God

CheyMcFly wrote:hence why i was saying what he said is ridiculous. I grew up with the bible and as a Christian. asking us to change that is like asking us to change our faith.

Actually, it's quite the opposite.

Tell me, do you believe that God is a bloodthirsty, genocidal maniac who messes with people's heads and condones acts so horrific that I can't mention them on this forum?

I'd wager not, unless you are that kind of person yourself. However, the God of the Bible is clearly portrayed as that within scripture and context. This seems at odds with the beliefs that most Christians hold, and forces them to either defend God's actions or commit intellectual dishonesty by covering them up.

I simply suggest the most straightforward, logical solution: eliminate from your Holy Book that which you don't truly believe. It will save you so many problems, and will redeem the Christian Faith.

Also, it was a choice between posting a new topic, or posting on an old topic that is used for this purpose anyway. It's not like I was reigniting a dead argument or anything.

Occultdude17 wrote:

CheyMcFly wrote:hence why i was saying what he said is ridiculous. I grew up with the bible and as a Christian. asking us to change that is like asking us to change our faith.

Actually, it's quite the opposite.

Tell me, do you believe that God is a bloodthirsty, genocidal maniac who messes with people's heads and condones acts so horrific that I can't mention them on this forum?

I'd wager not, unless you are that kind of person yourself. However, the God of the Bible is clearly portrayed as that within scripture and context. This seems at odds with the beliefs that most Christians hold, and forces them to either defend God's actions or commit intellectual dishonesty by covering them up.

I simply suggest the most straightforward, logical solution: eliminate from your Holy Book that which you don't truly believe. It will save you so many problems, and will redeem the Christian Faith.

Also, it was a choice between posting a new topic, or posting on an old topic that is used for this purpose anyway. It's not like I was reigniting a dead argument or anything.

TRue Christian's believe everything in the bible. God isn't a blood thirsty maniac. Everything he does has a purpose. take time and read it.

CheyMcFly wrote:TRue Christian's believe everything in the bible. God isn't a blood thirsty maniac. Everything he does has a purpose. take time and read it.

Been there, done that. I'm still not convinced. Drowning kittens in the Great Flood seems unnecessarily cruel.

Look, what you believe is up to you. And what liberal Christians think is up to them. You don't have to change your beliefs. I just feel that, for clarity's sake, liberal Christians should have a book that actually reflects their beliefs, not those of some desert nomads from 2000 years ago.

Occultdude17 wrote:

CheyMcFly wrote:TRue Christian's believe everything in the bible. God isn't a blood thirsty maniac. Everything he does has a purpose. take time and read it.

Been there, done that. I'm still not convinced. Drowning kittens in the Great Flood seems unnecessarily cruel.

Look, what you believe is up to you. And what liberal Christians think is up to them. You don't have to change your beliefs. I just feel that, for clarity's sake, liberal Christians should have a book that actually reflects their beliefs, not those of some desert nomads from 2000 years ago.

The bible is a great part of our faith. Us changing it wouldn't make any sense.

I simply suggest the most straightforward, logical solution: eliminate from your Holy Book that which you don't truly believe. It will save you so many problems, and will redeem the Christian Faith.

Now that is ridiculous. Do you see what you are saying? Redeem the faith? By changing it? How does that redeem our faith. If anything that would make less believe because we have to change what our religion is based on. That's just silly. The bible should stay how it is.

Chey,

1) The Bible contradicts itself and is often vague. It needs to be changed IN ORDER to make sense.

2) How does it redeem your faith? It won't if you're a Fundamentalist. For everybody else, they simply won't have to be tarred by the same brush. Not trying to put you down here, but extremists are pretty unpopular and give Christianity a bad name.

3) Nobody is changing their beliefs. There are simply two currently-existing belief systems: one that takes the Bible literally, and one that does not. The latter group spends a lot of its time taking heat for problems caused by the literalists, and that's not fair. If they write their own holy book that actually caters to their beliefs rather than the beliefs of the literalists, then the problem goes away.

Occultdude17 wrote:Chey,

1) The Bible contradicts itself and is often vague. It needs to be changed IN ORDER to make sense.

