God created man in his own image or man created God in his own image?

I am inclined to think the latter.

If God created man in his own image, then how come do we steal from one another and why do we lie to one another so much.

If man hadn't created God in his own image, then how come our image of God always something artitrary, and so close to human kind (eg: having human emotions such as jelously, looking similar to us, same political beliefs to whatever you believe in). Seriously, hasn't anyone noticed how preachers always take on the attitude that God is on their side, whatever it is, eg: Reverand Sharpton says that God wants you to vote Barrack Messiah Obama, right-winged preachers always preach to vote for whatever their issues they care about. Seems like everyone thinks that its always them who understand the mystries of the universe, and that its always everone else who gets it wrong.

Zeus, Apollo, Shiva, Vishnu, Jesus, Yahweh ... to name a few.

I think God would agree with you.

To quote Rhett Butler, "frankly, I don't give a damn!"

Nom nom nom, Ingersoll.

People created God in their own image.

Man created God in his own image, which is why all the different variations and the inconsistencies in the stories.

Man has created God in his own image that is soo true because of these radical self righteous dim wits

Man created God in his own image.

> I think God would agree with you.

Well, . Off course he would. Was there ever any doubt.

Man created God in his own image.

Wow, I like the results so far

I think that man created a "god" to explain the unexplainable. Primitive man saw lightning and thought it had to be caused by some diety, etc.

I'd say the OT God was created in man's image.

I believe God can speak through human forms, but that's because that's the form we understand, not anything representative of the form of God which includes the universe and all it's planes, and can hardly be said to be human at all. Our universe has an order in which our present form was prescribed even within the inevitable destination of mass present at the big bang. This, and all the forms of order and synchronicity suggest something far beyond even the most infinitely grand forms of inventivenes and rational thought.

If I were to suggest what form did come closest to God, I would suggest something inbetween the tao and fractals, infinitely simple and infinitely complex at once.

With various spiritual practices one can 'know God', but this knowing is still limited to seeing God at work in what we know as mortals (the flow of earthly time/space), and while potentially allowing us (or at least our inner souls) to tap into or steer the course of the entire planet, still hardly compares to creating the universe or even our consciousnes to perceive it. To think of God in the fashion of greek/roman gods is but a drop in the sea compared to what god's got going on in total.

Asking what form God is similar to saking the meaning of life. Our minds may ask such a question, but the answer does not lie in the domain of our minds. Any answer suitable to our minds would merely be a symbol substituting for the truth, no more useful than describing emotions to your computer. In this sense, no 'image' of God is possible which is not actually an image of man. Another way to put this is that humans understand forms like sights and sounds, or the flow of time, or feelings. God is none of these things (though contains them). The only way to approach an understanding of God is to develop the senses which belong to God rather than to physical beings. One has to become things like timelessness or all-connectedness to comprehend them, and these experiences are not easily accomodated by the mind which lives in the physical senses, or the mind which thinks. Rather such experiences are understood by the consciousness which, amongst it's possible roles, occupies our mind and it's thoughts, thus giving them existence. Our key to understanding god at all is to understand our own consciousness. It is the consciousness of God. In spite of our living through it, understanding it is not nearly as simple as one might imagine. Even examining if your own mind has freewill poses difficulty for most people, and that's way low on the totem pole of spiritual inquiry.

Linda (round-about or more directly) suggested what I was going to suggest, that perhaps God did agree with all these different people.

There are different spiritual planes, and even for people with an actual spiritual connection, it's quite easy to find oneself in a plane where God agrees with everything you think, but it quickly falls apart back on the mortal plane where the rubber hits the road, so to say. This issue is a popular dilemna for spiritualists, often phrased as how does one know if they are talking with God or the devil. The part that is clear to them is that this force has every molecule of reality in it's immediate command. One could then presume that that is then by definition - God, and yet it can still easily mislead, deceive, and strand them. Personally I discount notions of Satan, and would just call that a deceiving aspect of God. Unfortunately I don't really have any solid answers on that one myself yet, which is perhaps why I'm not quite the proselytyzer I once was. It appears to me that God and Satan (if one wishes to use these colorful loaded and biased images) are as intrinsic to nature on higher planes as good and evil are on the mortal plane. This makes some elegant sense. If physical reality is formed by apparent disparity or chaos of contrasts, it makes sense that any rationally perceivable level of reality would also exhibit these characteristics of creation. I throw in the word 'rational' because I've also experinced pure-consciousness non-ego planes of existence devoid of such contrasts. I'm sure these understandings are much closer to the ultimate truth, if such could be said to exist, but they are of little use to any mortal existence or understanding thereof. As far as I can tell, or at least deduce, the mortal plane and any understanding of it's purpose exists for it's own sake, and the major purpose served by higher spiritual inquiry is simply to learn that it's all generated on a higher plane, all part of an eternal force, and that we really don't have to worry any more or less about it whethar we know god to exist or not.

Of course some of us are compelled to find out anyhow, but to use a metaphor, inquiry into such matters is about as useful as learning about the craft of movie directors is to enjoying movies.

But there are things still now which we can expect to remain unexplainable by science, especially the existence of time, space, matter, energy, and our own consciousnes.

Just take a look around you, and either imagine that all around you either came into existence from absolutely nothing, or was always around in some form, for zillions of zillions of zillions of years. That the things you see now exist at all, and that you, unlike any computer with a camera, consciously experience it's existence, is a miracle far beyond time-travel, big-bangs, and that sort of scientific thing.

Gods of any sort described in myths and bibles may not exist, but what you perceive now does exist somehow. Even if you're just dreaming all this, the question remains, how did this dreamer come into existence and come up with ideas like sound and color? I doubt dirt invented dirt.

I'd say the existence of time is pretty phenomenal too. You might imagine that time would still exist if you took away all energy and matter (or if it were all still here) but that doesn't necesarily follow either. Why isn't it always the same moment? Every moment other than no moment is just as much a new creation as every atom other than no atom is a creation. What is creating this time? Where does it come from? Do you think science might one day peer into a blackhole and find some source which creates new moments?

Inbetween every second are 1000 milliseconds, and inbetween every millisecond are 1000 microseconds. In fact there are an infinite quantity of moments within every nanosecond. If you took a snapshot of the earths history at every nanosecond, you could squeeze it all between two nanoseconds. In fact you could fit eternal past and future into a span beween zillionths of a second. That any change of time exists all implies eternal time.

Perhaps though there are no new moments. Maybe it's been the same moment all along. This would mean one of two things, that the universe is created and destroyed every moment to be replaced with another, &/or that only this current moment in it's current configuration does or ever has existed, and all other moments are a figment of our creative imagination which we call memory.

Only one moment seems to exist at any given moment. We cant put our hands on yesterday, or even a second ago. Only the moment exists, except in our conscious memory. Time exists nowhere else, only single snapshots of physical mass. Time does not exist within a moments snapshot of our brains either. Time is consciousness. Consider E=MC^2. C is the speed of light, a product of time, distance/time. You can rewrite this as E=(MD^2)/t^2. It makes just as much sense if we simplify this to e=(md)/t or t=md/e. Let's say the universe began with neither energy, mass, nor dimension. As long as any consciousness (time) exists, it only takes the most infinitely small spark of energy to create infinite mass and dimension. All it takes is a single photon and the notion 'I am' to create an infinitly expansive universe.

