Burning Holy Books

[Bananaman]

 

that sounds very smug, i take it you are going to follow up this condescention by explaining in detail how those bible passages are meant to imply something other than what any reader would take from them at face value; that jesus/god/the bible advocates selling your worldly possesions and donating all proceeds to the poor.

 

 

Arrrr! You non believing infidels might see just black and white - enlightened truth filled muslim/christian/what ever knobbers see many many wonderful phrases to either smite you to an eternity in hell or chop your head off!

 

All of those quotes are actually a subliminal message to say buy Black Sabbath records and play them very loud. But you have to read it backwards, whilst pissed and hanging upside down from a tree.

 

Truth!

 

Word!

[Monkey boy]

 

 

I love it when non Christians quote scriptural passages... when yet they know nothing about them.

I see you've heard of the mormons too then!

 

I take it you have.. but I'm going to assume you don't know too much.

Yes I have & I think I know enough about Mormons, at least to form an initial opinion.

[spook]

You ask all these questions, why can't the Lord do this or that. But the problem for you in giving credit to your claims is why one would conclude that a God exists. There is no evidence. You can't provide anything.

 

Of course God exists! What we do not know is the form that God takes. The general thinking he’s like what’s on the ceiling of the Cistene chapel is obviously stretching it a bit although no doubt The Lord could appear in such a form if He wanted to. God is All Mighty. God created the universe, everything. There is no other way that it could be, everything else is just silly man made theory.

 

I prefer the Jewish way of looking at things.

 

In preference to Christianity? Why? Jesus was sent to the jew just as much as to gentiles to offer salvation. When a jew follows Jesus he is still jew but a jew who have accepted his Saviour and has turned from strict law that had become corrupted over time to the true law of the Lord. That is to be God fearing and follow his commandments, to be moral, and to love one another.

 

What makes you so confident that you have been misled and have actually gone against God. You may have embraced Satan or something different. You just don't know.

 

I follow the teaching of The Holy Bible. The fruit of The Holy Bible results in a good fruit, and you can tell the tree by its fruit.

 

Because we understand you have no evidence for your claims. It would be completely foolish to believe things on faith, especially when the result is to significantly alter one's perspective of others and the world they live in and affect the decisions they make.

 

When I follow the teachings of Christ and follow my faith and trust in The Lord I see the evidence by the good that I want to do as well as the good that I do because of it. That alone is proof that the guidence of The Lord is good and supports my faith in everything else.

 

 

Christianity is also quite clearly a man-made invention. A crass plagiarism of Judaism. And it's also an immoral faith.

 

What is immoral about Christianity? It is the most moral of all teachings and following Christianity results in a person living a moral life. Christianity is not man made, Christ brought his teaching and example to the world and that is Christianity. A way not man made, but made FOR man.

 

But I don't condemn others, but specifically condemn their beliefs. Though the more you know of Christianity and the more you are prepared to defend it, the more I think of you as deluded, morally troubled, and foolish.

 

Why? Christianity makes me a better person that I could ever be quite apart from my being saved by my Saviour.

 

I can't help it, I can't conclude otherwise. If you really think I deserve hell, for example, then you're not a nice person.

 

No one deserves hell, except for those who have committed the one unforgivable sin or who are satans tares, and the way to avoid hell is there for all to see and take. YOU have the choice. If you are not willing to accept Christ because of pride, stuberness, or because you are one of satans tares then that’s a different matter.

 

Only YOU know why you reject Jesus. My advice to you my friend is to seriously consider why yopu reject Salvation. Is it because you don’t want to give up some sin of the flesh?

 

Is it because you are afraid of the enormity of accepting the presence of God and the realisation of just how puny you and I are in the world, or what other reason do you have?

 

Dear friend, do not be afraid of The Yoke of Jesus.

 

Even at the start it is a very light yoke indeed, and it weighs less day by day, but resolutly yet imperceptably guides you through to Salvation.

[spook]

I often wonder how Christians who preach a literal interpretation of the Bible can reconcile their lifestyle with its teachings. It baffles me how people who say they're Christians can justify the expensive cars I see parked outside church every week when there are people dying for the want of basic necessities all over the world, children dying of hunger and for the want of clean water, basic shelter and elementary medical treatment.

