OpenMind;1336107 wrote: May I ask a benign question?
Is there any manuscript known to the human race that is older than the book of Genesis?
Do you have a date for the composition of Genesis?
My reckoning is that it was collated from various tribal traditions between the start of the Balylonian Exile and Ezra's return to Jerusalem - nearer the end of that period than the beginning - but that's not universally accepted. If you give a date we can find earlier works.
I'm reading the Bible
I'm reading the Bible
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
I'm reading the Bible
spot;1336111 wrote: Do you have a date for the composition of Genesis?
My reckoning is that it was collated from various tribal traditions between the start of the Balylonian Exile and Ezra's return to Jerusalem - nearer the end of that period than the beginning - but that's not universally accepted. If you give a date we can find earlier works.
I am asking the question because I do not know when it was written or even compiled. I am aware of the different writing styles used in Genesis which has provoked me to consider that more than one author was involved in its creation. The different styles are most prevalent in the first chapter. Furthermore, the book covers quite an extensive period of time.
I am uncertain, but I believe that there may be other manuscripts older than Genesis that were not compiled by the Israelites/Jews.
My reckoning is that it was collated from various tribal traditions between the start of the Balylonian Exile and Ezra's return to Jerusalem - nearer the end of that period than the beginning - but that's not universally accepted. If you give a date we can find earlier works.
I am asking the question because I do not know when it was written or even compiled. I am aware of the different writing styles used in Genesis which has provoked me to consider that more than one author was involved in its creation. The different styles are most prevalent in the first chapter. Furthermore, the book covers quite an extensive period of time.
I am uncertain, but I believe that there may be other manuscripts older than Genesis that were not compiled by the Israelites/Jews.
I'm reading the Bible
OpenMind;1336107 wrote: I am uncertain, but I believe that there may be other manuscripts older than Genesis that were not compiled by the Israelites/Jews.
By "manuscript" I take it you mean a currently existing written record, not just a later transcription? I'd go for the Epic of Gilgamesh.
"The oldest datable source is a copy of Tablet XII, copied from an older original by the great Assyrian scholar Nabu-zuqup-kenu in 705 BCE" - Bryn Mawr Classical Review 2004.04.21
"The "standard" Akkadian version, consisting of 12 tablets, was edited by Sin-liqe-unninni sometime between 1300 and 1000 BC and was found in the library of Ashurbanipal in Nineveh." - Epic of Gilgamesh - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia though I'd not bet much on that reference.
By "manuscript" I take it you mean a currently existing written record, not just a later transcription? I'd go for the Epic of Gilgamesh.
"The oldest datable source is a copy of Tablet XII, copied from an older original by the great Assyrian scholar Nabu-zuqup-kenu in 705 BCE" - Bryn Mawr Classical Review 2004.04.21
"The "standard" Akkadian version, consisting of 12 tablets, was edited by Sin-liqe-unninni sometime between 1300 and 1000 BC and was found in the library of Ashurbanipal in Nineveh." - Epic of Gilgamesh - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia though I'd not bet much on that reference.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
I'm reading the Bible
Omni_Skittles;1336047 wrote: they have a version of the bible called "the message" i mean it's not exactly erm straight from greek and hebrew translation, but it gives a gist of the scriptures and makes it more understandable
1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2He was with God in the beginning.
John 1:1 new international version
same thing buttttt more understandable is the message
John 1-2 The Word was first, the Word present to God, God present to the Word. The Word was God, in readiness for God from day one.
lol notice the diff :/ i'm not saying to read it but saying there is that option should you choose to ever lol
Perfect
I might try going through the King James just for the sake of making notations as to what I think could be chopped though. lol
1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2He was with God in the beginning.
John 1:1 new international version
same thing buttttt more understandable is the message
John 1-2 The Word was first, the Word present to God, God present to the Word. The Word was God, in readiness for God from day one.
lol notice the diff :/ i'm not saying to read it but saying there is that option should you choose to ever lol
Perfect
I might try going through the King James just for the sake of making notations as to what I think could be chopped though. lol
I'm reading the Bible
spot;1336111 wrote: Do you have a date for the composition of Genesis?
With every respect, that is not a realistic question, though it is often asked by sensible people. In ancient times, right up until the invention of printing in Europe, the principle means of popular cultural transmission was oral, passed on from parents to children. People memorised vast amounts, and used their memories as data banks in a way that we, with our books and now computers, now find very difficult- we do not even bother to memorise multiplication tables, and most children find it extremely irksome to be asked to do so. So it is anachronistic to ask when anything of ancient popular culture was first written down.
With respect to Genesis, the usual scholarly view is that chapters 1-11, 11 thereabouts, form a compendium of versions of pre-existent story myths. A story myth concerned such ideas as creation, or a global flood, but was not intended to explain what happened as history or science, rather to mould social opinion in a particular society. So we find creation and deluge myths around the ancient world, with local variations to suit local political and economic realities. The versions found in Genesis are highly distinctive- they have the overall shape and skeleton of other myths, but their moral and spiritual meat is not only consistent between stories, it takes a very different view of the condition of man and his relationship to deity. My personal view is that they were in circulation quite soon after the exodus from Egypt, because those story myths were still current among surrounding peoples as well as Israelites, and they would have made a great deal of pertinent sense to those peoples. They were inspired probably by different people, but may have been committed to writing by one person, perhaps Moses, perhaps someone much later.
The record of Abram's move to Ur has no parallel in other cultures, and is plainly intended to be regarded as chronology, like the rest of Genesis to the end of the book.