The primary question then is What is this alpha and omega (consciousness of time) which says 'I am that I am'?

You are this very consciousness, and therefore the basis of infinite time, space, and matter, the source of creation, is the very same tool as you experience this reality through. You may imagine God does not exist, but you are swimming in the center of the force which creates infinite expanding eternity.

God created man in his own image. God has a tangible body of flesh and bone. God's body is perfect, glorified and immortal. God's whole work and glory is for us to become like him. We can do this only through the Atonement of Jesus Christ.

You said:

"For us to be like him"

Why would I want to be like him?

god killed everyone on earth except Noah, his family and all animals because he thought the people was turning bad. Presumably, he therefore killed all the babies and children that were alive at the time.

Do I want to be like him?

No thanks.

This is like asking whether you're an atheist or a person of religous faith. Why didn't you just ask the question?

You can't create identical surveys

>
>
> You can't create identical surveys


Huh, identical surveys? The point here is that your question was a thinly veiled version of a different, better question. Or do you fancy yourself as being poetic or profound?

I think the way the question was asked was far more poetic than;

Are you a religious believer or an Athiest? (which has been asked on SC numerous times)

Besides, I don't think you should place Athiests as one answer and ALL religions in another. After all, there are conflicts between all major religions.

My question simply allowed people to vote on a particular area of religious debate.

Perhaps, but I'v never heard of a faith that supposes man created God. So, what is this popular area of debate to which you refer? Your question is what serves to categorize the religous faithful versus the atheist.

Summarily, I think you could have created a better and more direct question, and I wish you had because the premise could have been interesting. As it stands...

As it stands...I think you are just trying to argue for the sake of it. There is nothing wrong with this survey, and it seems you are grasping onto anything you can to negate it.

If you don't like it, then hide it. But commenting on how it doesn't work for 'you' won't get you anywhere except in the form of ridicule.

If that makes you feel better, then believe that.

Well, let's see if other agree with you on this matter. Or maybe they agree that it is a perfectly acceptable questions to ask: clear, consise, well presented and unbiased.

Maybe they will, so what? You could have written a better survey, and you know it.

> Maybe they will, so what?

If they disagree with you, then it would 'suggest' you are talking nonsence.

> You could have written a better survey, and you know it.

You're right, I could have written a survey that gets a 100% rating. I am still working on it, thanks for the reminder.

My, aren't you cranky. I believe in God, yet believe any conceptions of God's form are created by man. My belief is that what we have in common with God is consciousnes, which is something far apart from our mind, rational creative processes, morals, and such.

This survey is a good foundation for discussing the form, if any, of God.

It does follow that unless some being has experienced the totality of God, that any understanding we have of God begins with what is most familiar, ourselves, then goes from there looking for differences. We do the same analyzing a shark or parrot. We examine if they eat like us, and they do, but then discover their mouths are different. In the case of God, we have little opportunity to concretely witness even any hints at God's make up, and so the tendency is to imagine God to be like an omnipotent invisible human. A virus travelling the internet or the moons gravity sculpting waves in the ocean might be a much closer metaphor.

Wicksy's question is just as valid for believers as non believers.

I don't even know that any concensus in interpretation for 'Man was made in God's image' evn exists. Literally, it would seem to mean that God has arms and legs, though I doubt few have that interpretation.

Some popular options might be:
[ ] God is shaped like a human, somehow.
[ ] Man thinks like God, has the same heart, morals, etc.
[ ] Man has consciousness like God.
[ ] Man is made of the same matter and energy which is God.
[ ] God dwells within man as man, and the universe is a reflection of the God within us.
[ ] Something to do with Christ, either:
[ ] Christ is God, and man looks like Christ;
[ ] We are like Christ, and one of those options above still applies which relates christ/mankind to God.

One can get a lot of interpretive milage from IN god's image, OF god's image, LIKE god's image.

Way back in the early days judaism pantheism, omnipresent nature spirits reigned, giving way eventually to animal spirits and golems. The 'Man in God's image' thing may have been a first pivotal distinction that whatever God was, it favored us above nature and cosmology at large.

Early jews believed in multiple god's. Each tribe had it's awn Molaki or something. Otherwise there would be no need for the commandment 'You shall worship no other gods.' It wouldn't be something people could imagine doing. In an age where different tribes had different local gods, it's more easy to imagine they had some form, and only ruled and roamed the region. Even Christ followed in this tradition of providing a local and tangible god for people who were unable to imagine an abstract cosmic god. Oh that reminds, new options above.

God made you a trouble maker.

>Seems like everyone thinks that its always them
> who understand the mystries of the universe, and
> that its always everone else who gets it wrong.
>

That's why they get the big bucks.

Who came first?

God created man in a petri dish, and then man created God in Hollywood. I'm not sure what happened after that.

Hollywood threw up in the petri dish.

I must have blacked out, because I don't remember that.

THE TYGER (from Songs Of Experience)
By William Blake
Tyger! Tyger! burning bright
In the forests of the night,
What immortal hand or eye
Could frame thy fearful symmetry?

In what distant deeps or skies
Burnt the fire of thine eyes?
On what wings dare he aspire?
What the hand dare sieze the fire?

And what shoulder, & what art.
Could twist the sinews of thy heart?
And when thy heart began to beat,
What dread hand? & what dread feet?

What the hammer? what the chain?
In what furnace was thy brain?
What the anvil? what dread grasp
Dare its deadly terrors clasp?

When the stars threw down their spears,
And watered heaven with their tears,
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the Lamb make thee?

Tyger! Tyger! burning bright
In the forests of the night,
What immortal hand or eye
Dare frame thy fearful symmetry?

OK, you like this survey; I got that. I just think it's a stupid way to ask the more obvious question.

BTW: I thought I read in a previous post of yours that your brother's current wife is also your ex-wife. Is that right? Is that possible? Would you mind explaining?

I became a yogi, she divorced me, she married my bro, later had another kid who is my niece, sister of my kids. ..not too complex. It worked out well, I could visit them all at once, and people I cared for were taking care of each other. This was all long before I even had an inkling that I'd be changing genders, if that added to your confusion.

She was actually with him before I became a yogi, and tha wasn't her first affair either, but I somewhat deserved it as I had spent a dozen years infatuated with her best friend (our occasional housemate) (though nothng ever happened). It was a bit like the show Three's Company. My girlfriends continue to tend to come in pairs, usually opposites in some fashion, creating some dilemna. Unfotunately even those situations haven't existed for some years now. I don't get out much anymore. I tended to get dumped just about when I thought I'd be getting married.

I barely care less about the survey. I was more concerned with people considering the question. In spite of my offering more options [to a somewhat different question], I see you haven't answered yet.

What is the more obvious question?
[ ] Are you cynical about the existence of God?
[ ] What form is God?
[ ] What is our source of conceiving of God's form, divine inspiration or man's own conceptions?
[ ] In what manner are God and mankind alike?

In the case that you find anything objectionable about that marriage situation on religious grounds, it's exactly prescribed in the bible that if someone is called away by God (as I certainly was at the time), the brother should marry the wife. "Is that right? Is that possible?" - You're not giving me much confidence in your problem solving skills.

Honestly, I was just curious; it's not my place to judge you or your situation. Unlike many other Christians, and despite some of the things said in Acts or some of Paul's letters, I don't like the idea of community expulsion or ostratization. You do what you feel you must , and only you and the Lord can know your relationship.