 

Sadly few people who claim to be Christians actually are Christians. As a Christian I have responsibilities that I must accept, amongst those responsibilities are to take care of my self and my own. To do that I need to avoid being a burden on others, if I do that then I commit no sin.

 

If I were to go beyond that and chase wealth out of greed for more when what I was the getting could be going to the needy THEN I would be sinning. I drive a car. It is now ten years old and was bought to be sufficient for my needs and when it needs to be replaced it will be replaced by a second had car sufficient for my needs, not my wants. Those that do otherwise must look to themselves but they and others would do well to always keep short accounts with The Lord.

 

Even giving up Sky TV or Broadband internet and making a simple call to a relief agency would seemingly provide enough money to provide clean water, anti-diarrhoeal medicine or a few tubes of tetracycline to stop kids going blind in the developing world.

 

Many people do just that. We had to replace our televison recently and bought a HD ready one but decided not to enter into a HD contract for precisely that reason. It would have been an unjustifiable luxury.

 

Surely lecturing people over your expensive broadband link on how they're going to end up in a "lake of fire" whilst living in comparative luxury, with lots of disposable-income goodies instead of helping dying children with the money is the height of hypocrisy.

 

Comparitive luxury, but compared with what? The way that we live could hardly be called luxurious for the society in which we live.

 

Anyone who can call themselves a "Christian" in such circumstances either doesn't get irony, or is headed straight for the hottest part of the lake.

 

I would agree, many people who do call themselves Christians actually are not or are committing sins that they best address sooner rather than later. Jesus takes on the sins of the world for people who accept him as their saviour and provides salvation for those who try to follow his example yet fail provided that they recognise when they have failed, try to make ammends in some way, and determine to try to sin no more.

 

There is a great deal more to Christianity than most people realise. It’s a lot more than attending a church and singing a few hymns and repeating a few prayers and adopting a holier than thou attitude to non church goers.

[spook]

Spook - originally I thought you were saying that God did what it says in the bible - you said you belive the bible is true - even Genesis, but that time scales are different.

 

The evidence of science is that all the Lord needed to do was create a replicating chemical - and maybe "all" he needed to do to do that was create a universe with the laws of physics we observe and the universe would do it for him - no interventions necessary.

 

That is proundly different from Genesis.

 

No it isn’t! Genesis says that The Lord created. It doesn’t say that he populated the whole world with the full monty then and there.

 

The bible has the sun being created after the world - do you believe that is true? If so it is profoundly anti-science.

 

Where in the Bible does it say that the Sun was created after the earth?

 

Let me remind you what is written in Genesis.

 

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep.

 

“God created heaven and earth” Note, not THE earth, earth. Solid matter. Why should that not be the seed that was to cause the Big Bang? Why should the deep be seas and lakes? Why not the void before the Big Bang?

 

And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the deep. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

 

Why should that not be The Lord initiating the Big Bang?

 

And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

 

And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the deep, and let it divide the waters from the waters.

 

Condensation out of the cloud of space time material into what was to become the material universe? Why not? Similarly waters and waters, with the creation of elements and with hydrogen being such a common material then water is now believed to have been a significant component of the early universe, there is much evidence that our seas were brought in by early comets.

 

And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.

 

And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day. And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.

 

And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good. And God said,

“Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.”

 

And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good. And the evening and the morning were the third day.

 

And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.

 

ALL of which do not need to be and doubtlessly are NOT exclusive to the planet on which we live.

 

And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,

 

And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good. And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

 

There and ONLY only do we get to the point where what follows can be said to be exclusive to OUR world. So you see what is written can be read in such a way that it lines up precisely with what science theorises about.

 

 

The bible doesn't talk about proto-creatures it talks about beasts of the earth after their kind and every winged fowl after his kind - two separate acts of creation at totally different times with the winged fowls coming first.

 

You omit to mention that creatures of the sea came first or that birds are closely related to dinosaurs which are themselves related to reptiles and so amphibians. It wasn’t until after the age of reptiles was well under way that mammals emerged. No discontinuity there.