With every respect, that is not a realistic question, though it is often asked by sensible people. In ancient times, right up until the invention of printing in Europe, the principle means of popular cultural transmission was oral, passed on from parents to children. People memorised vast amounts, and used their memories as data banks in a way that we, with our books and now computers, now find very difficult- we do not even bother to memorise multiplication tables, and most children find it extremely irksome to be asked to do so. So it is anachronistic to ask when anything of ancient popular culture was first written down.
With respect to Genesis, the usual scholarly view is that chapters 1-11, 11 thereabouts, form a compendium of versions of pre-existent story myths. A story myth concerned such ideas as creation, or a global flood, but was not intended to explain what happened as history or science, rather to mould social opinion in a particular society. So we find creation and deluge myths around the ancient world, with local variations to suit local political and economic realities. The versions found in Genesis are highly distinctive- they have the overall shape and skeleton of other myths, but their moral and spiritual meat is not only consistent between stories, it takes a very different view of the condition of man and his relationship to deity. My personal view is that they were in circulation quite soon after the exodus from Egypt, because those story myths were still current among surrounding peoples as well as Israelites, and they would have made a great deal of pertinent sense to those peoples. They were inspired probably by different people, but may have been committed to writing by one person, perhaps Moses, perhaps someone much later.
The record of Abram's move to Ur has no parallel in other cultures, and is plainly intended to be regarded as chronology, like the rest of Genesis to the end of the book.
I'm reading the Bible
xyz;1336138 wrote: [quote=spot][quote=OpenMind]Is there any manuscript known to the human race that is older than the book of Genesis?Do you have a date for the composition of Genesis?With every respect, that is not a realistic question, though it is often asked by sensible people.[/QUOTE]Don't mind me, that's just my odd way of writing "there is no date for the composition of Genesis". After which, you'll note, I discussed the earliest surviving physical example of comparable literature and gave my own idea of the date at which the current Genesis redaction was begun.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
I'm reading the Bible
spot;1336154 wrote: Don't mind me, that's just my odd way of writing "there is no date for the composition of Genesis".
Very odd, as you later added:
'If you give a date we can find earlier works.'
Very odd, as you later added:
'If you give a date we can find earlier works.'
I'm reading the Bible
xyz;1336157 wrote: Very odd, as you later added:
'If you give a date we can find earlier works.'
All part and parcel of the way I write, that's all. As I wrote, and you seem not to want to take note of, I reckon the initial gathering together of the different tribal traditions into a written record was the work of Ezra's library of priests not long after 600BC, when "on the first day of the seventh month Ezra the priest brought the Law before the assembly, which was made up of men and women and all who were able to understand. He read it aloud from daybreak till noon as he faced the square before the Water Gate in the presence of the men, women and others who could understand. And all the people listened attentively to the Book of the Law". The extent to which Ezra's priests in his library were collating from the tribes' memorisers or from prior written accounts is impossible to know but on that day he was reading it from a redacted physical copy.
'If you give a date we can find earlier works.'
All part and parcel of the way I write, that's all. As I wrote, and you seem not to want to take note of, I reckon the initial gathering together of the different tribal traditions into a written record was the work of Ezra's library of priests not long after 600BC, when "on the first day of the seventh month Ezra the priest brought the Law before the assembly, which was made up of men and women and all who were able to understand. He read it aloud from daybreak till noon as he faced the square before the Water Gate in the presence of the men, women and others who could understand. And all the people listened attentively to the Book of the Law". The extent to which Ezra's priests in his library were collating from the tribes' memorisers or from prior written accounts is impossible to know but on that day he was reading it from a redacted physical copy.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
I'm reading the Bible
spot;1336163 wrote: All part and parcel of the way I write, that's all.
So all your posts are fabrications?
So all your posts are fabrications?
I'm reading the Bible
xyz;1336175 wrote: So all your posts are fabrications?
It's generally called Socratic, taking an argument into a dead end to shine a light on it.
Do you really not want to discuss the substance of what I'm adding to the thread? I thought it was all pretty interesting.
It's generally called Socratic, taking an argument into a dead end to shine a light on it.
Do you really not want to discuss the substance of what I'm adding to the thread? I thought it was all pretty interesting.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
I'm reading the Bible
spot;1336180 wrote: It's generally called Socratic
Some would call it simply telling lies. Shamelessly.
It's the great advantage anonymous low-lifes have on the internet. Sensible people realise that.
Some would call it simply telling lies. Shamelessly.
It's the great advantage anonymous low-lifes have on the internet. Sensible people realise that.
I'm reading the Bible
xyz;1336181 wrote: Some would call it simply telling lies. Shamelessly.
It's the great advantage anonymous low-lifes have on the internet. Sensible people realise that.
You really do have sensitive areas, don't you. It's your holy bit of turf and you don't want anyone disturbing the grass, is that it?
Never mind. The thread's what it is, people reading it can make up their own mind who's reasonable and who's spoiling for a fight.
I suggest you check my profile before you pronounce me an anonymous internet low-life.
It's the great advantage anonymous low-lifes have on the internet. Sensible people realise that.
You really do have sensitive areas, don't you. It's your holy bit of turf and you don't want anyone disturbing the grass, is that it?
Never mind. The thread's what it is, people reading it can make up their own mind who's reasonable and who's spoiling for a fight.
I suggest you check my profile before you pronounce me an anonymous internet low-life.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
I'm reading the Bible
spot;1336183 wrote: You really do have sensitive areas, don't you. It's your holy bit of turf and you don't want anyone disturbing the grass, is that it?