As far as your situation congruing with some of the principles of the Old Testament in terms of familiy, no, you haven't got that right at all. Your brother's affair with your wife would have been a capital offense. The subsequent marriage as well. There's no "calling away by God" provision; there's a death provision...and you are clearly alive. But again, whatever, that's not my business. Truly, your heart and soul can only be explored by you and God.

As far as this poorly conceived and written survey versus your subsequent modification, what is there for me to say? We have been asked whether God exists and created us in his form, or is God a man-made construct for which we have obviuosly made him in our form? What's the mystery? Surely, you understood this after only a cursory look.

As far as my answer to this unoriginal drivel, my first reaction is that the question posed is just plain assenine. But a more germaine response to a superior concept of this question would be that I believe that the Bible is not a Chilton's repair manual for a 1985 Toyota Corolla; it's far more ambiguous. So when the Bible states "God's own image," what does that mean? That God roams around the heavens with his cock hanging out, cretainly not. For me it means that God made us to be like him in the more imortant areas...our emotions, our thoughts, etc. That the way we reason or love or even hate is a product of God's creation.

I think this addresses your question as I understand it, but do feel free to probe as you like; I would again do my best to answer.

"You do what you feel you must , and only you and the Lord can know your relationship."
That's a good position, not far from my position that one need not seek vengeance themself because karma will eventually take care of matters. Generally I see that to be true, but certain examples like Hitler bring that into question. The Hitler example may bring into play another component though, collective consciousness; A lot of people thought he was doing the right thing.

Ostracization is a favorite of mine, at least in a world of rural villages. It both forgives a person to allow a fresh start, and forces them to prove themselves as good citizens in new communities. Otherwise they get what they deserve, living amongst their own type deep in the forest. My kids rarely had to be punished, but when they were, they were benched or grounded.

With a ton of effort, I could dig up the scripture which suggests a brother should watch his wife if the married man is called into spiritual life, but really it was only for me an interesting parallel to my life discovered a decade later. At the time, more relevant to me (before I had my spiritual awakening) was 'lusting in your heart is as bad as doing it', combined with 'don't condemn others for things you do'. Unlike with her prior affairs, I practically sanctioned that last one to relieve my guilt and open my options.

Just because an original survey question is assanine, doesn't mean you can't use it as a springboard for serious dialogue. I do that all the time. If people didn't, this would be a lowest common denominator site.

So, as I presumed, you imply that in general, however abstract, we were if fact made in God's image, and that's not just some poetic artifact of some ancient rabbi, later inventively expained away over the centuries as to how we might be like God, based on what we know of ourselves and speculations of which of these have a possibility of intersecting with the range of definitions we could accept as being God through our evolving sense of physics and cosmology.

My cosmology is more new-age, and I take even the words of genuine prophets with a grain of salt, as the words of authors living in their own social contexts, but the Man in God's image still plays a heavy part in my cosmology. My position is that we are essentially the eyes and hands of creation, created by God who is the mind and body of creation, as a means of God appreciating creation.

Lately I've been reading an excellent biography of the Apostles, 'Desire of the Everlasting Hills' by Thomas Cahill. He wrote another great book 'How the Irish Saved Civilization' about the fall of the roman empire, and the stormy rocks Irish librarian monks who saved the history of western civilization. I can tell the author is deeply Christian in values, and perhap mystically as well, but his writing is concrete and objective, using Sherlock Holmes style to fit together a jigsaw puzzle and show what the exact situation and the audience were when various passages were written.

I like much about this Paul guy, and consider him devout, but I call into question his original conversion.
Essentially his story is like this: He persecutes and taxes all the churches of Los Angeles, building fame and enemies. One night, seven years after the resurrection, he's bicycling (riding a horse) through the forest with a billion dollars half of LA knows he's taken, heading off to deliver it to G. Bush. Next thing you know 'Whack', He's blinded by light and a voice says 'Why are you persecuting me'? After this, of course, he has Ceasar and the entire roman empire legions looking for his _ss (since Ceasar considers the money his), so what better place to hide out than with Peter for a couple weeks, the guy you have a public reputation for persecuting, but who teaches turning the other cheek.

Cahill doesn't put it quite in that light, but he does point out things like when Paul's writing about gender, he's giving his opinions to the first major church which is run by a transvestite couple. Generally his concern is more about how the seeds of the feminist and abolitionist movement spread, and exactly how they started.

One can conclude from the presentation that Cahill's theology is that the stuff may have been somewhat invented at the time, but the proof of the magic behind it is in in how revolutionary it was at impacting lives and society at every step of the way.

While my style is devil's advocate, I'm out to increase spiritual understanding. One isn't reigious unles you live religious, which requires thinking religiously, which requires constant contemplation. I don't think a person can get away with their public life being one thing, and their inner life being another, without being incomplete or insincere. I'm a monist, not a dualist though. It's not God vs earth, it's all God. One purifies their corner of the universe by bringing out the God around and within themselves there. A dualist may see this life as a test, and justify having a separate inner life.

Actually Chritianity is perhaps the most ambiguous of world religions. It applies to ancient culture, but otherwise requires significant interpretation. Other religions (buddhism, hinduism) much more resemble a direct science of cosmology. I consider world religions like college courses, covering topics like society, science, and psychiatry. The mystic traditions of these diverse faiths (like kabbalism and taoism) begin to converge, and are advanced courses in things like faith, morality, planes of existence, and the nature of creation. Attempting to extract all this entirely from the bible is pretty tough, and can only even be done by going out on highly inerpretive limbs, unlesss the bible is merely their foundation for more direct revelations.

Of course one popular Christian position is that we don't need to know this stuff, that we will get where we need to go by acting like mindless sheep. There's some truth in that, but only for the most intensely devout, otherwise we live in earthly faculties and should use these faculties on our path towards truth as well.

> "You do what you feel you must , and only you and the Lord can know
> your relationship."
> That's a good position, not far from my position that one need not
> seek vengeance themself because karma will eventually take care of
> matters. Generally I see that to be true, but certain examples like
> Hitler bring that into question. The Hitler example may bring into
> play another component though, collective consciousness; A lot of
> people thought he was doing the right thing.

More importantly for me, Hitler was bent on hurting people. My laissez-faire attitude stops in the face of deliberate harm to others.

> Ostracization is a favorite of mine, at least in a world of rural
> villages. It both forgives a person to allow a fresh start, and forces
> them to prove themselves as good citizens in new communities. Otherwise
> they get what they deserve, living amongst their own type deep in
> the forest. My kids rarely had to be punished, but when they were,
> they were benched or grounded.

This is entirely predicated on the idea that the basis of any such ostratization is just. Under the prevailing principles of not judging others and loving others, ostraticization shouldn't occur; forgiveness and pennance should.

> With a ton of effort, I could dig up the scripture which suggests
> a brother should watch his wife if the married man is called into
> spiritual life, but really it was only for me an interesting parallel
> to my life discovered a decade later. At the time, more relevant to
> me (before I had my spiritual awakening) was 'lusting in your heart
> is as bad as doing it', combined with 'don't condemn others for things
> you do'. Unlike with her prior affairs, I practically sanctioned that
> last one to relieve my guilt and open my options.

