste removed.
· Sediment depth post-flood averages 1 mile, some is essentially 100% fossil (e.g. chalk). If even only .1% of that sediment was considered to be from animals, the living equivalents would cover the entire earth to a depth of 1 ½ feet.
· To deposit as much sediment as YEC estimates the ratio of water to sediment would be 2:1. That much thick muddy water would kill virtually all marine life.
· The Karoo Supergroup (southern Africa) has an estimated (from fossil count) 800 billion animals. All would have to have been alive at the flood, per YEC assumptions. This would amount to 21 per acre on average for the entire planet. But they wound up in one location so the density would likely have been greater. And that’s just one fossiliferous geologic formation.
· Repopulation:
. If the entire Phanerozoic portion of the geologic column was deposited during the flood year, very little plant life or seeds would have survived for re-growth so post-flood Noah would have to replant across virtually the entire planet.
. The world’s food chain would have collapsed. The animals, e.g. carnivores, would have nothing to eat except each other or year-old rotting carcasses.
. How will the pairs stay together to mate and with sufficient success to repopulate? You would expect them to run away randomly upon disembarking.
. Some animals need special circumstances to mate – environment, presence of others of the species, etc.
. How would animals cross oceans to get to their present locations?
There may be plausible answers to some of these objections. And miracle obviously comes into play for some of the actions beyond just the flood water itself. But not all miracles are equally plausible. And some consequences of literal thinking here seem very problematic.

Historical effects of the flood:

• Why is there no mention of the flood in the records of Egyptian or Chinese civilizations which existed at the time? Biblical dates (I Kings 6:1, Gal 3:17, various generation lengths given in Genesis) place the flood 1300 years before Solomon began the first temple. We can construct reliable chronologies for near Eastern history, particularly for Egypt, from many kinds of records from the literate cultures in the near East. These records are independent of, but supported by, dating methods such as dendrochronology and carbon-14. The building of the first temple can be dated to 950 B.C. +/- some small delta, placing the Flood around 2250 B.C. Unfortunately, the Egyptians (among others) have written records dating well back before 2250 B.C. (the Great Pyramid, for example dates to the 26th century B.C., 300 years before the Biblical date for the Flood). No sign in Egyptian inscriptions of this global flood around 2250 B.C.
• Why are no human artifacts found except in the very uppermost strata? If, at the time of the flood, the earth was overpopulated by people with technology for shipbuilding, why were none of their tools or buildings mixed with with trilobite or dinosaur fossils?
• How did the human population rebound so fast? Geneologies in Genesis put the Tower of Babel about 110 to 150 years after the Flood [Gen 10:25, 11:10-19]. How did the world population regrow so fast to make its construction (and the city around it) possible? Similarly, there would have been very few people around to build Stonehenge and the Pyramids, found the Sumarian and Indus Valley civilizations, populate the Americas, etc.

Clearly far more logical evidence that a global flood was impossible

Problems with a Global Flood

• How did all the different species fit on the ark? 10 million species is a reasonable estimate of species presently alive (though estimates vary widely; see May, 1992). They all would have had to fit in about 100,000 square feet of deck space [Gen. 6:15-16]. Since most animals are small, they probably could have all fit, but only if you allow very little room around them. Caged animals probably wouldn't all fit, nor would the animals have any room to exercise. The dinosaurs, mastodons, and other now-extinct animals would have been aboard the ark as well [Gen. 7:15; Morris, 1993], and they would take up a lotof room. Bracings, corridors, bilges, etc. would have taken up a lot of room, too. If you hypothesize significantly fewer species on the ark than now exist, you must explain evolution rates faster than any evolutionists propose to account for all the present species.
• How did Noah supply food and water for all the animals for a year? [Gen. 6:21] Food for a year would have taken up many times the space of the animals themselves. (I know of no animals, except some desert amphibians, that hibernate for anywhere close to a year.)
• How was the food kept fresh for a year? (Aphids, e.g., can't eat wilted plants.)
• What did the carnivorous animals eat, especially those which require fresh meat?
• How did creatures needing special environments survive on the ark?
• How do you explain how all host-specific parasites/diseases made do with only one pair of hosts (and if they did OK, how the hosts survived!)
• How was the ark kept livable? Shoveling the manure of the ungulates alone must have been a full time job for eight people.
• How well ventilated was the ark? The body heat from millions of closely packed animals must have been very intense.

