From contributor Gordonliv:
Hey, here's a thought...
Suppose you yourself were God.
You'd created a universe, a few billion stars, some solar systems, time, distance and all...
Then on one of your planets (or - who knows? - maybe more than one!) you decide to create some intelligent, rational creatures who have big brains and control and dominion over the land they occupy. They're so intelligent that they can talk to you... and you to them. So you decide to give them an instruction book.
What would you write in that instruction book?
In my Bible - as Creator Of All Things - I'd give my intelligent, questioning, supplicant creations a lesson in physics.
I'd explain gravity... how it keeps the solar system in equilibrium (at least for the time being). I'd explain nuclear fusion... how it keeps the Sun burning (again, at least for the time being). I'd also explain why I'd created Black Holes and Dark Matter, beacuase those ideas really would puzzle my intelligent creations. A nice, clear, unambiguous explanation would be in order.
I might also tell my little loved creations where else I'd created lfe in the Cosmos. I wouldn't leave it to them to figure it out over millenia... I'd give them some really helpful pointers. I'd say, "Look over here... there's some other fellas! They look a bit different and smell funny, but they'd LOVE to talk to you!"
And I'd say in my instruction book to my my beloved Earthlings, "I love you all so much. You're all so special to me. I won't do anything nasty to you like create any pathogenic bacteria or HIV/AIDS; I won't let you fight or starve. I'll just provide for you... as if you were my little pets!" That's what - among many other things - I'd write in my insruction book.
Feel free to comment here or at the forum (comments here may be copied to @ www.aimoo.com/antichurch)
Showing posts with label Contributor Gordonliv. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Contributor Gordonliv. Show all posts
But Bible contradictions are so much FUN!
From the Anti-Church forum
And there are so many of them! Like Evans says, the more "bollocks" there is contained in the scriptures, the more faith is needed to believe in them. Why don't we atheists (I don't necessarily include you in that number, Franknhonest) just continue pointing these delicious contradictions out to the Christians and watching them squirm and tie themselves up in knots as they try to resolve them ("Oh, St. Paul was speaking figuratively"), while hoping that a few Christians will see the ludicrousness of the position they adopt and abandon their love affair with the Bible?
And anyway, if the Bible is supposed to be God's word to us here on Earth... what a crap God! Is that the best he can come up with? Why doesn't he tell us about the laws of physics? About how he created everything? About what Jupiter's there for? About why we have four fingers when three would do? About the risks of global warming?
And more to the point, why does he use up his holy book telling us about how it's OK to make an adulterous woman drink poison, or for a man to eat his own poo, or how he c0cked up Creation so badly that he had to wipe out the entire population (only on this planet, of course) and start again? (That's a bit of an admission, isn't it?) Why is he so troubled about mixing fibres in cloth? Why does he like slavery? Why is he so keen on killing people? What's wrong with cutting your temple hair? Why can't I admire my neighbour's ass? (I do, as it happens... she's got a rather gorgeous one! Oh, well... Hell for me, I guess!) Get your act together, God. It's time for a re-write!
More fun contradictions to unravel:
Matthew says, (1: 16) "That Joseph was the son of Jacob."
Luke says, (3: 23) "That Joseph was the son of Heli." Who is correct?
Was the Last Supper a Passover Seder, see Matt 26: 17-20, Mark 14: 12, Luke 22:7, or rather the Day of Preparation for the Passover as in John 19: 14.
Was Abiathar the High Priest when David ate the Consecrated bread as Jesus claimed? In Mark 2: 25-26. Where as the Tanach (O. T.) shows in 1 Sam.21: 1, that the High Priest at the time was Ahimelech..
THE FATHER AND I ARE ONE.
In John 10: 30 "I and My Father are one." Does this mean what it says or is there another way of looking at it? John. 17: 21-22, "That they all may be one, as, You, Father, are in me, and I in you; that they also may be one in us, that the world may believe that You sent me. And the glory which You gave me I have given them, that they may be one just as We are one."
This suggests to me that Jesus and GOD are not literally one, but that he (Jesus) suggested that he and God were in one accord.
CAN GOD BE TEMPTED BY EVIL? Hebrew.2:18. "For in that he himself (Jesus) has suffered, being tempted, he is able to aid those who are tempted."
James 1:13 says, "Let no one say when he is tempted, I am tempted by God; for God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does He Himself tempt anyone."
If Jesus is God, and God cannot be tempted by evil , then why was Jesus tempted by the devil?
In the King James version. Acts 12: 4, uses the word "easter" (this word has pagan origin) instead of the original word "passover."
In the same version in 1 John 5: 7, "For there are three that bear witness in heaven;the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one, and there are three that bear witness on earth; the Spirit, the water, and the blood, and these three agree as one."
