What will be more populated, Heaven or Hell?

[Greatest I am]

What will be more populated, Heaven or Hell?

It is said that God could not keep evil out of Heaven. Satan was born there before the creation of the Garden of Eden and was moved there by God as a talking snake.
Evil then followed Adam and Eve and their descendents up to the genocidal flood of God.
The eight survivors of this attempted genocide then somehow sneaked evil back into the world where it happily lives right to this day.
It is unclear why God keeps failing to remove the evil that He brought with Him from Heaven.
Regardless of this question, it looks like Hell is presently quite largely populated as compared to Heaven.
At end time, God will apparently reap the good and cast the evil ones into Hell.
If the majority of us have not yet repented and this would include all other religions that do not follow Jesus, then the numbers heading for Hell will again exceed those going to Heaven.
It seems strange to me that God would be in a small Heaven and that Satan would be master of so many of God’s souls.
To me this makes God look like His philosophy is inferior to Satan’s, if the number of souls in hand is any indication of success that is.
Does any one else think this is a strange outcome to life here or am I reading things wrong?
I end with Satan many and God few. Is this accurate?

Regards
DL

[Primus]

Not that I think either exist.
However what makes you think that God would be the one in charge??? From looking at who appears to have the most influence God just seems a bit like Satans little brother.
Maybe he just gets the ones who would piss off all the Hell-dwellers too much.

[Southwind17]

You're reading things wrong (incorrectly, actually); very wrong (incorrectly, actually)!

[Primus]

Come again?

[Southwind17]

And you're replys it would appear! I understand the that the words are English but still don't quite get what your trying to say. Ah well...

Greatest I Am asked a question. I answered it - honestly!

[Primus]

OK. I think it was the (incorrectly, actually)s that threw me. I've been sat in a room with 25 different bands playing 25 different songs at the same time all afternoon. Does not do wonders for following stuff when you've got a splitting headache :p

[Greatest I am]

Not that I think either exist.
However what makes you think that God would be the one in charge??? From looking at who appears to have the most influence God just seems a bit like Satans little brother.
Maybe he just gets the ones who would piss off all the Hell-dwellers too much.

You may be right.

I usually give God a bit more power than Satan because He seems to boss Satan around in Job.

I was just wondering why God would give Satan dominion over so many at end time virsus so few for Him. Makes Him look like a loser.

Regards
DL

[Primus]

Maybe Satan is the big cheese but God has the better PR guy?

[Southwind17]

I've been sat in a room with 25 different bands playing 25 different songs at the same time all afternoon.

What on Earth would possess one to do that?! BTW: it's "sitting", not "sat", but maybe that's down to the throbbing head too! ;)

[the PC apeman]

Shoel

[Primus]

Unsigned band competition. The waiting room was hell!
My girlfriend always corrects me on the sitting/sat debate. You are of course correct in your grammatical observation there but it more due to being from Lancashire than having a headache. I'm afraid thats just how people speak where I'm from :yikes:

[Rodney]

What will be more populated, Heaven or Hell?
Randi Forum Members: 1% Heaven, 99% Hell
Non-Randi Forum Members: 99% Heaven, 1% Hell ;)

[Tumblehome]

The waiting room was hell!


So you've been there. Were there more people than in heaven? Greatest I Am wants to know.

[SimonD]

You may be right.

I usually give God a bit more power than Satan because He seems to boss Satan around in Job.

I was just wondering why God would give Satan dominion over so many at end time virsus so few for Him. Makes Him look like a loser.

Regards
DL

I always thought that God was tricked into doing Satan's bidding in Job.

The way I remember it Satan goes to God and says "Hey, that Job bloke only likes you 'cause he's got everything". To which God says "I show you, mate" and then goes about beating the crap out of Job.

I can just see the devil laughing to himself and God goes about wasting Job's family, slaves, land et. al.

[Southwind17]

Unsigned band competition. The waiting room was hell!
My girlfriend always corrects me on the sitting/sat debate. You are of course correct in your grammatical observation there but it more due to being from Lancashire than having a headache. I'm afraid thats just how people speak where I'm from :yikes:

Bollocks. I lived in Stockport for six years and was born & bred in Sheffield, so you've got no excuse mate!

Let me guess: Bury or Bolton?

[Furi]

(excluding my personal viewpoint)
Hell would indeed be over populated, for the following reasons

All people before the formation of that particular faith
all people outside of the sphere of influence of that faith
all people within the SOI of faith that subscribed to other faiths
all people within SOI of faith that followed Variances of that faith and therefore not eligible
all Athiests and agnostics
anyone/thing that the faith has decided makes you non eligible to the heaven Health club and spa due to a technicality (suicides Non baptised Infants pets and sentient robots etc)
all people that followed faith to the letter, but with a transgression
people who believe in the faith but because of a transgression realise that their afterlife is now doomed decide to become professional sinners,

People in heaven = The whole of humanity after date of inception of faith within expanding sphere of influence, that managed to live to all teachings of that faith regardless of how they have changed due to social expediancy, God and Jeebus

[Nogbad]

According to Revelation, Lucifer took a third of the stars of heaven with him when he was asked to leave. Presuming heaven and all the Angels were made by God and that the Angels were in heaven and saw God why did they rebel? Why did God make Angels that would turn against him? He also created Man and the same thing happens, so they get booted from Eden.

What is really going on here?

[Tricky]

There will be exactly the same number in each.

[Cold one]

Does it really matter which will have the larger population? Seriously they will be the very similar to whoever is in either one. Heaven and hell are absolutes meaning that they do not have there opposites with which to be measured, without love/hate there is no hate/love so on and so forth. As far as eternal torment goes you wont notice it because without feeling the opposite of torment you wont notice any difference.

[this charming man]

Greatest I am: Why do ask loaded questions?

The question:
"What will be more populated, Heaven or Hell?" is loaded.
you have also asked:
"Why is homosexuality wrong?"; this is also a loaded question.

I am trying to understand where you are coming from.

Do you mean to ask- If there is a heaven and hell, which place do you think will be more populated?

Do you mean to ask- Why do some people think homosexuality wrong?

I ask because I truly want to understand your line of thinking.

It would be unfair of me if I were to ask:

Why is chocolate the best food ever?
or
Why is Joy Division the greatest band to ever play music?

These questions are loaded because I have already determined that chocolate and Joy Division are the best and/or the greatest; people are now basically trapped into answering a question that is erroneous from the start.

Though I may feel the Joy Division is the best, many other people would have a valid argument to the contrary; however, with the way I asked the question, it would be difficult to answer it.

If one were to say:

Joy Division is not the best; this group is, and here is why...

I could respond by saying that is not what I asked....

Again, I pose my question because I would like to know if you simply ask in haste and neglect to make your query in a better manner, or if you have no interest in having a civil discussion, and you just want raise hackles.

[bokonon]

There will be exactly the same number in each.
Zero.

[Tricky]

Zero.
Ah. You did the math.

[Greatest I am]

According to Revelation, Lucifer took a third of the stars of heaven with him when he was asked to leave. Presuming heaven and all the Angels were made by God and that the Angels were in heaven and saw God why did they rebel? Why did God make Angels that would turn against him? He also created Man and the same thing happens, so they get booted from Eden.

What is really going on here?

Not only that but God put that talking snake in the garden to insure that He could do a one-upmanship on Adam and Eve.
Not a fair fight I would say.

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

Does it really matter which will have the larger population? Seriously they will be the very similar to whoever is in either one. Heaven and hell are absolutes meaning that they do not have there opposites with which to be measured, without love/hate there is no hate/love so on and so forth. As far as eternal torment goes you wont notice it because without feeling the opposite of torment you wont notice any difference.

Thank God for that.

Regards
DL

[Furi]

Joy Division were not the greatest band ever, Siouxsie and the banshees were.

You JDNO believing Asabtist are all alike always promoting that Joy division as the only way,

While I can see that Joy Division has certain merits and can offer enjoyment for those that require specific thoughts and comforts offered by JD , compared to the golden throated warbler that is Shazza they pale into insignificance.

[Greatest I am]

Greatest I am: Why do ask loaded questions?

The question:
"What will be more populated, Heaven or Hell?" is loaded.
you have also asked:
"Why is homosexuality wrong?"; this is also a loaded question.

I am trying to understand where you are coming from.

Do you mean to ask- If there is a heaven and hell, which place do you think will be more populated?

Do you mean to ask- Why do some people think homosexuality wrong?

I ask because I truly want to understand your line of thinking.

It would be unfair of me if I were to ask:

Why is chocolate the best food ever?
or
Why is Joy Division the greatest band to ever play music?

These questions are loaded because I have already determined that chocolate and Joy Division are the best and/or the greatest; people are now basically trapped into answering a question that is erroneous from the start.

Though I may feel the Joy Division is the best, many other people would have a valid argument to the contrary; however, with the way I asked the question, it would be difficult to answer it.

If one were to say:

Joy Division is not the best; this group is, and here is why...

I could respond by saying that is not what I asked....

Again, I pose my question because I would like to know if you simply ask in haste and neglect to make your query in a better manner, or if you have no interest in having a civil discussion, and you just want raise hackles.

I refuse to answer because I do not like the way you pose the question.

Regards
DL

[Loss Leader]

Is this accurate?




No.

[this charming man]

I refuse to answer because I do not like the way you pose the question.

Regards
DL

Your non-answer is all the answer I need.

[this charming man]

Joy Division were not the greatest band ever, Siouxsie and the banshees were.

