GOD....damn you are incompetent

[Warrior1461]

In my path to me becoming a total agnostic jackoff. the one thing led me on this path was the Bible itself.

Where did it help me come to the conclusion that the Hebrew God does not exist.

Noah, the story of it. The common knowledge of it says that God flooded the entire earth because man was wicked. Not entirely, the scriptures go into more detail. It was because he sent angels down to watch over us, they got horny mated with the females and created a race of superbeings.Called the nephilim.

Genesis 6:4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.

He saw that somehow as a threat, even though he is all powerful and all knowing. So He decided to delete everything with a flood.

If He is so all knowing, would not in his all knowing power know that sending his angels down to earth would be a bad idea? SO in this story blows every thing that I was told about God. He in one story was made to look like a total incompetent frack-up. Why not just create some plague to wipe out the super-race.

Right there I just made up a better plan to solve a problem that God in is all knowingness should have not done in the first place. Me an imperfect being just did some armchair godding, and came up with a better plan.

Ever watch a film, and see some badly written scene where the hero or villain does something so stupid just to move the narrative along. Something so illogical that it either makes the hero or villain look stupid and causes the entire film to fall apart. Well story of Noah is that moment in the entire Bible.

The moment where everything falls apart.

Now this story does make more sense through the spectacles of the Ancient Alien theory. Now GOD is some super alien scientist, the flood is his way of covering his own ass because he is a total FRACK-UP.

Now the only way really that you can still follow the concept of the all knowing powerful God concept is ignore this story as hack writing where God was used to explain a real natural disaster, as other stories and archeological evidence supports there was a massive flood in the area of modern day Iraq.

[Uncle Otto]

The easiest way to think about this is to keep in mind that God is supposedly all knowing and all powerful. If that is in fact the case, then he created mankind knowing exactly how everything was going to turn out. In other words, he knowingly and deliberately created imperfection, and then held his creation responsible for his own flawed handi-work.

So much for the perfect, all knowing and all powerful God.

God was very much created in the image of man.

Oh---have you looked at the Skeptic's Annotated Bible? Wonderful resource that---------

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/abs/long.htm

And yeah----reading the entire Bible was part of what made me turn the corner too. Welcome to the club friend.

[Resume]

In my path to me becoming a total agnostic jackoff. the one thing led me on this path was the Bible itself.


In my path to becoming an atheist *******, I found the same.

Well, the atheist part; I was pretty much always an *******.

[Roger Ramjets]

If He is so all knowing, would not in his all knowing power know that sending his angels down to earth would be a bad idea?You have discovered what anybody who has properly read the Bible should have figured out - the God depicted therein is not all-knowing.

Certain characters in the Bible claim that God is all-knowing, all-powerful and/or all-loving, but He does not make these claims Himself, and there is scant evidence to support it. Is this a contradiction? Only if you assume that the words of every character in the Bible are literally true.

If every word of the Bible is literally true then it is full of implausibility and contradiction, but who would believe such a thing? Only those who are incredibly naive, or who want to believe so badly that they are willing to overlook the implausibilities and contradictions. We all know that people will change a story to suit a point they are making, embroider it to sound more interesting, or even just make up the whole thing. So why should the Bible be any different? Should you believe it just because someone told you to?

[keale]

You have discovered what anybody who has properly read the Bible should have figured out - the God depicted therein is not all-knowing.

Certain characters in the Bible claim that God is all-knowing, all-powerful and/or all-loving, but He does not make these claims Himself, and there is scant evidence to support it. Is this a contradiction? Only if you assume that the words of every character in the Bible are literally true.

If every word of the Bible is literally true then it is full of implausibility and contradiction, but who would believe such a thing? Only those who are incredibly naive, or who want to believe so badly that they are willing to overlook the implausibilities and contradictions. We all know that people will change a story to suit a point they are making, embroider it to sound more interesting, or even just make up the whole thing. So why should the Bible be any different? Should you believe it just because someone told you to?


Thing is most people are born into their religion and add to that the cultural aspect. You have millions of armchair Christians that claim to be Christians while at the same time not attending church and never even reading the bible. They go by what they have been told and just accept it without thinking twice. Probably why they refer to followers as being part of the flock.

[BStrong]

With me, it was my father that made it clear that the bible was (in his words) "written by some *******." (still had me attending catholic school though)

My father had one major problem with the bible - Lot - my father said that whoever wrote the story of Lot and Sodom and Gomorrah "had to be an *******" - I won't go farther with the explanation - there isn't even a bit of political correctness in what the old man would say.

[Marduk]

Now this story does make more sense through the spectacles of the Ancient Alien theory. Now GOD is some super alien scientist, the flood is his way of covering his own ass because he is a total FRACK-UP.