 

If you believe evolution was the way God brought about creation fine, but if you do you can't say Genesis is only mixing up the length of days or whatever. The order is profoundly different.

 

Not so. See above. Genesis is precisely in line with evidence.

[spook]

 

You hypocritical Christian motherf*ckers are going to burn. Light up the sulphur, boys !

Twisting the Bible to suite your needs? Taking verses out of context? Not new. 1 John 3:17-18 relates to the teaching of the path to salvation and is allegorical.

 

Mark 10:21 is more complex because it contains a lesson and a message. The message is that you can live the holiest of lives as far as being devout but unless you give up all the things that make you proud doing so in a way that will benefit others and accept Christ you will get nowhere.

 

Luke 12:33 is again relating to a separate matter, it is about getting perspective right.

 

Maybe you would be better to read, think about, then understand what is being presented in Scripture than just try (and fail) to use it to devalue what is something good?

[jimbms]

I often wonder how Christians who preach a literal interpretation of the Bible can reconcile their lifestyle with its teachings. It baffles me how people who say they're Christians can justify the expensive cars I see parked outside church every week when there are people dying for the want of basic necessities all over the world, children dying of hunger and for the want of clean water, basic shelter and elementary medical treatment.

 

Even giving up Sky TV or Broadband internet and making a simple call to a relief agency would seemingly provide enough money to provide clean water, anti-diarrhoeal medicine or a few tubes of tetracycline to stop kids going blind in the developing world.

 

Surely lecturing people over your expensive broadband link on how they're going to end up in a "lake of fire" whilst living in comparative luxury, with lots of disposable-income goodies instead of helping dying children with the money is the height of hypocrisy. Anyone who can call themselves a "Christian" in such circumstances either doesn't get irony, or is headed straight for the hottest part of the lake.

Yep , that just about nails religious people for the hypocritical gits they are, look at that poope geezer, private plane, personal chef and butler, eats of a gold dinner set, slleps in an ornate bed worth £32k, hand made clothes and yet the tosser preaches that christianity is about catering for the needs of the poor, charity my arse. I give more than him and I give fuck all to them.

[Lonan3]

I was, not from choice, made to read and learn 'scripture' when I was younger. Even as a child I could see that there were inconsistencies. As I grew older, I realised that those 'inconsistencies' were so frequent in the bible that it had no value whatsoever.

I didn't need Chinahand's knowledge of science and analysis to reach that conclusion, it required only the most basic skills of an enthusiastic historian to realise that it is no more than a collection of folk tales, myths and legends.

I genuinely feel sorry for those whose lives are so empty that they need an unquestioning faith in this badly-constructed and error-strewn volume in order to give them some sense of purpose.

[spook]

 

Yep , that just about nails religious people for the hypocritical gits they are, look at that poope geezer, private plane, personal chef and butler, eats of a gold dinner set, slleps in an ornate bed worth £32k, hand made clothes and yet the tosser preaches that christianity is about catering for the needs of the poor, charity my arse. I give more than him and I give fuck all to them.

 

Although there are no doubt many Christians caught up in the Roman Catholic Organisation there is no way that it can be called a Christian church.

 

Roman Catholicism uses Christ and a distortion of his teaching as a means of control over the ignorant. I wonder how many people realise that the idolatrous cult actually drops one of the “ten” Commandments and splits another into two to make the number back up.

 

The principles of the RC “church” are un-Christian and to a Christian actually blaphemous.

 

From the astounding distortion of The Eucharist, a thing done to further control the ignorant as opposed to just a ceremony to reinforce Christian Fellowship now and through the ages, to the astonishing efrontery of having the priesthood assuming a role in the relationship between man and God.

 

Then there is the place of Mary. She is given a role that is scripturaly unsound and unfounded. The place and the power of the pope, utterly wrong, the whole sorry mess is a hotch potch arangement cooked up between the Emperor Constantine and the leader of the church of Rome at the time so as to have a state and church co dependency to enslave the ignorent of Europe and establish a power system that was and remains uterly corrupt and corrupting.