That is not what I asked. ;)

You JDNO believing Asabtist are all alike always promoting that Joy division as the only way,

While I can see that Joy Division has certain merits and can offer enjoyment for those that require specific thoughts and comforts offered by JD , compared to the golden throated warbler that is Shazza they pale into insignificance.

Siouxsie is a PILF.

[kbm99]

Siouxsie is a PILF.

PILF? . . . PILF!?!?

Pensioner?
Principal?
Priest?
Princess?
Pundit?
Protractor?
Performer?
Pony?
Prime Minister?
Parsnip?

. . . . I'm stumped. What, exactly, would you like to _______?

[Bikewer]

Isn't it the Seventh-Day Adventists that maintain only 144,000 thousand of the most faithful get to make it?
With a total church membership in the millions, this seems to me to be an extremely bad bet....

From the Protestant viewpoint, it'd have to be way skewed towards Hell; you have to have that Born Again creds before you're in.
That leaves out whole bunches of people.

[this charming man]

PILF? . . . PILF!?!?

Pensioner?
Principal?
Priest?
Princess?
Pundit?
Protractor?
Performer?
Pony?
Prime Minister?
Parsnip?

. . . . I'm stumped. What, exactly, would you like to _______?

Punk

[Nogbad]

Joy Division were not the greatest band ever, Siouxsie and the banshees were.

You JDNO believing Asabtist are all alike always promoting that Joy division as the only way,

While I can see that Joy Division has certain merits and can offer enjoyment for those that require specific thoughts and comforts offered by JD , compared to the golden throated warbler that is Shazza they pale into insignificance.

Upstarts both - Jethro Tull now there is a band ;)

[this charming man]

Cake please [/izzard]

[H3LL]

What will be more populated, Heaven or Hell?

I think the population is exactly the same as Narnia, Middle Earth, Fairyland and Planet-X.

[Furi]

Upstarts both - Jethro Tull now there is a band ;)

Tull isn't within the same classification, they are beyond mere Band status, there is nothing better that having 4-5 friends drunkenly singing (loose definition) along to Skating away or thick as a brick, while pretending to bounce and play flute where applicable. but for general everyday listening it would be SATB then half man half biscuit, then as the mood dictates after that point.

Tull, Yes, Hawkwind, Floyd, the Nice, ELP, king Crimson etc all enter into the Late night Drunken mellow slot

[NeilC]

Tull isn't within the same classification, they are beyond mere Band status, there is nothing better that having 4-5 friends drunkenly singing (loose definition) along to Skating away or thick as a brick, while pretending to bounce and play flute where applicable. but for general everyday listening it would be SATB then half man half biscuit, then as the mood dictates after that point.



Unless that is you have a life of course ;-)

[Beerina]

You may be right.

I usually give God a bit more power than Satan because He seems to boss Satan around in Job.

I was just wondering why God would give Satan dominion over so many at end time virsus so few for Him. Makes Him look like a loser.

Regards
DL


Remember when the US was taking out Saddam, and that Baghdad Bob (http://www.welovetheiraqiinformationminister.com/) kept saying, "No, the Americans are not right outside Baghdad. We are beating them back."?

It's possible Yahweh is losing this war, and all Job and other books (especially Revelation) are nothing more than war propaganda by the evil side, God.

Think about it. Satan wanted you to have knowledge of good and evil. God did not. It is God who condemns most of humanity to be tortured for ever and ever, for no other reason than that they didn't believe in him, or chose not to follow him if they did. These are the actions of a dictator.

[Greatest I am]

No.

Enlighten us.

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

Isn't it the Seventh-Day Adventists that maintain only 144,000 thousand of the most faithful get to make it?
With a total church membership in the millions, this seems to me to be an extremely bad bet....

From the Protestant viewpoint, it'd have to be way skewed towards Hell; you have to have that Born Again creds before you're in.
That leaves out whole bunches of people.

The 144,000 are virgins.

Who would want to follow people who have no reproductive tendencies.
This would be the same as following homosexuals. They share this same trait.

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

Remember when the US was taking out Saddam, and that Baghdad Bob (http://www.welovetheiraqiinformationminister.com/) kept saying, "No, the Americans are not right outside Baghdad. We are beating them back."?

It's possible Yahweh is losing this war, and all Job and other books (especially Revelation) are nothing more than war propaganda by the evil side, God.

Think about it. Satan wanted you to have knowledge of good and evil. God did not. It is God who condemns most of humanity to be tortured for ever and ever, for no other reason than that they didn't believe in him, or chose not to follow him if they did. These are the actions of a dictator.

Or worst.

I believe that God wanted us to know why we follow Him.
To know why we must know good and evil.
Things seem to be going along just the way He wants.

Regards
DL

[this charming man]

The 144,000 are virgins.

Who would want to follow people who have no reproductive tendencies.
This would be the same as following homosexuals. They share this same trait.

Regards
DL


It seems you are ignorant of the fact that there are many gay couples that desire to have children whether biological or adopted.

[outofmymind033]

What will be more populated, Heaven or Hell?

To me this makes God look like His philosophy is inferior to Satan’s, if the number of souls in hand is any indication of success that is.




God chooses where souls go, it is all up to him, Satan has no control.
How does that make God inferior?

[Primus]

Bollocks. I lived in Stockport for six years and was born & bred in Sheffield, so you've got no excuse mate!

Let me guess: Bury or Bolton?

Ha...close...Blackpool!
It could have been worse. I could have said "I were sat in a waiting room" However I hate it when people make a concious effort to type in dialect. Especially if they try and type in scottish or geordie!

[Primus]

Bollocks. I lived in Stockport for six years and was born & bred in Sheffield, so you've got no excuse mate!

Let me guess: Bury or Bolton?

Ha...close...Blackpool!
It could have been worse. I could have said "I were sat in a waiting room" However I hate it when people make a concious effort to type in dialect. Especially if they try and type in scottish or geordie!

[This Guy]

Haven't read any of the other post (including the OP). Just giving my answer to the question.

How many people can fit in an imaginary place?

My guess is they will each have the exact same number, and it will be less than 1.

Do I win?

[Tricky]

Haven't read any of the other post (including the OP). Just giving my answer to the question.

How many people can fit in an imaginary place?

My guess is they will each have the exact same number, and it will be less than 1.

Do I win?
It's been done.
There will be exactly the same number in each.
Zero.
Ah. You did the math.

[This Guy]

It's been done.

That mean I don't win? :(

;)

I figured I wasn't the first to say it, but wanted to get my 2 cents worth in anyway :)

[Tricky]

That mean I don't win? :(

;)

I figured I wasn't the first to say it, but wanted to get my 2 cents worth in anyway :)
Well, "great minds..." an' all that.;)

[Greatest I am]

It seems you are ignorant of the fact that there are many gay couples that desire to have children whether biological or adopted.

True. I should have used the word, some.

This does not take away the fact that adult virgins would be a weird group to be closer to God than any other.Why would God prefer virgins?
Why the big interest in genitalia?

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

God chooses where souls go, it is all up to him, Satan has no control.
How does that make God inferior?

It makes His philosophy inferior if Satan' s can gather more of God's souls than God Himself.

He looked better than Satan in heaven by only losing 1/3 of the angels.
To lose more than 50% of souls would make Him a loser in the overall.

Regards
DL

[Cold one]

God chooses where souls go, it is all up to him, Satan has no control.

Actually I think according to the bible satan does have more control as to who goes where even if he isn't the one guarding the door. Satan seems to be the one that is going around actively recruiting (causing people to sin, offering temptation...) therefore controlling who "wants" to go to heaven.

[jsiv]

According to Mohammed, 99% of the people in hell are women.


Food for thought!!

[bokonon]

Why the big interest in genitalia?


Genesis 17:10-11
This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised.
And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you.

Pity poor Abraham, when the word came down, and he was circumcised at the age of 99.

God sure knows how to get his freak on.

[bokonon]

According to Mohammed, 99% of the people in hell are women.
Food for thought!!
I'm signing up for that cruise.

[Esperdome]

From the Principia Discordia (http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~tilt/principia/body.html);

The Hell Law says that Hell is reserved exclusively for them that believe in
it. Further, the lowest Rung in Hell is reserved for them that believe in
it on the supposition that they'll go there if they don't.
HBT; The Gospel According to Fred, 3:1

[Radrook]

The 144,000 are virgins.

Who would want to follow people who have no reproductive tendencies.
This would be the same as following homosexuals. They share this same trait.

Regards
DL

The word "virgin," in this case and many pother cases is used to represent moral purity. It was used that way in the OT and continued to be used that way in the NT. It has nothing to do with physical sexual relations. The church itself is spoken of as being a pure Bride in its relationship with Jesus.


2 Corinthians 11:2
For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ.

[Olowkow]

The word "virgin," in this case and many pother cases is used to represent moral purity. It was used that way in the OT and continued to be used that way in the NT. It has nothing to do with physical sexual relations. The church itself is spoken of as being a pure Bride in its relationship with Jesus.


So what about "virgin birth"? Mary was morally pure, not a virgin?

[ceo_esq]

So what about "virgin birth"? Mary was morally pure, not a virgin?

Mary may or may not have been morally pure, but Matthew does say that Joseph "knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son". At any rate, the OT wasn't written in the same language as the NT, and strictly speaking the word "virgin" doesn't appear in either of them except in English translations.

[Radrook]

These lexicons provide the original words meaning virgin in ancient Hebrew and koine Greek.

