Okay...let's see...where was I...

We're merely going to go round and round this one, real life.

Again, you can't read those passages as if it were figurative speech. You are rationalizing your reading to fit your preconceptions.

Saying "he makes me sick" is different from saying "I will make him sick."

The statement "George Bush gives liberals fits" can be taken to mean a cause and effect relationship. It is not figurative. Liberals as well as Conservatives do not choose their emotional reactions.

Saying "he give them fits" is different from saying "I will give them fits."
Although, I'm sure GW is aware of this power he has over liberals, and probably acts upon it.

GW isn't omnipotent. The god of the bible is assumed to be.

Should I take your silence about my request to point out more contradictions, seeming or otherwise, in the bible as a refusal?

Frank Apisi, you certainly have fought the fight and you deserve praise for that.

All I can say on these subjects is it took almost four centuries for The Catholic Church to cement its authority as leader and expert on man's spirituality. Millions of people died and everything and anything describing "Immanance," the concept of the indwelling God, was destroyed (or so was thought). Immanance is a part of the secret teachings that Jesus taught his disciples and was "secretly" taught because these people were "ready" to hear it. Now, maybe some of us are, too, ready.

There's tons of material written by biblical scholars, most of whom have degrees in archeology and linguistics also, that point out changes, fabrications and additions by early church authorities to fit their own political agenda.

Most intriguing would be why "God" seemed vicious in the O.T. and also what parts of those books were mythological. As for the New Testament, so much was not included that the teachings of Jesus make little sense.

The book I am currently completing is Gnostic Secrets of the Naassenes (The Initiatory Teachings of the Last Supper), by Mark H. Gaffney, published in 2004.

By this I observed that there is a priestcraft even amongst the most blinded, ignorant pagans of the world, and the policy of making a secret religion, in order to preserve the veneration of the people in the clergy, is not only to be found in the Roman, but perhaps among all religions in the world, even among the most brutish and barbarous savages.

Why should I say it when Robinson Crusoe said it so much better:

Neologhouse wrote:

Why should I say it when Robinson Crusoe said it so much better:

By which you meant, of course . . .when Daniel Defoe wrote it so much better . . .

Sunlover

Any reasonable guess about the Bible would be that it...both the Old and New Testaments...are, when dealing with gods and what gods have to say...ARE FICTION.

Both!

You ought really to read up on the Jesus Seminars. A group of religious scholars...primarily made up of clergy, by the way....have gone over the words supposedly uttered by Jesus and they rate them "probably spoken by Jesus" "probably not spoken by Jesus" and "almost certainly not spoken by Jesus." (Not their terms, but my characterization of them.)

Only a minority of the words (those often in red in Bibles)...are rated as "probably spoken by Jesus." Most fall into the other category. Damn near every syllable in the gospel of John, for instance, is in the last category.

Real life, it's just that the Bible has to make sense.

"Original sin" doesn't make sense and is unsupported in scripture.

The same for Holy Trinity.

There are people who would like to sue their parents for the brainwashing done to them as children. Brainwashing should be labeled child abuse as it can be permanent, or seem so to the person as an adult.

Ooooo . . . a bitch fight over scripture . . . i love it . . .

Just like in the coliseum - spectators eager for blood.

neologist wrote:

Just like in the coliseum - spectators eager for blood.

Morituri te salutamus

You indicated in your first post that you wanted me to give you references so that you don't have to read it for yourself. But maybe that is what you should do, instead of trying to pummel others who don't do your research to your satisfaction.

real life wrote:

You indicated in your first post that you wanted me to give you references so that you don't have to read it for yourself. But maybe that is what you should do, instead of trying to pummel others who don't do your research to your satisfaction.

I asked you because I thought you were an expert on contradictions in the Bible.