Never mind. The thread's what it is, people reading it can make up their own mind who's reasonable and who's spoiling for a fight.
I suggest you check my profile before you pronounce me an anonymous internet low-life.
:) Merely to suggest that profiles are reliable sources is rib-tickling.
Never mind. The thread's what it is, people reading it can make up their own mind who's reasonable and who's spoiling for a fight.
I suggest you check my profile before you pronounce me an anonymous internet low-life.
:) Merely to suggest that profiles are reliable sources is rib-tickling.
I'm reading the Bible
I have finished Deuteronomy and Joshua. Many points from earlier chapters are repeated, however the Israelites are now in the promised land Joshua has died. The next 'book' is JUDGES. From the preamble it appears that the people sin, repent, sin, repent.....a cycle that is repeated. At first glance it appears that the only leaders are those that lead the 12 tribes. It will be interesting to see how they cope or the consequences if they don't.
I'm enjoying this exercise very much.
I'm enjoying this exercise very much.
A smile is a window on your face to show your heart is home
I'm reading the Bible
xyz;1336184 wrote: Merely to suggest that profiles are reliable sources is rib-tickling.You think my name, address and phone number are fake? Get a grip on reality - pick up your phone and dial the number if you're that sceptical, but at least recognize that it's simple enough to check. Anonymous internet low-life is patently falsifiable. And no, I didn't just add the information today, it's been there for a long while.
Merely to suggest that profiles are reliable sources is rib-tickling.You think my name, address and phone number are fake? Get a grip on reality - pick up your phone and dial the number if you're that sceptical, but at least recognize that it's simple enough to check. Anonymous internet low-life is patently falsifiable. And no, I didn't just add the information today, it's been there for a long while.Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
I'm reading the Bible
spot;1336187 wrote: You think my name, address and phone number are fake?
Wary?
Wary?
I'm reading the Bible
xyz;1336205 wrote: Wary?
And pedantic.
I note that my phone's not rung yet.
And pedantic.
I note that my phone's not rung yet.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
I'm reading the Bible
spot;1336206 wrote: And pedantic.
I note that my phone's not rung yet.
Unsurprisingly.
I note that my phone's not rung yet.
Unsurprisingly.
I'm reading the Bible
xyz;1336211 wrote: Unsurprisingly.Would you like to do the proper thing and retract the "anonymous" then?
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
I'm reading the Bible
spot;1336213 wrote: Would you like to do the proper thing and retract the "anonymous" then?
Either you don't understand what I mean, or you are pretending not to.
Either you don't understand what I mean, or you are pretending not to.
I'm reading the Bible
xyz;1336214 wrote: Either you don't understand what I mean, or you are pretending not to.
I'm perfectly aware of what "anonymous" means. "xyz", for example, qualifies quite well. My ForumGarden account, on the other hand, doesn't. Rather definitively it doesn't. In what strange sense are you using it and why do you find it so hard to retract your earlier unwarranted jibe?
I'm perfectly aware of what "anonymous" means. "xyz", for example, qualifies quite well. My ForumGarden account, on the other hand, doesn't. Rather definitively it doesn't. In what strange sense are you using it and why do you find it so hard to retract your earlier unwarranted jibe?
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
I'm reading the Bible
spot;1336226 wrote: I'm perfectly aware of what "anonymous" means.
Getting its usage in a sentence understood is another thing.
Getting its usage in a sentence understood is another thing.
I'm reading the Bible
xyz;1336234 wrote: Getting its usage in a sentence understood is another thing.Go for it - by all means explain. I'm beginning to notice a tendency toward "I know but I'm not saying" in several of your posts recently.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
I'm reading the Bible
xyz;1335664 wrote: Both of you are off topic. Maybe an atheist has some excuse.
Both of you are off topic. Maybe a Christian has some excuse.
Both of you are off topic. Maybe a Christian has some excuse.
"He has all the virtues I dislike and none of the vices I admire."
Winston Churchill
Winston Churchill
I'm reading the Bible
Snowfire;1336239 wrote: Both of you are off topic. Maybe a Christian has some excuse.
I'm defending my good name which has been traduced in public.
I'm defending my good name which has been traduced in public.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
I'm reading the Bible
spot;1336242 wrote: I'm defending my good name which has been traduced in public.
Sure, I know. I'm just getting my two pennuth in.
Sure, I know. I'm just getting my two pennuth in.
"He has all the virtues I dislike and none of the vices I admire."
Winston Churchill
Winston Churchill
I'm reading the Bible
spot;1336123 wrote: By "manuscript" I take it you mean a currently existing written record, not just a later transcription? I'd go for the Epic of Gilgamesh.
"The oldest datable source is a copy of Tablet XII, copied from an older original by the great Assyrian scholar Nabu-zuqup-kenu in 705 BCE" - Bryn Mawr Classical Review 2004.04.21
"The "standard" Akkadian version, consisting of 12 tablets, was edited by Sin-liqe-unninni sometime between 1300 and 1000 BC and was found in the library of Ashurbanipal in Nineveh." - Epic of Gilgamesh - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia though I'd not bet much on that reference.
Thanks for those references, Spot.
"The oldest datable source is a copy of Tablet XII, copied from an older original by the great Assyrian scholar Nabu-zuqup-kenu in 705 BCE" - Bryn Mawr Classical Review 2004.04.21
"The "standard" Akkadian version, consisting of 12 tablets, was edited by Sin-liqe-unninni sometime between 1300 and 1000 BC and was found in the library of Ashurbanipal in Nineveh." - Epic of Gilgamesh - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia though I'd not bet much on that reference.
