He he...yes we were made through nature but God made nature and we can only have our other self, our spiritual self, fully realized through God.

arguer != argument

I agree I go over the line sometimes with the blame the God of the bible posts, but It's hard to always censor myself and it's how I feel. I'll try to at lest keep them less sarcastic and blunt.

As far as repenting for them. If the God of the bible exists I would refuse to repent, because based on my understanding of him, my morals would not allow me to serve him. Not that I would choose to serve the man down under, I would just refuse to choose and let the cards fall where they will.

On free will. Once you limit free will you no longer have free will afaik.

His argument is no good because it's fallacious. It's a false dichotomy.

So you haven't read any of the bible. Yet, you quote it as authority. Well, you quote the translations which suit your politics, anyway.

Here's my point: any translation of the bible you use is a political statement. It's a designed interpretation. The bible, when translated (and it must be, because no one natively speaks the original lanquage), can be translated into anything. Pro-gay, anti-gay. Pro Mary-was-a-virgin, anti-Mary-was-a-virgin. Whatever. And if it can be translated into any political view you want, then it's worthless as authority.

And that's even before arguing about what properly belongs in the bible. After all, the book of revelations isn't in the Greek Orthodox bible.

As to "not needing to read the bible to be a Christian," I think you're left then with "Christian" meaning either "any good person" or "anyone who submits to a Christian church's authority". The first idea being so general that it could include anyone of any other religion, and atheists as well, and the second brings us right back to the "Christianity as political power" problem.

In any case, I think you and others should stop quoting the bible, considering you've never read it.

Then tell me when you've read this bible you respect so much? Tell me how you did that? Studied Greek for many years, did you?

I think you, and others, when you quote the bible, don't have any idea what you're doing. You probably think you've read the bible, and not an opinionated translation. You may even think the bible was written in english (what % of US christians know it wasn't?)

And what's more, even if you admit (because you must) that you've never read the bible, only opinionated, political interpretations, then you'll nonetheless deny that this cripples your ability to use the bible as authority.

Do you understand? No one can intelligently cite the bible as authority because no one, not even someone who can read poorly-written ancient Greek, can do anything other than interpret the bible. And if it can only ever be a matter of interpretation, then you can't say anyone's interpretation is right or wrong.

So, if I can interpret the bible to promote, say, gay marriage, and someone else can interpret it to oppose gay marriage, then the bible can't not rationally be used in the argument for or against gay marriage. Or anything else, for that matter.

IOW, the bible can not fairly be used in argument. So, please, stop. You degrade Jesus.

As to the "hatefulness" charge, that's easy. Christianity (in most of it's political interpretations, afaik) claims that non-believers will go to hell. And that belief is pretty much as hateful as a belief can be.

I thought it was obvious. Of course, I've read the entire bible including the genealogy lists.

As for politics there is no intent to discuss that in my OP or I'd have stated it.

As for Christians I think you should read the Ethiopian story. He is the very first recorded convert and he had the Gospel explained to him. Faith is by hearing. Most people couldn't read for generations and generations yet we still had Christians.

Where are you from, Splendour?

The reason I ask is that "splendour" is usually the British rendering of the world. Even in my Australian bible, "all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor" in Matthew has the American spelling.

I had always assumed you were American.

I am. Now I wish I hadn't spelled it with the "u" I think I prefer the "u" less spelling better. Oh well.

Splendour, unlike others here, although I reject your intellectual level, I respect your sincerity. You truly care, and I think mostly lack the usual hatefulness of dedicated Muslims and Christians.

But you still don't understand: you HAVEN'T read the bible. You've read an opinionated translation. That's all. And the translations are political. And the choice of which material is in the bible was political.

So the bible you've read is a political interpretation of politically chosen documents. And that's all it is. Hardly the voice of God or Jesus.

If you've ever done any translating, you know how tricky it can be, and how necessary it is to inject your opinion into it. So neither you, nor anyone else, can intelligently use the phrase "the bible says..." All you can ever do is use the phrase "one of the possible interpretations of the bible is..."