Excerpt


The Old Testament Hebrew Lexicon

Found 3 entries matching: Virgin
English Translation Original Word Transliterated Word
01330 virgin hlwtb b@thuwlah
01331 virginity ~ylwtb b@thuwliym
05959 virgin hml[ `almah
http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/OldTestamentHebrew/heb.cgi?search=Virgin&version=kjv&type=eng&submit=Find



The New Testament Greek Lexicon

Found 2 entries matching: virgin English Translation Original Word Transliterated Word
3932 virginity parqeniva parthenia
3933 virgin parqevnoß parthenos

http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/NewTestamentGreek/grk.cgi?search=virgin&version=kjv&type=eng&submit=Find [

[Puppycow]

In one of the episodes of South Park (or was it the movie) they compared the populations of Heaven and Hell. Each had a sign outside saying "Welcome to [Heaven or Hell], Population: X"
Hell's population was some huge number and rising fast, while Heaven's was some puny number, a couple thousand or so (can't remember exactly).

[halofish2000]

Don't think it's a numbers game. Thoughout the Old and New Testaments God preserves a "remnant"...Noah and his family, the 7,000 that had not bowed to baal. the 50,000 that returned from captivity.

[Tumblehome]

The word "virgin," in this case and many pother cases is used to represent moral purity. It was used that way in the OT and continued to be used that way in the NT. It has nothing to do with physical sexual relations. The church itself is spoken of as being a pure Bride in its relationship with Jesus.


So the Bible isn't meant to be taken literally?

[Southwind17]

According to Mohammed, 99% of the people in hell are women.

Food for thought!!

Statistics can be very misleading. You do realize, for example, don't you, that the average person has only one foot, if you round down? Did Mohammed physically count all the inhabitants, presumably during his last visit (or has he now taken up residence there himself?!).

[BoogieWoogieWookie]

1000000000i in heaven
2000000000i in hell

[Furi]

Statistics can be very misleading. You do realize, for example, don't you, that the average person has only one foot, if you round down? Did Mohammed physically count all the inhabitants, presumably during his last visit (or has he now taken up residence there himself?!).

even without rounding to the nearest whole number

95% of people have more than the average number of eyes.
82% of people have 3 toes
90.7% of males have one testicle
(and none of these stats are made up)

[Southwind17]

even without rounding to the nearest whole number

95% of people have more than the average number of eyes.
82% of people have 3 toes
90.7% of males have one testicle
(and none of these stats are made up)

I'm dubious about these stats; where are they from?

1:20 "cyclopses" seems too many.
Nearly 1:5 three-toed people (either or both feet accounted for) seems too many.
Nearly 1:10 males with only one testicle seems too many.

[Furi]

I'm dubious about these stats; where are they from?

1:20 "cyclopses" seems too many.
Nearly 1:5 three-toed people (either or both feet accounted for) seems too many.
Nearly 1:10 males with only one testicle seems too many.

Any single person in the population having only 1 eye renders the average <2
in a distribution curve showing number of toes or per populace 82% easily had a minimum of 3 toes, likewise in a survey of males over 90% had a minimum of one nut.

[Puppycow]

Hey, here it is online! The South Park Movie! At about 20 minutes into the movie Kenny dies and goes to Hell, but just before that he floats up to heaven and is rejected. The sign says Population: 1656. So now you have a very precise answer. The population of hell was some number greater than 100 billion, and included Hitler, George Burns and Gandhi.
http://www.justsouthpark.com/movies/

[Radrook]

So the Bible isn't meant to be taken literally?

That would be a hasty and unwarranted generalization based on scanty unrepresentative
evidence.

[This Guy]

That would be a hasty and unwarranted generalization based on scanty unrepresentative
evidence.

I agree! The bible should be taken literally.

I think Matthew 21 is a perfect example of why the bible should be taken absolutely literally:

Matthew 21 (KJV)

1 And when they drew nigh unto Jerusalem, and were come to Bethphage, unto the mount of Olives, then sent Jesus two disciples,

2 Saying unto them, Go into the village over against you, and straightway ye shall find an ass tied, and a colt with her: loose them, and bring them unto me.

3 And if any man say ought unto you, ye shall say, The Lord hath need of them; and straightway he will send them.

4 All this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying,

5 Tell ye the daughter of Sion, Behold, thy King cometh unto thee, meek, and sitting upon an ass, and a colt the foal of an ass.

6 And the disciples went, and did as Jesus commanded them,

7 And brought the ass, and the colt, and put on them their clothes, and they set him thereon.

(Bolding mine. Ridiculousness in the source)

Because, after all, we all know Jesus was really a Rodeo Trick Rider!

[Radrook]

I agree! The bible should be taken literally.

I think Matthew 21 is a perfect example of why the bible should be taken absolutely literally:

Matthew 21 (KJV)

1 And when they drew nigh unto Jerusalem, and were come to Bethphage, unto the mount of Olives, then sent Jesus two disciples,

2 Saying unto them, Go into the village over against you, and straightway ye shall find an ass tied, and a colt with her: loose them, and bring them unto me.

3 And if any man say ought unto you, ye shall say, The Lord hath need of them; and straightway he will send them.

4 All this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying,

5 Tell ye the daughter of Sion, Behold, thy King cometh unto thee, meek, and sitting upon an ass, and a colt the foal of an ass.

6 And the disciples went, and did as Jesus commanded them,

7 And brought the ass, and the colt, and put on them their clothes, and they set him thereon.

(Bolding mine. Ridiculousness in the source)

Because, after all, we all know Jesus was really a Rodeo Trick Rider!

I see nothing new nor unexplanable in your example and would gladly have delved into an explanation were it not for your general tone.

That the entire Bible should be taken literally is your narrow-minded opinion not mine. Neither was I intending to deprive you nor anyone else here of their views but was merely responding to a question-so all the gratuitous ridicule you enthusiastically hurl in my general ditection based on a misguided sense of duty is really irrelevant to my post.

BTW

Misrepresentation of another person's views isn't a very convincing way to proceed. It is too obvious, smacks of desperation, and illogical fanatism. So if you really want to convince others to join you in your contempt for anything religious-I suggest thast you change your modus operandi. : )

[Furi]

That the entire Bible should be taken literally is your narrow-minded opinion not mine.

OK now I am getting confuzzled (easy to do it's after lunch and I need a cigarette and about 250mg of caffeine)

We ARE supposed to take the bible literally when you point out the parts that tells us what to do or anything about creation, history of the planet, origin of the species, or any moral rules etc

We ARE NOT supposed to take it literally where it contains terms or text that can be interpreted as logically inconsistant.

[Greatest I am]

The word "virgin," in this case and many pother cases is used to represent moral purity. It was used that way in the OT and continued to be used that way in the NT. It has nothing to do with physical sexual relations. The church itself is spoken of as being a pure Bride in its relationship with Jesus.


2 Corinthians 11:2
For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ.

We all know how pure the Church is.
Not at all.

Is the Christ you refer to the same one that came from an incestuous relationship with Mary?

Regards
DL

[This Guy]

I see nothing new nor unexplanable in your example and would gladly have delved into an explanation were it not for your general tone.

SNIP

I beg your pardon.

I took your comment - "That would be a hasty and unwarranted generalization based on scanty unrepresentative evidence.", in response to "So the Bible isn't meant to be taken literally?" to mean you felt the bible should be taken literally.

But my reading skills are obviously lacking.

ETA: The explanation is that the writer of Mathew was not familiar with Old Testament Hebrew. As he searched the OT for any event he could twist into a "prophesy", he ran across -

Zechariah 9:9 (KJV)

9 Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; shout, O daughter of Jerusalem: behold, thy King cometh unto thee: he is just, and having salvation; lowly, and riding upon an ass, and upon a colt the foal of an ass.

But was not familiar with the OT use of the word "and" with the same meaning as "even" (see some of the newer translations for a better wording of Zechariah 9:9).

[Greatest I am]

Don't think it's a numbers game. Thoughout the Old and New Testaments God preserves a "remnant"...Noah and his family, the 7,000 that had not bowed to baal. the 50,000 that returned from captivity.

If God is such a poor reaper of what He sows he might try fishing so that His family does not starve.

Regards
DL

[Radrook]

We all know how pure the Church is.
Not at all.

Is the Christ you refer to the same one that came from an incestuous relationship with Mary?

Regards
DL


Again. you are entitled to your opinions-which-after all, is all they are-opinions. I personally have no reason to doubt Mary's or Jesus' chastity as you obviously do. So, I guess we differ in that area. As for the Church's purity, I think that your opinion is based on a misunderstanding of what really constitutes the church. Obviously you identify the Church with people who claim to be the church but who behave like devils. On the other hand, the Bible identifies it with those who behave in a morally upright way. So I guess you and the Bible differ in that area as well. In any case, you are quote welcomed to reject and go about your own way with your beliefs, that's totally OK by me. But a bit of attempted clarification is good sometimes in order to reduce
misunderstandings based on one's imagination or predisposition to conclude without proper investigation.

BTW

The Bible condemns the incest you mention.

Leviticus 18:6-18 (King James Version)

7The nakedness of thy father, or the nakedness of thy mother, shalt thou not uncover: she is thy mother; thou shalt not uncover her nakedness.

[Furi]

The Bible condemns incest.

at what level of relation does the bible stop you from doing your relation offspring, was it before or after populating the planet (twice) with all that begatting within a limited gene pool?

*I haven't had a good begatting in ages, even if nothing is actual begot*

[Nogbad]

Don't think it's a numbers game. Thoughout the Old and New Testaments God preserves a "remnant"...Noah and his family, the 7,000 that had not bowed to baal. the 50,000 that returned from captivity.

So the 144,000 in Revelation might be the actual target and 99.9999999999999% of have squat chance of getting in?

[Greatest I am]

at what level of relation does the bible stop you from doing your relation offspring, was it before or after populating the planet (twice) with all that begatting within a limited gene pool?