The bold type underlined words of this text, were probably added by the Editors of the Latin Vulgate in the fourth century. c.e. They are not found in earlier manuscripts, prior to the Latin Vulgate. Other translations have omitted the above, with the exception of New King James.
What about peace? John 14:27. "Peace I leave with you, my peace I bring unto you." But in Matt.10:34. "Think not that that I have come to send peace on earth, I come not to send peace but a sword."
Did Paul's men hear a voice? Acts 9:7. "And the men who journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man." Where as in Acts 22:9. "And that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid but they heard not the voice of him that spoke to me."
Did Michal have children? 11 Sam. 6:23. "Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no child unto the day of her death." Where as 11 Sam. 21:8. " But the kings took the 2 sons of Rizpah, and the 5 sons of Michal the daughter of Saul." May we ask. What is "Truth.?"
And there are so many of them! Like Evans says, the more "bollocks" there is contained in the scriptures, the more faith is needed to believe in them. Why don't we atheists (I don't necessarily include you in that number, Franknhonest) just continue pointing these delicious contradictions out to the Christians and watching them squirm and tie themselves up in knots as they try to resolve them ("Oh, St. Paul was speaking figuratively"), while hoping that a few Christians will see the ludicrousness of the position they adopt and abandon their love affair with the Bible?
And anyway, if the Bible is supposed to be God's word to us here on Earth... what a crap God! Is that the best he can come up with? Why doesn't he tell us about the laws of physics? About how he created everything? About what Jupiter's there for? About why we have four fingers when three would do? About the risks of global warming?
And more to the point, why does he use up his holy book telling us about how it's OK to make an adulterous woman drink poison, or for a man to eat his own poo, or how he c0cked up Creation so badly that he had to wipe out the entire population (only on this planet, of course) and start again? (That's a bit of an admission, isn't it?) Why is he so troubled about mixing fibres in cloth? Why does he like slavery? Why is he so keen on killing people? What's wrong with cutting your temple hair? Why can't I admire my neighbour's ass? (I do, as it happens... she's got a rather gorgeous one! Oh, well... Hell for me, I guess!) Get your act together, God. It's time for a re-write!
More fun contradictions to unravel:
Matthew says, (1: 16) "That Joseph was the son of Jacob."
Luke says, (3: 23) "That Joseph was the son of Heli." Who is correct?
Was the Last Supper a Passover Seder, see Matt 26: 17-20, Mark 14: 12, Luke 22:7, or rather the Day of Preparation for the Passover as in John 19: 14.
Was Abiathar the High Priest when David ate the Consecrated bread as Jesus claimed? In Mark 2: 25-26. Where as the Tanach (O. T.) shows in 1 Sam.21: 1, that the High Priest at the time was Ahimelech..
THE FATHER AND I ARE ONE.
In John 10: 30 "I and My Father are one." Does this mean what it says or is there another way of looking at it? John. 17: 21-22, "That they all may be one, as, You, Father, are in me, and I in you; that they also may be one in us, that the world may believe that You sent me. And the glory which You gave me I have given them, that they may be one just as We are one."
This suggests to me that Jesus and GOD are not literally one, but that he (Jesus) suggested that he and God were in one accord.
CAN GOD BE TEMPTED BY EVIL? Hebrew.2:18. "For in that he himself (Jesus) has suffered, being tempted, he is able to aid those who are tempted."
James 1:13 says, "Let no one say when he is tempted, I am tempted by God; for God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does He Himself tempt anyone."
If Jesus is God, and God cannot be tempted by evil , then why was Jesus tempted by the devil?
In the King James version. Acts 12: 4, uses the word "easter" (this word has pagan origin) instead of the original word "passover."
In the same version in 1 John 5: 7, "For there are three that bear witness in heaven;the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one, and there are three that bear witness on earth; the Spirit, the water, and the blood, and these three agree as one."
The bold type underlined words of this text, were probably added by the Editors of the Latin Vulgate in the fourth century. c.e. They are not found in earlier manuscripts, prior to the Latin Vulgate. Other translations have omitted the above, with the exception of New King James.
What about peace? John 14:27. "Peace I leave with you, my peace I bring unto you." But in Matt.10:34. "Think not that that I have come to send peace on earth, I come not to send peace but a sword."
Did Paul's men hear a voice? Acts 9:7. "And the men who journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man." Where as in Acts 22:9. "And that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid but they heard not the voice of him that spoke to me."
Did Michal have children? 11 Sam. 6:23. "Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no child unto the day of her death." Where as 11 Sam. 21:8. " But the kings took the 2 sons of Rizpah, and the 5 sons of Michal the daughter of Saul." May we ask. What is "Truth.?"
Suppose - for a moment - that there is no god
Contributor - Gordonliv
But suppose now - for a moment - that there is no god. Would anything be different? Might there be nothing at all, instead of this vast and ever changing universe? Or could the atheist viewpoint (incomplete as it is) also possibly prevail?