No, you couldn't. The scripture you're referring to is around Deutoronomy/Numbers/Ruth, but the principle is the exact opposite of what you're saying. The idea is that the spiritually beckoned are to drop what they are doing or face hell. If the family refuses to join, that family is condemned to hell for not following what is right. The more colorful examples of course, Moses, Noah, Lot, etc. But again, this old testament stuff has been replaced. So, you would have to look to either Ephesians or Paul for the more accurate answer. Ephesians provides no such antedote regarding regarding spiritual leadership, and Paul mandates that the faithful member stay with the unfaithful family, so that he can pruify his/her family through faith. The latter is the basis that some radical Christian sects use to call all fathers religous leaders.

> Just because an original survey question is assanine, doesn't mean
> you can't use it as a springboard for serious dialogue. I do that
> all the time. If people didn't, this would be a lowest common denominator
> site.

No, but it doesn't mean I am compelled to take the high road either. I see nothing wrong with pointing out how crapty a crapty survey is, especially when the topic, as is written, has been done to death.

> So, as I presumed, you imply that in general, however abstract, we
> were if fact made in God's image, and that's not just some poetic
> artifact of some ancient rabbi, later inventively expained away over
> the centuries as to how we might be like God, based on what we know
> of ourselves and speculations of which of these have a possibility
> of intersecting with the range of definitions we could accept as being
> God through our evolving sense of physics and cosmology.

I think that's a fair summary, yes...God-like in thought, emotion, ability to change our environment, to soar the heavens, to fly, to stretch ourselves conceptually, you get the idea.

> My cosmology is more new-age, and I take even the words of genuine
> prophets with a grain of salt, as the words of authors living in their
> own social contexts, but the Man in God's image still plays a heavy
> part in my cosmology. My position is that we are essentially the eyes
> and hands of creation, created by God who is the mind and body of
> creation, as a means of God appreciating creation.

This however, essentially destroys the concept of God in that we are an absolute necessity for God to accurately experience the universe. I would respectfully disagree and say that God wishes to have our collective love of him, but needs nothing from us to function.

> Lately I've been reading an excellent biography of the Apostles, 'Desire
> of the Everlasting Hills' by Thomas Cahill. He wrote another great
> book 'How the Irish Saved Civilization' about the fall of the roman
> empire, and the stormy rocks Irish librarian monks who saved the history
> of western civilization. I can tell the author is deeply Christian
> in values, and perhap mystically as well, but his writing is concrete
> and objective, using Sherlock Holmes style to fit together a jigsaw
> puzzle and show what the exact situation and the audience were when
> various passages were written.

Hmmmm, it does sound interesting.

> I like much about this Paul guy, and consider him devout, but I call
> into question his original conversion.
> Essentially his story is like this: He persecutes and taxes all the
> churches of Los Angeles, building fame and enemies. One night, seven
> years after the resurrection, he's bicycling (riding a horse) through
> the forest with a billion dollars half of LA knows he's taken, heading
> off to deliver it to G. Bush. Next thing you know 'Whack', He's blinded
> by light and a voice says 'Why are you persecuting me'? After this,
> of course, he has Ceasar and the entire roman empire legions looking
> for his _ss (since Ceasar considers the money his), so what better
> place to hide out than with Peter for a couple weeks, the guy you
> have a public reputation for persecuting, but who teaches turning
> the other cheek.
>
> Cahill doesn't put it quite in that light, but he does point out things
> like when Paul's writing about gender, he's giving his opinions to
> the first major church which is run by a transvestite couple. Generally
> his concern is more about how the seeds of the feminist and abolitionist
> movement spread, and exactly how they started.
>
> One can conclude from the presentation that Cahill's theology is that
> the stuff may have been somewhat invented at the time, but the proof
> of the magic behind it is in in how revolutionary it was at impacting
> lives and society at every step of the way.
>
> While my style is devil's advocate, I'm out to increase spiritual
> understanding. One isn't reigious unles you live religious, which
> requires thinking religiously, which requires constant contemplation.
> I don't think a person can get away with their public life being one
> thing, and their inner life being another, without being incomplete
> or insincere. I'm a monist, not a dualist though. It's not God vs
> earth, it's all God. One purifies their corner of the universe by
> bringing out the God around and within themselves there. A dualist
> may see this life as a test, and justify having a separate inner life.



> Actually Chritianity is perhaps the most ambiguous of world religions.
> It applies to ancient culture, but otherwise requires significant
> interpretation. Other religions (buddhism, hinduism) much more resemble
> a direct science of cosmology. I consider world religions like college
> courses, covering topics like society, science, and psychiatry. The
> mystic traditions of these diverse faiths (like kabbalism and taoism)
> begin to converge, and are advanced courses in things like faith,
> morality, planes of existence, and the nature of creation. Attempting
> to extract all this entirely from the bible is pretty tough, and can
> only even be done by going out on highly inerpretive limbs, unlesss
> the bible is merely their foundation for more direct revelations.

I think the Bible is what it is, a guiding rutter, but not much more. Most hierarchal interpretations I read seem to take specific parts of the Bible and base a majority of their faith on an extrapolated interpretation of that narrow focus. The result is a faith that doesn't seem very biblical. The only faith I think has gotten it mostly right is the Greek Orthodox faith, though I have a hard time standing in 1 service for 4 hours, the liturgy seems generalized enough to be accurate.

> Of course one popular Christian position is that we don't need to
> know this stuff, that we will get where we need to go by acting like
> mindless sheep. There's some truth in that, but only for the most
> intensely devout, otherwise we live in earthly faculties and should
> use these faculties on our path towards truth as well.

This of course is dichotomos; while we are to take faith as a child, we are also to "feed" ourselves as adults. Feed referring to our spritual food, and thus we are to think about how we follow our faith. Perhaps a true understanding makes these 2 ideas congrue, but I do see your point.

I stumbled upon that passage about three times by accident, and now I can't even find it through an internet search after four hours. I've found about eight related passages, but none of them quite it. Whatever it was, it was written in the form of a recommendation, not as interpretation of some specific story, and it had some wierd wording like 'slave in christ' or 'dead in spirit', kind of implying that the person was useless in worldly matters, and that the brother should take over (which pretty much was the case for me) When I saw holy spirit using the whole world as it's vehicle of communication, I was convinced that all of reality must be a temporary delusion and was compelled to meditate until I found an even higher truth. Eventually I even tried killing myself, thinking perhaps it was some test of faith between the worldly and the holy.

Actually the part of 'they should join' does perhaps sound familiar as an adjacent paragraph. If that was it, I wasn't even able to find the passage again.

Really I'm not too big on the bible. For me at this point it is mostly just the language I can use to explain spiritual concepts to those who profess to be Christian, mostly difficult mystical/cosmological concepts typically glossed over. As far as the deeper gist of the emotional-social-moral material, I think the average person today would benefit more from reading C.S. Lewis's explanations of the concepts. ..and lastly, I am a conceptual visual engineering minded person with a poor memory for reference citations, which seems to be crucial for both biblically founded arguments and legal practice. Mostly I am dismayed with Christians for glossing over both Christ's mystical and moral teachings in lieu of tribal and capitalist practices which are anything but. Fortunately I'm getting the feeling you aren't quite in that camp.

Technically, even ostracisation should't exist, but it's still more Christian than imprisonment. I think the notion of conforming to society is at least a better model than simply avoiding arrest, and that a grapevine of both neighborly praise and scorn makes for a better social network than everyone just minding their own business. Today crowds will just stand by and watch a violent crime take place.