According to falwell

The Bible is the inerrant ... word of the living God. It is absolutely infallible,without error in all matters pertaining to faith and practice, as well as in areas such as geography, science, history, etc.-- Jerry Falwell, ​

When in captivity, lions are fed once per day. The amount of meat that they receive varies upon which zoo they are in. For example, the Honolulu Zoo gives its female lions 11 pounds of meat a day and its male lions 15.4 pounds of meat a day. This equates to 77 pounds of meat a week for females and 107.8 (nearly 110) pounds of meat a week for males.​

lets see one of each thats 180 pounds a week times 52 weeks (it was actually 377 days buts lets not get bogged down)
Thats 9 thousand plus pounds of meat just for the lions, Then add the tigers, wolves cheetahs jaguars bears.......

And of course after 377 days underwater, these animals would not have been living off the land once they disembarked .........

And yet The Bible is the inerrant ... word of the living God. It is absolutely infallible,without error in all matters

To accept that you must first embrace total mind numbing ignorance instead

Like the literalists who truly believe there were dinosaurs on the ark.......

 

[starise]

starise said: ↑

Concerning the comments of the wars that took place and were ordained by God in the OT. Any conquering army of that time typically completely destroyed the enemy. Why? Because just like cutting a plant back to the root it would return to make war again if not completely eliminated. This wasn't just the Jewish nation. Given half the chance the opposion would have done the same thing.Many armies now try to fight a clean war . This isn't really effective as a long term strategy if you want to win a war.​

​

If the God that you think is so evil got rid of the OT sacrifice and replaced it with the only sacrifice of His Son. If He offered this to every man who accepts it how is it that you think He is so evil? ​

This is denial pure and simple, That armies of the time did this is not the issue, i get that it makes my point that this book was written by men, documenting the history of the time.

The point is god ordered it, it was his will these things should be done , dont get me wrong i think god is an imaginary entity, he doest exist.
What i question is the mindset of those who would subscribe to any enitity whos attributes are so unspeakably evil as to command the dashing of babies and showing no mercy to children, and even livestock.

That according to the story he got rid of the OT sacrifice, doesnt negate the fact that at one time he did order such sacrifice.
If charlie manson were to convince his parole board tomorrow he was a reformed man, it wouldnt change what was done to his previous victims one bit.

In the book of kings god sends two she bears to maul and tear to bits 42 children for daring to point out his prophet was bald

And the OT is full of examples where god , by his own will and choice orchestrated hideous deaths.

And why when he could have simply forgiven mankind, did he arrange to have his son tortured and killed.
That doesnt make sense, if a father with 10 children who were bad, decided to torture and kill one of them in order to be able to forgive the rest....... he'd be locked up.

The behaviour of humans isnt the issue here, its the behaviour of this god entity.

By modern standards there is no way any entity that has comitted and commanded the unspeakable atrocitys we see in the bible, could be considered good.

Lot is a classic example, impregnates not one but two of his daughters, the bible describes Lot as a just and righteous man.
His excuse, not my fault, my daughters got me drunk, not too drunk to F F Fornicate mind you, but drunk enough to not be responsible.
Try running that excuse up a judges flagpole today.
Yes your honour i did get both my daughters pregnant, but they wanted it and got me drunk......
queue the sound of a cell door clanging shut.

Reading the bible from a modern perspective you are forced to make excuses for god.

You seem to be comparing Charles Manson to God?? That is one very long stretch there, one I can't even begin to make.The OT sacrifices you mention have absolutely nothing to do with killing any human beings.
Animals were the common sacrafice at that time.
Children were killed in some of those conquests.Just as children are killed in any war. It is a sad state of affairs I agree.I don't see God gladly sayin, " Kill all the children!" I don't see God as evil I see men as evil and war is a result of that.There is live and let live, live and let die and kill or be killed.

Like I said earlier I am no theologian and the references you have indicated in Kings are something I don't remember reading. I have read the book of Kings but this isn't something I remember.Not doubting you.

 

[stonehart]

Very nice post Mike!

Reading the bible from a modern perspective you are forced to make excuses for god.

And that for me is the point, in my d-conversion I just could not make anymore excuses for God or any god for that matter.

Thats because the behavior of this bloodthirsty petty and vengeful entity cannot be reconciled with modern values

For me that is game set and match.
And before I get the typical "well where do you get your morals from if not god" thrown at me as always. If God leads by example then its morals are shady at best.
But the fact is that it is society that makes our norms and values not religion, all religion dose is hijack and stagnate the forward movement of society as best it can.

I have always liked this example.