I disagree, I think the story makes perfect sense in its original version, the one where its preceeded by drought, pestilence and famine
;)

[yomero]

As is probably true of most Catholics, I never read The Bible, except for small passages mainly from the Gospels. It was the doctrine of Original Sin that started my departure from Catholicism and theism in general. I could not accept that a perfect, omnibenevolent god would devise such an unjust concept. I concluded that it wasn't true. Then, if there is no Original Sin, the incarnation of god as Christ becomes superfluous. The other attributes of a perfect god also seemed to be false. Unanswered prayers led me to think that there is no omnipotent god. As I learned a bit about science, (mostly biology), I realized that there was no need to invoke acts of god to explain any of the wonders of nature. I could then admit that I was an atheist.

[Warrior1461]

original sin started out as an egalitarian concept that we are all flawed, no one is more PURE than the other. I do think that the story of Eden is actually more about the start of civilization, the event when humans stopped being animals and became thinking people.

As a literary character, God is not that well written, the polythiestic religions of Egypt and Greece/Rome were better written and were more fleshed out. Each had back-stories, personalities and interacted with each other in a more deeper level.

Here we have the Bible much I do think of these issues come form the fact the book was BADLY translated. I laugh at the fundamentalists who are all KJV only. Last time I checked Jesus spoke Aramaic, Moses spoke Hebrew not medieval english.

Another think bugs me, God is supposed to be perfect, yet with the ten commandments He says no other gods before me because I am a jealous god. If any of you had a bf/gf with that much of a jealousy problem, kick them to the curb.

[Marduk]

original sin started out as an egalitarian concept that we are all flawed, .
it started out as a legal concept where the family was obliged to make recompense for the crimes of its patriarch, sin is attested in Mesopotamia from 3000bce, sometimes the compensation required the children to be sold into slavery to cover their fathers debts
and worse
The code (of Hammurabi) then regulates in clear and definite strokes the organization of society. The judge who blunders in a law case is to be expelled from his judgeship forever, and heavily fined. The witness who testifies falsely is to be slain. Indeed, all the heavier crimes are made punishable with death. Even if a man builds a house badly, and it falls and kills the owner, the builder is to be slain. If the owner's son was killed, then the builder's son is slain.
http://www.ancienttexts.org/library/mesopotamian/hammurabi.html

As a literary character, God is not that well written, the polythiestic religions of Egypt and Greece/Rome were better written and were more fleshed out. Each had back-stories, personalities and interacted with each other in a more deeper level.
.
Thats only if you see YHWH as a totally original character, he wasn't, he was a composite of many deities familiar to the Hebrews, mostly aspects drawn from the Mesopotamian and Canaanite pantheons, if you want his back story read about Enlil
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enlil
;)



Another think bugs me, God is supposed to be perfect, yet with the ten commandments He says no other gods before me because I am a jealous god. If any of you had a bf/gf with that much of a jealousy problem, kick them to the curb.
that bit doesn't mean what you think it does, its not about having worshipped previous gods, its about current ones, to colour your metaphor, the g/f equivalent would be a woman you were dating who wasn't happy for you to see another woman at the same time, thats not abnormal
the use of "before" there, means "in front of", not "earlier"
:D

[psionl0]

He says no other gods before me because I am a jealous god.It does sound a little fatal attractionish.

[Marduk]

It does sound a little fatal attractionish.


be·fore
preposition
1.
previous to; earlier or sooner than: Phone me before noon.

2.
in front of; ahead of; in advance of: his shadow advancing before him; She stood before the window.

3.
ahead of; in the future of; awaiting: The golden age is before us.

4.
in preference to; rather than: They would die before surrendering.

5.
in precedence of, as in order or rank: We put freedom before wealth.
;)

[psionl0]

err . . . . if you say so.

[Marduk]

err . . . . if you say so.

thats not me saying so thats a dictionary
:D
The admonition is about worshipping Gods instead of YHWH, its not about worshipping gods before YHWH existed, that the statement exists at all is because pretty much everyone apart from the Hebrews were polytheists, so its a warning for newbie monotheists.

Its also a priestly tool of control, if you worship other gods, you give power to that deities priests

[gabeygoat]

I

Why not just create some plague to wipe out the super-race.



or just highlight them with his celestial mouse and click the delete button =]

[psionl0]

its not about worshipping gods before YHWH existed . . . Obviously! Otherwise it would not be about jealousy.

Come to think of it however, it would be a really fatal attraction if one was insanely jealous of past lovers.

[Noztradamus]

Yeah, but He's had the job like, forever. Things were easier to supervise when it was without form and void. Now it's gotten complicated.

[Duffy Moon]

or just highlight them with his celestial mouse and click the delete button =]

It's not as simple as that.

He'd have to reset the universe to factory settings, so he'd want to back up some of the stuff he'd already done, then reset.

If course, he'd then have to reinstall all of his apps and change some of the settings from the defaults.

It can all be a bit tedious.

[C_Felix]

I see your problem: You're applying logic to the Bible.

That is all.