*I haven't had a good begatting in ages, even if nothing is actual begot*

Fundamentals tell me that God’s laws change with the circumstances.
His laws can flex and twist the same way their logic can.
That’s what you get for believing in talking snakes.

Regards
DL

[Southwind17]

Any single person in the population having only 1 eye renders the average <2

I understand that, hence my post to which you responded! :rolleyes:
But 1:20? I don't think so. Again, where are you getting your stats from?

in a distribution curve showing number of toes or per populace 82% easily had a minimum of 3 toes, likewise in a survey of males over 90% had a minimum of one nut.

Oh, so your statistics should really have been posted as:

82% of people have at least 3 toes
90.7% of males have at least one testicle

This is very different from what you originally posted.

[Furi]

I just missed at least out of each stat, you are correct, it was intentional but did not invalidate the stat if the occurance of monocular peops is only 1 in a million (through either birth or surgery) then the arithmetic mean is < 2 so 95% of people do have more than the average number of eyes and really did not require the explanation.

I just used a little constructive language and omissions when entering the stat to fit the argument I wished to make (not that that ever happens when statistics are quoted :p) which is why I think there should be a growly statistician smiley for cite your source.

I just find it annoying when I see figures printed for apparant acceptance of ideals or without context or ability to investigate the figures, these also tend to be stats or figures that get bounced around so quickly and eagerly that they feel refering back to a post that also quoted them is validation.

~99% of my posts are made with underlying light hearted intentions

[Southwind17]

I just missed at least out of each stat, you are correct, it was intentional but did not invalidate the stat if the occurance of monocular peops is only 1 in a million (through either birth or surgery) then the arithmetic mean is < 2 so 95% of people do have more than the average number of eyes and really did not require the explanation.

But it does invalidate the stat. Let's say the occurence was only 1 in a million as you suggest (which I'm sure it isn't), then the figure should be 99.9999%. 99.9999% is certainly not the same as 95%. Unless you write "at least" the stat pertains to a completely different circumstance.

I just used a little constructive language and omissions when entering the stat to fit the argument I wished to make (not that that ever happens when statistics are quoted :p) which is why I think there should be a growly statistician smiley for cite your source.

No, you didn't just do that. In fact, you didn't do that at all. The "argument" and the stats that you cite do not correspond.

I just find it annoying when I see figures printed for apparant acceptance of ideals or without context or ability to investigate the figures, these also tend to be stats or figures that get bounced around so quickly and eagerly that they feel refering back to a post that also quoted them is validation.

I suggest you channel your annoyance into interrogating the stats or figures. Clever manipulation of stats is different from the superficial errors manifest in the way you presented yours in this thread, but can be revealed often with only a little more intellectual effort.

~99% of my posts are made with underlying light hearted intentions

Noted, but that doesn't excuse errors and omissions. ;)

[Tumblehome]

That would be a hasty and unwarranted generalization based on scanty unrepresentative evidence.


No, it was a question, to which I was hoping to get an answer other than a hasty and unwarranted generalization based on scanty unrepresentative evidence. If you think one story should be taken as metaphor, it's only natural to ask if the whole Bible should be as well.

For the record, I like the stories in the Bible when they're read as metaphor. They tell a lot about human nature, and do it rather poetically for the most part. And a lot of the poetry comes from the use of supernatural events. What better way to illustrate the point that Jesus is with us at all times, even during a storm at sea, than to metaphorically have him walk out on the water to comfort the terrified sailors. The Bible's authors were true artists.

Accepting the supernatural events as literally true cheapens that artistry. The authors put all that imagination and creativity into their work, and people come along and imply they were simply recording events. Oy vey! I think they'd be justifiably offended by today's biblical literalists.

One more question regarding the virgin birth (if it's not too much to ask ;)): Why does God treat sex as dirty? In my experience, it's been pretty healthy. On the other side of the coin, priests demonstrate regularly that denying themselves sex for a lifetime is unrealistic and unhealthy, not to mention unnatural. Yet women are considered impure merely for following their biological imperative.

[DmKrispin]

Yet women are considered impure merely for following their biological imperative.

Aw, heck, women are a lot more than simply "impure for wanting sex". Not only are they not worth as much as men, they are also horribly unclean (and not to be touched at all) during menstruation and after childbirth. It's especially important to note that women are to be subserviant in all things to men and are treated as property in many cases. Women are, of course, to be silent in church and repent endlessly for being the cause of all human suffering. Yeah, the "holy" bible is decidely unkind to womankind.

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/women/long.html

[Cold one]

Actually Southwind the point he was trying to make I believe is that people read and interpret what they read (especially when it comes to stats) whatever they want to read.

The fact that at least was left out does not mean that you can put in the word only when you want to. The stats listed by Furi (assuming the math is correct) are valid.

[Cold one]

Yeah, the "holy" bible is decidely unkind to womankind.[/URL]

What do you expect when it was assembled/written with the express purpose of subjugating and controlling the population.

[Furi]

Actually Southwind the point he was trying to make I believe is that people read and interpret what they read (especially when it comes to stats) whatever they want to read.

The fact that at least was left out does not mean that you can put in the word only when you want to. The stats listed by Furi (assuming the math is correct) are valid.

Quite true, I did not make any qualification to the figure that only or exactly, I didn't even use approximately, or even "extrapolating figures collected from a sample of 42 people that work for the data services group, it was found that:".

The addition of at least would clarify the points and also increase the accuracy of the statement, but that wouldn't have assisted my point (and also southwinds), it was mostly to state that although the figures are rarely changed, the conclusions drawn get massaged by peops and groups and piddling about with language to produce the desired result is the most common method. (even if it is not representative of the sample)

I work in a data gathering centre so I occasionally amuse myself with the interpretations that get published from our collected figures (although they are available should anyone question them, we receive very few enquiries for validation or full figures)

As it is just after lunchtime, some quick lunch time based statistic statements, out of immediate colleagues 12 of them bring in sandwiches, I enquired as to their flavour of sandwich today via email (what lunch? is a common work email during quiet time).

using these figures and historic email data together with some constructive methods I have seen and some fictional publishing sources. all the following statements are valid.

33% of people will not provide accurate or complete data when asked, (Data Services Group weekly bulletin)

a recent workplace survey found that over 95% of staff that responded to the poll either brought lunch in or ate cold sandwiches in work, therefore is the continuation of the work canteen producing hot meals a waste of resources, (Departmental Funding Review Proposal)

Government statistics proove Ham is the most popular sandwich filling choice accounting for nearly 66% of all sandwiches, (Pig Farmer times)

no-one in a recent survey of government workers listed Jam as a sandwich filling choice, (eatmorefruit.com)

official statistics show 75% of regular sandwich eaters use wholemeal sliced bread (Bran Matters)

official statistics show 80% of regular sandwich eaters use white seedless rolls (Baking Review)

35% of respondants had a vegan or vegetarian lunch, the work canteen should increase the number of options accordingly (Vegetarian colleague at departmental canteen funding review meeting)

Cous-Cous is the New Rice (pastaforhealth.co.uk)

Cheese more popular today than ever before, (milk marketing Board statement)

according to a recent government poll 66% of people had vegan sandwich fillings, it is disgraceful that my local butty bar only offer 3 vegan options out of 46 types of sandwich. it's a disgrace, I have attached the poll details so that this BigFarmer oppression is brought to light, yours outraged Militant Millicent, (Vegan Activist Issue 43, letters to the editor)

recent investigations show that all sandwiches contain animal derivatives, 100% of all sandwiches!!!eleventy1! recent polls show 66% of all sandwiches are supposedly vegan (source VA issue 43), it is totally unacceptable that people are being FORCED to eat animal products against their will. Not one person surveyed expressed a concern over this, the vegans that where asked didn't even know, we should picket Greggs to raise awareness to this issue (secret PETA affiliated fundy meeting)

[/derail]

[Greatest I am]

Actually I think according to the bible satan does have more control as to who goes where even if he isn't the one guarding the door. Satan seems to be the one that is going around actively recruiting (causing people to sin, offering temptation...) therefore controlling who "wants" to go to heaven.

Job clearly shows that God controls who Satan will pester. God is the control of the world as well as Hell. He, after all, created it.

Regards
DL

[Deus Ex Machina]

well this is a simple exercise in logic.

1) There is no religion that embraces the heaven/hell paradigm that contains a majority of the world's population. Of the religions "of the book" probably the Catholics are the biggest and they, at best, cover what, 15% of the worlds population?

2) AS each of them is "exclusionary" ie - if you are not with us you are hell bent then that means from the get go that the majority of the population throughout History is going to hell (in some sort of handbasket I presume).

3) And that leaves two possibilities - Hell is finite in size and is continuing to be filled with ever more souls which would make it hotter than hell or Hell is expanding infinitely and everything is going to hell. (with apologies for the plagiarism)

[Cold one]

Job clearly shows that God controls who Satan will pester.

It makes His philosophy inferior if Satan' s can gather more of God's souls than God Himself.

Going by the first then the second is not right.

Going by the second makes the first not right.

And about Job it does not say that god controls satan merely that he allowed his defence of Job (at satan's urging no less, a little bit of the divine getting hustled?) to drop in order to allow satan to tempt him. The fact that satan is unsuccessfull is not really of any consequence in regards to who controls who.

[Greatest I am]

Going by the first then the second is not right.

Going by the second makes the first not right.

And about Job it does not say that god controls satan merely that he allowed his defence of Job (at satan's urging no less, a little bit of the divine getting hustled?) to drop in order to allow satan to tempt him. The fact that satan is unsuccessfull is not really of any consequence in regards to who controls who.