2) How does it redeem your faith? It won't if you're a Fundamentalist. For everybody else, they simply won't have to be tarred by the same brush. Not trying to put you down here, but extremists are pretty unpopular and give Christianity a bad name.

3) Nobody is changing their beliefs. There are simply two currently-existing belief systems: one that takes the Bible literally, and one that does not. The latter group spends a lot of its time taking heat for problems caused by the literalists, and that's not fair. If they write their own holy book that actually caters to their beliefs rather than the beliefs of the literalists, then the problem goes away.

if they write a new book wont they be following a new religion? I am not an extremist. I just don't understand how changing the bible will help anything for anyone. And i quoted the redeem faith from you...

Looks like the Fox is on the run again O_O https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2k1-kh6HbHQ


on topic,

Occultdude17, you are decent too. Yes, this is sarcastic. If that what you said was sarcastic too. (your reviving the topic post, that is.)

Amy Cool wrote:Looks like the Fox is on the run again O_O https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2k1-kh6HbHQ


on topic,

Occultdude17, you are decent too. Yes, this is sarcastic. If that what you said was sarcastic too. (your reviving the topic post, that is.)

Sorry, I'm having a bit of trouble discerning the meaning of Sentence 3 (counting from the part where you addressed me specifically). Could you please explain what it is you're saying?

Occultdude17 wrote:This topic has been abandoned for 17 days, but I had this idea that was so mind-blowingly epic (*cough*) that I just had to post it here:

Christianity has flaws, but most Christians are decent people. With that in mind, I think the Bible needs to be re-written.

It's time we replaced it with a different book that doesn't blackmail people with Hell, condemn gays, deny Evolution, or praise a God that murders innocent children. Let's combine all the Gospels together into one consistent plot, add just enough backstory to provide context, make it more focused on the characters and their interactions, and remove the Author Filibusters in favour of them showing us through example.

Not only will it make a far more satisfying read and generate enough controversy to sell billions of copies, but it will be truer to the beliefs most Christians hold. Coz let's face it, most Christians don't believe in the cruel God the Bible portrays.

The answer lies in your own post, which is how you say, epic? Right. Seems like we have a new Holy Book engineer here.

Amy Cool wrote:The answer lies in your own post, which is how you say, epic? Right. Seems like we have a new Holy Book engineer here.

The coughing part was to lampshade my own arrogance, and was done for the purposes of humour. It is normal to do that where I come from, but apparently the joke is lost on foreigners.

As for the part about the Holy Book, I fail to see how the two tie together. Hopefully I shall understand your next clarification better.

Dehydration could be a factor in my not being with it today.

Okay I'll rephrase it. It is wrong to even suggest to people who believe in the Books, that they should write a new one when their belief is about the God who wrote the Book in the first place, meaning no human can do that. Implying that if you write a book yourself, you don't believe in the God anymore, you took the things into your hands which is reckless.

Amy Cool wrote:Okay I'll rephrase it. It is wrong to even suggest to people who believe in the Books, that they should write a new one when their belief is about the God who wrote the Book in the first place, meaning no human can do that. Implying that if you write a book yourself, you don't believe in the God anymore, you took the things into your hands which is reckless.

What I said (or rather, meant) was that people who don't believe every single word of the Bible do themselves a disservice by continuing to use it as their reference. If they don't worship a bigoted God who kills and tortures anybody he doesn't like, then they should not be associating their deity with one who does those things. Liberal God and Fundamentalist God are obviously two separate deities, and it is not fair that they be tarred with the same brush.

I'm not suggesting that Fundamentalists change their beliefs, because that would simply never happen and is not my call anyway. It just seems utterly illogical to me that non-Fundamentalists cling to the Bible when they only agree with half of what it says, when they could have a new version that describes God as they actually perceive him and which they can agree with 100%. They don't HAVE to do any of this, of course. It's just a solution that would avoid the need to commit intellectual dishonesty when confronted by passages they'd rather ignore.

Of course the conservative bunch will take offense, I consider that a sign that I'm on the right track.

