1
   

Exactly Why Don't You Believe In the God of the Bible?

 
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Jan, 2006 04:24 am
Oh yeah, i'm sure slaves in ancient Palestine were all loved and well-treated, and would not have traded their condition as slaves for anything in the world.

Could you possibly get more surreal in the horsie poop you spread attempting to paint a rosey picture of everything associated with the bobble?
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Jan, 2006 06:00 am
Actually, Setanta, the slaves in old Palestine really were happy. They rose early in the AM to work in the fields, sang songs like Yassir Crack Corn and dancing through the day as they picked several hundred pounds of cotton each. In the evening they would gather at the plantation mansion for beer and ice cream and a night of seranades and dancing. It's pretty much documented in the Bible.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Jan, 2006 06:05 am
How very foolish of me not to have known . . .
0 Replies
 
Wolf ODonnell
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Jan, 2006 06:22 am
Momma Angel wrote:
Pauligirl wrote:
Would Satan really want to torture you for doing his evil work? Surely he would give you a pat on the back and a pint of cold beer, not tie you to a rock and attack you with a cheesegrater. What's he going to say? "Aha! Right, you gave in to temptation and lived a life of Sin, just like I wanted you to. As punishment for disobeying God, and doing my work instead, I'm... erm... going to torture you... er... Hang on a minute.... Have I got that right?"
We are always told "If you are Good, you will be rewarded in Heaven, if you are Bad you will be punished in Hell.". Well, unless Hell is full of Angels doing the torturing, it seems like the saying should be "If you are Good, you will be rewarded in Heaven, if you are Bad you will be rewarded in Hell.". You can understand why priests never tell you this when they are ranting on about Hellfire And Damnation.
Could it be that Lucifer is working under the direct orders of God - "Now then, Luci old pal. I want you to get some big red horns and go tempt some mortals. If you succeed, you can inflict pain on them until they repent, when they can come here with me. Oh, and be careful not to let them know I put you up to it."
It should also be remembered that the Creator is supposedly omniscient. When he created the Angel Lucifer, he knew exactly what was going to happen (how could he not, if he is omniscient?). God created Evil, and created Satan as an instrument of Evil, and us mere mortals are the ones who are on the receiving end and get all the eternal torment. Might it not have been easier to simply not create Evil in the first place?
I don't believe in Heaven or Hell, demons or angels. There is no devil trying to tempt you to eat one more doughnut, drive a little faster, murder your neighbour, burn down a church or cheat on your partner. If you do something bad, it is your own fault and no-one else's.
Should we teach our children that they are under constant attack from evil, invisible demons, trying to get them to be naughty, and that if they do then they will horribly tortured forever? Or should we try to teach them respect for others and a sense of responsibility and accountability?
Accept responsibilty for your own actions.
Don't seek forgiveness from your deity - seek it from those you hurt.
The Devil didn't make you do it. You did.

Bits and pieces taken from :http://www.abarnett.demon.co.uk/atheism/hell.html

P (sorry for the sloppy format job)

You seem a bit miffed (?) about my post about homosexuality? I am sorry if you are. But again, just because I think the act of homosexuality is wrong it does not mean that I treat homosexuals any differently than anyone else. I don't like lies either, but I don't treat people that lie any differently either. Everyone sins, pauligirl. I don't think it's right to treat anyone any differently because of it.


I'm curious as how this is a reply to the concept of Satan.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Jan, 2006 06:33 am
MOAN wrote:
Everyone sins, pauligirl. I don't think it's right to treat anyone any differently because of it.


Who are you to determine who has sinned and who has not? Who are you to assert that this person lies and this person does not? Are you not enjoined by your imaginary friend to judge not lest ye be judged?

This is the kind of disgusting self-righteousness which alienates those who are not self-deluded in regard to their spirituality.
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Jan, 2006 08:24 am
Momma Angel wrote:
Pauligirl,

Like I said, perhaps you should do some research into slavery in the New Testament. Slaves were treated like family and often were adopted into families. I probably didn't make that distinction clear enough. But slavery in the states was nothing like slavery in the New Testament. I can look up some stuff for you if you'd like.


So, slavery in the US was "bad" slavery, but slavery in the New Testament was "good" slavery?

Do you think there's any chance that the people who approved what was written in the New Testament were the masters and not the slaves. Or do you assume that the whole Bible is divinely magical in some way and incapable of error (which some people do)?
0 Replies
 
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Jan, 2006 09:11 am
In regard to the issue of slavery in the New Testament:

Quote:
1. Slavery in the first century was quite different from slavery in early American history. For one thing, Roman slaves were either taken as the spoils of war or were such because they sold themselves into slavery (known as "bond-servant"). They were often well-educated (cf. Gal 3:24 in which the "tutor" or better "disciplinarian" or "guide" of the children was usually a slave). The normal word for "slave" in the New Testament is the term dou'lo", a term that in earlier centuries usually referred to one who sold himself into slavery; later on, it was used especially of those who became slaves as the spoils of war.

2. Although the masters had absolute rights over their slaves, they generally showed them respect, very unlike the South in the days of Lincoln. They often treated them with human dignity and, although they could beat them, such does not seem to be as regular a practice as it was in America. Slaves could marry, accumulate wealth, purchase their own freedom, run a business, etc. Cicero noted that a slave could usually be set free within seven years; in any case, under Roman law a slave would normally be set free by age 30. All this can be overstated, however. The revolt led by Spartacus in 73 BC caused Rome to treat slaves from the western regions more harshly (very similar to how black slaves were treated). Eastern slaves, however, enjoyed much greater freedom.