If heaven is home and Satan is in power then he should have cast God out, not the other way around.
If God created Satan then I think we can safely say that He could uncreate him as required.

Regards
DL

[Cold one]

If heaven is home and Satan is in power then he should have cast God out, not the other way around.
If God created Satan then I think we can safely say that He could uncreate him as required.

This I find rather odd. Using the home analogy, when god kicked him out he relinquished his control of satan. If you are an imortal with no means of dying and you create another with the same properties how can you then unmake said being.
The reply would have to be that god is all powerfull, or that angels are not god.

God being all powerful, (and i fall on this argument because it is a good one) can he create something that he cannot do, ie create a rock he cannot lift.

Angels not being replications of god however is a kind of wierd thought, god created angels first, then realized that angels weren't fun and created man. Why would god have created man in his own image and not the angels? Isn't it reasonable to think that god created something just like himself first and then created something that was a little less?

[Greatest I am]

This I find rather odd. Using the home analogy, when god kicked him out he relinquished his control of satan. If you are an imortal with no means of dying and you create another with the same properties how can you then unmake said being.
The reply would have to be that god is all powerfull, or that angels are not god.

God being all powerful, (and i fall on this argument because it is a good one) can he create something that he cannot do, ie create a rock he cannot lift.

Angels not being replications of god however is a kind of wierd thought, god created angels first, then realized that angels weren't fun and created man. Why would god have created man in his own image and not the angels? Isn't it reasonable to think that god created something just like himself first and then created something that was a little less?

Let me reboot my language for this.
I do not read the Bible literally but do use, for brevity, words like angel and Satan etc.

Angels have no reality and are just good notions and ideas.
Satan is just a catch all word to represent evil ideas and notions.
If God has any messages for us, He will deliver them Himself and has no need for go betweens.
In reality there is God and knowledge of good and evil. There are also real good things and evil things.

We are told to go out and reproduce and learn of good and evil.
We do both well and thus, God is pleased and allows things to carry on.
No angels, no demons, no talking snakes or fish that spit out people after three days.

Keep things logical and you will eventually answer all questions.
Believe in weird and supernatural creatures and you are lost.

Regards
DL

[Cold one]

Man DL you sure are a buzz kill this was kinda fun debating about the ideas behind a work of fiction, but then you just had to go and bring reality into it.

[Greatest I am]

Man DL you sure are a buzz kill this was kinda fun debating about the ideas behind a work of fiction, but then you just had to go and bring reality into it.

Coming down is never as good as going up but we all got to get back to reality some time.

Regards
DL

[Tumblehome]

Where's Radbrook?

[Tumblehome]

Aw, heck, women are a lot more than simply "impure for wanting sex". Not only are they not worth as much as men, they are also horribly unclean (and not to be touched at all) during menstruation and after childbirth. It's especially important to note that women are to be subserviant in all things to men and are treated as property in many cases. Women are, of course, to be silent in church and repent endlessly for being the cause of all human suffering. Yeah, the "holy" bible is decidely unkind to womankind.

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/women/long.html


The bible is unkind to all of humanity, but does seem to single out women for special treatment. You'd almost think God was afraid of the distaff side. Freud would have a field day with Him.

I'd like to take this opportunity to express my profound gratitude to women for disregarding the bitter opinions of a repressed, spiteful old curmudgeon, and going ahead and doing what comes natural.

[Radrook]

Fundamentals tell me that God’s laws change with the circumstances.
His laws can flex and twist the same way their logic can.
That’s what you get for believing in talking snakes.

Regards
DL


Can you please give one example of a law a fundamentalist said changed because circumstances changed?

Also, no Bible student worth his salt believes that it was merely a snake that talked in Eden.


Revelation 12:9
And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.

Revelation 20:2
And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years,

[Radrook]

No, it was a question, to which I was hoping to get an answer other than a hasty and unwarranted generalization based on scanty unrepresentative evidence. If you think one story should be taken as metaphor, it's only natural to ask if the whole Bible should be as well.

It isn't the type of question expected from a person who has read the Bible.


For the record, I like the stories in the Bible when they're read as metaphor. They tell a lot about human nature, and do it rather poetically for the most part. And a lot of the poetry comes from the use of supernatural events. What better way to illustrate the point that Jesus is with us at all times, even during a storm at sea, than to metaphorically have him walk out on the water to comfort the terrified sailors. The Bible's authors were true artists.
Accepting the supernatural events as literally true cheapens that artistry. The authors put all that imagination and creativity into their work, and people come along and imply they were simply recording events. Oy vey! I think they'd be justifiably offended by today's biblical literalists.


The Bible doesn't lend itself to that kind of arbitrary interpretation since its writings include the historical, poetical, prophetic instructional, as well as the occasional metaphorical, which when it does occur can is easily identified as such and is never in any danger of being confused with the other types of writings.



One more question regarding the virgin birth (if it's not too much to ask ;)): Why does God treat sex as dirty? In my experience, it's been pretty healthy. On the other side of the coin, priests demonstrate regularly that denying themselves sex for a lifetime is unrealistic and unhealthy, not to mention unnatural. Yet women are considered impure merely for following their biological imperative.

Where does it say sex is dirty? God created the sexes and the idea of sex relations. In fact, he encourages sex relations within the bonds of matrimony.

Proverbs 5

18Let thy fountain be blessed: and rejoice with the wife of thy youth.

19Let her be as the loving hind and pleasant roe; let her breasts satisfy thee at all times; and be thou ravished always with her love.

20And why wilt thou, my son, be ravished with a strange woman, and embrace the bosom of a stranger?

1 Corinthians 7:9
But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.
=================================================


So you might be identifying sex with prohibitions against adultery and fornication, bestiality or sodomy and incest.


Proverbs 6:32
But whoso committeth adultery with a woman lacketh understanding: he that doeth it destroyeth his own soul.

1 Thessalonians 4:3
For this is the will of God, even your sanctification, that ye should abstain from fornication:

Deuteronomy 27:21
Cursed be he that lieth with any manner of beast. And all the people shall say, Amen.

Leviticus 18:22
Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind:....
==================================================

Neither does the Bible command anyone to remain celibate. Under law priests had the right to marry.

[/b]Luke[/b] 1:5
THERE was in the days of Herod, the king of Judaea, a certain priest named Zacharias, ....and his wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elisabeth.

First century Christian ministers were told to be husbands of one wife.

1 Timothy 3:2
A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife,vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;

1 Timothy 3:12
Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife,ruling their children and their own houses well.
==============================================

So priest celibacy is a non-biblical idea. In fact required celibacy is considered one of the lies motivated by hipocrisy.


1Timothy 4:2-4

2Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;

3Forbidding to marry,and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.

[Greatest I am]

Can you please give one example of a law a fundamentalist said changed because circumstances changed?

Incest. Fundamentals tell me that it was allowed in the beginning with Adams children and for Him and Eve as well. Later it was outlawed.



Also, no Bible student worth his salt believes that it was merely a snake that talked in Eden.

Tell that to fundamentals. i know there are no talking snakes or even a Satan for that mater. The word Satan is a catch all term for evil notions and ideas as well as all the woes of the world.



Revelation 12:9
And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.

Revelation 20:2
And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years,

If all of God's works are perfect, what would he need with a hell.All souls are perfect.

Regards
DL

[Supercharts]

Getting back to the original question.
I think it depends on whether Heaven or Hell has the larger Starbucks.

[Radrook]

Yes, I am aware that humans were allowed to marry within family circles at first because there was little choice. Additionally, we were closer to perfection then and the tendencies for genetically caused diseases due to interbreeding were not as prominent. The point is that the changing had a good reason and wasn't arbitrary as some who read your statement might conclude.

Tell that to fundamentals. i know there are no talking snakes or even a Satan for that mater. The word Satan is a catch all term for evil notions and ideas as well as all the woes of the world.


OK. But to refer to it as a mere snake is a misrepresentation of Christian beliefs, So I was merely trying to clarify that it isn't a CHristian belief as your comment seems to indicate.
As for the word Satan, the Bible uses the word to refer to a rebel angel and does not use it as simply an idea for evil things.

Even Jesus specificallly referred to him by that name when being tempted by him.


Luke 4:8
And Jesus answered and said unto him, Get thee behind me, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.

He is depicted as conversing with God.

Job2:1
Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them to present himself before the LORD.
2
And the LORD said unto Satan, From whence comest thou? And Satan answered the LORD, and said, From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it.

The above isn't meant to convince you or change your mind since I know that you do not consider the Bible as having the last word. The above is merelty to show that the concept that Satan is merely an idea of evil has no scriptural support. A conclusion which some might not consider after reading your statements.

If all of God's works are perfect, what would he need with a hell. All souls are perfect.
Regards
DL

Good question! IN Hebrew scriptures word "hell" is a mistranslsation of the word sheol which refers to the common grave of mankind. So we can reword your question in this way: "If God's works are perfect what need did he have for death?"

First we have to understand what perfection is in God's eyes.
Does it mean inability to choose? No, perfection includes the ability to choose rightfrom wrong. Otherwise Lucifer, a perfect angel, and Adam and Eve perfect humans would have never sinned.

Second, why do governments have laws? What need do government have of law enforcement? The answer is that aw enforcement is for the well-being of society. In the same way God has established laws for the well-being of his universe. Such laws involve the punishment of unrepentant sin with the penalty of non-existence-or death in order to assure peace for those who are law-abiding. So that's the function of sheol, which is wrongfully translasted as hell.