I don't really know if a new book is necessary, at least not in all cases. There is no doubt that there are different versions of Christianity, but generally these versions distinguish themselves by falling into denominations and provide their interpretations of the scripture rather than create a new book. Of course, if they're interpretations and ideas are so radical they may want to write a new book, like the Mormons did.

Well, I thought your point was something else but I don't know what to say about that. My view on it would be that people who didn't find every answer in the Book they need, should question themselves: is it them, that they seem not to understand things very well, or is it the Book that is wrong. Here come people's opinions and mine too. I won't go further into detail is the Book correct or not. Did this in the previous 10 pages and im sick of it lol.

CheyMcFly wrote:

Potus-Mat wrote:The Bible is not supposed to be like the Boy Scout hand book. It is supposed to be the word of God. To a Christian, that would be like saying "Hey, me, a mere mortal, knows so much better than YHWH!"

hence why i was saying what he said is ridiculous. I grew up with the bible and as a Christian. asking us to change that is like asking us to change our faith.

I'm perfectly fine with asking Christians to change their faith, as I think that their, and religious faith in general is wrong.

I think what Occult is trying to say, is that people have justified things that happened in the bible, much like you said Chey- they've explained that everything god did had a purpose. However, nowadays, while many people still choose to agree that he MUST have had a purpose, they decide to rewrite and reinterpret the purpose.


Many people have killed for god, or worse, quoting and insisting that their actions were justified by passages, or the whole bible. For example, if you're not homophobic, then your interpretation of the bible is different from other Christians'. What occult proposes, is that you change the bible, so that it no longer contains homophobic verses, if you don't believe homophobia is a worthy ideal.


What you've countered with, Chey, is that the words of god aren't to be tampered with. Now, the strange part here, is once you decide that you have a superior ability to interpret things over another (like, whether or not you believe it's right to say god hates gay people, or jews, or what-have-you,), then you are essentially doing the same thing as rewriting the bible, and rewriting your history, to appeal to a more tolerant and complacent population.

This line of thought, that religion is just a close held cultural value that is essentially a spiritual extension of heritage and tradition, without founded reason, is a strong argument for the idea that god does not exist.

Halberdier wrote:

CheyMcFly wrote:

Potus-Mat wrote:The Bible is not supposed to be like the Boy Scout hand book. It is supposed to be the word of God. To a Christian, that would be like saying "Hey, me, a mere mortal, knows so much better than YHWH!"

hence why i was saying what he said is ridiculous. I grew up with the bible and as a Christian. asking us to change that is like asking us to change our faith.

I'm perfectly fine with asking Christians to change their faith, as I think that their, and religious faith in general is wrong.

I think what Occult is trying to say, is that people have justified things that happened in the bible, much like you said Chey- they've explained that everything god did had a purpose. However, nowadays, while many people still choose to agree that he MUST have had a purpose, they decide to rewrite and reinterpret the purpose.


Many people have killed for god, or worse, quoting and insisting that their actions were justified by passages, or the whole bible. For example, if you're not homophobic, then your interpretation of the bible is different from other Christians'. What occult proposes, is that you change the bible, so that it no longer contains homophobic verses, if you don't believe homophobia is a worthy ideal.


What you've countered with, Chey, is that the words of god aren't to be tampered with. Now, the strange part here, is once you decide that you have a superior ability to interpret things over another (like, whether or not you believe it's right to say god hates gay people, or jews, or what-have-you,), then you are essentially doing the same thing as rewriting the bible, and rewriting your history, to appeal to a more tolerant and complacent population.

This line of thought, that religion is just a close held cultural value that is essentially a spiritual extension of heritage and tradition, without founded reason, is a strong argument for the idea that god does not exist.

I do not interpret things over another nor try to. I don't think it is in God's nature to hate any living being though. Regardless of sexuality or anything.

CheyMcFly wrote:I do not interpret things over another nor try to. I don't think it is in God's nature to hate any living being though. Regardless of sexuality or anything.

And now you have just proven my point. The Bible makes it very clear that God is a homophobe, yet you believe he is not. And as you said a true Christian must believe everything in the Bible, your logic implies that you are not a true Christian.

I suggest you take a moment to re-evaluate your stance on the matter.