[psionl0]

I see your problem: You're applying logic to the Bible.

That is all.As someone who doesn't want to be disadvantaged in the next life (assuming there is one), that has been a critical question for me:

"Can the illogical be logical?"

[Beerina]

God's screwed up and fully or partially rebooted things at least 4 times:

1. Kicking Adam and Eve out of Eden
2. Noah's flood, followed shortly by
3. Tower of Babel
4. Jesus

All due to poor design and an inability to forsee problems. Also, the solutions are clumsy and laden with fraudulent propaganda. Everyone except Noah's family was evil? Every one, including newly-born babies? Really?

[Moon-Spinner]

I'm always amused by this one: When asked about the validity of stories in the Bible, some true believers will say "But what possible motivation would the ancient authors have for writing the stories if it wasn't TRUE?"

Do they ever stop and listen to themselves?




PS: Don't answer that last question, I think we all know the answer to that

[Elypsis44]

I came to this conclusion when I was a child and I was told that God condemned me, Jesus wanted to save me, yet they were the same being.

[I Ratant]

err . . . . if you say so.
.
It's doesn't say he's the only one, it says he's #1 when grouped with all of them.

[I Ratant]

It's not as simple as that.

He'd have to reset the universe to factory settings, so he'd want to back up some of the stuff he'd already done, then reset.

If course, he'd then have to reinstall all of his apps and change some of the settings from the defaults.

It can all be a bit tedious.
.
I just had to to most of that.
"Tedious" is being kind to the effort needed!:rolleyes:

[I Ratant]

God's screwed up and fully or partially rebooted things at least 4 times:

1. Kicking Adam and Eve out of Eden
2. Noah's flood, followed shortly by
3. Tower of Babel
4. Jesus

All due to poor design and an inability to forsee problems. Also, the solutions are clumsy and laden with fraudulent propaganda. Everyone except Noah's family was evil? Every one, including newly-born babies? Really?
.
And all the fluffy bunnies.

[tsig]

.
I just had to to most of that.
"Tedious" is being kind to the effort needed!:rolleyes:


I just did that 3 months ago. Luckily I had backed up my important data on dried wood pulp marked with ink.:)

[Marduk]

.
It's doesn't say he's the only one, it says he's #1 when grouped with all of them.

Father Ted: (praying) "...you who are most forgiving of all gods..."

Bishop Brennan: "'All gods'? What other gods would there be, Crilly?"

Father Ted: (thinking) "....false gods?"
:D

[ExMinister]

I had a little trouble when I reached the part of the Adam and Eve story where God says they will surely die and they didn't, and had to stop when I got to the Tower of Babel where humanity was actually getting along and God saw that as a bad thing. So a few pages into Genesis and it was all over for me.

Since then I have read the whole Bible. It never did get better, but at least I was no longer expecting it to.

[Marduk]

I had a little trouble when I reached the part of the Adam and Eve story where God says they will surely die and they didn't,
he did in the version I read
5 And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years; and he died
obviously thats quite a lot younger than he would lasted if it hadnt been for the evil woman.

and had to stop when I got to the Tower of Babel where humanity was actually getting along and God saw that as a bad thing.
That bit makes a lot more sense in the original polytheistic version where the chief deity Enlil's jealous brother Enki confuses the speech of mankind because he's jealous of his siblings success
Most of the bible stories that exist in earlier versions only make sense in a polytheistic setting, like where the flood God Enlil decides to wash mankind from the Earth, it isn't him who warns the flood hero to build a boat, again, its his brother. Or the original Job, where its two Gods tormenting a human to see which of them he will curse first, the winner then gives him back all that he lost.
;)

[Jorghnassen]

Well, of course God is incompetent, for he is omnipotent, thus that includes the ability of incompetence. That also means he can be infinitely lazy.

[I Ratant]

he did in the version I read

obviously thats quite a lot younger than he would lasted if it hadnt been for the evil woman.

That bit makes a lot more sense in the original polytheistic version where the chief deity Enlil's jealous brother Enki confuses the speech of mankind because he's jealous of his siblings success
Most of the bible stories that exist in earlier versions only make sense in a polytheistic setting, like where the flood God Enlil decides to wash mankind from the Earth, it isn't him who warns the flood hero to build a boat, again, its his brother. Or the original Job, where its two Gods tormenting a human to see which of them he will curse first, the winner then gives him back all that he lost.
;)
.
I enjoy Gilgamesh.. especially after encountering him in Silverberg's "Gilgamesh in Hell" series.
"Job" is downright confusing. It is friggin' awful.. and yet it brags about the horrors that Job was assaulted with, on a -bet-!
Sumbitch god told that story to somebody?
As a life lesson?
It's the best presentation of fiction in the book.