 

[mike]

Mike, you make great points but I think one important point to make in all of this is that the god of the Bible and the god of the Christian mythos (which are two distinct things) are both fictional characters. I understand that you are demonstrating how the god held up in the Christian myth that is believed by millions, is different from the god of the Bible. However, I think that might be lost on some who interpret your actions as hatred for something that actually exists outside of the human imagination. I dislike a lot of fictional characters for various reasons. Smurfs and those damn "my little pony" mooks are high on my list as well. However, I don't have the emotional makeup to actually hate fictional characters. The thing I hate is the terrible evil perpetrated largely through the promotion of ignorance and superstition by living people hopelessly caught up in a fantasy that permeates every aspect of their existence. We can point out the logical fallacies and inconstant nature of the their beliefs until we are blue in the face but until their will to believe is supplanted by a willingness to know the truth it will do no good.

Hence my statement

The point is god ordered it, it was his will these things should be done , dont get me wrong i think god is an imaginary entity, he doest exist.

Its why from a purely anthropological pov i find the creation of and subscription to such an entity, with such clearly immoral attributes both fascinating and disturbing.

I suspect its a variation on this

If as i contest it is, the bible is no more than the written words of men, then it depicts things that would logically make the perpetrators of these atrocitys want a scapegoat.

Yeah i killed little children with no mercy...... but god told me to

 

[stonehart]

Mike, you make great points but I think one important point to make in all of this is that the god of the Bible and the god of the Christian mythos (which are two distinct things) are both fictional characters. I understand that you are demonstrating how the god held up in the Christian myth that is believed by millions, is different from the god of the Bible. However, I think that might be lost on some who interpret your actions as hatred for something that actually exists outside of the human imagination. I dislike a lot of fictional characters for various reasons. Smurfs and those damn "my little pony" mooks are high on my list as well. However, I don't have the emotional makeup to actually hate fictional characters. The thing I hate is the terrible evil perpetrated largely through the promotion of ignorance and superstition by living people hopelessly caught up in a fantasy that permeates every aspect of their existence. We can point out the logical fallacies and inconstant nature of the their beliefs until we are blue in the face but until their will to believe is supplanted by a willingness to know the truth it will do no good.

Spot on the mark!

Yes I can be accused of this myself even though I understand the distinction it can be hard to explain this to those who as you say are "living people hopelessly caught up in a fantasy that permeates every aspect of their existence"

until their will to believe is supplanted by a willingness to know the truth it will do no good

That is extremely hard to do, my own sister has become a born again Christian and I have had to stop speaking to her as she try's to convert me back to Christianity every time we speak.
I simply can not get her to understand where I am coming from as to why I have no belief in her particular version of a God.
The God glasses go on and I may as well be speaking to a brick wall for all the good it will do me.

 

[mike]

You seem to be comparing Carles Manson to God?? That is one very long stretch there, one I can't even begin to make.The OT sacrifices you mention have absolutely nothing to do with killing any human beings.
Animals were the common sacrafice at that time.
Children were killed in some of those conquests.Just as children are killed in any war. It is a sad state of affairs I agree.I don't see God gladly sayin, " Kill all the children!" I don't see God as evil I see men as evil and war is a result of that.There is live and let live, live and let die and kill or be killed.

Like I said earlier I am no theologian and the references you have indicated in Kings are something I don't remember reading. I have read the book of Kings but this isn't something I remember.Not doubting you.

Quite correct, Charles manson only killed a few people, its not like he drowned every last man woman child and innocent animal. Bit of a stretch i agree.


This is from the bible, gods word. he says I WILL, he is the author of the command

Anyone who is captured will be run through with a sword. Their little children will be dashed to death right before their eyes. Their homes will be sacked and their wives raped by the attacking hordes. For I will stir up the Medes against Babylon, and no amount of silver or gold will buy them off. The attacking armies will shoot down the young people with arrows. They will have no mercy on helpless babies and will show no compassion for the children. (Isaiah 13:15-18 NLT)

another one from gods own mouth,

If even then you remain hostile toward me and refuse to obey, I will inflict you with seven more disasters for your sins. I will release wild animals that will kill your children and destroy your cattle, so your numbers will dwindle and your roads will be deserted. (Leviticus 26:21-22 NLT)

And true to his promise to release wild animals to kill your children

From there Elisha went up to Bethel. While he was on his way, some small boys came out of the city and jeered at him. "Go up baldhead," they shouted, "go up baldhead!" The prophet turned and saw them, and he cursed them in the name of the Lord. Then two shebears came out of the woods and tore forty two of the children to pieces. (2 Kings 2:23-24 NAB)