Occultdude17 wrote:

CheyMcFly wrote:I do not interpret things over another nor try to. I don't think it is in God's nature to hate any living being though. Regardless of sexuality or anything.

And now you have just proven my point. The Bible makes it very clear that God is a homophobe, yet you believe he is not. And as you said a true Christian must believe everything in the Bible, your logic implies that you are not a true Christian.

I suggest you take a moment to re-evaluate your stance on the matter.

The bible never says God is a homophobe. Please provide me where it says that. All I said was I DONT THINK( not that it is proven) god HATES anyone. Being a homophobe =/= hating either.

Leviticus 20:13: "If a man lies with a man as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination and must be put to death."

I Corinthians 6:9: "The unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God. Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, ... nor homosexuals, ... shall inherit the realm of God."

In the first, the Law of Moses requires gays to be killed. In the second, gays are forbidden from entering Heaven. Those are pretty strong indications that God hates gay people.

Occultdude17 wrote:Leviticus 20:13: "If a man lies with a man as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination and must be put to death."

I Corinthians 6:9: "The unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God. Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, ... nor homosexuals, ... shall inherit the realm of God."

In the first, the Law of Moses requires gays to be killed. In the second, gays are forbidden from entering Heaven. Those are pretty strong indications that God hates gay people.

Not hate. Does not approve of what they do.

Also.

I CORINTHIANS 6:9-10 reads:

Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate [malakoi], nor homosexual offenders [arsenokoites], nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God.

I placed two words in brackets. The first one, "malakoi", literally means 'soft' and is no technical term for a homosexual. It apparently refers to young boys who would take the "recepient" position in anal sex, often for money. It's also translated in some Bibles as "morally weak".

"Aresenokoitai", on the other hand, is clearly a sexual term but, according to Scroggs:

Since... the New Testament occurrences are the earliest appearances of the word, it is not easy for us to be sure what it means. John Boswell in his recent study denies that it refers to a homosexual person in general but rather specifically to the male prostitute who could serve heterosexual or homosexual clients. At any rate, the sin is prostitution, not homosexuality in itself. (p. 14)

These words are the words used both in Corinthians and in I Timothy 1:10 which are commonly translated into modern bibles as "homosexual", "effeminate," and "self-indulgent." In these enlightened times, however,there is no indication that such terms are in any way connected to homosexuality in itself.

I would post more but dont want to have an overly long post.

Occultdude17 wrote:Leviticus 20:13: "If a man lies with a man as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination and must be put to death."

I Corinthians 6:9: "The unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God. Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, ... nor homosexuals, ... shall inherit the realm of God."

In the first, the Law of Moses requires gays to be killed. In the second, gays are forbidden from entering Heaven. Those are pretty strong indications that God hates gay people.

Then why did Jesus die for our sins so we wouldn't have to suffer a second death?

Opinions! Don't ya just love'em?

I would suggest you guys and gals calm down and show some respect towards others beliefs. Who are you to bash ones religon. Love and tolerance, or I lock this thread.

sonic_penguin15 wrote:Opinions! Don't ya just love'em?

I would suggest you guys and gals calm down and show some respect towards others beliefs. Who are you to bash ones religon. Love and tolerance, or I lock this thread.

@ Sonic

How the hell are YOU going to lock a thread? I don't see "Moderator" below your name.

@ Riku

Jesus died because Yahweh needed to kill something before he could forgive people.

@ Chey

Sentencing somebody to death is a pretty strong indication of hate.

I see you've been doing your homework. Did you also notice that homosexuality doesn't feature in the original version of Sodom and Gomorra? I would have addressed your point in my post, but figured it would just confuse people.

The fact that the text refers to hookers and not homos is really inconsequential. Either way, God is still showing obvious hatred towards them. Death sentences prove that.

The report button exists for a reason.

Occultdude17 wrote:

sonic_penguin15 wrote:Opinions! Don't ya just love'em?

I would suggest you guys and gals calm down and show some respect towards others beliefs. Who are you to bash ones religon. Love and tolerance, or I lock this thread.

@ Sonic

How the hell are YOU going to lock a thread? I don't see "Moderator" below your name.

@ Riku

Jesus died because Yahweh needed to kill something before he could forgive people.