Thanks for those references, Spot.
-
Omni_Skittles
- Posts: 2613
- Joined: Sun Apr 02, 2006 2:10 am
I'm reading the Bible
koan;1336130 wrote: Perfect
I might try going through the King James just for the sake of making notations as to what I think could be chopped though. lol lol, that could get boring =))
I might try going through the King James just for the sake of making notations as to what I think could be chopped though. lol lol, that could get boring =))
Smoke signals ftw!
I'm reading the Bible
koan;1335807 wrote: It can provide comedy trying to though, as profited on by AJ Jacobs in The Year of Living Biblically :wah:I've reached Day 78, I'm glad the chap's not making mock. He may be a humorist but he's discussing matters with intelligence and insight.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
I'm reading the Bible
Bez;1336186 wrote: I have finished Deuteronomy and Joshua. Many points from earlier chapters are repeated, however the Israelites are now in the promised land Joshua has died. The next 'book' is JUDGES. From the preamble it appears that the people sin, repent, sin, repent.....a cycle that is repeated. At first glance it appears that the only leaders are those that lead the 12 tribes. It will be interesting to see how they cope or the consequences if they don't.
I'm enjoying this exercise very much.
Finished Judges and Samuel 1 & 2.
I am struck by the 'warring' nature of the inhabitants of this region..... I guess during this period of history the whole world was struggling to maintain thier territories and gain more.
I found King David a fascinating character. Loved by God despite his sins. I'm still finding it hard to come to terms with the violent way that God punishes the 'sinners' and the innocent as well, as many women and children were killed along with thier flocks and thier crops and homes were destroyed.
I am enjoying the historical side of these 'stories' but am desperate to understand the spiritual side ( not sure if this is the right term)
Well I'm going to read KINGS next....
I'm enjoying this exercise very much.
Finished Judges and Samuel 1 & 2.
I am struck by the 'warring' nature of the inhabitants of this region..... I guess during this period of history the whole world was struggling to maintain thier territories and gain more.
I found King David a fascinating character. Loved by God despite his sins. I'm still finding it hard to come to terms with the violent way that God punishes the 'sinners' and the innocent as well, as many women and children were killed along with thier flocks and thier crops and homes were destroyed.
I am enjoying the historical side of these 'stories' but am desperate to understand the spiritual side ( not sure if this is the right term)
Well I'm going to read KINGS next....
A smile is a window on your face to show your heart is home
I'm reading the Bible
Bez;1336564 wrote: I'm still finding it hard to come to terms with the violent way that God punishes the 'sinners' and the innocent as well, as many women and children were killed along with thier flocks and thier crops and homes were destroyed.
The first thing that one needs to realise is that just one sin is visible to the conscience, and to the deity, and is sufficient to condemn. Physical death, or pain, is not visible. So if a deity kills in order to eventually clear consciences, it should be no surprise at all. If non-Christians are going to read the Bible, and in truth, it is only for converts, they have to change their perspective, and radically.
The second thing to realise is that Israel was required to destroy all temptation to dilute their witness to others by marrying them or engaging in any other alliances with them. There are many false Christians roaming around who are very fearful of that teaching, because if the purifying 'Be separate' principle could be applied to the church- which is indeed the purpose of it, today- they would be exposed and thrown out.
The first thing that one needs to realise is that just one sin is visible to the conscience, and to the deity, and is sufficient to condemn. Physical death, or pain, is not visible. So if a deity kills in order to eventually clear consciences, it should be no surprise at all. If non-Christians are going to read the Bible, and in truth, it is only for converts, they have to change their perspective, and radically.
The second thing to realise is that Israel was required to destroy all temptation to dilute their witness to others by marrying them or engaging in any other alliances with them. There are many false Christians roaming around who are very fearful of that teaching, because if the purifying 'Be separate' principle could be applied to the church- which is indeed the purpose of it, today- they would be exposed and thrown out.
I'm reading the Bible
xyz;1336588 wrote: The first thing that one needs to realise is that just one sin is visible to the conscience, and to the deity, and is sufficient to condemn. Physical death, or pain, is not visible. So if a deity kills in order to eventually clear consciences, it should be no surprise at all. If non-Christians are going to read the Bible, and in truth, it is only for converts, they have to change their perspective, and radically.They *have* to? I think not. The moral nature of God matters. What you've just written is an entirely reasonable description of how most Christians over the years have expressed their religion and it's enough to make your stomach heave. The good news is that there are other ways of looking at the Bible than that. Converts most certainly shouldn't degrade themselves by wallowing in such destructive filth.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
I'm reading the Bible
xyz;1336588 wrote: The first thing that one needs to realise is that just one sin is visible to the conscience, and to the deity, and is sufficient to condemn. Physical death, or pain, is not visible. So if a deity kills in order to eventually clear consciences, it should be no surprise at all. If non-Christians are going to read the Bible, and in truth, it is only for converts, they have to change their perspective, and radically.
The second thing to realise is that Israel was required to destroy all temptation to dilute their witness to others by marrying them or engaging in any other alliances with them. There are many false Christians roaming around who are very fearful of that teaching, because if the purifying 'Be separate' principle could be applied to the church- which is indeed the purpose of it, today- they would be exposed and thrown out.
Mmmmm....yes. I see your point
The second thing to realise is that Israel was required to destroy all temptation to dilute their witness to others by marrying them or engaging in any other alliances with them. There are many false Christians roaming around who are very fearful of that teaching, because if the purifying 'Be separate' principle could be applied to the church- which is indeed the purpose of it, today- they would be exposed and thrown out.