"This however, essentially destroys the concept of God in that we are an absolute necessity for God to accurately experience the universe. I would respectfully disagree and say that God wishes to have our collective love of him, but needs nothing from us to function."
And I don't believe God particularly needs or desires our love, but that creation is for our sake, and life is certainly better if we love it. Ultimately though, creation is a gift from God, to God. There is nothing which is not ultimately of God. God does the giving and the receiving, and we are a vehicle of that experience, more intriguing than a mere ring of angels, though I can't speak for how things go on distant galaxies, which may be even more intriguing.

I don't particularly prescribe to God qualities of love or desire either. To be sure, as one goes up the ladder of peak spiritual experiences, love becomes more intense, but I stil see that whole paradigm as human-centric, and God's comprehensive plan as somethng at once absolutely neutral and infinitely more encompassing. I can imagine God creating universes in which neither our five senses, our emotions, thought (as opposed to consciousness), nor even qualities like time, energy, and dimension play a part and have been replaced instead with equally fascinating qualities.

Well, it's good to know you in a tad better depth. I'll probably leave you alone now. I just like to poke and prod at people of any faith to see if they're getting anything serious out of it, or could use a nudge to dig deeper and not lean on hollow rhetoric.

Speaking of children, I often find they are born with some connection to mystical spirit, and have it knocked out of them with lessons on rational objective reality by the time they reach kindergarten.

God created man in his own image. God created everything; all the heavens and the earth and everything/everybody on this earth.

I know some people don't believe in God but that's their own choice. Honestly I find it easier to believe in God, than not believe in Him. But I have one thing to add, You are not a child of God until you confess Jesus Christ as your Lord AND Savior. BAPTISM doesn't save you, nor does doing "good deeds." It says in the New Testament that the criminal on the cross next to Christ said "Lord, remember me when you come into your kingdom" and for his faith, he joined Christ in Heaven. Baptism is a nice way to show your faith, but it will not save you. It says so right in the Bible, if you don't believe me look. "Jesus said, I am the Way the Truth and the Life, NO one can come to the Father, EXCEPT through Me." Just a little side statement.

But its never too late to be saved. God Bless!

Oh yes, it's ever so much easier to believe in God. It's comforting to be told that there is after all a reason for being, a plan behind it all even if you don't understand it. It's so much easier to simply be told what to do, to be told what's right and what's wrong, and to be told how to live your life. Even when you die everything is taken care of. It's the carefree life that adults imagine children have and it can appear very appealing.

We see the same thing in the political realm. So many people want to turn over decisions and control to someone else. Let the government decide what health care we receive, what we eat, what we read, what we know, who may marry, and every aspect of daily life. Let someone else take the responsibility.

This desire is hardly surprising for consider the alternative. If there is no one else to take on the role of parent, we'd have to do it ourselves. We'd have to make our own decisions. The worse thing though, we'd then be responsible. No one else to blame things on.

Believing in God is easier, yes. As is frequently the case however, easier doesn't mean right.

It's strange, because I'd expect people to be the opposite. Not wanting to follow, being tired of being told what to do, taking pride in themselves, having confidence in their own ability to make decisions. I find the feeling of empowerment much more appealing than the feeling of being taken care of.

You'd think that, wouldn't you? That's sure not what I see people doing though. People are asking to be taken care of and they're all too willing to give up everything in exchange.

> Maybe they will, so what? You could have written a better survey,
> and you know it.

I agree, he could have written a better survey. It's funny how Wicksy proclaims to be an atheist, yet still talks about God. I recently read an article that said 23% of atheists aren't really atheists at all even though they claim to be.

> |> Maybe they will, so what? You could have
> written a better survey,
> |> and you know it.
>
> I agree, he could have written a better survey.
> It's funny how Wicksy proclaims to be an atheist,
> yet still talks about God. I recently read an
> article that said 23% of atheists aren't really
> atheists at all even though they claim to be.

So, does that mean when a preacher spends a lot of his time railing against homosexuality, does that mean...

> |> |> Maybe they will, so what? You could have
> |> written a better survey,
> |> |> and you know it.
> |>
> |> I agree, he could have written a better survey.
> |> It's funny how Wicksy proclaims to be an atheist,
> |> yet still talks about God. I recently read an
> |> article that said 23% of atheists aren't really
> |> atheists at all even though they claim to be.
>
> So, does that mean when a preacher spends a lot of his time railing
> against homosexuality, does that mean...

Nice one Frostband

> |> Maybe they will, so what? You could have written a better survey,
> |> and you know it.
>
> I agree, he could have written a better survey. It's funny how Wicksy
> proclaims to be an atheist, yet still talks about God. I recently
> read an article that said 23% of atheists aren't really atheists at
> all even though they claim to be.

You're right, I do talk about God...but lots of people have imaginary friends, don't they?

I don't know about that, most atheists I've encountered seem pretty ademant.

> |> |> Maybe they will, so what? You could have written a better
> survey,
> |> |> and you know it.
> |>
> |> I agree, he could have written a better survey. It's funny how
> Wicksy
> |> proclaims to be an atheist, yet still talks about God. I recently
> |> read an article that said 23% of atheists aren't really atheists
> at
> |> all even though they claim to be.
>
> You're right, I do talk about God...but lots of people have imaginary
> friends, don't they?

Yes, there are some people that do have imaginary friends. God is not imaginary at all, he is very real. The Bible says that a fool thinks that there's no God.

> I don't know about that, most atheists I've encountered seem pretty
> ademant.

Yes, most of them do seem pretty adamant about not believing in God. The survey said that only 23% actually do believe in God or the possibility that there might be a God although I don't know how accurate that survey is. Atheists have every right not to believe in God if they choose not to and they also have the same right to suffer eternal consequences due to their failure to acknowledge God and Jesus.

If it weren't for the Bible, what would you believe?

I don't necessarily think they won't make it into heaven. Don't forget about the doctrine of baptism by fire. The bottom line as I interpret it, is if people allow the Holy Spirit to come over them and allow God to work through them, they don't have to acknowledge the Lord's presence. I highly believe there are many wonderful people in the world who lives are ruled by God, but call it something ese or don't believe in God.

> If it weren't for the Bible, what would you believe?

Linda, how can he really answer that? It's almost like asking you if you didn't have the kids you have, would you have had others? Faith isn't something that can have a rational base. You either have it or you don't.

Okay. That makes sense. But if it doesn't have a rational base, why do people bother with it?

Because it speeks to them in ways that logic can't. It's something you feel, not something you reason.

By now you have probably guessed that I love America beyond reason and would die for her. Is there a logical base for that really? I don't think so; it's just something I feel.

Feelings are all fine and good. It's reasonable to have feelings, and they aren't always irrational. If a feeling doesn't have a logical base, shouldn't you examine it until you find one? I tend to discard feelings if I don't find any rationality behind them. That would be particularly important in cases where I'd be making decisions that could affect other people.

> Feelings are all fine and good. It's reasonable to have feelings,
> and they aren't always irrational. If a feeling doesn't have a logical
> base, shouldn't you examine it until you find one? I tend to discard
> feelings if I don't find any rationality behind them. That would be
> particularly important in cases where I'd be making decisions that
> could affect other people.

We're going around in cirsles a bit here, but I would say you can't go through life trying to logically justify all your feelings. What would be the point of that?