[GIBHOR]

If He is so all knowing, would not in his all knowing power know that sending his angels down to earth would be a bad idea? .

it was not HIS angels that came down to earth, and much less did HE send them down to earth. That angels were demons, fallen angels.

http://www.keepbelieving.com/sermon/2002-07-28-The-Days-of-Noah-Why-God-Sent-the-Flood/

[Marduk]

it was not HIS angels that came down to earth, and much less did HE send them down to earth. That angels were demons, fallen angels.

http://www.keepbelieving.com/sermon/2002-07-28-The-Days-of-Noah-Why-God-Sent-the-Flood/

It would probably help if you had actually read the book of Enoch before attempting to comment on it
CHAP. 67.—And in those days the voice of God was with me, and he said to me: “Noah, behold thy portion has ascended to me, a portion without blame, a portion of love and of rectitude. 2. And now the angels are making a wooden building, and when they are gone to that work, I will lift up my hands upon it and will preserve it; and out of it will be [i.e. come] the seed of life, and a change will come so that the earth does not remain empty
Because as you can see, the text states quite clearly that God sent the angels to earth to construct a wooden building. It was while they were on the Earth that they became tempted by the flesh, hence their fall. The only demons mentioned in the text are the spirits of fallen giants, they of course being the offspring produced by the union of women and angels
;)

[pakeha]

Hmm.
KJV says it differently:
And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,
Gen 6:2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they [were] fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.
Gen 6:3 And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also [is] flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.
Gen 6:4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare [children] to them, the same [became] mighty men which [were] of old, men of renown.

It doesn't say anything about demons there, GIBHOR.

[catsmate1]

.
I enjoy Gilgamesh.. especially after encountering him in Silverberg's "Gilgamesh in Hell" series.
I liked him in Timewyrm: Genesis. Complete with visiting gods and a Neanderthal sidekick.

[Ladewig]

the original Job, where its two Gods tormenting a human to see which of them he will curse first, the winner then gives him back all that he lost.
;)


Thank you for all your posts. I had often wondered how any modern person could look at that story and say "yes, God, in an effort to win a contest, lifted His mantle of protection knowing full well the children would be killed, but He later gave Job the same number of children so that evens things out.1" But taken in the context of the time, that was a perfectly acceptable point of view.

Lot is another story that should be taken in context. The sin is not homosexuality, the sin that should be avoided is letting people under your roof come to harm.

......................
(1) Technically it is implied that Job came out ahead on the deal because the new daughters were much prettier than the old ones.

[Marduk]

Thank you for all your posts. I had often wondered how any modern person could look at that story and say "yes, God, in an effort to win a contest, lifted His mantle of protection knowing full well the children would be killed, but He later gave Job the same number of children so that evens things out.1" But taken in the context of the time, that was a perfectly acceptable point of view.

(1) Technically it is implied that Job came out ahead on the deal because the new daughters were much prettier than the old ones.

The afflictions are just aimed at the man in the original, there is no mention of a family.
http://www.piney.com/BabTabuBel.html

[C_Felix]

As someone who doesn't want to be disadvantaged in the next life (assuming there is one), that has been a critical question for me:

"Can the illogical be logical?"

I'm gonna take the easy way out and bastardize a quote from Doyle/Holmes, "When you've eliminated all the other possibilities, whatever is left, how untrue or illogical it might be, is the truth."


So....I'm sure in the crazy world of ours, I'm sure at one point each of us would be able to find a an illogical truth based on elimination of all other possibilities.

[ExMinister]

he did in the version I read

obviously thats quite a lot younger than he would lasted if it hadnt been for the evil woman.

That bit makes a lot more sense in the original polytheistic version where the chief deity Enlil's jealous brother Enki confuses the speech of mankind because he's jealous of his siblings success
Most of the bible stories that exist in earlier versions only make sense in a polytheistic setting, like where the flood God Enlil decides to wash mankind from the Earth, it isn't him who warns the flood hero to build a boat, again, its his brother. Or the original Job, where its two Gods tormenting a human to see which of them he will curse first, the winner then gives him back all that he lost.
;)

Oh that's interesting about the Job story and the flood story, Marduk. I only know a little about the polytheistic stories of the surrounding people at the time, so it is very interesting to see that parallels like that exist.

In fact, the other story that tripped me up before I put it down the first time was God's preference for Abel's animal sacrifice over Cain's more humane one. (And I have been told that I misunderstood. The point was that Abel's offering was more valuable. Whatever. My 2012 idea of a loving God just does not include one who desires animal sacrifice in any form, whatever the value.)

So you can see I really made it a long way into the book before I got disgusted.

[Marduk]

Oh that's interesting about the Job story and the flood story, Marduk. I only know a little about the polytheistic stories of the surrounding people at the time, so it is very interesting to see that parallels like that exist.


oh they werent parallel stories I was talking about, they were the originals which the Hebrews had access to when they were writing the OT, they basically edited popular stories into a monotheistic context. Which is why they don't make much sense. Most of the stories originate in Mesopotamia and in that literature you can find earlier versions based on earlier versions until you get to the original stories which were written more than a thousand years before the existence of Judaism. Its easy to see for instance how the global flood myth evolved from a story about a river flood getting larger with each retelling when you have all the versions. This then makes it laughable when fundamentalists start claiming to have found Noahs ark and the suchlike. The boat in the original story was made out of reeds from a deconstructed hut.