Sheol
http://www.auburn.edu/~allenkc/tbhell.html

Regards

[SezMe]

The Bible doesn't lend itself to that kind of arbitrary interpretation since its writings include the historical, poetical, prophetic instructional, as well as the occasional metaphorical, which when it does occur can is easily identified as such and is never in any danger of being confused with the other types of writings.

I'd be interested in an example of where it is metaphorical and how one can "easily" identify it as such.

[Tumblehome]

It isn't the type of question expected from a person who has read the Bible.


What does having read the Bible or not have to do with it? It was a simple question, which I notice you haven't answered yet.


The Bible doesn't lend itself to that kind of arbitrary interpretation since its writings include the historical, poetical, prophetic instructional, as well as the occasional metaphorical...


Well, it sure lends itself to me that way, as well as a lot of others, including some Christians. In fact, given all the contradictions of the Bible, it opens itself up to all kinds of arbitrary, subjective interpretations, which accounts for all the denominations of Christianity.


...which when it does occur can is easily identified as such and is never in any danger of being confused with the other types of writings.


Millions of people, maybe billions, are confused, so no, they're not easily identified. Maybe you've convinced yourself of it (that is, interpreted it in your own subjective way), but that doesn't make it so for everyone else. Do you have an example of how they're easily identified?


Where does it say sex is dirty? God created the sexes and the idea of sex relations. In fact, he encourages sex relations within the bonds of matrimony.

So you might be identifying sex with prohibitions against adultery and fornication, bestiality or sodomy and incest.


No. I said it because Jesus had to be born of a virgin since women who've had sex were impure.


Neither does the Bible command anyone to remain celibate. Under law priests had the right to marry.

First century Christian ministers were told to be husbands of one wife.

So priest celibacy is a non-biblical idea. In fact required celibacy is considered one of the lies motivated by hipocrisy.


So...the Bible is open to various interpretations.

[bokonon]

Also, no Bible student worth his salt believes that it was merely a snake that talked in Eden.

Revelation 12:9
And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.

Revelation 20:2
And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years,

Genesis 3:14-15

And the Lord God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly thou shalt go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:

And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

Obviously, it is a literal snake, if one reads the story literally. It reproduces -- does Satan have seed which crawls on its belly, and bruises the heels of men? Do men bruise the heads of Satan's children?

The reference in Revelation seems metaphorical, but the use of a metaphor in one instance does not mean that all instances necessarily have an equivalent meaning.

[godofpie]

Remember when the US was taking out Saddam, and that Baghdad Bob (http://www.welovetheiraqiinformationminister.com/) kept saying, "No, the Americans are not right outside Baghdad. We are beating them back."?

It's possible Yahweh is losing this war, and all Job and other books (especially Revelation) are nothing more than war propaganda by the evil side, God.

Think about it. Satan wanted you to have knowledge of good and evil. God did not. It is God who condemns most of humanity to be tortured for ever and ever, for no other reason than that they didn't believe in him, or chose not to follow him if they did. These are the actions of a dictator.
Duke Nukem is a profit! Testify brother!

[Beerina]

(excluding my personal viewpoint)
Hell would indeed be over populated, for the following reasons

All people before the formation of that particular faith
all people outside of the sphere of influence of that faith

This, by the way, shoots down Christianity, because a kind god would never do this.

So Christianity, to "fix" this error, now suppose that these people get into Heaven.

But that just introduces the even more bizarre concept that it's wrong to tell people about Christianity because all that does is introduce the possibility of Hell, when none existed before.

Of course, they might also suggest God would winnow them because He knows who would and would not believe, but that makes a mockery of free will, and "what's the point of it all if He could do that?"

Even worse, one could propose God creates a secondary world for them to be tested in, but by that point, you're theory's really banged up.

[Greatest I am]

Yes, I am aware that humans were allowed to marry within family circles at first because there was little choice. Additionally, we were closer to perfection then and the tendencies for genetically caused diseases due to interbreeding were not as prominent. The point is that the changing had a good reason and wasn't arbitrary as some who read your statement might conclude.




OK. But to refer to it as a mere snake is a misrepresentation of Christian beliefs, So I was merely trying to clarify that it isn't a CHristian belief as your comment seems to indicate.
As for the word Satan, the Bible uses the word to refer to a rebel angel and does not use it as simply an idea for evil things.

Even Jesus specificallly referred to him by that name when being tempted by him.


Luke 4:8
And Jesus answered and said unto him, Get thee behind me, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.

He is depicted as conversing with God.

Job2:1
Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them to present himself before the LORD.
2
And the LORD said unto Satan, From whence comest thou? And Satan answered the LORD, and said, From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it.

The above isn't meant to convince you or change your mind since I know that you do not consider the Bible as having the last word. The above is merelty to show that the concept that Satan is merely an idea of evil has no scriptural support. A conclusion which some might not consider after reading your statements.



Good question! IN Hebrew scriptures word "hell" is a mistranslsation of the word sheol which refers to the common grave of mankind. So we can reword your question in this way: "If God's works are perfect what need did he have for death?"

First we have to understand what perfection is in God's eyes.
Does it mean inability to choose? No, perfection includes the ability to choose rightfrom wrong. Otherwise Lucifer, a perfect angel, and Adam and Eve perfect humans would have never sinned.

Second, why do governments have laws? What need do government have of law enforcement? The answer is that aw enforcement is for the well-being of society. In the same way God has established laws for the well-being of his universe. Such laws involve the punishment of unrepentant sin with the penalty of non-existence-or death in order to assure peace for those who are law-abiding. So that's the function of sheol, which is wrongfully translasted as hell.


Sheol
http://www.auburn.edu/~allenkc/tbhell.html

Regards

If there is no hell then where is Satan to spend eternity?

If as you say that there was little choice in using incest then where was our free choice?

I see that you have Satan serving and worshipping God from hell. Not the usual view of Satan. This would mean that he has repented.
Satan as well as all of us sin because God, the creator of all has placed this ability in our perfect souls and natures.
We like Satan are in His full control. If He did not want us to be the way we are it is to Him to enact the change.
Since He does not, what does that tell you?
Perhaps He wants us the way He originally created us.
This is the logical view.

Regards
DL

[Radrook]

I'd be interested in an example of where it is metaphorical and how one can "easily" identify it as such.

The parables of Jesus which he himself identifies as parables. The only way not to see them as parables is to contradict what Jesus clearly tells you-that they are parables.

BTW
Familiarity with the Bible's contents helps us to avoid asking such basic easily-answerable questions.

[Radrook]

If there is no hell then where is Satan to spend eternity?

First, we shouldn't be swayed by usual views but by what the Bible directly tells us. Anyone can have a view, but if that view patently contradicts scripture, then that view has to be discarded. Unless we are out to write our own Bible. Then of course anything goes.

In reference to your question about Satan's habitat, let's see what the Bible says: The book of Job chapter one tells us that Satan had access to heaven. Revelations tells us that even the angels who rebelled still had access to heaven and that their expulsion was still in the future and was to happen during end times.


If as you say that there was little choice in using incest....

This reminds me of the saying, it's not perfect until I say it's perfect. The one who determines what is sinful and what isn't sinful under any given circumstance is God in his infinite wisdom-not us. You tag that original situation as incest or sinful? That's not the way God saw it at that early time in history. Sorry!

then where was our free choice?

Do you ask the same of your democracies when they put limits on your behavior and you are forced to behave within the parameters of their limitations in order to protect society against anarchy? If not then why ask it of God?

I see that you have Satan serving and worshipping God from hell.

I didn't say that. LOL

Please read the information in the article I provided a link to so you can better understand that the word translated as hell in the OT is really referring to the grave and not to some realm which God created for the benefit of Satan and where he can have fun torturing humans.

About Satan's habitat, he resides in what is generally referred to as the spirit realm. This realm encompasses heaven and the vicinity of the earth. Another dimension if you will, as postulated by the most recent theories which explain the Bib Bang.


Not the usual view of Satan. This would mean that he has repented.

What did I ever say for you to reach that conclusion?

BTW

The usual does not guarantee correctness.


Satan as well as all of us sin because God, the creator of all has placed this ability in our perfect souls and natures. We like Satan are in His full control.

I hope you are aware that is not a biblical concept. The Bible teaches that we acquired a sinful nature via rebellion. It clearly explains that God considers our present condition defective. Also, that sin leads to death and that both sin and death are described as enemies of mankind.


1 Corinthians 15:25-26) ...
For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy to be destroyed is death.


A restoration of all things to their former condition is promised.

Revelation 21:4
And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.

So the situation now is definitely not the one God had originally planned for us but is a deviation-an anomally needing to be fixed.

If He did not want us to be the way....

Of course not, that is plain from his reaction to Adam and Eve's sin and to the sin of that rebel angel-his anger and condemnation followed as clearly shown in Genesis.

we are it is to Him to enact the change. Since He does not, what does that tell you?

What does the Bible tell you is the real issue here? The Bible doesn't tell; me what you are telling me. What you are telling me goes completely contrary to the fallen nature of man as described in the Bible and his need of redemption via a ransom sacrifice.

It also goes contrary to both the OT and NT prophecies which describe our present situation as abnormal and which promise that God will restore humanity to its pre-sin condition.


Isaiah 65:17
For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind

2 Peter 3:13
Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.

BTW

God sent his Son to die for our sins, in order to effect [a change. It's in the gospels of Matthew Mark Luke and John and mentioned repeatedly in the Apostolic Epistles. If you read them you will see for yourself.

Perhaps He wants us the way He originally created us. This is the logical view.