The LORD then gave these further instructions to Moses: 'Tell the people of Israel to keep my Sabbath day, for the Sabbath is a sign of the covenant between me and you forever. It helps you to remember that I am the LORD, who makes you holy. Yes, keep the Sabbath day, for it is holy. Anyone who desecrates it must die; anyone who works on that day will be cut off from the community. Work six days only, but the seventh day must be a day of total rest. I repeat: Because the LORD considers it a holy day, anyone who works on the Sabbath must be put to death.' (Exodus 31:12-15 NLT)

"Then I heard the LORD say to the other men, "Follow him through the city and kill everyone whose forehead is not marked. Show no mercy; have no pity! Kill them all – old and young, girls and women and little children. But do not touch anyone with the mark. Begin your task right here at the Temple." So they began by killing the seventy leaders. "Defile the Temple!" the LORD commanded. "Fill its courtyards with the bodies of those you kill! Go!" So they went throughout the city and did as they were told." (Ezekiel 9:5-7 NLT)

Again a first person statement

I will make Mount Seir utterly desolate, killing off all who try to escape and any who return. I will fill your mountains with the dead. Your hills, your valleys, and your streams will be filled with people slaughtered by the sword. I will make you desolate forever. Your cities will never be rebuilt. Then you will know that I am the LORD. (Ezekiel 35:7-9 NLT)

To reconcile these acts of god with modern values and behavior you have to employ cognitive dissonace.

And you make my point, you hadnt read 2 Kings 2:23-24, most people just take for granted the word from the pulpit , god is a kind and loving entity.
When you read the book........ thats clearly not true

Its what they......Dont want you to know..........

Its why you dont hear sermons about this incident.

 

[mike]

Heres something else they wont tell you in church

Jews have traditionally seen Jesus as one of a number of false messiahs who have appeared throughout history.[1] Jesus is viewed as having been the most influential, and consequently the most damaging, of all false messiahs.
[2] However, since the mainstream Jewish belief is that the Messiah has not yet come and that the Messianic Age is not yet present, the total rejection of Jesus as either messiah or deity in Judaism has never been a central issue for Judaism. At the heart of Judaism are the Torah, its commandments, the Tanakh, and ethical monotheism such as in the Shema — all of which predated Jesus.
Judaism has never accepted any of the claimed fulfillments of prophecy that Christianity attributes to Jesus. Judaism also forbids the worship of a person as a form of idolatry, since the central belief of Judaism is the absolute unity and singularity of God

And as a Christian you know that unless you accept jesus as the son of god, you dont go to heaven

So according to his own rule set, jews go to hell for rejecting jesus, and christians go to hell for idolatry

Christians and jews cannot both eat at the pearly buffet.

According to his "chosen people" you worship a false messiah and will burn for idolatry
According to your doctrines unless they accept jesus as messiah they cant enter the kingdom of heaven.

Now lets look at some logic

They cant, they CANT both be right

But they CAN both be wrong

How can such a contradictory mess be the direct word of god ?

The Bible is the inerrant ... word of the living God. It is absolutely infallible,without error in all matters pertaining to faith and practice, as well as in areas such as geography, science, history, etc.-- Jerry Falwell,

Clearly Jerry is wrong, on so many levels

 

[Randall]

Ufology, I certainly see your logic in the story of the tower of Babel. God did thwart a progression of knowledge in this case ... I agree , we know the difference between good and evil but our discernment is limited because of our imperfection ... Some passages in Ezekiel are referenced frequently used in conjunction with ufos and high tech is inferred by several ufologists. Satan is referred to as"the prince and power of the air".

Two quick points:

• There is no ambiguity. The passage makes it clear: "Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil." There is no mention of any limitation based on our imperfection.
• Ezekiel is the most common passage listed, but there are even more. Leviathan is one of the most interesting. Perhaps a dedicated thread on this would be a good idea. Your familiarity with the Bible could be advantageous for you.

It's not that I don't agree that our ability to behave morally and ethically is limited and can be compromised. The point is, according to the Bible, we know it as well as God does, which also implies God is imperfect or at very least, subject to the same problems as us. Theologians don't like this because it limits God, but I didn't write the passage ( God's secretaries did ... or perhaps it was more like God's press agents ). That's probably why it get's removed or edited out of some versions.