The Babylonian king Nebuchadrezzar sacked Jerusalem destroying the first Temple in 586 BCE and took many of the jews as slaves back to Babylonia, that was where they learned about the literature, Babylon in those days had something noone else did, they had libraries and the slaves became the librarians. The most famous library of Ashurbanipal for instance
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Library_of_Ashurbanipal
tasked the librarians with translating old cuneiform texts into Akkadian, the lingua franca of the day. In many cases the tablets they produced are signed "Rabbi", so its not a case of parallel stories, its a simple case of plagiarism
;)

[Warrior1461]

To make things worse, I was thumbing through some apologetic book at a local store. The book was about Hell. I cannot recall word for word what it all said. The author said that God cannot just take someone out of hell, because of the covenant that was formed when Jesus died on the cross, even though he can. I read this thinking...great your all powerful God, in his all knowingness just wrote himself into a corner.

I have came to the conclusion when it comes to dogma, Christianity is just BADLY written. It gets even more convoluted when you read all the rapture, end of days bulls**t. Then you read all the flow charts....I've seen comic geeks put up time lines showing all the alternate earths and for DC and Marvel runs and they are less convoluted than that.

[ExMinister]

oh they werent parallel stories I was talking about, they were the originals which the Hebrews had access to when they were writing the OT, they basically edited popular stories into a monotheistic context. Which is why they don't make much sense. Most of the stories originate in Mesopotamia and in that literature you can find earlier versions based on earlier versions until you get to the original stories which were written more than a thousand years before the existence of Judaism. Its easy to see for instance how the global flood myth evolved from a story about a river flood getting larger with each retelling when you have all the versions. This then makes it laughable when fundamentalists start claiming to have found Noahs ark and the suchlike. The boat in the original story was made out of reeds from a deconstructed hut.

The Babylonian king Nebuchadrezzar sacked Jerusalem destroying the first Temple in 586 BCE and took many of the jews as slaves back to Babylonia, that was where they learned about the literature, Babylon in those days had something noone else did, they had libraries and the slaves became the librarians. The most famous library of Ashurbanipal for instance
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Library_of_Ashurbanipal
tasked the librarians with translating old cuneiform texts into Akkadian, the lingua franca of the day. In many cases the tablets they produced are signed "Rabbi", so its not a case of parallel stories, its a simple case of plagiarism
;)

:D I recently read a book on the origin of satan that looked at some of the ancient literature, tracing the development of satan throughout the Bible. They mentioned the Jews in Babylon and the influence that would have had on them. I had no idea about the rest of it. Interesting stuff. Thanks for posting about it.

To make things worse, I was thumbing through some apologetic book at a local store. The book was about Hell. I cannot recall word for word what it all said. The author said that God cannot just take someone out of hell, because of the covenant that was formed when Jesus died on the cross, even though he can. I read this thinking...great your all powerful God, in his all knowingness just wrote himself into a corner.

I have came to the conclusion when it comes to dogma, Christianity is just BADLY written. It gets even more convoluted when you read all the rapture, end of days bulls**t. Then you read all the flow charts....I've seen comic geeks put up time lines showing all the alternate earths and for DC and Marvel runs and they are less convoluted than that.

It seems to me that the Pope has changed his mind on what constitutes a sin every once in awhile, too. Kind of makes you feel bad for all the people who went to hell before he changed his mind.

[GIBHOR]

It would probably help if you had actually read the book of Enoch before attempting to comment on it

Because as you can see, the text states quite clearly that God sent the angels to earth to construct a wooden building. It was while they were on the Earth that they became tempted by the flesh, hence their fall. The only demons mentioned in the text are the spirits of fallen giants, they of course being the offspring produced by the union of women and angels
;)

the book of enoch is irrelevant, since it does not make part of the bible. I don't attribute authority to it.

[GIBHOR]

Hmm.
KJV says it differently:


It doesn't say anything about demons there, GIBHOR.

The bible has to be interpreted. Since ancient times, its understood that these were demons, fallen angels.

[GIBHOR]

To make things worse, I was thumbing through some apologetic book at a local store. The book was about Hell. I cannot recall word for word what it all said. The author said that God cannot just take someone out of hell, because of the covenant that was formed when Jesus died on the cross, even though he can. I read this thinking...great your all powerful God, in his all knowingness just wrote himself into a corner.

I have came to the conclusion when it comes to dogma, Christianity is just BADLY written. It gets even more convoluted when you read all the rapture, end of days bulls**t. Then you read all the flow charts....I've seen comic geeks put up time lines showing all the alternate earths and for DC and Marvel runs and they are less convoluted than that.