As the scriptures cited abiove show, there are no maybes, perhapses, could be's, or I surmises allowed. The Bible is clear. Yes, he does want us as he originally created us-of perfect body and mind. Something which we don't have right now since we sin and die. A condition he repeatedly promises us he will remedy in the future based on the Ransom sacrifice of his Son Jesus Christ. That is a basic biblical teaching which is non-negotiable.


Regards
DL


BTW
The spirits that rebelled, including Satan are referred to as unclean:

Matthew 10
1And when he had called unto him his twelve disciples, he gave them power against unclean spirits,....

Regards!

[Greatest I am]

The parables of Jesus which he himself identifies as parables. The only way not to see them as parables is to contradict what Jesus clearly tells you-that they are parables.

BTW
Familiarity with the Bible's contents helps us to avoid asking such basic easily-answerable questions.

Only to those who can believe, to such an absurd level, that they are correct about so, so, so, much and are so wrong about so much.

That would be almost as much as to what I am sure of and no one is allowed that close to my kind of volume in knowledge and wisdom. I of course am exempt from error.

Regards
DL

[Radrook]

Only to those who can believe, to such an absurd level, that they are correct about so, so, so, much and are so wrong about so much.

That would be almost as much as to what I am sure of and no one is allowed that close to my kind of volume in knowledge and wisdom. I of course am exempt from error.

Regards
DL



1.Absurdity is a subjective as is much of what you have chosen to consider truth.

2.Everyone is prone to error so yoour claim constitutes hubris.

[Radrook]

What does having read the Bible or not have to do with it? It was a simple question, which I notice you haven't answered yet.

Would you be so bold as to engage in criticizing any other book, such as the Koran, without having read it? I wouldn't. That's why if a subject about the Koran arises I read without jumping in with opinions since such opinions will immediately be recognized by those familiar with the Koran as being caused by my ignorance of what the Koran really teaches because I haven't even taken the time to at least read it. So to avoid that type of unpleasant scenario-I refrain.

Well, it sure lends itself to me that way, as well as a lot of others, including some Christians. In fact, given all the contradictions of the Bible, it opens itself up to all kinds of arbitrary, subjective interpretations, which accounts for all the denominations of Christianity.

There are no contradictions. What there are misunderstandings. Some based on lack of proper familiarity with the context, historical setting, or mistranslations of the original languages. Others based on a wrong approach involving a skepticism which requires refusal to acknowledge anything that smacks of religion. Still others due to the motive itself which causes God to prevent access. Add to that the constant Satanic effort to cloud the biblical issues and mislead and the result is variety of interpretations which include totally unbiblical ideas.

Actually, such ideas can be historically traced to Greek Platonic philosophy and pagan customs which gradually infiltrated the church as the apostasy emerged after the death of the Apostles. This apostasy accellrated with the reign of Constantine and his declaring Christianity the state religion resulting in a mass influx of pagans into the church. To make their conversion less painful,
pagan ideas were grafted onto Christian ones.

There are many articles about this apostasy on the net that you can research by googling with the words "Christian apostasy" or by entering such words as "origin of hellfire doctrine" or origin of the "immortal soul doctrine" etcetera. So it's really no great mystery to anyone who is really skeptical and who is willing to apply that skepticism to see exactly how
these ideas originated and how they gradually became "christianized" or made to seem to be Bible teachings.


Millions of people, maybe billions, are confused, so no, they're not easily identified.

Confusion about a book doesn't make the book a book of confusion. It only shows confusion of the readers of the book which can have various causes as I explained above.

Sorry, but many of the things which people say are confusing are not inherently confusing. Many of the persons who say they are confused are merely mouthing an expression which makes them appear intellectual because they are under the impression that to be confused about the Bible proves that one is a critical thinker. I have met many on this forum who claim confusion about anything and everything regardless of how plainly and clearly it is expressed. So based on this experience I'm not convinced that the people who are claiming confusion are really confused. It might very well be that they feign confusion in order to appear smart.

Maybe you've convinced yourself of it (that is, interpreted it in your own subjective way), but that doesn't make it so for everyone else. Do you have an example of how they're easily identified?

And there is the problem which prevents any progress from being made-the vehement and obstinate insistance that everything biblical is open to all and any interpretation.

I never said that my understanding made it so for everyone else. Nor am I trying to convince everyone else. To each his own. Neither does the Bible itself say that everyone would understand.

Romans 11:8
(According as it is written, God hath given them the spirit of slumber, eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear unto this day.


As explained above, the content is clear. What isn't clear are the minds of those reading the content. Providing an example would only provoke another claim of being confused which is tiresome.



No. I said it because Jesus had to be born of a virgin since women who've had sex were impure.

If women who had sex are impure why did Jesus permit Mary Magdalene to wipe his feet with her tears? Jesus himself had two bothers James and Jude as well as sisters. Was Mary impure because of it? We the minister's wives impure? Sara had sex with Abraham ad she is spoken of honorably. Nowhere in the Bible is the word impure attached to women simply because they aren't virgins. Women who are criticized are harlots, adulteresses, women who practice bestiality. But simply because they have sex with their husbands? Nope.


So...the Bible is open to various interpretations.

Open to various misinterpretations for the reasons I posted before. You seem to be blaming the book when it's the people who are at fault. Like blaming the rape victim for the rape.

[drzeus99]

Why is Joy Division the greatest band to ever play music?



Hmmm...judging by your board name, I would've assumed (I guess wrongly) that you would've said "The Smiths" or "Morrissey"

Don't you hate it when your friends become successful? ;)

[drzeus99]

Joy Division were not the greatest band ever, Siouxsie and the banshees were.



Only in the Hong Kong Garden of Eden ;)

[drzeus99]

If there is no hell then where is Satan to spend eternity?


Hoboken, NJ? :D

[Greatest I am]

Radrook

Never seen ******** piled so high.

You can’t be this stupid.

You said
“First, we shouldn't be swayed by usual views but by what the Bible directly tells us.”

Let me give you this-- Deuteronomy 32:4
He is the Rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he.
Do not let, His perfect works , sway your thinking. God’s works are to be imperfect and fodder for Hell.

You said
“ The book of Job chapter one tells us that Satan had access to heaven.”

I see. That means that God was only kidding, Te He, when He cast Satan and his minions to earth.

You said
“Revelations tells us that even the angels who rebelled still had access to heaven and that their expulsion was still in the future and was to happen during end times.”

Then who was the talking snake.

You said
“You tag that original situation as incest or sinful? That's not the way God saw it at that early time in history. Sorry”

If God did not want what we have then all He needed to do is change the numbers. Same thing after the so called flood. Even 8 causes for incest again. God could have got it right the second time if He had been wrong the first. You call Him a dumb loser. I call Him and His systems perfect. Who do you really think is right?
Just how did He see siblings to sibling and sibling to parent meetings if not incest?

You said
“Do you ask the same of your democracies when they put limits on your behavior and you are forced to behave within the parameters of their limitations in order to protect society against anarchy? If not then why ask it of God?”

I do and I get a logical answer. Not the answer that the Bible gives of just because I say so. Only a fool would accept such an answer but many Christians do.

You said
“About Satan's habitat, he resides in what is generally referred to as the spirit realm. This realm encompasses heaven and the vicinity of the earth. Another dimension if you will, as postulated by the most recent theories which explain the Bib Bang."

Golly gee Batman, when did they explain the big bang????

You said
”The Bible teaches that we acquired a sinful nature via rebellion. It clearly explains that God considers our present condition defective. Also, that sin leads to death and that both sin and death are described as enemies of mankind.”

This is why we have baptism, because the baby has already rebelled.
I have sinned and am not dead. I am not an enemy of mankind. God gave me a soul and a nature. Both are perfect to His plan. All His works are perfect as scripture states.
All babies are perfect as well. Thank God.

You said
“A restoration of all things to their former condition is promised.”

You are indicating here that God allowed His perfect systems to degrade to imperfection and must be fixed. God does not back slide the way you show Him doing. Shame on you.

You said
“So the situation now is definitely not the one God had originally planned for us but is a deviation-an anomaly needing to be fixed.”

Please tell us who is the bastard who screwed up God’s plan.
Why did God allow him or her the monstrous power it would take to do such a thing?
Why did God not just snap His fingers and make him or her just disappear instead of allowing humans to suffer because of this entity?

You said
“What does the Bible tell you is the real issue here? The Bible doesn't tell; me what you are telling me. What you are telling me goes completely contrary to the fallen nature of man as described in the Bible and his need of redemption via a ransom sacrifice.

It also goes contrary to both the OT and NT prophecies which describe our present situation as abnormal and which promise that God will restore humanity to its pre-sin condition.”

I am trying to show you the true, strong, non losing God, instead , you hang on to the loser interpretation that most Christians hang on to because their faith is so shallow.
If your God must repair His systems, if they are less than perfect, why on earth would you want to follow a proven failure.
God has never failed and yet some read the Bible and think wrongly that He has. Is this the aptitude you will have when you meet Him. Shame on you.

Regards
DL

[Radrook]

=Greatest I am;3407579]Radrook

Never seen ******** piled so high.

[b]You can’t be this stupid.

Only a fool would accept such an answer....

....Shame on you.


....[Shame on you.




My question is why you feel you have the right to break forum rules by namecalling and attacking the person and not the ideas? Do you really believe that your hysterical rabid attitude is conducive to further discussion? If indeed you were interested in calmly discussiung these matters then you would calmly discuss them. Obviously you aren't. I don't waste my time with that kind of
response.

[Greatest I am]

My question is why you feel you have the right to break forum rules by namecalling and attacking the person and not the ideas? Do you really believe that your hysterical rabid attitude is conducive to further discussion? If indeed you were interested in calmly discussiung these matters then you would calmly discuss them. Obviously you aren't. I don't waste my time with that kind of
response.