Let's say for example that you feel horny. Logically, the only reason to have sex would be to procreate. Do you refuse to have sex when you are horny because it doesn't make logical sense? Ok, this is kind of a silly analogy, and I am admittedly using an extreme example to make a point. But, so what?

> Yes, there are some people that do have imaginary friends. God is
> not imaginary at all, he is very real. The Bible says that a fool
> thinks that there's no God.

The bible also says the following: (Deuteronomy 20:10-14)

As you approach a town to attack it, first offer its people terms for peace. If they accept your terms and open the gates to you, then all the people inside will serve you in forced labor. But if they refuse to make peace and prepare to fight, you must attack the town. When the LORD your God hands it over to you, kill every man in the town. But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder. You may enjoy the spoils of your enemies that the LORD your God has given you.

Your God approves of murder, rape, and slavery...now who is the fool?

Being horny is already understood and understandable.

I'm talking about believing in things but not being able to explain why, or having a 'funny feeling' (hunch) about some person or situation, but not being able to explain it. Feelings like that should be examined, rather than being the basis for forming some conclusion.

I don't see much difference between that and being horny in that neither have anything to do with a belief in God.

Uh... no they have nothing to do with a belief in God. We are digressing a bit. But the difference between a feeling like being horny and a feeling like having a hunch about someone is that one is a natural, biological urge like hunger. It's part of life. It doesn't have to be reexamined. What's to examine about it? Having a 'funny feeling' hunch is fear-based, and the fear has to come from somewhere. You should think (logic/reason) before determining someone is a threat or that something bad is going down, before you start affecting people based on nothing but a fear based hunch.
I still don't see why a person wouldn't want to reexamine a feeling like a belief in God.

Well, naturally it gets reexamined. No one alive has ever gone without a crisis in faith. But ultimately, faith overrides intellect.

Why would faith override intellect? Maybe for some people, but for others, it's the opposite.

Interesting question. It seems to me to go both ways, though towards faith is the more popular. I figure even for atheists, many may eventually conclude that something cosmic is going on, but whatever it is, no one down here knows what it is, or the worlds opinions wouldn't be so divided.. so no point in worrying about it.

There are different types of faith too. Faith that there is a God is way different than faith that your particular choice of religion is correct.

The first three years of my spiritual life were mostly suicidably miserable, on some testing plane of limbo-hell, but even that supported my faith. No matter how miserable supernatural experiences are, they allude to a God more so than pure science.

What I call my spiritual life has been based on experience, not faith. Faith for me is only the implication that there's much more yet to see, and even that's extrapolated from past experience. Admittedly though, my spiritual awakening involved a blind leap-of-faith week beforehand. Prior to that phase of my life though, when my beliefs were only speculative and open to any possibility, and I could be called agnostic, I still had, I see in retrospect, a subconscious impression that the world was under control, not just some random accident.

As far as people having a faith in any particular set of beliefs, without evidence to support that particular set, I still can't say I get it. My impression is that not knowing for sure one way or another, a belief in God is the more comforting choice, and the religion one is most familiar with simply the most convenient choice. Either that, or it comes down to believing in peer influence.

Again, you're looking for physical or concrete answers to metaphysical concepts. Or, in other words, there is no answer. Some things just are.

Eventually, everyone takes some form of a leap of faith, even in professional-level scholarship.

I remember going over my mother's doctoral thesis about protocol analysis; she had asked me for an opinion. So, I told her that the evidence did not clearly point to this methodology being more or less effective. And that while you could make a tenuous connection to the positive, you could have also developed valid counter arguments. She laughed at me.

"Of course, there are valid counter arguments; 500 hundred pages of words cannot describe what happens in the world organically. Take math for example. Theoretically, you should never be able to touch anything because any distance between two objects can be cut in half an infinite amount of times. So, if you are able to touch something, your hand and the object should explode...You see, everything requires a leap of faith." That lesson, along with my Master's in Public Policy and some other cathartic moments, is what led me to having a very guarded level of respect for theory. This is why I have no party affiliation, nor hold dear any political ideology, and am essentially, a free-form Christian, though I do lean toward the Greek Orthodox Church.

"Eventually, everyone takes some form of a leap of faith, even in professional-level scholarship. "
I think you underestimate how many couch potatos there are out there.

"..could have also developed valid counter arguments."
I haven't run into much of anything for which that isn't true, which supports my belief that the taoists are on to something fundamental obout the nature of the universe, something complementarily compatable with hindu cosmology, which along with kabbalism, most plausably describes the nature of creation for me.

Theory is not reality. Models (though often effective tools of speculation) can only attempt to catch up with nature. They must aways be revised as we probe deeper (or possibly create) the future of reality.

Often enough what one seeks ideologically can be found in it's supposed opposite. Your guarded affiliation is wise. If though, taoism is true in it's deepest cosmic significance, than any commitment must be a leap of faith, not to ultimate truth, but to arbitrary mortal decision to participate, all forces of creation being in evolving balance.

By pragmatic notions of atomic physics, nothing actually ever touches anyhow. There may be entire galaxies between subatomic particles. All particles may be faceted views of a singular particle.

> I don't necessarily think they won't make it into heaven. Don't forget
> about the doctrine of baptism by fire. The bottom line as I interpret
> it, is if people allow the Holy Spirit to come over them and allow
> God to work through them, they don't have to acknowledge the Lord's
> presence. I highly believe there are many wonderful people in the
> world who lives are ruled by God, but call it something ese or don't
> believe in God.

Who goes to heaven and who doesn't is certainly not for us to judge. The Bible does say that you have to be born again, believe that Jesus is the son of God and his death on the cross and his resurrection, and acknowledge him as your Lord and Savior. Jesus said that nobody can get to God the Father and have eternal life except through him. God does work in people through the Holy Spirit including myself many times.

> |> Yes, there are some people that do have imaginary friends. God
> is
> |> not imaginary at all, he is very real. The Bible says that a
> fool
> |> thinks that there's no God.
>
> The bible also says the following: (Deuteronomy 20:10-14)
>
> As you approach a town to attack it, first offer its people terms
> for peace. If they accept your terms and open the gates to you, then
> all the people inside will serve you in forced labor. But if they
> refuse to make peace and prepare to fight, you must attack the town.
> When the LORD your God hands it over to you, kill every man in the
> town. But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock,
> and other plunder. You may enjoy the spoils of your enemies that
> the LORD your God has given you.
>
> Your God approves of murder, rape, and slavery...now who is the fool?
>
>
>
Your obviously are. You need to read the entire Bible and actually try and comprehend what it's saying.

> Your obviously are. You need to read the entire
> Bible and actually try and comprehend what it's
> saying.
>

So, what part does he need to comprehend? How cruel the Christian God is? You cna get that from just the first four books of the Bible.