Mmmmm....yes. I see your point
A smile is a window on your face to show your heart is home
I'm reading the Bible
Saint_;1335579 wrote: Yeah, I agree. How can anyone deny a Creator when all they have to do is look up and see the Iniverse, or look down and see the atoms in a grain of sand? As for anger, I guess I'd be angry too if I believed that life had no purpose other than eating and crapping.
Unfortunately, all they speak of is, "There is no God and no soul." How depressing. They should come over to the Light Side. It's much nicer over here where we believe that life does have a purpose and is not just random.And, what, may I ask, is life's purpose as you understand it?
Unfortunately, all they speak of is, "There is no God and no soul." How depressing. They should come over to the Light Side. It's much nicer over here where we believe that life does have a purpose and is not just random.And, what, may I ask, is life's purpose as you understand it?
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,â€
Voltaire
I have only one thing to do and that's
Be the wave that I am and then
Sink back into the ocean
Fiona Apple
Voltaire
I have only one thing to do and that's
Be the wave that I am and then
Sink back into the ocean
Fiona Apple
I'm reading the Bible
CinnamonBear;1335581 wrote: I also don't equate myself with an ant.Why not?
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,â€
Voltaire
I have only one thing to do and that's
Be the wave that I am and then
Sink back into the ocean
Fiona Apple
Voltaire
I have only one thing to do and that's
Be the wave that I am and then
Sink back into the ocean
Fiona Apple
I'm reading the Bible
xyz;1336588 wrote: The first thing that one needs to realise is that just one sin is visible to the conscience, and to the deity, and is sufficient to condemn. Physical death, or pain, is not visible. So if a deity kills in order to eventually clear consciences, it should be no surprise at all. If non-Christians are going to read the Bible, and in truth, it is only for converts, they have to change their perspective, and radically.
I think more precisly, 'they' have to adopt another's perspective. This is where religion become slavery.
Also, would you mind explaining the "one sin" philosophy?
I think more precisly, 'they' have to adopt another's perspective. This is where religion become slavery.
Also, would you mind explaining the "one sin" philosophy?
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,â€
Voltaire
I have only one thing to do and that's
Be the wave that I am and then
Sink back into the ocean
Fiona Apple
Voltaire
I have only one thing to do and that's
Be the wave that I am and then
Sink back into the ocean
Fiona Apple
I'm reading the Bible
koan;1335807 wrote: It can provide comedy trying to though, as profited on by AJ Jacobs in The Year of Living Biblically :wah:
Finished.
That was well worth reading. Good call. It's a while since I enjoyed a book more.
Finished.
That was well worth reading. Good call. It's a while since I enjoyed a book more.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
I'm reading the Bible
Bez;1336564 wrote: Finished Judges and Samuel 1 & 2.
I am struck by the 'warring' nature of the inhabitants of this region..... I guess during this period of history the whole world was struggling to maintain thier territories and gain more.
I found King David a fascinating character. Loved by God despite his sins. I'm still finding it hard to come to terms with the violent way that God punishes the 'sinners' and the innocent as well, as many women and children were killed along with thier flocks and thier crops and homes were destroyed.
I am enjoying the historical side of these 'stories' but am desperate to understand the spiritual side ( not sure if this is the right term)
Well I'm going to read KINGS next....
Depends on your perspective. It's just a history of the travails of a primitive tribe in the middles east and their versions of creation myths and how they related to the imaginery being they believed caused it all. As such it is fascinating. They were obviously influenced by those around them and shared ideas about god along with how to make better weapons and farming techniques. They clearly defeated those tribes that were weaker than them in some cases setting out to exterminate them completely.They're no different from anyone else except their written history survived. One of the things the early christian church was to systematically destroy pagan writings and much knowledge and history was lost as a result. Monotheism has always been destructive to anything that might stand in it's way or smack of independent thought.
As to the spiritual side - to believe it contains the word of god is a moot point. It's up to you. I find that belief absurd and I live in a time when after much warfare and bloodshed I can actually say that out loud without fear of being condemned as a heretic.
Have a look at your own nations history - It's every bit as rich as anything in the middle east. Like me you can go and stand on archeological sites where contempraries of moses once stood.
I am struck by the 'warring' nature of the inhabitants of this region..... I guess during this period of history the whole world was struggling to maintain thier territories and gain more.
I found King David a fascinating character. Loved by God despite his sins. I'm still finding it hard to come to terms with the violent way that God punishes the 'sinners' and the innocent as well, as many women and children were killed along with thier flocks and thier crops and homes were destroyed.
I am enjoying the historical side of these 'stories' but am desperate to understand the spiritual side ( not sure if this is the right term)
Well I'm going to read KINGS next....
Depends on your perspective. It's just a history of the travails of a primitive tribe in the middles east and their versions of creation myths and how they related to the imaginery being they believed caused it all. As such it is fascinating. They were obviously influenced by those around them and shared ideas about god along with how to make better weapons and farming techniques. They clearly defeated those tribes that were weaker than them in some cases setting out to exterminate them completely.They're no different from anyone else except their written history survived. One of the things the early christian church was to systematically destroy pagan writings and much knowledge and history was lost as a result. Monotheism has always been destructive to anything that might stand in it's way or smack of independent thought.
As to the spiritual side - to believe it contains the word of god is a moot point. It's up to you. I find that belief absurd and I live in a time when after much warfare and bloodshed I can actually say that out loud without fear of being condemned as a heretic.