God is not all powerful.

http://elshamah.heavenforum.org/t217-god-is-omnipotent-definition

Omnipotence and “all powerful” are incorrect words to use when encompassing all possibilities of illogical or
self-contradicting occurances. In Christianity we have
this statement regarding God being able to create a rock too big to move, or this sort of thing. “Nonsense is nonsense, even when you try to apply it to God.”
Omnibenevolence and “all loving” are also incorrect words to try to apply to our Holy Creator. God does not love satan nor his demons, for example.
Omniscience and Omnipresence are accurate words which do not encompass meanings which result in hyper-technical contradiction.

[Krikkiter]

God is not all powerful.

http://elshamah.heavenforum.org/t217-god-is-omnipotent-definition

Omnipotence and “all powerful” are incorrect words to use when encompassing all possibilities of illogical or
self-contradicting occurances. In Christianity we have
this statement regarding God being able to create a rock too big to move, or this sort of thing. “Nonsense is nonsense, even when you try to apply it to God.”
Omnibenevolence and “all loving” are also incorrect words to try to apply to our Holy Creator. God does not love satan nor his demons, for example.
Omniscience and Omnipresence are accurate words which do not encompass meanings which result in hyper-technical contradiction.

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/general-faith/the-best-arguments-for-strong-atheism-t28094-440.html#p1142229

:rolleyes:

[hgc]

The bible has to be interpreted.

Yeah, don't it though. Why do you trust your interpretation? I mean, there's so much at stake...

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Yeah, don't it though. Why do you trust your interpretation? I mean, there's so much at stake...

Hmm. I interpret the Holy Words of the Lord. You pervert the message of the Bible. :p

[Ladewig]

The afflictions are just aimed at the man in the original, there is no mention of a family.
http://www.piney.com/BabTabuBel.html

I trust you and the cited source.
I was commenting on how when the Hebrews embellished the story, adding the part about the children being taken and then replaced would have made sense to someone who lived in a society where children could be sold into slavery to pay the patriarch's debts. Even though such a thing is frighteningly unfathomable in my worldview.

[joobz]

God is not all powerful.

great.
that means he can be defeated.
Good will triumph over evil afterall.

[pakeha]

The bible has to be interpreted. Since ancient times, its understood that these were demons, fallen angels.

Interesting.
This bible apologist disagrees with you:
http://www.apologeticspress.org/rr/reprints/Sons-of-God-in-Genesis-6.pdf

He points out

(d) Angels never are called “sons of God” in Genesis,34 or anywhere else in the Pentateuch and argues ... that the “sons of God” were the godly
Sethites, while the “daughters of men” were the worldly, ungodly Cainites. ..

No angels at all in this interpretation.
GIBHOR, what makes you think the passage refers to demons/fallen angels?

[Marduk]

:D I recently read a book on the origin of satan that looked at some of the ancient literature, tracing the development of satan throughout the Bible. They mentioned the Jews in Babylon and the influence that would have had on them. I had no idea about the rest of it. Interesting stuff. Thanks for posting about it.
.
Satan, he didn't exist until after the babylonian diaspora either, take a look at my Avatar on the right and you'll see the God Bel Marduk and his pet dragon Tiamat. Bel Marduk was the only god strong enough to defeat the evil Tiamat and Tiamat is described as a great red dragon. Sound familiar?
:D

the book of enoch is irrelevant, since it does not make part of the bible. I don't attribute authority to it.
It only doesn't appear in the Bible because some humans decided not to include it, so its just as valid in understanding old testament concepts as anything else in the Bible, I understand that you are a literalist, but treating this text as irrelevant would be like ignoring the Hobbit because it isn't included in the Lord of the rings
i.e. it makes you uninformed

The bible has to be interpreted. Since ancient times, its understood that these were demons, fallen angels.
no, pretty much everyone interprets that how they like, the Old Testament doesn't have any giants in it apart from Goliath (at 6'9 tall), here is the original text
1 And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, 2 that the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives, whomsoever they chose. 3 And the LORD said: 'My spirit shall not abide in man for ever, for that he also is flesh; therefore shall his days be a hundred and twenty years.' 4 The Nephilim were in the earth in those days, and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bore children to them; the same were the mighty men that were of old, the men of renown.
The word giant which appears in the KJV version is a mistranslation of Nephilim, in the original version the Nephilim are just one of the tribes of Canaan exterminated by the children of Israel at the end of Exodus, there is nothing supernatural about them at all, they are simply described in the "book of numbers" (http://www.mechon-mamre.org/e/et/et0413.htm) as "men of great stature", so basically, the version of the bible you claim as definitive is rife with errors that make any interpretation a waste of time. It specifically has nothing to do with angels or demons as when it was written they hadn't been invented yet, Demons and Angels are what happens to the rest of the pantheon when someone decides that monotheism is the way forwards. So any way you want to cut it, your interpretation is wrong. Logically you must know that your definitive book was created on the order of King James and not dictated by God at all. How on earth can you claim that the KJV is definitive, I'll tell you, its because you have been indocrinated from a young age to believe something that isn't true. Theres no difference between you and anyone else who's been brainwashed. Those are not your thoughts in your head, they are your priests. And I have to tell you, priests are very rarely divinely inspired either.