At any rate, you seem like a good and intelligent person with the capacity to discern good from evil. If you honestly apply yourself to the task of discerning it, inevitably you'll come to conclude that any God worthy of your loyalty, especially one that is supposedly all powerful, would not do any evil things at all ... period. If you need to reflect on this please consider my earlier question: How much evil do we tolerate in our God? If you doubt my sincerity ( as religious people sometimes do ) ask yourself why I would encourage you to seek out the goodness in life and pattern yourself after it? To trick you? Into what? Being an even more good person than you already are? And why should God object? What possible thing might he be afraid you'll discover once you look behind the veil? If you are a seeker of greater things ( and I sense you are ), don't waste your time. Take the good road, even if it don't look easy ... and Lord knows it 'aint easy when we get into these topics on the forum. Notice I used the word "Lord" there ... what Lord? ... These Lords ... BTW that second one is "Jack".

 

[Randall]

This statement is interesting to me. What have you "determined with reasonable certainty"? I do not believe governments know anything more than citizens when it comes to this topic.

Q. What have you "determined with reasonable certainty"?
A. "We have determined with reasonable certainty that the PTB have historically known things that the general public does not."

I'm not sure what else you need to know ( pardon the pun there ). Or do I need to point you to thousands of pages of declassified government documents to prove it? OK ... here's some to get you started.

 

[mike]

So ive made a case god was cruel violent and vengeful in the past.

What about today, is he a reformed psychopath ?

Since we are discussing this from a predominantly christian pov lets start there.

The only way to heaven is through jesus, the alternative is eternal hellfire and suffering.

Australia first saw the bible about 200 years ago, so in the 1800 years between Jesus and capt cook, countless native people who had never heard of jesus...... died and are now in hell.

Millions of hindus, buddhists and assorted other peoples through no fault of their own, born into the traditions of their culture..... eternal fire and torture.

Now if god wants an exclusive club, thats fine, his clubhouse his rules, check your shoes at the door and all that.
But its one thing to select who gets in to your home, its another to make those who dont, suffer an ETERNITY of suffering.

When our dogs get sick and are in pain, we put them do to stop them fom suffering, thats the kind and loving thing to do right ?

God could do the same, could simply consign those who dont get into heaven to oblivion.

But this kind and loving god, doesnt even afford us the same compassion we show a sick pet.

Instead he insists in a universe he created and where he makes the rules, that those who dont make the grade, should suffer an eternity in torment........

Kind and loving ?

Or cruel and petty

 

[stonehart]

So ive made a case god was cruel violent and vengeful in the past.

What about today, is he a reformed psychopath ?

Since we are discussing this from a predominantly christian pov lets start there.

The only way to heaven is through jesus, the alternative is eternal hellfire and suffering.

Australia first saw the bible about 200 years ago, so in the 1800 years between Jesus and capt cook, countless native people who had never heard of jesus...... died and are now in hell.

Millions of hindus, buddhists and assorted other peoples through no fault of their own, born into the traditions of their culture..... eternal fire and torture.

Now if god wants an exclusive club, thats fine, his clubhouse his rules, check your shoes at the door and all that.
But its one thing to select who gets in to your home, its another to make those who dont, suffer an ETERNITY of suffering.

When our dogs get sick and are in pain, we put them do to stop them fom suffering, thats the kind and loving thing to do right ?

God could do the same, could simply consign those who dont get into heaven to oblivion.

But this kind and loving god, doesnt even afford us the same compassion we show a sick pet.

Instead he insists in a universe he created and where he makes the rules, that those who dont make the grade, should suffer an eternity in torment........

Kind and loving ?

Or cruel and petty

That has always been a favorite discussion point of my own, but the apologist has their ways of wriggling around in it.

 

[Ancientsaturn]

Q. What have you "determined with reasonable certainty"?
A. "We have determined with reasonable certainty that the PTB have historically known things that the general public does not."

I'm not sure what else you need to know ( pardon the pun there ). Or do I need to point you to thousands of pages of declassified government documents to prove it? OK ... here's some to get you started.

That document referenced events from 1952! Ok, so we have a bit of a communication problem. When I say the PTB don't know "anything" more than citizens, I mean anything significant. My understanding is that what the PTB know regarding UFOs is almost worthless. That was my original point. You are arguing against straw men. - Perhaps what I find worthless you find valuable? Well then offer up some details regarding what you are looking for from the PTB? My post was quite specific: if the PTB had significant evidence, enough to further our own technology, then there would be manifestations of it and leaps in our technological weapons capabilities.