I agree with you that no needs to read the bible to be a Christian. But I'd add that no one needs to be a member of a church to be a Christian. I'd add that, in fact, no one needs to believe that Jesus was the son of God to be a Christian. No one needs to believe in the hateful Book of Revelations to be a Christian.

In fact I say that you CAN'T believe in the Book of Revelations AND be a Christian.

Well I doubt what disproves the bible for you is what proves it for me.

Politics come into it very little in my estimation.

How can you so completely miss the point of his post?

Why do you want to put these limitations on God?

God is spirit and spirit transcends the literal or the letter every time.

The bible is like a ray of light (thought its really a ray of hope) that cuts across all times, languages, peoples, cultures and generations.

Like a beam of light it can be refracted and seen from many angles but its still spirit or light. What makes the green side of the prism any better than the blue sided prism...I don't know. They are simply all light and it boils down to a matter of personal preference whether you pick blue (the NASB version) or green (the New King James Version).

That book in any version is much much much more similar than it is different. Its our privelege to struggle with it and compare translations to arrive at a better understanding.

I just came across a very interesting reference to the sacred duty of hospitality this time in Wesley's explanatory notes regarding the famous Judges 19 and 20 passages in the Bible. If you read Wesley's explanatory notes you will see the mention made to this sacred obligation as well as many other illuminating notes on this difficult area of biblical text. Also Bethlehemjudah is mentioned and Mount Ephraim. It seems this could also be a foreshadowing of Christianity.

For those Christians interested read 19 and 20: http://www.christnotes.org/commentar...m=wes&b=7&c=19

Benjamin is a very interesting tribe because in addition to Benjamin being the little brother of Joseph the land of the Tribe of Benjamin has a unique position in its placement in the land of Israel: its the shoulder between Judah and Ephraim.


(Note: not an argument post. Just an interesting post for theists that like to share the bible. In spite of what atheists think all of our posts aren't regarding atheism since its not a component of our faith. This is the Religion forum after all.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tribe_of_Benjamin

Can't help but think the sacred duty of hospitality is a metaphor for the Jews belief in mitzvot or the practice of a tradition of lovingkindness. When the practice was upset it resulted in spiritual warfare. A major theme throughout the OT is spiritual warfare.

AAh. Finally I understand Christian free will. It means you are free to make your choices... at the point of God's gun. Do HIS will FREELY (tee hee), or he kills you, tortures your forever, etc.

Isn't free will great! God was nice enough to give you the free will to disobey you. But he kills you if you do.

We'd be better off without freewill.

Sorry this is old and I'm not re-reading the whole thread to address it.

I posted for the Christians in the forum to see the parallel of lovingkindness.

I don't care to try to convince anti-God people of anything any more.

I mainly focus on sharing and discussions with the meek and the truly interested in God. Its really a waste of my energy to engage Nehemiah's Wall troublemakers. I leave that to the Apologetics experts that have an actual interest in making those arguments.

How can the most powerful religion in the history of earth be meek. Never did get that one.

Didn't you read my post?

I'm not interested in overcoming atheist arguments.

It wasn't an argument or question, it was a statement on my lack of understanding of the word meek.

that's fine. The rest of us can discuss how there is no christian free will since God forces you to act at the point of a gun.

If anyone besides Splendour who is up to the task cares to address this quandary, it would be appreciated.

Let's start simple... is it really free will if you have no real choice? To not do as god commands is to die, as Splendour kindly pointed out with the example of Lot's wife... did she really have a choice? Do as God says or he punishes you eternally. If this is free will, how is this valuable? If a person says do as I say or I shoot you in the stomach and watch you bleed to death... are you greatful for the freewill he's giving you?

Most people divide spirit from religion. Therein lies your argument. Its people that like their mighty institutions. God is all about freedom. He makes an offer and people decide whether or not to accept. Some people don't put in enough of their own effort to own their own spirituality so they cop out and become dogmatic religionists or atheists. The road is narrow and hard to find but once upon a time people knew that the hard things to obtain were worth the most. Nowadays they settle for the easy explanation or do away with things all together.

Start your own thread.

If most people divided their spirit from religion, most people would be Deist.

I think history shows by the diversity of religious groups that many forms are possible. It all depends on who's logic was in the driver's seat at the inception of the religion.