3. As much as two thirds of the Roman empire were slaves (before the first century it was as high as 90%). By the first century AD an increasingly large number of slaves were being freed?so much so that Caesar had to write up laws that governed the procedure! Quite different from the Old South where only South Carolina had more slaves than freemen (so far as I know).

http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=1499
0 Replies
 
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Jan, 2006 09:15 am
Setanta Wrote:

Quote:
Who are you to determine who has sinned and who has not? Who are you to assert that this person lies and this person does not? Are you not enjoined by your imaginary friend to judge not lest ye be judged?

This is the kind of disgusting self-righteousness which alienates those who are not self-deluded in regard to their spirituality.


I am not juding anyone, Setanta. According to God and the Bible, everyone does sin. Can you honestly tell me you (not literally you) have never done anything wrong? Anything against God's laws OR man's laws is considered a sin in God's eyes. We are to follow man's laws (Render unto Caesar....). I know of no perfect human being. That is all I meant by that statement.
0 Replies
 
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Jan, 2006 09:22 am
Rosborne979 Wrote:

Quote:
So, slavery in the US was "bad" slavery, but slavery in the New Testament was "good" slavery?

Do you think there's any chance that the people who approved what was written in the New Testament were the masters and not the slaves. Or do you assume that the whole Bible is divinely magical in some way and incapable of error (which some people do)?


I would not categorize it as good slavery or bad slavery, Rosborne. I never agreed with the slavery in the United States (speaking of that because that's what we are discussing). I think all men should be free. That's the way I believe it should be.

I believe the Bible is God-breathed and God-inspired. I also believe the Bible is divinely protected by God.
0 Replies
 
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Jan, 2006 09:23 am
Wolf,

I will address pauligirl's quote about Satan. I am doing some research on it. Will be back with you.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Jan, 2006 09:28 am
Momma Angel wrote:

...I would not categorize it as good slavery or bad slavery, Rosborne.

Well most of us would categorize all slavery as bad slavery without hesitation. If you're unable to make moral judgements, what good are you?

Momma Angel wrote:
...I believe the Bible is God-breathed and God-inspired. I also believe the Bible is divinely protected by God....

And can't provide the tiniest shred of evidence to suggest that your opinion might be right. Oh, I forgot, you solve that by defining yourself to be right.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Jan, 2006 09:34 am
You source at Bible-dot-org is hopelessly clueless. Rather than saying it lies outright, i'll just charitably point out that it is confused--so, for example:

Some Joker at Bible-dot-org wrote:
By the first century AD an increasingly large number of slaves were being freed?so much so that Caesar had to write up laws that governed the procedure!


Iulius Caesar was murdered in the Senate at Rome on March 15, 44 BCE--nearly half a century before the First Century CE (or "AD"--anno domini, as your source has it) even began. So, either the author of that self-serving and exculpatory historical abortion is incredibly ignorant, or playing fast and loose with the truth. If he or she meant something else by Caesar than a reference to Iulius Caesar, it was just plain sloppy work not to have said as much. The rest of what you quoted is equally unreliable.
0 Replies
 
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Jan, 2006 09:35 am
Brandon,

I do not agree with slavery at all. So, I wouldn't categorize one as good and one as bad. I feel all people should be free.

It's called faith, Brandon. I have faith that the Bible is God-breathed and God-inspired and divinely protected by God. I need to work on using the phrase I have faith instead of I believe more often. I'm working on it. Laughing
0 Replies
 
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Jan, 2006 09:39 am
Setanta,

Ok, let's try this one then! Laughing


http://www.scripturessay.com/q394b.html
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Jan, 2006 09:40 am
Momma Angel wrote:
Brandon,

I do not agree with slavery at all. So, I wouldn't categorize one as good and one as bad. I feel all people should be free.

Good.

Momma Angel wrote:
It's called faith, Brandon. I have faith that the Bible is God-breathed and God-inspired and divinely protected by God. I need to work on using the phrase I have faith instead of I believe more often. I'm working on it. Laughing

Call it what you like. In actuality, you are compensating for the fact that your opinions have no basis in rationality and are likely wrong by simply defining yourself to be right. There is little difference between you and someone who thinks that he's Napoleon.
0 Replies
 
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Jan, 2006 09:41 am
Brandon,

If it makes you feel any better, I DO NOT think I am Napoleon. :wink:
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Jan, 2006 09:51 am
Scripute Essay dot com uses an almost identical apologia to that provided in the other site--just more erroneous detail. It is factually incorrect throughout, and it is exculpatory in intent. When will you realize that you are referring to sources which have a vested interest in denying any criticism of a religious dogma carved in stone, which cannot by definition ever admit error?
0 Replies
 
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Jan, 2006 09:55 am
Okay, let's try this one. Laughing

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_and_slavery
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Jan, 2006 10:23 am
Momma Angel wrote:
Brandon,

If it makes you feel any better, I DO NOT think I am Napoleon. :wink:

No, but like someone who is certain beyond the need for proof that he is Napoleon, you are certain beyond the need for proof that you have a magical, imaginary friend.
0 Replies
 
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Jan, 2006 10:28 am
Brandon,

Yes, I am certain, because of my faith, beyond the need for proof that I have God in my life. I won't apologize for that. Laughing
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

700 Inconsistencies in the Bible - Discussion by onevoice
Why do we deliberately fool ourselves? - Discussion by coincidence
Spirituality - Question by Miller
Oneness vs. Trinity - Discussion by Arella Mae
give you chills - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence for Evolution! - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence of God! - Discussion by Bartikus
One World Order?! - Discussion by Bartikus
God loves us all....!? - Discussion by Bartikus
The Preambles to Our States - Discussion by Charli
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 02/06/2025 at 07:09:03