God.

[Kilroy_x]

Re: God.

Historians, thelogians, geologists, astronomers, they've all pointed out many ways in which the bible is correct, describes historical events, and valid scientific phenomena.

...And the Phlogiston theory of heat correctly describes rust as a form of combustion. What's your point?

You will only ever find me presenting accounts in the bible as fact if a) They have been corroborated by other evidence sufficient to me to warrant presenting them that way or b) I'm playing devil's advocate.

Ok.

[Coolgamer]

Re: God.

And, judging by your almost nonexistent knowledge (Read: I don't like what you said, so you must not know what you're talking about!) of Christianity, you haven't even given God one of those.



Do tell how God "attacks" homosexuals. (Are you serious?)



Or any of these.



Then tell me (since you claim to have taken a "true rational look" at God and what he stands for), why your extensive (but I'll accept a little more than minimal) scriptural knowledge suggests that God was some sort of murderer in this situation, and didn't actually forgive our sins. (Even if that doesn't qualify as murder, he has directly killed entire cities by his own hand. He seemed to really dislike women in the Bible. I wonder why that would be in a male-dominated society? Control, perhaps?)

God did it for the lulz, mirite? (If he did it at all, then it's odd that since he knows all, that he would create a son solely to be killed, in order to purge OUR sins, even though I certainly had nothing to do with the death of Jesus.)

See what I'm doing, here? I'm giving a "true rational look" at your statements. (No, you're dismissing them.) Your claims are wholly fabricated and devoid of critical thought. (I have fabricated nothing. Perhaps you should study YOUR religion's history a bit more.)

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

Funny, you haven't responded to any of my follow-up posts?

[devonin]

Re: God.

If the Bible is the word of God, then when the Bible claims God commanded acts of rape, murder, genocide, etc., then those things were gods will. It says it quite plainly in the Bible that it is GOD who ordered those events I referred to.

I'm disagreeing that the bible is the direct word of God, you see. Thus why I disagree that simply because it says so in the bible, it necessarily follows that God approves.

...And the Phlogiston theory of heat correctly describes rust as a form of combustion. What's your point?

My point was that there are in fact people who will point to aspects of the bible as being correct and factual, but that it does not follow that all of it is...I'm not really sure why you felt the need to lodge a disagreement with that.

[Coolgamer]

Re: God.

I'm disagreeing that the bible is the direct word of God, you see. Thus why I disagree that simply because it says so in the bible, it necessarily follows that God approves.

My point was that there are in fact people who will point to aspects of the bible as being correct and factual, but that it does not follow that all of it is...I'm not really sure why you felt the need to lodge a disagreement with that.

So in other words, the Bible is in doubt and no one knows what a certain deity may or may not have ordered. Great. Let me know when you sort that out, I'll be over here, thinking for myself.

[devonin]

Re: God.

So in other words, the Bible is in doubt and no one knows what a certain deity may or may not have ordered.

Well, thank you for conceding the point so readily, and admitting your mistake. Its big of you.

Great. Let me know when you sort that out, I'll be over here, thinking for myself.

Please explain to me how calling you on your blanket statements on faulty evidence means I am not thinking for myself? On the contrary, I rather think it shows a great deal of independant thought.

[Coolgamer]

Re: God.

Well, thank you for conceding the point so readily, and admitting your mistake. Its big of you.





Please explain to me how calling you on your blanket statements on faulty evidence means I am not thinking for myself? On the contrary, I rather think it shows a great deal of independant thought.

Well, to say that you don't believe in the Holy Book is a good sign, but it also makes me wonder why you still claim to be part of the religion based on its every word.

You're confusing me. It's a basic part of the religion- you must believe that the book is the word of god.

[devonin]

Re: God.

Well, to say that you don't believe in the Holy Book is a good sign, but it also makes me wonder why you still claim to be part of the religion based on its every word.

Wherever did you get the wacky idea that I'm a practicing devout Catholic? I'm a deist. My religious beliefs are completely at odds with my Catholic upbringing. Just because I don't believe it myself doesn't mean I am incapable of being the one to defend it when it is attacked in silly ways. I'll Devil's Advocate for the Devil if nobody suited to the task is doing so.

[Coolgamer]

Re: God.

Wherever did you get the wacky idea that I'm a practicing devout Catholic? I'm a deist. My religious beliefs are completely at odds with my Catholic upbringing. Just because I don't believe it myself doesn't mean I am incapable of being the one to defend it when it is attacked in silly ways. I'll Devil's Advocate for the Devil if nobody suited to the task is doing so.

My mistake then. Sorry about that.