I trust you and the cited source.
I was commenting on how when the Hebrews embellished the story, adding the part about the children being taken and then replaced would have made sense to someone who lived in a society where children could be sold into slavery to pay the patriarch's debts. Even though such a thing is frighteningly unfathomable in my worldview.
oh I know what you were saying, I get you, I was just saying that the most awful parts of biblical job, don't appear in the original, which imo makes the original the work of a more civilised culture, Judaism in this case emulates Tarantino, gore and horror for the masses but with no real plot.
:D

[GIBHOR]

It only doesn't appear in the Bible because some humans decided not to include it, so its just as valid in understanding old testament concepts as anything else in the Bible, I understand that you are a literalist, but treating this text as irrelevant would be like ignoring the Hobbit because it isn't included in the Lord of the rings
i.e. it makes you uninformed
:D

If humans did decide not to include the book of Henoch, it has a reason. We believe that the Old Testament has authority, because we regard it as the word of God. If you want to criticize God based on espurious and non recognized books, feel free to do so.

[GIBHOR]

Interesting.
This bible apologist disagrees with you:
http://www.apologeticspress.org/rr/reprints/Sons-of-God-in-Genesis-6.pdf

He points out

and argues

No angels at all in this interpretation.
GIBHOR, what makes you think the passage refers to demons/fallen angels?

there are different interpretations, but the jews in ancient times did stick to that interpretation.

[Marduk]

If humans did decide not to include the book of Henoch, it has a reason. We believe that the Old Testament has authority, because we regard it as the word of God. If you want to criticize God based on espurious and non recognized books, feel free to do so.

If that were true you would use the original Hebrew version. Which wasn't edited in the 17th century deliberately to reflect the episcopal structure of the Church of England

The Old testatments authority is based on its claimed innerrancy, that innerrancy is not workable when the text has been edited with an agenda to make it support something which didn't exist when it was written.

Can you not see how ridiculous your claims are ?
:confused:

there are different interpretations, but the jews in ancient times did stick to that interpretation.
no, they didn't, if what you said was true, you must be drawing on non canonical sources to make that claim as no Angel is mentioned by name in any Old Testament book that predates the Babylonian Diaspora, so you're quite happy to be non literal when it suits you
"Angel of the Lord" btw is not a name, as the word "Angel" is just greek for "Messenger"

"Israel took the names of the angels from the Babylonians during the period of the Exile, because Isaiah [vi. 6] speaks only of 'one of the seraphim,' without calling him by name; whereas Daniel names the angels Michael and Gabriel" (Yer. R. H. 56d).
oh noes, the names of the Angels were taken from a polytheistic civilisation and were never derived from Gods word, how canonical is that
:p

perhaps you could use your canonical knowledge to tell me where Cane and Abels wives came from ?
whenever you're ready
:D

[joobz]

If humans did decide not to include the book of Henoch, it has a reason. We believe that the Old Testament has authority, because we regard it as the word of God. If you want to criticize God based on espurious and non recognized books, feel free to do so.
Oh, Now I'm really confused.
You say the old testament is the word of god. This would include words about how hard to beat slaves, that it is good to slaughter babies if god asks for it, circumstances under which one should kill one's daughter. These texts were included because they are, as you say, the word of god.

Yet, you also claim that the new testament negated many of these things. (Even though parts of the new testament contradict that assertion).

I must say, your version of Christianity is so self contradictory and self effacing, I can not believe you are being serious.

[Marduk]

Oh, Now I'm really confused.
You say the old testament is the word of god.

Not the original Old Testament, the new version of the old testament written for the KJV at the start of the 17th century. King James therefore was God
who knew???
:D

I can not believe you are being serious rational.
ftfy
;)

[HansMustermann]

Thats only if you see YHWH as a totally original character, he wasn't, he was a composite of many deities familiar to the Hebrews, mostly aspects drawn from the Mesopotamian and Canaanite pantheons, if you want his back story read about Enlil
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enlil
;)

Hmm? I don't see why can't one say that some character is badly written, even while acknowledging that it's based on a previous story that was better written.

Basically, yes, YHWH isn't very original. Yes, Enlil was better written. But also, yes, I can think that the YHWH fanfic wasn't written particularly well, regardless of the merits of the stories it ripped off.

[tsig]

great.
that means he can be defeated.
Good will triumph over evil afterall.

Oh noes, the last time that happened all but eight of the human race got wiped out.