 

Don’t judge Christians by the pope or Christianity by the Vatican, itself recently shown to be disgusting in the way it sloughed off responsibility for its inaction and wrong action over the child abuse by priests. The priests were the isntrument of abuse, the Vatican doubly guilty for shielding the men and then refusing to accept its role. Even as recently as the last 24 hours a downright lie that some foul mouthed hypocrite being ill as an excuse for not coming to Britain after he had made a dreadfully insulting comment out the place. They don’t even realsie that by lying about what the old fool said is so very much worse and insulting than what he did say.

 

Small wonder that “low” churches, the churches that relate closest to the teaching of Christ are so offended by the Roman Catholics and their organised religious version of the Mafia. At least the Mafia only threaten peoples lives on earth if they don’t obey instructions, the Roman Catholic Church threatens peoples immortal soul if they dont.

 

Just as well they can’t harm a true Christian.

[spook]

I was, not from choice, made to read and learn 'scripture' when I was younger. Even as a child I could see that there were inconsistencies. As I grew older, I realised that those 'inconsistencies' were so frequent in the bible that it had no value whatsoever.

I didn't need Chinahand's knowledge of science and analysis to reach that conclusion, it required only the most basic skills of an enthusiastic historian to realise that it is no more than a collection of folk tales, myths and legends.

I genuinely feel sorry for those whose lives are so empty that they need an unquestioning faith in this badly-constructed and error-strewn volume in order to give them some sense of purpose.

 

The sin of pride incarnate. Sad.

[- Paul -]

"Beware the Jabberwock, my son!

The jaws that bite, the claws that catch!

Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun

The frumious Bandersnatch!"

[Chinahand]

Spook I love your special pleading - it does say "the Heaven" and "the Earth" in Genesis 1:1 - it is you who are "Twisting the Bible to suite your needs". Sure you can ignore those definitive articles and say it means something different, but they are there!

 

So let me get this - on the third day we have this:

 

9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.

 

10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.

 

11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.

 

12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

 

13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.

 

You are saying this didn't happen on OUR world?

 

You've underlined the bit about whose seed is in itself - not sure why, but are you saying grass doesn't mean grass, herb doesn't mean herb and tree yielding fruit, doesn't mean tree yielding fruit - you know like oranges and lemons?

 

Lets make it easy - God said let the earth bring forth grass - is this the creation of grass or not, and is it happening on "the earth" and o the third day?

 

Now on day 4 we have:

 

14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:

 

15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.

 

16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

 

17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,

 

18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.

 

19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

 

So let me check here it says quite clearly

 

"God made the stars"

 

No stars prior to this - agreed? Or are you going to try and convolute your way out of it. No sun prior to this, no moon prior to this.

 

Were grass and fruit trees created before the sun and the stars in your understanding of Genesis?

 

Now you are wanting to make all this consistent with our understanding of modern physics. You think Genesis 1:3-9 is about the Big Bang and "Condensation out of the cloud of space time material into what was to become the material universe".

 

Ok - you do know that wihout stars nucleosnthesis of elements heavier than lithium and beryllium isn't possible don't you?

 

You say "Genesis is precisely in line with evidence"

 

Erm - do you really think that. You think grass, herbs, and tree yielding fruit were created before stars, when carbon didn't exist, oxygen didn't exist?

 

I am sorry, but I find it just awesome how you will convolute and justify and insist the bible "is precisely in line with the evidence". Spook it is special pleading of the most unconvincing kind.

 

If you'd asked the apostle Paul to explain Genesis do you think he'd have twisted it the way you are doing. Or Newton? You are entirely bending the text to fit in with current evidence in a way no one who didn't know that evidence would have twisted it.

 

The Chinese creation myth is about Pan Gu - he was born in an egg, which he cleaved with his axe and part of the egg became heaven and another part earth and as Pan Gu grew heaven moved away upward and earth moved away downward. For 18,000 years Pan Gu grew 10 feet every day and for every 10 foot he grew heaven ascended 10 feet, and the earth dropped 10 feet, and then Pan Gu died and fell to earth, his body was transformed convulsing the earth forming mountains, his tears became oceans and rivers.

 

Now of course this is the big bang with its expansion and transformation, and Pan Gu represents the comets and asteroids that bombarded the earth forming it and creating the oceans.

 

Can you see the similarity in what I am doing - does this make the Chinese myth precisely in line with evidence?