Have a look at your own nations history - It's every bit as rich as anything in the middle east. Like me you can go and stand on archeological sites where contempraries of moses once stood.
I'm reading the Bible
gmc;1337004 wrote: As to the spiritual side - to believe it contains the word of god is a moot point. It's up to you. I find that believe absurd and I live in a time when after much warfare and bloodshed I can actually say that out loud without fear of being condemned as a heretic.
But can it be explained why it is absurd?
But can it be explained why it is absurd?
I'm reading the Bible
xyz;1337013 wrote: But can it be explained why it is absurd?
absurd
adjective
1.
utterly or obviously senseless, illogical, or untrue; contrary to all reason or common sense; laughably foolish or false: an absurd explanation.
If you need to have it explained to you then you are beyond hope. It is a belief without any kind of evidence to back it up, someone's superstition written down and given the status of truth. It is highly derivative, taking ideas from the cultures all around it as a little bit of research would make you aware. The cataclysmic natural events we now know have a logical natural explanation, without that kind of scientific knowledge it is easy to understand why a primitive people would believe it was an act of god. Every time it has been translated it has been altered by the translator - the notion that god as guiding their words is ludicrous imo. If you look at the history of the nicene creed it is blatantly obvious the bible has been carefully edited to make sure everybody is on message. You are not supposed to question the word of god and the old testament is full of the things that happen to those who do not believe without question.
Reason is the enemy of faith, you cannot reason with the unreasonable and that is why so many religious people reject all explanations that conflict with their belief and try and silence those who do not share their faith they have suspended reason and chosen blind faith. The bible tells me so in place of thought.
But can it be explained why it is absurd?
Short answer is yes and it's blindingly obvious to all except those who don't want to think about it. Make up your own mind about it, do your own research though because I have no interest in discoursing with someone that stamps their little foot and insists the King james authorised version is not authorised because he cannot grasp the meaning of the word authorised in the context in which it is used.
If non-Christians are going to read the Bible, and in truth, it is only for converts, they have to change their perspective, and radically.
You've got that right, trouble is many Christians actually sitting down reading the bible and thinking about belief for themselves and doing a bit more digging end up being atheists or agnostics. That's why for centuries the church tried to stop the bible being published in the native tongues, they knew full well what would happen. It's also why fundamentalist Christians, especially in the states resist secular education - they don't want people thinking for themselves.
absurd
adjective
1.
utterly or obviously senseless, illogical, or untrue; contrary to all reason or common sense; laughably foolish or false: an absurd explanation.
If you need to have it explained to you then you are beyond hope. It is a belief without any kind of evidence to back it up, someone's superstition written down and given the status of truth. It is highly derivative, taking ideas from the cultures all around it as a little bit of research would make you aware. The cataclysmic natural events we now know have a logical natural explanation, without that kind of scientific knowledge it is easy to understand why a primitive people would believe it was an act of god. Every time it has been translated it has been altered by the translator - the notion that god as guiding their words is ludicrous imo. If you look at the history of the nicene creed it is blatantly obvious the bible has been carefully edited to make sure everybody is on message. You are not supposed to question the word of god and the old testament is full of the things that happen to those who do not believe without question.
Reason is the enemy of faith, you cannot reason with the unreasonable and that is why so many religious people reject all explanations that conflict with their belief and try and silence those who do not share their faith they have suspended reason and chosen blind faith. The bible tells me so in place of thought.
But can it be explained why it is absurd?
Short answer is yes and it's blindingly obvious to all except those who don't want to think about it. Make up your own mind about it, do your own research though because I have no interest in discoursing with someone that stamps their little foot and insists the King james authorised version is not authorised because he cannot grasp the meaning of the word authorised in the context in which it is used.
If non-Christians are going to read the Bible, and in truth, it is only for converts, they have to change their perspective, and radically.
You've got that right, trouble is many Christians actually sitting down reading the bible and thinking about belief for themselves and doing a bit more digging end up being atheists or agnostics. That's why for centuries the church tried to stop the bible being published in the native tongues, they knew full well what would happen. It's also why fundamentalist Christians, especially in the states resist secular education - they don't want people thinking for themselves.
I'm reading the Bible
gmc;1337025 wrote: It is a belief without any kind of evidence to back it up, someone's superstition written down and given the status of truth.
That does not make it absurd. A notion can be perfectly rational even if it is not true. The Bible became the universal touchstone of truth in the Western world precisely because it (finally) made sense of so very much.
Posters often make allegations about how evidence for the Bible's lore may not be genuine, but that seems to the limit of the claim. In other words, 'to believe it contains the word of god is a moot point. It's up to you.'
Perhaps that is what the Bible's author intended?
That does not make it absurd. A notion can be perfectly rational even if it is not true. The Bible became the universal touchstone of truth in the Western world precisely because it (finally) made sense of so very much.
Posters often make allegations about how evidence for the Bible's lore may not be genuine, but that seems to the limit of the claim. In other words, 'to believe it contains the word of god is a moot point. It's up to you.'
Perhaps that is what the Bible's author intended?
I'm reading the Bible
xyz;1337026 wrote: That does not make it absurd. A notion can be perfectly rational even if it is not true. The Bible became the universal touchstone of truth in the Western world precisely because it (finally) made sense of so very much.
Posters often make allegations about how evidence for the Bible's lore may not be genuine, but that seems to the limit of the claim. In other words, 'to believe it contains the word of god is a moot point. It's up to you.'
Perhaps that is what the Bible's author intended?