If there is a god/gods/God, who still is in existence (i.e. he hasn't died and turned to cosmic dust now that his work is done), who has the power to create a universe (a very clever thing, if you ask me!) and who has given us a book about it all... why - in his infinite power - would he allow the "horrors" that are spoken of in this life to prevail?
Let's think of a hypothesis:
I have a hamster and a guinea pig. Both of them know me. Both of them understand me - at least insofar (ooh, I sound like a lawyer... notwithstanding!) as they need me to provide them with the basic essentials of life. I provide food for them. I provide water for them. I give them a nice, clean, comfy cage full of straw and bedding and nuts (or whatever hamsters and guinea pigs eat!) and also provide them with lots and lots of love... you might say, in hamster language, I provide them with infinite love, given that they couldn't possibly understand the vast intellect (ha!) of their provider.
But then I find out that they're fighting. If I put them in the cage together, they'll bite and scratch and harm each other... possibly even to the death.
What would I do about this? Allow it to continue?
No, of course not. I'd separate them out. I'd say to them, "Stop it, both of you. I love you both equally, but if you can't get along with each other, because you fight over what I give you, then I'll put you in separate cages."
And that's what I'd do. Separate them out. Give one cage to the hamster, and another to the guinea pig. Then all the violence would be over, but they could still "know" me as their provider and giver of infinite love.
God could do that.
He could do anything.
So, why doesn't God create some new planets? The Jews could have one, the Muslims could have one, and the Christians could have one. Then all these horrible car bombs (they fill them with gas canisters and nails, you know) would no longer be necessary. What would the atheists get? Well, given that God has to stop the fighting, it would be only fair that each monotheistic religion would have to be moved to a new planetary development, otherwise there'd be bickering about that too.
So God may as well leave us atheists here on Earth! Then we could get on with everything without him... and them.
Makes perfect sense to me! God, did you get that? God? God...? Hello...?
He's not answering...
But suppose now - for a moment - that there is no god. Would anything be different? Might there be nothing at all, instead of this vast and ever changing universe? Or could the atheist viewpoint (incomplete as it is) also possibly prevail?
If there is a god/gods/God, who still is in existence (i.e. he hasn't died and turned to cosmic dust now that his work is done), who has the power to create a universe (a very clever thing, if you ask me!) and who has given us a book about it all... why - in his infinite power - would he allow the "horrors" that are spoken of in this life to prevail?
Let's think of a hypothesis:
I have a hamster and a guinea pig. Both of them know me. Both of them understand me - at least insofar (ooh, I sound like a lawyer... notwithstanding!) as they need me to provide them with the basic essentials of life. I provide food for them. I provide water for them. I give them a nice, clean, comfy cage full of straw and bedding and nuts (or whatever hamsters and guinea pigs eat!) and also provide them with lots and lots of love... you might say, in hamster language, I provide them with infinite love, given that they couldn't possibly understand the vast intellect (ha!) of their provider.
But then I find out that they're fighting. If I put them in the cage together, they'll bite and scratch and harm each other... possibly even to the death.
What would I do about this? Allow it to continue?
No, of course not. I'd separate them out. I'd say to them, "Stop it, both of you. I love you both equally, but if you can't get along with each other, because you fight over what I give you, then I'll put you in separate cages."
And that's what I'd do. Separate them out. Give one cage to the hamster, and another to the guinea pig. Then all the violence would be over, but they could still "know" me as their provider and giver of infinite love.
God could do that.
He could do anything.
So, why doesn't God create some new planets? The Jews could have one, the Muslims could have one, and the Christians could have one. Then all these horrible car bombs (they fill them with gas canisters and nails, you know) would no longer be necessary. What would the atheists get? Well, given that God has to stop the fighting, it would be only fair that each monotheistic religion would have to be moved to a new planetary development, otherwise there'd be bickering about that too.
So God may as well leave us atheists here on Earth! Then we could get on with everything without him... and them.
Makes perfect sense to me! God, did you get that? God? God...? Hello...?
He's not answering...
Religious CaPiTaL LeTteRs
From contributor Gordonliv - Anti-church forum
Am I the only one who gets a bit confused and fed up with religious people using Capital Letters All The Time? I'll tell you what I do when I write about this Stuff... If I write "God" or "Jesus" or "Mohammed", I use a capital leter at the beginning of the word. Why? Because it's a name - a "proper noun", as I was taught in school... and proper nouns begin with capital letters, in exactly the same way as Sentences Do. If I write about "The Bible" then I again use a capital letter, because I'm talking about a specific book ( the word "bible", etymologically, means simply "book", but if I mean "The Book" (and we all know which book I'm talking about) then that's the book's name, so a capital letter it gets). None of this is in deference to religious doctrine. It's in deference to the English (ooh, a capital letter!) language.