Thank God for small favours.

Regards
DL

[drzeus99]

This is why we have baptism, because the baby has already rebelled.

Rebelling babies?

That's just crazy talk.

It makes no sense, is based on illogical thinking, and shows clearly how people (in general) are sheep who just follow the rest of the flock in their "group think" mentality. Because "someone" said this to them, or they read it in "a book", people will just blindly believe anything without using their own minds.

No wonder these scam artist like John Edward and Sylvia Brown have so many followers and believers in their crazy talk. That just goes to show you how gullible and naive people really are. They hear something from someone who sounds like they know what they're talking about, they want to believe it, and because they are gullible and naive, just blindly believe. Very disturbing.

[Radrook]

There is also the ever-present danger of blindly accepting and attributing everything people claim is a Biblically derived to the Bible itself. That too can be classified as naively and blindly following what other people say.

Another way to display naivety is to attribute more to science than science attributes to itself. Such as the ability to know what the entirety of reality contains or doesn't contain and basing it on the unrepresentative data garnered by our limited senses in this particular local of this particular universe and this particular dimension.

That is also not using one's mind properly. In short, if we condemn being illogical here but not over there-then what annoys us isn't really the illogical aspect of the practice but the way in which it is being used over there since we are very comfortable with it over here. A glaring inconsistency which indicates an irrelevant agenda perhaps.

[Greatest I am]

Rebelling babies?

That's just crazy talk.

It makes no sense, is based on illogical thinking, and shows clearly how people (in general) are sheep who just follow the rest of the flock in their "group think" mentality. Because "someone" said this to them, or they read it in "a book", people will just blindly believe anything without using their own minds.

No wonder these scam artist like John Edward and Sylvia Brown have so many followers and believers in their crazy talk. That just goes to show you how gullible and naive people really are. They hear something from someone who sounds like they know what they're talking about, they want to believe it, and because they are gullible and naive, just blindly believe. Very disturbing.

It, of course, is crazy talk.
I was being cynical.
And yet look at the aptitude of Christians on baptism, they think that the water is washing away an inherited sin. They, for some reason, have no problem with a God that give the whole race sin because our first man Adam sinned. Go figure.

Regards
DL

[Tumblehome]

Would you be so bold as to engage in criticizing any other book, such as the Koran, without having read it? I wouldn't. That's why if a subject about the Koran arises I read without jumping in with opinions since such opinions will immediately be recognized by those familiar with the Koran as being caused by my ignorance of what the Koran really teaches because I haven't even taken the time to at least read it. So to avoid that type of unpleasant scenario-I refrain.


The question--Is the Bible not to be taken literally?--isn't critical. If you choose not to answer because you anticipate criticism, then I don't know why you're on a skeptical forum.

You're obviously a serious student of the Bible and feel deeply about it, but there are other serious students of the Bible who feel that everything in it should be taken literally. It doesn't take a thorough knowledge of the book to raise a legitimate question about those conflicting views.


There are no contradictions. What there are misunderstandings. Some based on lack of proper familiarity with the context, historical setting, or mistranslations of the original languages. Others based on a wrong approach involving a skepticism which requires refusal to acknowledge anything that smacks of religion. Still others due to the motive itself which causes God to prevent access. Add to that the constant Satanic effort to cloud the biblical issues and mislead and the result is variety of interpretations which include totally unbiblical ideas.

Actually, such ideas can be historically traced to Greek Platonic philosophy and pagan customs which gradually infiltrated the church as the apostasy emerged after the death of the Apostles. This apostasy accellrated with the reign of Constantine and his declaring Christianity the state religion resulting in a mass influx of pagans into the church. To make their conversion less painful, pagan ideas were grafted onto Christian ones.

There are many articles about this apostasy on the net that you can research by googling with the words "Christian apostasy" or by entering such words as "origin of hellfire doctrine" or origin of the "immortal soul doctrine" etcetera. So it's really no great mystery to anyone who is really skeptical and who is willing to apply that skepticism to see exactly how
these ideas originated and how they gradually became "christianized" or made to seem to be Bible teachings.

Confusion about a book doesn't make the book a book of confusion. It only shows confusion of the readers of the book which can have various causes as I explained above.

Sorry, but many of the things which people say are confusing are not inherently confusing. Many of the persons who say they are confused are merely mouthing an expression which makes them appear intellectual because they are under the impression that to be confused about the Bible proves that one is a critical thinker. I have met many on this forum who claim confusion about anything and everything regardless of how plainly and clearly it is expressed. So based on this experience I'm not convinced that the people who are claiming confusion are really confused. It might very well be that they feign confusion in order to appear smart.

Open to various misinterpretations for the reasons I posted before. You seem to be blaming the book when it's the people who are at fault. Like blaming the rape victim for the rape.


You keep saying that other interpretations of the Bible are wrong, as if yours is the only correct one. Are all the other Christian denominations wrong?


And there is the problem which prevents any progress from being made-the vehement and obstinate insistance that everything biblical is open to all and any interpretation.


It's vehement and obstinate for good reason--there are all kinds of interpretations, by Christians and non-believers alike. You can't deny that.


If women who had sex are impure why did Jesus permit Mary Magdalene to wipe his feet with her tears? Jesus himself had two bothers James and Jude as well as sisters. Was Mary impure because of it? We the minister's wives impure? Sara had sex with Abraham ad she is spoken of honorably. Nowhere in the Bible is the word impure attached to women simply because they aren't virgins. Women who are criticized are harlots, adulteresses, women who practice bestiality. But simply because they have sex with their husbands? Nope.


Then why did Jesus have to be born of a virgin?

Oh yes, Mary's virginity was only symbolic. Is that clearly marked in the Bible, as you say?

[Radrook]

The question--Is the Bible not to be taken literally?--isn't critical. If you choose not to answer because you anticipate criticism, then I don't know why you're on a skeptical forum.

I never refrain from answering merely due to expected criticism. Neither do I recall saying that the question is one of criticism. What I do recall saying is that the question itself, because of it's all encompassing nature indicates a basic unfamiliarity with the Bible since the question cannot be answered either positively or negatively.

You're obviously a serious student of the Bible and feel deeply about it, but there are other serious students of the Bible who feel that everything in it should be taken literally. It doesn't take a thorough knowledge of the book to raise a legitimate question about those conflicting views.

No serious student of the Bible worth his salt would ever reach that conclusion. That's why the question itself is not a legitimate one since it can't be answered with the yes or no that it requires.

You keep saying that other interpretations of the Bible are wrong, as if yours is the only correct one. Are all the other Christian denominations wrong?

First, I don't represent any particular denomination on this forum. Also, if indeed my understanding differs from others who are also Christians, that in no way manner or form indicates that I am passing judgment as to their relationship with God, or the legitimacy of their Christianity. It simply means that I feel they are mistaken in certain areas. Nothing more. So please try to see my statements in that nonjudgmental context.

It's vehement and obstinate for good reason--there are all kinds of interpretations, by Christians and nonbelievers alike. You can't deny that.

No I can't deny that.

Then why did Jesus have to be born of a virgin? Oh yes, Mary's virginity was only symbolic. Is that clearly marked in the Bible, as you say?

I don't recall having said that Mary's virginity was only symbolic.

[Tumblehome]

I never refrain from answering merely due to expected criticism. Neither do I recall saying that the question is one of criticism. What I do recall saying is that the question itself, because of it's all encompassing nature indicates a basic unfamiliarity with the Bible since the question cannot be answered either positively or negatively.


I wish you'd made it clear at the beginning that you only answer questions from those who know the Bible. That goes against the spirit of curiosity and inquiry, but have it your way.


I don't recall having said that Mary's virginity was only symbolic.


From post #57:

The word "virgin," in this case and many pother cases is used to represent moral purity. It was used that way in the OT and continued to be used that way in the NT. It has nothing to do with physical sexual relations. The church itself is spoken of as being a pure Bride in its relationship with Jesus.

[Radrook]

I wish you'd made it clear at the beginning that you only answer questions from those who know the Bible. That goes against the spirit of curiosity and inquiry, but have it your way.

That's not what I do. I answer answerable questions from anyone. But some questions are asked right after i have just gone out of my way to clarify the issue and therefore come accross as feigning ignorance. In short, they have been asked, answered, and then imediately asked again in the same manner after I explained that they cannot be answered in the manner asked.

This like someone asking an explanation on how to square a circle. Explaining clearly that a circle can't be squared. And then having the person ask: "So as I previously asked: how do you square a circle?"



From post #57:

I see! Thanx for bringing it to my attention. The word "virgin" is used to signify purity within some rhetorical contexts. That doesn't mean that it is being used symbolically in all contexts. Actually, would we insist that because an author uses a word symbolically in one portion of his book that he is invariably using the word the same way in all parts regardless of context? Of course not. Then why insist that it be total or nothing in relation to
the Bible?

Other words that the Bible uses symbolically are as they come to my mind:

1.Water
2.tree
3.fountain
4.river
5.bride
6.wedding
7.bridegroom
9.woman
10. star
11. light
12. throne
13. fire
14. darkness
15. wolves
16, seed
17. fishers
18. field
19. mountain
20. horn
21. sceptar
22. father
23. root
24. heart
25. leaven
26. unleavened
27. bread
28. lamb
29. goat
30. sea
31. white clothing
32. beast
33. rock
34. city
35. serpent
36. dogs
38. harlot
39. harlotry
40. eyes


And others.

[Smackety]

The book of Job clearly shows us that God does not consider Satan to be a lost cause. Thi