No the bible and Christianity became universal in the western world because it was seized on by those who would be emperor as a means of enhancing their authority. if it was believed their authority came from god no one would dare question it. The history of Christianity is also a history of the suppression of any ideas that dared to challenge the accepted authority and the terrorisation of any dissenters.
All the words we use to describe being free and living in a fair society and not subservient are pagan in origin, freedom, liberty, democracy, individual. These concepts existed long before people knew about the bible. All religion brings is oppression and fear of the hereafter if you do not comply. If all are created by god then all are equal in gods eyes, it wasn't till the church lost it's monopoly on interpreting the bible and the church it's authority that society started being free. It wasn't until the renaissance and age of enlightenment that we began to make sense of the world and move away from superstition always opposed by those that would cling to their superstition and make everybody else do so as well.
The bible doesn't make sense of anything that you wouldn't have been able to work out for yourself and if you take it literally as some do you get really screwed up. If you need the bible to make you a moral person then you are a very sad individual indeed.
Posters often make allegations about how evidence for the Bible's lore may not be genuine, but that seems to the limit of the claim. In other words, 'to believe it contains the word of god is a moot point. It's up to you.'
Perhaps that is what the Bible's author intended?
No the bible and Christianity became universal in the western world because it was seized on by those who would be emperor as a means of enhancing their authority. if it was believed their authority came from god no one would dare question it. The history of Christianity is also a history of the suppression of any ideas that dared to challenge the accepted authority and the terrorisation of any dissenters.
All the words we use to describe being free and living in a fair society and not subservient are pagan in origin, freedom, liberty, democracy, individual. These concepts existed long before people knew about the bible. All religion brings is oppression and fear of the hereafter if you do not comply. If all are created by god then all are equal in gods eyes, it wasn't till the church lost it's monopoly on interpreting the bible and the church it's authority that society started being free. It wasn't until the renaissance and age of enlightenment that we began to make sense of the world and move away from superstition always opposed by those that would cling to their superstition and make everybody else do so as well.
The bible doesn't make sense of anything that you wouldn't have been able to work out for yourself and if you take it literally as some do you get really screwed up. If you need the bible to make you a moral person then you are a very sad individual indeed.
I'm reading the Bible
gmc;1337032 wrote: the bible and Christianity became universal in the western world because it was seized on by those who would be emperor as a means of enhancing their authority.
Indeed- because the Bible had become the universal touchstone of truth, precisely because it (finally) made sense of so very much.
If you need the bible to make you a moral person then you are a very sad individual indeed.
Of course. The Bible is based upon the 'axiom' that everyone is moral, and that no normal adult has need to be instructed in what is right and what is wrong. It is morality based on the right of every individual to freedom to self-determination as far as possible. That very condition of man is that which the deity created, according to the Bible- another given in the Bible. There are many who like it be thought that the Bible is not based on either 'axiom'; but then maybe that is to be expected, so horrible are the crimes of mankind, one can hardly expect him not to be mendacious.
Indeed- because the Bible had become the universal touchstone of truth, precisely because it (finally) made sense of so very much.
If you need the bible to make you a moral person then you are a very sad individual indeed.
Of course. The Bible is based upon the 'axiom' that everyone is moral, and that no normal adult has need to be instructed in what is right and what is wrong. It is morality based on the right of every individual to freedom to self-determination as far as possible. That very condition of man is that which the deity created, according to the Bible- another given in the Bible. There are many who like it be thought that the Bible is not based on either 'axiom'; but then maybe that is to be expected, so horrible are the crimes of mankind, one can hardly expect him not to be mendacious.
I'm reading the Bible
posted by xyz
Indeed- because the Bible had become the universal touchstone of truth, precisely because it (finally) made sense of so very much.
No it hadn't, they were still arguing over which books to keep in and whether jesus was the son of god and as such capable of free will or one and the same as god.
First Council of Nicaea - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
They then went on to carefully edit the bible and destroy any books that didn't fit in with the approved view and slaughter any fellow christians that dared to disagree (that's been the one constant throughput christian history, slaughter anyone who dissents, do the lords work send them to hell asap) - couldn't have people finding their own way to salvation could they? You wouldn't' need priests then would you and where would your power base be? Still goes on - the current pope doesn't want women to have any say even now.
Right from the very beginning Christians have been slaughtering each other and trying to get everybody to follow the correct version. The only truth contained in the bible is that there is a lot to argue about.
Of course. The Bible is based upon the 'axiom' that everyone is moral, and has no normal adult has need to be instructed in what is right and what is wrong. It is morality based on the right of every individual to freedom to self-determination as far as possible. That very condition of man is that which the deity created, according to the Bible- another given in the Bible. There are many who like it be thought that the Bible is not based on either 'axiom'; but then maybe that is to be expected, so horrible are the crimes of mankind, one can hardly expect him not to be mendacious.
It's not based on anything at all, it's a collection of myths and oral history and nothing more than that.
Indeed- because the Bible had become the universal touchstone of truth, precisely because it (finally) made sense of so very much.
No it hadn't, they were still arguing over which books to keep in and whether jesus was the son of god and as such capable of free will or one and the same as god.
First Council of Nicaea - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
They then went on to carefully edit the bible and destroy any books that didn't fit in with the approved view and slaughter any fellow christians that dared to disagree (that's been the one constant throughput christian history, slaughter anyone who dissents, do the lords work send them to hell asap) - couldn't have people finding their own way to salvation could they? You wouldn't' need priests then would you and where would your power base be? Still goes on - the current pope doesn't want women to have any say even now.
Right from the very beginning Christians have been slaughtering each other and trying to get everybody to follow the correct version. The only truth contained in the bible is that there is a lot to argue about.