From Genesis:
God likes Abel's dead animals better than Cain's fruits and vegetables. Why? Well, no reason is given, but it probably has something to do with the amount of pain, blood, and gore involved. 4:3-5

God is angry. He decides to destroy all humans, beasts, creeping things, fowls, and "all flesh wherein there is breath of life." He plans to drown them all. 6:7, 17

God repeats his intention to kill "every living substance ... from off the face of the earth." But why does God kill all the innocent animals? What had they done to deserve his wrath? It seems God never gets his fill of tormenting animals. 7:4

God drowns everything that breathes air. From newborn babies to koala bears -- all creatures great and small, the Lord God drowned them all. 7:21-23

Noah kills the "clean beasts" and burns their dead bodies for God. According to 7:8 this would have caused the extinction of all "clean" animals since only two of each were taken onto the ark. "And the Lord smelled a sweet savor." 8:20

God tells Abram to kill some animals for him. The needless slaughter makes God feel better. 15:9-10

Lot refuses to give up his angels to the perverted mob, offering his two "virgin daughters" instead. He tells the bunch of angel rapers to "do unto them [his daughters] as is good in your eyes." This is the same man that is called "just" and "righteous" in 2 Pet.2:7-8. 19:7-8

God kills everyone (men, women, children, infants, newborns) in Sodom and Gomorrah by raining "fire and brimstone from the Lord out of heaven." Well, almost everyone -- he spares the "just and righteous" Lot and his family. 19:24

God orders Abraham to kill Isaac as a burnt offering. Abraham shows his love for God by his willingness to murder his son. But finally, just before Isaac's throat is slit, God provides a goat to kill instead. 22:2-13 Ah, how sweet.

"And Er, Judah's firstborn, was wicked in the sight of the Lord; and the Lord slew him." What did Er do to elicit God's wrath? The Bible doesn't say. Maybe he picked up some sticks on Saturday. 38:7

After God killed Er, Judah tells Onan to "go in unto they brother's wife." But "Onan knew that the seed should not be his; and ... when he went in unto his brother's wife ... he spilled it on the ground.... And the thing which he did displeased the Lord; wherefore he slew him also." This lovely Bible story is seldom read in Sunday School, but it is the basis of many Christian doctrines, including the condemnation of both masturbation and birth control. 38:8-10

So, when you go the website http://www.answersingenesis.org/ Try to keep that in mind.

From Exodus
Moses murders an Egyptian after making sure that no one is looking. 2:11-12

God threatens to kill the Pharaoh's firstborn son. 4:23

God decides to kill Moses because his son had not yet been circumcised. 4:24-26

God will make sure that Pharaoh does not listen to Moses, so that he can kill Egyptians with his armies. 7:4

"For I will at this time send all my plagues upon thine heart, and upon thy servants, and upon thy people; that thou mayest know that there is none like me in all the earth." Who else but the biblical god could be so cruel? 9:14

After God has sufficiently hardened the Pharaoh's heart, he kills all the firstborn Egyptian children. When he was finished "there was not a house where there was not one dead." Finally, he runs out of little babies to kill, so he slaughters the firstborn cattle, too. 12:29

To commemorate the divine massacre of the Egyptian children, Moses instructs the Israelites to "sacrifice to the Lord all that openeth the matrix" -- all the males, that is. God has no use for dead, burnt female bodies. 13:2, 12, 15

"The Lord is a man of war." Indeed, judging from his acts in the Old Testament, he is a vicious warlike monster. 15:3

God gives instructions for killing and burning animals. He says that if we will make such "burnt offerings," he will bless us for it. What kind of mind would be pleased by the killing and burning of innocent animals? 20:24

If an ox gores someone, then both the ox and its owner must die. 21:28-29

"Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live." Thousands of innocent women have suffered excruciating deaths because of this verse. 22:18

"He who sacrificeth unto any god, save unto the Lord only, he shall be utterly destroyed." If this commandment is obeyed, then the four billion people who do not believe in the biblical god must be killed. 22:20

If you make God angry enough, he will kill you and your family with his own sword. 22:24

"The firstborn of thy sons thou shalt give unto me." (As a burnt offering?) 22:29

Moses has some animals killed and their dead bodies burned for God. Then he sprinkles their blood on the altar and on the people. This makes God happy. Um, why? 24:5-8

Get some animals, kill them, chop up their bodies, wave body parts in the air, burn the carcasses, and sprinkle the blood all around -- in precisely the way God tells you. It may well make you sick, but it makes God feel good. And these Christofascists tell us that two dudes kissing is awful. 29:11-37

Have you killed and offered your bullock for a sin offering today? How about the two lambs you are supposed to offer each day? 29:36-39

Wash up or die. 30:20-21 Ever skipped a shower? You're going to Hell!

Those who break the Sabbath are to be executed. 31:14 I guess that includes me, I went shopping today.

From Leviticus

God gives detailed instructions for performing ritualistic animal sacrifices. such bloody rituals must be important to God, judging from the number of times that he repeats their instructions. Indeed the entire first nine chapters of Leviticus can be summarized as follows: Get an animal, kill it, sprinkle the blood around, cut the dead animal into pieces, and burn it for a "sweet savor unto the Lord." Chapters 1 - 9

Be careful what you eat during these animal sacrifices. Don't eat fat or blood -- these are for God. (And he doesn't like to share!) 7:18-27

Wringing off the heads of pigeons for God. 5:8-9

More killing, sprinkling of blood, waiving animal parts, and burning carcasses "before the Lord." 9:8-21

Two of the sons of Aaron "offered strange fire before the Lord" and "there went out fire from the Lord, and devoured them, and they died before the Lord." 10:1-2

If priests misbehave at the tabernacle by uncovering their heads, tearing their clothes, leaving with holy oil on them, or by drinking "wine or strong drink", then God will kill them and send his wrath on "all the people." 10:6-9

God's treatment for leprosy: Get two birds. Kill one. Dip the live bird in the blood of the dead one. Sprinkle the blood on the leper seven times, and then let the blood-soaked bird fly off. Next find a lamb and kill it. Wipe some of its blood on the patient's right ear, thumb, and big toe. Sprinkle seven times with oil and wipe some of the oil on his right ear, thumb and big toe. Repeat. Finally kill a couple doves and offer one for a sin offering and the other for a burnt offering. 14:2-32

God explains the use of scapegoats. It goes like this: Get two goats. Kill one. Wipe, smear, and sprinkle the blood around seven times. Then take the other goat, give it the sins of all the people, and send it off into the wilderness. 16:6-28

"For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall surely be put to death." Couldn't we try spanking first? 20:9

Both parties in adultery shall be executed. 20:10

"And the man that lieth with his father's wife ... both of them shall be put to death." Which? The man and his father? The father and his wife? Or the man and his father's wife? Oh heck, just kill all three. 20:11

If a man "lies" with his daughter-in-law, then both must be killed. 20:12

Homosexuals must be executed. 20:13

If you "lie" with your wife and your mother-in-law (now that sounds fun!), then all three of you must be burned to death. 20:14 Outside of porn and biblical times, when does this happen?

People with "familiar spirits" (witches, fortune tellers, etc.) are to be stoned to death. 20:27

A priest's daughter who "plays the whore" is to be burned to death. 21:9

God gives us more instructions on killing and burning animals. I guess the first nine chapters of Leviticus wasn't enough. He says we must do this because he really likes the smell -- it is "a sweet savour unto the Lord." 23:12-14, 18 God is one sick fudge.