[Marduk]

Oh noes, the last time that happened all but eight of the human race got wiped out.

yes but luckily those 8 contained enough genetic material to repopulate the earths various etnicities in less than 2000 years
:D

[I Ratant]

...
perhaps you could use your canonical knowledge to tell me where Cane and Abels wives came from ?
whenever you're ready
:D
.
I know, I know!
"Socks" on the CIS Religion forum told us the women came from the pre-Adamic civilizations.
The what?....
He was very sincere also. :)

[I Ratant]

yes but luckily those 8 contained enough genetic material to repopulate the earths various etnicities in less than 2000 years
:D
.
And build the pyramids, and return all those "kinds" to their native habitats around the world.
That god fellow is some serious task master!

[rcfieldz]

I wonder if the OP lives in a floodplain...my guess he lives in the mountains.

[joobz]

I wonder if the OP lives in a floodplain...my guess he lives in the mountains.

I wonder if the OP likes pineapples.

[rcfieldz]

I wonder if the OP likes pineapples.And if they happen to be "Dole" all the better...

[GT/CS]

I'm confused as to why god's book is so often 'misinterpreted', and why only certain wealthy men (in the U.S.) can understand it and are the only ones enlightened enough to tell us what it means. And they can't even agree!!!

When god started this whole thing did he really think that was the best way to spread his message?

[LordofTruth]

.
I know, I know!
"Socks" on the CIS Religion forum told us the women came from the pre-Adamic civilizations.
The what?....
He was very sincere also. :)

Can I ask what the CIS Religion forum is? I tried Googling it but couldn't find anything, I think because of the insidious Google filter bubbling.

[Marduk]

Can I ask what the CIS Religion forum is? I tried Googling it but couldn't find anything, I think because of the insidious Google filter bubbling.

Its an oxymoron "Christians in Science"
you cant miss it on google
http://www.google.co.uk/webhp?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8#hl=en&sclient=psy-ab&q=CIS+Religion+forum+&oq=CIS+Religion+forum+&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_l=hp.12...4990.776804.2.777878.2.2.0.0.0.0.291. 405.0j1j1.2.0...0.0.mUHGIictdTA&psj=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=a4017c827e4508d6&biw=1280&bih=518
:D

[I Ratant]

Can I ask what the CIS Religion forum is? I tried Googling it but couldn't find anything, I think because of the insidious Google filter bubbling.
.
Compuserve.. don't know if it's still extant.
It was quite lively 20 or so years ago.
.
Still there... my existence isn't though, anymore.
http://community.compuserve.com/n/pfx/forum.aspx?webtag=ws-religion&redirCnt=1

[Marduk]

.
Compuserve.. don't know if it's still extant.
It was quite lively 20 or so years ago.
.
Still there... my existence isn't though, anymore.
http://community.compuserve.com/n/pfx/forum.aspx?webtag=ws-religion&redirCnt=1

how is that by any standard the CIS Religion forum and not this ?
http://www.cis.org.uk/forum/
:confused:

[LordofTruth]

Its an oxymoron "Christians in Science"
you cant miss it on google
http://www.google.co.uk/webhp?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8#hl=en&sclient=psy-ab&q=CIS+Religion+forum+&oq=CIS+Religion+forum+&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_l=hp.12...4990.776804.2.777878.2.2.0.0.0.0.291. 405.0j1j1.2.0...0.0.mUHGIictdTA&psj=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=a4017c827e4508d6&biw=1280&bih=518
:D

Thanks heaps everyone!

FYI this is my Google results page:

http://www.google.com.au/#hl=en&output=search&sclient=psy-ab&q=cis+religion+forum&oq=cis+religion+forum&aq=f&aqi=q-w1&aql=&gs_l=hp.3..33i21.2356.4656.0.4879.18.16.0.1.1.3.13 30.4876.2-11j2j7-1.14.0...0.0.mGy-A3qZNxE&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=61fac2466799da4e&biw=1366&bih=613

[Marduk]

Thanks heaps everyone!

FYI this is my Google results page:

http://www.google.com.au/#hl=en&output=search&sclient=psy-ab&q=cis+religion+forum&oq=cis+religion+forum&aq=f&aqi=q-w1&aql=&gs_l=hp.3..33i21.2356.4656.0.4879.18.16.0.1.1.3.13 30.4876.2-11j2j7-1.14.0...0.0.mGy-A3qZNxE&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=61fac2466799da4e&biw=1366&bih=613

heh google australia
:D

[I Ratant]

how is that by any standard the CIS Religion forum and not this ?
http://www.cis.org.uk/forum/
:confused:
.
One is/was Compuserve... the other isn't...:)

[Marduk]

.
One is/was Compuserve... the other isn't...:)

granted your link was to a religion forum, but it wasn't the CIS Religion forum.
:p

[I Ratant]

Compuserve Information Service.
Everyone knows that!