 

I simply don't understand your mindset which has to see the bible as this factual, infallible book. It is quite incredible in my mind.

 

Not just the creation story of the first chapters of Genesis, but Babel and the idea that all humanity is descended from the people mentioned in Genesis 7:13

 

“In the selfsame day entered Noah, and Shem, and Ham, and Japheth, the sons of Noah, and Noah’s wife, and the three wives of his sons with them, into the ark.”

 

How many people is this? And when were they sitting on a water logged mountain in Turkey? Please do try and answer this question.

 

Do you really think that up to a time after the building of the cities of Babylon and Ninevah - mentioned in Genesis 10 every one in all the world spoke the same language, and then in Genesis 11 they build the Tower of Babel and suddenly people start talking a different language.

 

We have Chinese texts from earlier than that!!

 

Spook, honestly why do you feel such a need to claim the bible is precisely in line with evidence. It isn't, really it isn't. My Goodness amazing.

[jimbms]

Ah so spook you are saying that it is only the catholic church that has peadophiles.

 

Baptist church and another Baptist

Protestant church and another

Mormon Another Mormon

Methodist keeping on methodist

Anglican

Evangelists

Various christian churches

 

There you go all christian churches piss in the same pot.

[Evil Goblin]

the astonishing efrontery of having the priesthood assuming a role in the relationship between man and God.

This is a very Gnostic statement, Spook. The Bishops will be gathering the kindling for you for heresy!

[La_Dolce_Vita]

Of course God exists! What we do not know is the form that God takes. The general thinking he’s like what’s on the ceiling of the Cistene chapel is obviously stretching it a bit although no doubt The Lord could appear in such a form if He wanted to. God is All Mighty. God created the universe, everything. There is no other way that it could be, everything else is just silly man made theory.

Of course he exists? If there was any 'of course' about it then you would be able to provide some evidence of this existence. If you don't know the form/s in which he exists, then you don't know he exists.

 

There is no evidence for him creating the universe. Nor any deity or being for that matter.

 

In preference to Christianity? Why? Jesus was sent to the jew just as much as to gentiles to offer salvation. When a jew follows Jesus he is still jew but a jew who have accepted his Saviour and has turned from strict law that had become corrupted over time to the true law of the Lord. That is to be God fearing and follow his commandments, to be moral, and to love one another.

No hell. Just something made up after Judaism was plagiarised.

 

I follow the teaching of The Holy Bible. The fruit of The Holy Bible results in a good fruit, and you can tell the tree by its fruit.

Although the Holy Bible was written by man, if it was not you could not be sure what 'thing' has created it. You might have been duped. Do you think the fruit is good, really?

 

When I follow the teachings of Christ and follow my faith and trust in The Lord I see the evidence by the good that I want to do as well as the good that I do because of it. That alone is proof that the guidence of The Lord is good and supports my faith in everything else.

May I ask please what it is that you do is good because of Christ's teachings?

 

What is immoral about Christianity? It is the most moral of all teachings and following Christianity results in a person living a moral life. Christianity is not man made, Christ brought his teaching and example to the world and that is Christianity. A way not man made, but made FOR man.

Eternal punishment in hell for whatever misdeed. The worshipping of an authority and reducing oneself to his slave. Having to think of yourself as a servile creature and childlike one. Presuming your morality comes from Christianity. And most importantly, as with all religions, the irrationality of placing faith in it all. That can be said to be evil (evil in a non-religious sense of course)

 

Why? Christianity makes me a better person that I could ever be quite apart from my being saved by my Saviour.

How so? What would happen if you weren't a Christian?

 

I did delete your quote by accident, but do you honestly believe that people who reject God/Jesus or do not respect them deserve eternal punishment. Do you think they should have eternal suffering?

 

Only YOU know why you reject Jesus.

Yeah, cos it's not true.

 

Is it because you are afraid of the enormity of accepting the presence of God and the realisation of just how puny you and I are in the world, or what other reason do you have?

Yes, that must be it! I'm puny and I am scared of accepting The Presence.

 

Dear friend...

You're not my friend. Not if you genuinely believe I deserve eternal suffering.