Why do people hate God so much? Are they blind?

This reminds me of a 'conversation' (yeah, let's call it that) between one drunken buddy to another.
"I TOLD you Denis, a badger bites WITHOUT being poked at!"
"NO Ricky, it was poked at first!"
*drunken brawl

Luckily, I'm in more civilized company here.

Why do you say that, Intrepid? The part about packing it up and ending it now?

J_B wrote:

Why do you say that, Intrepid? The part about packing it up and ending it now?

Intrepid, his might have gotten lost in the coyote talk. I'm curious what you meant by that.

...
What? ALL Christians claim to know the mind of God in one way or another. Some phrases to support that claim:

"It's God's will."
"If you sin you go to hell."
"The Bible is God's word."
"God Loves You"

neologist wrote:

About the second premise:

If the bible was not inspired, we who call ourselves Christians are to be pitied.

...

Evidence? You speak of evidence?

If the bible is not divinely inspired, then you've had however many thousands of years of meddling priests and editors with ulterior motives mucking through your one source of knowledge about your god. If not divinely inspired, you are screwed.

To put it bluntly.

Cheers!

I'm really confused as to who is saying what in the last few posts, so I'll go back to my original statement with a few explanations: (italicized)
The bible was either inspired by God or it was not.

Supposing the first premise:

If the bible was inspired, God certainly has the power to have ensured that we would have an accurate recording of his purpose and requirements, if any.

This statement would be true: ". . .so my word that goes forth from my mouth will prove to be. It will not return to me without results, but it will certainly do that in which I have delighted, and it will have certain success in that for which I have sent it." (Isaiah 55:11)

To assume that he would operate against his best interests and allow this valuable word to become adulterated simply doesn't make sense.

About the second premise:

If the bible was not inspired, we who call ourselves Christians are to be pitied.

OK, maybe it could be said more directly:

Questioner wrote:

. . .you are screwed.

I do agree with you about Robertson. I have forced myself to look at some of his television broadcasts so that I could form my own opinion. He may call himself a man of God, but I think he is a man of his own dilusions and tries to fit God into his own feeble thoughts.

Here's an example of what I'm talking about, Intrepid.

Over on the politics board you said,

Quote:

I do agree with you about Robertson. I have forced myself to look at some of his television broadcasts so that I could form my own opinion. He may call himself a man of God, but I think he is a man of his own dilusions and tries to fit God into his own feeble thoughts.

You see Pat Robertson as dilusional. I see him as faithful. He is as sure in his faith as you are in yours. Who gets to be the judge? His actions in making that statement was an act of faith. To me it was irrational and dilusional. He's following the same God you are, but he's interpreting truth through his own lens. I cannot determine his lens from yours. I can only see through mine. You cannot determine his from mine, we are both wrong in your outlook. This is why I say that all acts of faith can be viewed as irrational and dilusional, because no one knows the Truth.

What do you consider an act of faith? If we consider an act of faith to be a behavior that shows or tests a person's religious convictions you could be right. We can only interpret what is true.

And real, the total deaths in WWII, a war fought and blessed by the world's religions, amounted to 62,218,811. SOURCE

The religions of the world have shed rivers of blood in the names of their gods. And it is the priests who deliver the sacrifices to the front.

neologist wrote:

And real, the total deaths in WWII, a war fought and blessed by the world's religions, amounted to 62,218,811. SOURCE

The religions of the world have shed rivers of blood in the names of their gods. And it is the priests who deliver the sacrifices to the front.

To be sure, Hitler did try to hide behind the Christianity of his countrymen and twist or break arms to obtain the tacit blessing of religious leaders.

But there is little doubt that the overriding philosophy driving him was that of Evolution, not Christianity. He believed that the strong and perfect should and would rid the world of the weak and imperfect.

ah, like the post the other day with the punchline of, "we're screwed"! Yup.

If the bible was not inspired, we who call ourselves Christians are to be pitied.

J_B wrote:

ah, like the post the other day with the punchline of, "we're screwed"! Yup.

Kindly leave my quotes out of this thread of rambling nonsense. Coyotes indeed!

Questioner wrote:

J_B wrote:

ah, like the post the other day with the punchline of, "we're screwed"! Yup.

Kindly leave my quotes out of this thread of rambling nonsense. Coyotes indeed!

and to think I was hoping for your input when I asked the original question about flocks. Never mind, sorry to offend you with my rambling nonsense but I rather enjoyed the conversation with Intrepid and MA, coyotes aside. The next time you post rambling nonsense, I'll be sure to point it out to you.

Let's discuss flocks...

I always had a problem being a follower. Flocks remind me of sheep, sheep remind me of followers, followers remind me of blind trust which scares the hell out of me. Particularly when the blind trust is being spoken by a human who claims to have a direct line to God's intent.

MA, I'm not trying to pick on you here, but when you called yourself one of the Flock, my radar alarms started screaming. It's the concept of flock that bothers me about organized religion, or at least that's one on the things that trouble me.

Anyone else?