A man curses and blasphemes while disputing with another man. Moses asks God what to do about it. God says that the whole community must stone him to death. "And the children of Israel did as the Lord and Moses commanded." 24:10-23

God describes torments that he has planned for those who displease him. The usual stuff: plagues, burning fevers that will consume the eyes, etc. but he reserves the worst for the little children. He says "ye shall sow your seed in vain, for your enemies shall eat it", "I will send wild beasts among you, which shall rob you of your children", and "ye shall eat the flesh of your sons .. daughters." 26:16-39

From Numbers

Don't touch or "go in to see when the holy things are covered." God kills people who touch or look at uncovered holy things. 4:15, 4:20

"And when the people complained, it displeased the Lord: and the Lord heard it." (He had his hearing aid on.) He then burns the complainers alive. That'll teach them. 11:1

"And wile the flesh [of the quails] was yet between their teeth, ere it was chewed, the wrath of the Lord was kindled against the people, and the Lord smote the people with a very great plague. "The Bible isn't too clear about what these poor folks did to upset God so much; all it says is that they had "lusted." 11:33

God gives yet more instructions for the ritualistic killing of animals. The smell of burning flesh is "a sweet savour unto the Lord." 15:3, 13-14, 24 You know, this is how Gacy, Berkowitz, and the Columbine shooters got started.

The Israelites find a man picking up sticks on the sabbath. God commands them to kill him by throwing rocks at him. 15:32-36 So, God encourages laziness. How Un-American.

Because of a dispute between Korah and Moses, God makes the ground open up and it swallows Korah and his family. And then, just for the hell of it, God has a fire burn 250 men (friends of Korah?) to death. 16:20-49 No wonder Republicans loves this guy.

After God killed Korah, his family, and 250 innocent bystanders, the people complained saying, "ye have killed the people of the Lord." So God, who doesn't take kindly to criticism, sends a plague on the people. And "they that died in the plague were 14,700." 16:41-50 What a dick.

God threatens to kill those who murmur. 17:12-13

According to this verse, it is wise to stay away from holy things and places -- like churches. God will kill you if you get too close. 18:3

God describes again the procedure for ritualistic animal sacrifices. such rituals must be extremely important to God, since he makes their performance a "statute" and "covenant" forever. Why, then don't Bible-believers perform these sacrifices anymore? Don't they realize how God must miss the "sweet savour" of burning flesh? Don't they believe God when he says "forever"? 18:17-19

God's people will kill like a lion and then "drink the blood of the slain." 23:24 So John, how much blood have you drunk in the name of your Lord they God?

When one of the Israelite men brings home a foreign woman, "Phinehas (Aaron's grandson) sees them and throws a spear "through the man .. and the woman through her belly." This act pleases God so much that "the plague was stayed from the children of Israel." But not before 24,000 had died. 25:6-9

"And Nadab and Abihu died when they offered strange fire before the Lord." When you go camping avoid making any unusual fires. 26:61

Under God's direction, Moses' army defeats the Midianites. They kill all the adult males, but take the women and children captive. When Moses learns that they left some live, he angrily says: "Have you saved all the women alive? Kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves." So they went back and did as Moses (and presumably God) instructed, killing everyone except for the virgins. In this way they got 32,000 virgins -- Wow! [Even God gets some of the booty -- including the virgins. (31:28-29)] 31:1-54 28-29 Hear that Al Qaeda memebrs? Your guys only promise you 72 virgins. But the Christian God can snag you 32k.

Why do you never put credit for things you've copied and pasted?

Well in this instance there are a few reasons. 1; there are multiple sources. 2; this is JohnCD we're dealing with here do you really think he'd bother with the link? 3: It was late and I was tired. in fact I went to bed very shortly after posting.

Oh, and "never" is an outright lie. I've cited my sources plenty of times. Not as many times as I should I admit, but setting aside those times I just forget, keep in mind this isn't one of my term papers.

What is there to comprehend? God has advocated all these crimes! It's there in the writing...you'd be a fool to think otherwise!

Excellent

Hey Frosty, how you doing these days? I'm worried that your posts have taken on a non outgoing/interactive character compared to years past. Are you engaged in any lively prospects? While biblical research may have been a good brief fascination, I would think turning it towards rebuttal of beautific or nazi religious visions would become dismally unfulfilling after a time. It sounds like you need to go out and pick some flowers, or set plans to become a tahitian coconut farmer with nightly fire dances.

I know it doesn't translate very weel to this format, but if you could see the look on my face when I take a relgious person's bogus claims (99 times it's a Christian, but I've gone toe to toe with a few Buddhists, some Jews, and even a Satanist (years ago) in my time) you would know that I truly do enjoy it. It may seem awful, but there are worse hobbies.

Well ok then. Do you get any indication that you truly phase them though? I mean certainly most of the information you present had already been with them for decades and was somehow already reconciled in their heads. (which is the disturbing part of it all, to be sure.)

It wasn't so much the battles, as the indulging in all the grim biblical histories in the first place which didn't sound so cheerful. It's like a steady diet of horror movies, no matter what motives you put the subject matter to. It's like concerning yourself with an impending apocalypse rather than taking that as your cue to seize the moment and create a good time while the opportunity still exists. It's like forgetting to dance at the revolution.

> What is there to comprehend? God has advocated all these crimes! It's
> there in the writing...you'd be a fool to think otherwise!

The Bible says in Psalms 14:1 & 53:1 that "A fool says in his heart there is no God." It doesn't take a genius to figure out who the real fool is.

> |> What is there to comprehend? God has advocated
> all these crimes! It's
> |> there in the writing...you'd be a fool to
> think otherwise!
>
> The Bible says in Psalms 14:1 & 53:1 that "A fool
> says in his heart there is no God." It doesn't
> take a genius to figure out who the real fool
> is.

I think James Hoffman put it best.

"Millions of Muslims throughout the world find in the Koran, the assurance that it is the perfect word of God, the creator of the world. It is God speaking to us, in a voice, unchanged and unchanging. The archangel Gabriel give it to Mohamed in his cave. There can be no question that every word of it is true. How can it be false, when so many people believe it that it is true? There is a huge body of literature that tells us about the life of Mohamed and proves, from the point of view of Islam, that he is the last prophet. We have Mohamed's assurance that Jesus was just like him another prophet. Jesus was not divine or the son of god. He was only a man like Mohamed. Mohammed assures us, if we believe otherwise, we will spend eternity in hell. Millions of Moslems know that Mohamed's opinion on this and everything else is infallible. He is the direct messenger of and speaks for God.

Does this worry, you? Are you ready to run out and convert to Islam? If Mohamed was divinely inspired and the Koran is the Word of God, how can we do otherwise? It would be absurd to reject this when millions of Moslems know it is right. The Koran is so perfect that it does not just tell us about God; it also gives us a code of law to live by. It is not a code of law, written by man; it is a gift from Allah, telling us how to live so that salvation will be ours.

What? You do not accept this. You reject the belief of all those millions of Moslems. You say they are making claims that cannot be supported by reason. Without independent documentation, their claims are only the product of an overheated imagination.

If you read this and reject Islam, out of hand look to your own beliefs. Subject them to the same standards you would apply to Islam. Whatever you believe, can your beliefs stand up to the same scrutiny you would apply to Islam.

Now, you know what it is like to be an atheist. If you do not agree with the above, than in the eyes of Moslems, you are in fact, an atheist. As Richard Dawkins says, you and I are not so very different. I just believe in one less God than you do."

> |> What is there to comprehend? God has advocated all these crimes!
> It's
> |> there in the writing...you'd be a fool to think otherwise!
>
> The Bible says in Psalms 14:1 & 53:1 that "A fool says in his heart
> there is no God." It doesn't take a genius to figure out who the
> real fool is.

You're right

Man created God in his own image