But I get sick to death of sentences like "The Glory of God shall be upon Thee according to His Word, in the Name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit for All Eternity." What's all that about? A faulty typewriter? A lazy typesetter? It's nonsense... completely outside the rules of grammar and the English language.
But it's a double edged sword, this capital letter business. For example, I think that deliberately spelling the word as "god" (i.e. without a capital letter 'G') is just silly. I mean, it is his (note: no capital 'H') name, after all, whether he (see previous parentheses) exists or not. Bugs Bunny didn't actually exist as a real, live rabbit, but his name still gets two capital 'B's. I myself might feel a little hard done by if someone spelt my name as "gordon" instead of "Gordon". And the "Bible" (as opposed to the "bible") is again the correct way of writing the title of that book. I have no trouble with talking about a "god" when it's non-specific, but when we talk about "God", then if we pay homage to our language, his name should have a capital letter.
I've recently learned that "God" (with a capital 'G') is a translation of "Elohim", which in the ancient Hebrew texts (whoops! Nearly typed "txts" there... too much SMS activity! What's God's mobile 'phone number? Want to send him a txt or two. Reckon he'll read them?) means a "collection" or "family" of gods, of which YHWH or "Yahweh" was only one.
(Yahweh - sometimes referred to as "Jehovah" - is the guy Christians have adopted as their "god".) This is indicated quite clearly in Genesis 1:26... "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness:" etc.
In ancient Hebrew texts, the scholarly (ha!) writers were clearly of the opinion that there was more than one god. Translators put paid to that idea by simply translating the word "Elohim" (a family of gods) as "God". But there it is in the Bible; clear as day. It seems capital letters have a mysterious (well, OK, not that mysterious) significance.
Deliberately abusing the English language to create pejorative terms is a bit immature, don't we think? Oh, dear. I've just realised I'm assuming God is male. Feminist religious zealots, feel free to take me to task on that one, according to Her Word in the Name of the Mother, the Daughter and the Holy Au Pair, Now And ForEver More. AmEn.
Am I the only one who gets a bit confused and fed up with religious people using Capital Letters All The Time? I'll tell you what I do when I write about this Stuff... If I write "God" or "Jesus" or "Mohammed", I use a capital leter at the beginning of the word. Why? Because it's a name - a "proper noun", as I was taught in school... and proper nouns begin with capital letters, in exactly the same way as Sentences Do. If I write about "The Bible" then I again use a capital letter, because I'm talking about a specific book ( the word "bible", etymologically, means simply "book", but if I mean "The Book" (and we all know which book I'm talking about) then that's the book's name, so a capital letter it gets). None of this is in deference to religious doctrine. It's in deference to the English (ooh, a capital letter!) language.
But I get sick to death of sentences like "The Glory of God shall be upon Thee according to His Word, in the Name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit for All Eternity." What's all that about? A faulty typewriter? A lazy typesetter? It's nonsense... completely outside the rules of grammar and the English language.
But it's a double edged sword, this capital letter business. For example, I think that deliberately spelling the word as "god" (i.e. without a capital letter 'G') is just silly. I mean, it is his (note: no capital 'H') name, after all, whether he (see previous parentheses) exists or not. Bugs Bunny didn't actually exist as a real, live rabbit, but his name still gets two capital 'B's. I myself might feel a little hard done by if someone spelt my name as "gordon" instead of "Gordon". And the "Bible" (as opposed to the "bible") is again the correct way of writing the title of that book. I have no trouble with talking about a "god" when it's non-specific, but when we talk about "God", then if we pay homage to our language, his name should have a capital letter.
I've recently learned that "God" (with a capital 'G') is a translation of "Elohim", which in the ancient Hebrew texts (whoops! Nearly typed "txts" there... too much SMS activity! What's God's mobile 'phone number? Want to send him a txt or two. Reckon he'll read them?) means a "collection" or "family" of gods, of which YHWH or "Yahweh" was only one.
(Yahweh - sometimes referred to as "Jehovah" - is the guy Christians have adopted as their "god".) This is indicated quite clearly in Genesis 1:26... "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness:" etc.
In ancient Hebrew texts, the scholarly (ha!) writers were clearly of the opinion that there was more than one god. Translators put paid to that idea by simply translating the word "Elohim" (a family of gods) as "God". But there it is in the Bible; clear as day. It seems capital letters have a mysterious (well, OK, not that mysterious) significance.
Deliberately abusing the English language to create pejorative terms is a bit immature, don't we think? Oh, dear. I've just realised I'm assuming God is male. Feminist religious zealots, feel free to take me to task on that one, according to Her Word in the Name of the Mother, the Daughter and the Holy Au Pair, Now And ForEver More. AmEn.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)