@ Chey

Sentencing somebody to death is a pretty strong indication of hate.

I see you've been doing your homework. Did you also notice that homosexuality doesn't feature in the original version of Sodom and Gomorra? I would have addressed your point in my post, but figured it would just confuse people.

The fact that the text refers to hookers and not homos is really inconsequential. Either way, God is still showing obvious hatred towards them. Death sentences prove that.

You misunderstand so much. As least you do not see what I see. He does not approve of what they do so he does not want to see it. It is not hate. Just different points of view.
Once again, I am pretty sure God does not hate. He has a reason for everything he says an does.

[quote="CheyMcFly"]

Occultdude17 wrote:You misunderstand so much. As least you do not see what I see. He does not approve of what they do so he does not want to see it. It is not hate. Just different points of view.
Once again, I am pretty sure God does not hate. He has a reason for everything he says an does.

Then why does he have them KILLED? People don't kill each other purely because they disapprove.

[quote="Occultdude17"]

CheyMcFly wrote:

Occultdude17 wrote:You misunderstand so much. As least you do not see what I see. He does not approve of what they do so he does not want to see it. It is not hate. Just different points of view.
Once again, I am pretty sure God does not hate. He has a reason for everything he says an does.

Then why does he have them KILLED? People don't kill each other purely because they disapprove.

God has a reason for everything he says and does. I can not read God's mind.

Occultdude17 wrote:Jesus died because Yahweh needed to kill something before he could forgive people.

To be fair, while that is true, it isn't that simple. It could be argued that the sacrifice of Jesus was for his own penance. This is because since Jesus essentially is God (at least in some form), God is giving himself up rather him just merely giving up his son. So, Jesus' crucifixion can be viewed as God taking the punishment that he inflicted on others and also setting way for a transition of thought.

However, in order to make this argument, it has to be assumed that God was fallible, since that is what would be required to have such an intent. Yet, many aren't willing to establish that a deity can be fallible, as most attribute infallibility as a quality that makes a deity what it is.

Fallibility, though, could at least explain why a deity could be able to use such horrible acts you talk about, assuming such a being even exists.

Chey,

Saddam Hussein, Hitler, BTK, Jeffrey Dahmer and Osama binLaden did absolutely terrible things in their time, but that's okay because they had a reason. Right?

Wrong. Saying "he has a reason" is stupid and infantile, and gives you about as much credibility as an abused housewife. Grow up.

Nsanejokr,

God sacrificed himself to himself to save us from himself, and demands we praise him for that or he'll hurt us. If God wants to absolve us of sin, all he has to do is say "I forgive you". Or better yet, don't put that bloody tree in the garden.

Occultdude17 wrote:Chey,

Saddam Hussein, Hitler, BTK, Jeffrey Dahmer and Osama binLaden did absolutely terrible things in their time, but that's okay because they had a reason. Right?

Wrong. Saying "he has a reason" is stupid and infantile, and gives you about as much credibility as an abused housewife. Grow up.

Nsanejokr,

God sacrificed himself to himself to save us from himself, and demands we praise him for that or he'll hurt us. If God wants to absolve us of sin, all he has to do is say "I forgive you". Or better yet, don't put that bloody tree in the garden.

Those people are not all knowing beings. Everything he did was just. Those people you listed did not have just reasons. Please don't tell me to grow up just because you don't agree with me. That makes you seem immature. He doesn't threaten to hurt you if you don't praise him. Please, show me proof of that.I do not know more than God. Neither does anyone. Your housewife comment was not needed and seems very rude/sexist. Was it intended to be?

My point before, that you simplified chey, is that I don't think that god (if he were to exist) would hate gay people.


But other people do.


Who are you to determine which interpretation of the bible is more correct? If you've decided to interpret it as different than others, what extent of difference is that from rewriting it, to more literally suit your views?

Halberdier wrote:My point before, that you simplified chey, is that I don't think that god (if he were to exist) would hate gay people.


But other people do.


Who are you to determine which interpretation of the bible is more correct? If you've decided to interpret it as different than others, what extent of difference is that from rewriting it, to more literally suit your views?