Today, in 2012, the sky is covered with satellites. Those satellites carry sensors that can read every event that is taking place almost anywhere on the globe in the electromagnetic spectrum (1KHz to over 100GHz), imaging, thermal, and radar. If there were UFOs those sensors would record them. Please offer up something in this decade that suggests the PTB have such evidence.

 

[Randall]

That document referenced events from 1952! Ok, so we have a bit of a communication problem. When I say the PTB don't know "anything" more than citizens, I mean anything significant. My understanding is that what the PTB know regarding UFOs is almost worthless. That was my original point. You are arguing against straw men. - Perhaps what I find worthless you find valuable? Well then offer up some details regarding what you are looking for from the PTB? My post was quite specific: if the PTB had significant evidence, enough to further our own technology, then there would be manifestations of it and leaps in our technological weapons capabilities.

Today, in 2012, the sky is covered with satellites. Those satellites carry sensors that can read every event that is taking place almost anywhere on the globe in the electromagnetic spectrum (1KHz to over 100GHz), imaging, thermal, and radar. If there were UFOs those sensors would record them. Please offer up something in this decade that suggests the PTB have such evidence.

Your wanting to clear up the "communication problem" is more like moving the goalposts. My original quote was, "historically speaking the PTB have known things that the general public does not", and the documents I pointed you to were clearly marked SECRET. Now you want to to include something more recent with sufficient evidence to satisfy your interpretation of what I meant. Nevertheless, we can move on to your specific issues. Let's start by looking at them logically for a minute. They knew more then than the public did about significant UFO encounters, there is a consistent trail of such knowledge all the way up to when they said they stopped investigating them, then we found out that they didn't really stop investigating them, only that there is supposedly no "official program" and they denied any further information was available. Then requests for information via the FOIA revealed that they did have more information, but it has been heavily censored . So again, my point is proven beyond any reasonable doubt. Still to this day they know more than we do.

Anticipating that you'll want to move the goalposts further still, I'll remind you that I've never claimed to be able to tell you exactly what information is being kept secret, only that we know it exists. Nevertheless we can do a bit of extrapolation. You point out yourself that the PTB have incredibly sophisticated monitoring capabilities, which is true, but the exact specifications and the data they acquire are kept secret from the general public. Why? Because it detects stuff that is beyond the capability of civilian radar and other common detection technology and is part of our nation(s) military. For example according to ufologist Tim Good, NORAD had over 10 million 'uncorrelated returns' since the early 1960s, the precise tracking details of which have not been released. It is taken for granted that most of them are probably natural or manmade objects, but given the number of UFO reports spanning the same period, is it reasonable to believe that none of those 10 ,000,000 SPADATS tracking reports don't include data on any UFOs? Then we have the insider leak from Space Command reported in Howard Blum's Out There. So in addition to the history of secrecy already proven, we know that there are plenty of unidentified radar returns and plenty of UFO sightings. How hard is it to put 2 + 2 together here? In this case "painfully obvious" is synonymous with "reasonable certainty".

 

[stonehart]

 

[mike]

Who are the Anunnaki? | What is the Planet Nibiru?

Worth a read

 

[Goggs Mackay]

The bible was not written for the common man to understand. How could it have been when the vast majority of people either could not read and certainly not afford a copy for themselves to study!
No, it was made by learned men to control the uneducated. We don't need to take apart every bit of the bible but Starise, do you think Jesus was the son of god? Was he supernatural and rose from the dead?

Starise, please bear in mind half my family are practising christians but they are not even good at defending themselves, but here's the thing:

Had you been born in Pakistan of local stock, do you think you would have stayed a muslim or carried out a search for the one true book, i.e the bible?

I have to say I think you are a christian because you were brought up to be one. If you had never, ever heard of any religion until you were 18, do you think you would have automatically seen the bible as the correct religious text to follow? I cannot believe that would be so. I feel you are the same as my family, stuck in something they did not actively chose join, more were born into it and due to the culture around them, it is very hard socially to just 'opt-out' of the whole thing.

This does indeed sound a bit pompous but I am 100% sure there CANNOT be one religion that is correct over the others. I find it equally unlikely that multiple ones are correct. There is only one solution to all this and that is to accept religions are man made.

Jesus did not die for my sins (whatever that means?) and I did not ask him to and I owe him nothing. In fact, he owes me a lot.

Also, if Jesus is indeed a historical figure, I am really really sorry to have to tell you but in all likelihood, the mother of Jesus Christ was not a virgin. Maybe Joseph was not the father but really, this ridiculous idea that she conceived god's child is conceited beyond belief. She got pregnant the usual way and why that is such a taboo I will never understand.