God doesn't exist, but the genesis is a true story....

Really ? It seams to me that you confuse the cause for the effect...

...Either Cosmogony´s are as you said a ethnological curiosity and as narratives they don´t refer to anything not even the Reality of Human condition, if human condition were to be all reality there is, which would be odd since you would actually have to explain how is it that they came about...or even as a conceptual social cultural construction they refer at least to the Human real condition and thus they make sense and can translate a common process to humans independently of the means and the specificity´s they particularly use in they own context...

You simply do not know logic as well as you think. Secondly, the text establishes the meaning of the reference itself.

Fortunately I am pretty good at not thinking about how well I know logic.

Fantastic. I, on the other hand, always wanted to be a modern man.

And you are. A true slave to fashion.

No need to insult me, I am quite bruised already.

But you said you want to be a modern man...

Oh, your a joke killer! I better hide.

Nah, it's just that the joke is on you

You are confused; myths are dreamed up history that never existed. Many comic books does a better job at so-called reality.

Nah, I'm not confused, not about this at least. But I do like to go beyond/outside of the traditional thinking. Sometimes that will lead to nonsense, but I can't let that stop me. I'd rather post on a2k, so that I can get this feedback. I got an idea, tried it out and crashed and burned.

But in all fairness CI, can we really say with certainty that no myths have their origin in something that actually happened?

That's not the issue; of coarse myths can follow what actually happened, but history recorded by men have been fraught with errors, omissions, and contradictions.

I love to read comic books, because they also have some relationship to "what actually happened or can happen." But, I also understand that they are totally fictional.

Agreed. That is not the issue. It was an unrelated comment.

as long as you are willing to admit it makes more sense.
because It is an increble novel.

you just have to think of it one way.

It is a Novel. God is a character who is flawles and correct the entire time, and if you are not reading the entire story biased towards him, it is like reading Harry Potter and denying Dumbledoor is trying to help.
If you red the entire story biased towards God's character, then you should understand his personality, struggle and pain, and after finishing the entire book ~you can reflect, and think, make comparisons and then criticize it.

and justly you should find that all your criticisms were previously made while reading the book Against God's enemies. And noting his enemies as your own.

That is how you are supposed to read the Bible. Or you didn't actually read IT. You skimmed through pages and denied the message, the story, and not only the actual PLOT but the action contributing factors which contributed to the setting.

think that one over.

I am a Christian Islamic Hindu Mythologists because none of them conflict. I love Jesus, he is everything to me. Krishna (The mind that thinks in Jesus (as a langauge)) is incredible. This Allah alone is the Chaos who created all titanous elements. He is the Andumbla cow of norse mythology, as Brahma is Buri. and It is all perfectly logical and accurate.

I love to love through him. Morals are not man made fictitious statements. Corrupt politicians are wrong, not right to be corrupt as atheism teaches as a principal tool for the powerful and rich. Religion is good for communities, unlike how atheism is for murderers and rapists ~ when you accept reality and remain in it - for whatever manifestation of reality that is XD hallucianigenic that may be (so long as you are not a lazy disrespectful drugg addict that funds and supports the cartel and advocates the disrespect, use and abandonment of women/children/family/friends through things like adultery.)

If God were real, Genesis would be the END of the story...

See here is the thing that doesn't make sense nor does it coincide how christians want to portray god.

If you know anything about statistics you would know that when you take a group of people there will always be a certain number that act or behave in a way that is contrary to expectations. Surely if god was all knowing or intelligent, it would understand the laws of statistical analysis.

To really beat this in to make my point.

God would have to be aware that there will always be people who will disobey his commands regardless of the consequences he puts forth. That alone doesn't say very much, however; god would also have to be aware of their mindset as to why they are behaving this counter way. Therefore to become upset, saddened or even angry at peoples behavior seems counter intuitive to what christians try to claim. It can't be that god would be saddened by the statistical outcome, it doesn't make any sense.

If you knew the outcome of a movie plot before you even watched the movie, why would you be surprised or shocked at the end of the movie when you already knew exactly how it was going to turn out? You wouldn't.

But christians are terrible at statistical analysis and consistency in reasoning.

Being shocked at the behavior of your creation is silly if you are an all knowing being. So reacting to their behavior through punishment is just asinine.

This is why I say, if god created me to be skeptical of ideas and yet punishes me for my lack of belief then he created me destined solely for the purpose of punishment.

This would be like you are an engineer who builds things. At the same time you have perfect knowledge of the outcome of your creation before you even begin construction. You know that the next thing you build will ultimately fail yet why would you continue building it if you already knew it was going to fail? Even worse, why would you become angry or upset when you already knew it was going to fail? Worse still why would you torture your creation for failing when you already knew it was going to fail without any possible saving?

Wouldn't it be far more compassionate to not create a being knowing it was destined for torture for eternity? Surely god would have this power? Unless either he is powerless to the creation of human beings and therefore can't save them all, or god doesn't exist in the first place and it was just men who came up with these silly inconsistent traits and stories.

Hi Cyracuz,
I believe that God exist, and the god is not a tool.

the God atheists do not believe in does not exist.* But God is real.

I agree with Cyracuz: Genesis talks about the nature of common sense thinking in terms of dualism. To bite of the forbidden fruit of the tree of knowledge was to remove oneself from a state of spiritual bliss (Nirvana?). This was to adopt the ability to deal with life intellectually, reflectively. Before that change one was like the animals who lived prereflectively--without problems. When Adam and Eve left "heaven" it was not simply for disobeying God; it was for giving up the ground of blessed being. Something like that.
As I see it mythologies are cultural constructions; they are for the most part fictions regarding what are understood to be (cultural) truths.

I can see how you can draw those parallels. Most people that are not familiar with Buddhism wouldn't know what you are talking about. The only problem is the theology falls flat on the solution for this "giving up the ground of blessed being" or becoming. Nothing within the theology provides the solution. It seems to be bent on achieving heaven which is still bound within samsara. Nirvana isn't heaven. It's not something that is got by simply believing someone else can save you from yourself.

If you could be redeemed through another person's sacrifice, then the Buddha would have suggested finding someone who can sacrifice themselves for you to be redeemed. If the principal was correct from the beginning, why did they fail on delivering the proper solution?

It is possible that jesus was aware of Buddhism, since it existed for 500 years prior to him and being close to the middle east, I would not be surprised if the people were aware of the Dharma being circulated. I wouldn't be surprised at all if he met teachers of the Dharma and picked up some really good insights from them.

Especially if you study the gospel of Thomas, many of the passages seem like zen statements. But the problem is none of the solutions are given as if they were not aware of the solution. Instead it just seems they had a superficial understanding and that was it.