Wouldn't the oldest bible be the most correct? Before people started changing words? and wording it differently

CheyMcFly wrote:

Halberdier wrote:My point before, that you simplified chey, is that I don't think that god (if he were to exist) would hate gay people.
But other people do.
Who are you to determine which interpretation of the bible is more correct? If you've decided to interpret it as different than others, what extent of difference is that from rewriting it, to more literally suit your views?

Wouldn't the oldest bible be the most correct? Before people started changing words? and wording it differently

In that case, Judaism would be a truer religion than Christianity, as their texts predate the franchise reboot known as the New Testament.

Let's look at this from the most logical standpoint. In the before time stories were told for entertainment. They lacked TV and internet, so stories were a good way to entertain people with. Now you know how stories work right? Stories were usually passed on from person to person. Each time it was passed it was told differently, stuff was either added or removed (to make it better). Now the Bible has several different books all told from different point of views. Now lets look at what I just said, stories changed and were told from different perspectives. Of course there will be contradictions as well as hypocrisy. Each book has distinct differences. Also, lets look at yet another aspect of the bible. Unlike modern literature it was not thought about at a table of people and was not planned. Over years it collected entries and faced change. People added to it as the years went on. Once it was made into a Religous item the head people started to add in their own personal bias and opinions. TBH, my point is, stories over the years change. Chances are Jesus was real, but was just a really good samartan that people looked up too. Bringing him to god like status. And you know how people were back then? They must have saw this as a threat and that is why he was crucified. Now I am not doubting the existence of God or the powers of Jesus, because I have no way of knowing. Hell I could be wrong, they could be wrong we could all be wrong. I am just looking at this from a logical perspective. There is no absoloute, and to pretend that there is and try and convince people that there is, tbh, is kind of ignorant. You do not know who is right, so please don't try and force your religon or perspective on people. Like I said, I could be wrong and so could you. There is no absoloute here. Everyone has a different perspective. This is also why there is so many off-shoots of Christianity. Each one interpruts different parts of the bible in different ways. Either literally or figurativly. This is just like literature as well.Ever sat there in English/literature class and went... uhm... your just making that up? How the hell does the window symbolize freedom...it was just a window... Same stuff applies here, people just look for meaning in different things. No fault in that. Love and tolerance towards others is key.

@ Chey

Please explain how Deut. 22:23 and 22:28-29 are just. Because I'm sure most people would consider them an offense against common decency. I won't quote them here, because they are not pleasant.

Citing an abused housewife as an example is neither rude nor sexist. To state that it is, however, would be.

Anybody who does not believe in God gets thrown into the Lake of Fire. That is made very clear in Revelation.

If the oldest version of the Bible is correct, then the same logic can disprove the Bible altogether. Noah was directly based on the Sumerian hero Utnapishtim, and THAT text specifically states there are multiple deities and does not list Yahweh as one of them.

I tell you to grow up not because I disagree with you, but because you naively believe something you read in a STORY BOOK, and because you willingly suspend your own moral judgement in favour of blindly trusting the judgement of the person who wrote Deut. 22:23 and 22:28 - 29.


@ Vantage

For the most part, I agree with you. However, when you talk about respecting others, I have to ask where to draw the line on that one. It's not that big a step from willful ignorance to terrorism. Just look at Osama binLaden or that Norwegian gunman.

CheyMcFly wrote:

Halberdier wrote:My point before, that you simplified chey, is that I don't think that god (if he were to exist) would hate gay people.


But other people do.


Who are you to determine which interpretation of the bible is more correct? If you've decided to interpret it as different than others, what extent of difference is that from rewriting it, to more literally suit your views?

Wouldn't the oldest bible be the most correct? Before people started changing words? and wording it differently

Close, what I'm saying here, according to you, would make the oldest reader and interpreter of the bible the most correct.


Since you believe that god is reasonable and not vengeful, and doesn't hate gays, you have to admit to one of two things:

1. That god is vengeful and bias towards some minorities (and validate the original interpretations), OR

2. That you are reinterpreting the bible anew.


if you choose 2, you open the can of worms where every bit of the bible becomes open to your interpretation, and you find fewer and fewer reasons to validate it as true.