Of course. The Bible is based upon the 'axiom' that everyone is moral, and has no normal adult has need to be instructed in what is right and what is wrong. It is morality based on the right of every individual to freedom to self-determination as far as possible. That very condition of man is that which the deity created, according to the Bible- another given in the Bible. There are many who like it be thought that the Bible is not based on either 'axiom'; but then maybe that is to be expected, so horrible are the crimes of mankind, one can hardly expect him not to be mendacious.
It's not based on anything at all, it's a collection of myths and oral history and nothing more than that.
I'm reading the Bible
gmc;1337037 wrote: No it hadn't, they were still arguing over which books to keep in and whether jesus was the son of god and as such capable of free will or one and the same as god.
Pagans were. Not Christians.
Pagans were. Not Christians.
I'm reading the Bible
xyz;1337039 wrote: Pagans were. Not Christians.
and there you have it. in that one statement you sum up much of what is wrong with Christianity. It's my way or you are going to hell. Believe exactly as I do and worship in the correct manner or you are not a proper christian. Follow my creed or else and they really did mean or else didn't they? Narrow minded, bigoted, oppressive, never mind the teachings of jesus christ. Love thy neighbour unless he is a heretic and then you can kill him. None of that christian tolerance nonsense.
I am fed up with Christians and Muslims that demand tolerance for their beliefs but refuse to allow the same courtesy to others. A plague on all their houses.
and there you have it. in that one statement you sum up much of what is wrong with Christianity. It's my way or you are going to hell. Believe exactly as I do and worship in the correct manner or you are not a proper christian. Follow my creed or else and they really did mean or else didn't they? Narrow minded, bigoted, oppressive, never mind the teachings of jesus christ. Love thy neighbour unless he is a heretic and then you can kill him. None of that christian tolerance nonsense.
I am fed up with Christians and Muslims that demand tolerance for their beliefs but refuse to allow the same courtesy to others. A plague on all their houses.
I'm reading the Bible
gmc;1337004 wrote: Depends on your perspective. It's just a history of the travails of a primitive tribe in the middles east and their versions of creation myths and how they related to the imaginery being they believed caused it all. As such it is fascinating. They were obviously influenced by those around them and shared ideas about god along with how to make better weapons and farming techniques. They clearly defeated those tribes that were weaker than them in some cases setting out to exterminate them completely.They're no different from anyone else except their written history survived. One of the things the early christian church was to systematically destroy pagan writings and much knowledge and history was lost as a result. Monotheism has always been destructive to anything that might stand in it's way or smack of independent thought.
As to the spiritual side - to believe it contains the word of god is a moot point. It's up to you. I find that belief absurd and I live in a time when after much warfare and bloodshed I can actually say that out loud without fear of being condemned as a heretic.
Have a look at your own nations history - It's every bit as rich as anything in the middle east. Like me you can go and stand on archeological sites where contempraries of moses once stood.
An excellent post, GMC.
Also, in this context, it makes for an excellent opportunity for individuals and groups to control people in fear of their lives from an all powerful creator. What I find amazing is that people continue to believe this bull in the face of increasing evidence against such an all powerful deity.
As to the spiritual side - to believe it contains the word of god is a moot point. It's up to you. I find that belief absurd and I live in a time when after much warfare and bloodshed I can actually say that out loud without fear of being condemned as a heretic.
Have a look at your own nations history - It's every bit as rich as anything in the middle east. Like me you can go and stand on archeological sites where contempraries of moses once stood.
An excellent post, GMC.
Also, in this context, it makes for an excellent opportunity for individuals and groups to control people in fear of their lives from an all powerful creator. What I find amazing is that people continue to believe this bull in the face of increasing evidence against such an all powerful deity.
I'm reading the Bible
gmc;1337057 wrote: and there you have it. in that one statement you sum up much of what is wrong with Christianity.
I know. These Christians are so inconvenient, stopping their critics from confusing them with others who are easier to criticise.
I know. These Christians are so inconvenient, stopping their critics from confusing them with others who are easier to criticise.
I'm reading the Bible
xyz;1337039 wrote: Pagans were. Not Christians.
No, it was the Christians who arguing over this matter. The pagans were never involved.
No, it was the Christians who arguing over this matter. The pagans were never involved.
I'm reading the Bible
OpenMind;1337058 wrote: An excellent post, GMC.
Also, in this context, it makes for an excellent opportunity for individuals and groups to control people in fear of their lives from an all powerful creator. What I find amazing is that people continue to believe this bull in the face of increasing evidence against such an all powerful deity.I think thats because they don't actually believe in God either, the main concern for believers seems to lie in the group mentality and doing the God mantras signifies membership, like sport teams and motorcycle gang members who wear their uniforms...military too. Not all who call themselves christian are like this of course, there is a small minority who get the metaphors.
Also, in this context, it makes for an excellent opportunity for individuals and groups to control people in fear of their lives from an all powerful creator. What I find amazing is that people continue to believe this bull in the face of increasing evidence against such an all powerful deity.I think thats because they don't actually believe in God either, the main concern for believers seems to lie in the group mentality and doing the God mantras signifies membership, like sport teams and motorcycle gang members who wear their uniforms...military too. Not all who call themselves christian are like this of course, there is a small minority who get the metaphors.
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,â€
Voltaire
I have only one thing to do and that's
Be the wave that I am and then
Sink back into the ocean
Fiona Apple
Voltaire
I have only one thing to do and that's
Be the wave that I am and then
Sink back into the ocean
Fiona Apple