Citing an abused housewife as an example is neither rude nor sexist. To state that it is, however, would be.

How is this not rude or offensive at all?

Saying "he has a reason" is stupid and infantile, and gives you about as much credibility as an abused housewife. Grow up.

Especially not sexist?
>___>

and please message me Deut. 22:23 and 22:28-29

You also must remember the phrase "lost in translation". You can't honestly expect the bible to have been written in modern day english. We all know what happens during the translation process, stuff gets mixed up or lost. Language has evolved a ton since then.

Oh my god... This thread is still going on... I say to each their own, as long as you don't force your beliefs on me.

exiled_force wrote:Oh my god... This thread is still going on... I say to each their own, as long as you don't force your beliefs on me.

The irony

exiled_force wrote:Oh my god... This thread is still going on... I say to each their own, as long as you don't force your beliefs on me.

Baiscally this is how I feel. Respect ones opinion and also place respect in your opinion. Forcing your beliefs on someone is wrong IMO.

vantagesp wrote:

exiled_force wrote:Oh my god... This thread is still going on... I say to each their own, as long as you don't force your beliefs on me.

Baiscally this is how I feel. Respect ones opinion and also place respect in your opinion. Forcing your beliefs on someone is wrong IMO.

what about comparing their beliefs to Hitler?

Look, you can toss around all the fancy names you can think of, but it doesn't make your arguement better. You can compare anything to anything if done right. Let he/she who yells the loudest win!

A friend once said to me...
God is like a d__k,
you can keep it to yourself and be proud of it, but you don't go waving it around in people's faces.

Or something like that, maybe someone already said it here.

As for me, I was raised a catholic christian with hardcore religious parents.

But I stopped believing in God for the most part when I was 16 or so.

Eliwood wrote:A friend once said to me...
God is like a d__k,
you can keep it to yourself and be proud of it, but you don't go waving it around in people's faces.

Or something like that, maybe someone already said it here.

As for me, I was raised a catholic christian with hardcore religious parents.

But I stopped believing in God for the most part when I was 16 or so.

I would give you a +1 if i hadn't heard that like 10000 times

We are supposed to let other know about our faith in God, however. Does that mean we should force you? By no means no. Many people take it to far trying to force it on you. What they don't think of or ignore is the fact forcing your beliefs never works. You have to make the connection with God personally. No amount of mere explaining is going to instantly change someones mind.

So if God was perfect he should have just made everything he created perfect as well then? Is this the center core of the whole debate? Evil would never exist and everything would be good.

My answer, and from someone who is a Christian, is I have no idea because just as a human I can't comprehend the reason why God did things the way God did.

CheyMcFly wrote:

Eliwood wrote:A friend once said to me...
God is like a d__k,
you can keep it to yourself and be proud of it, but you don't go waving it around in people's faces.

Or something like that, maybe someone already said it here.

As for me, I was raised a catholic christian with hardcore religious parents.

But I stopped believing in God for the most part when I was 16 or so.

I would give you a +1 if i hadn't heard that like 10000 times

You should give them 10,000 rep ups. Then get banned for rep spamming.

Whenever I finally found something to type, vantage's avatar keeps making me forget. Why must lightning be so distracting in that picture?

@ Chey

How the hell is making a comparison to an abused housewife sexist? Because you're a girl and I happened to say "wife" instead of "non-gender-specific spouse"? Seriously, GROW UP.

I'm not messaging them to you, because they are explicit and violent, and because I don't know what the rules are surrounding the discussion of explicit content in PMs. If you don't know what they say, go look them up in a Bible. If you don't have one, use biblegateway.com

If you'd rather continue this conversation in PMs, I'm more than happy to, and I'm sure the others on this thread would prefer it if we did.

@ Ellwood

It was mentioned earlier in this thread, about page 10 or 12 I think, close to the bottom. And you forgot the part about not shoving it down people's throats.

DarkRiku wrote:My answer, and from someone who is a Christian, is I have no idea because just as a human I can't comprehend the reason why God did things the way God did.

Like I would ever accept that as an answer. "Because" is not an answer. If it was, Christians would never reason.