The gospel is ridiculous!

[Stevil]

And isn't it telling that there are no groups of people that actively work to thwart the study and upholding of Shakespeare as a literary work of art? (at least none that I know of).

It is only natural to test theories. It happens in science all the time. When someone comes up with a theory about how something is, there are many people that "attack" and test this theory. If the theory stands up to the rigor then it can remain as a valid theory. For a valid theory the attacks only strengthen its position.  If the theory doesn't hold up then the attacks find the issue and the theory then gets modified or discarded.
These attacks should been seen as a necessary and valuable tool, a way to find the truth.

[Ken2468]

1) It's very odd that there was no Heaven or Hell in the old testament. The OT only makes mention of a "world of the dead" where both Jew and Gentile, good and evil people, etc. went after they died. In fact, Hebrew figures in the OT dreaded dying, so this after-death state must've not been all that tempting (unlike Heaven). Thus:

a) Why did good Jews not get a chance to go to this heaven if they were unfortunate enough to die in OT times? Why wasn't heaven created sooner for these loyal, honourable OT Jews?

b) Why did God send both good and evil people to the same place?


2) When Jesus comes, all of a sudden there is a Heaven created where one's "soul" will live in everlasting bliss. But wait, if you don't believe or are evil etc., you no longer just go to some type of neutral afterlife......you will burn in this supposedly newly-created Hell for all enterity!
So:

a) What happened to all those Jews, Gentiles, Good, Evil, etc. who died in OT times and who's spirit apparently went to this world of the dead? Were they now separated with those in God's favour taking the escalator to heaven while those who were not tossed into Hell?

b) What happens to all those people who do not live in the middle east region during the early period of Christianity and thus never heard of either the God of the OT nor Jesus Christ of the NT? I guess they didn't even get a chance to be "saved" before they died?

Ridiculous? Yes.

[DJAkuma]

If one sets out to genuinely understand it

I don't think the bible can be understood. It needs to be interpreted, and even then people need to attend church every week, regular bible study,  bible camp and then they need a spiritual leader to guide them. Its not like a person can read it and then go "Oh, I understand that perfectly" and then go off and live their life like a "good Christian".

I notice you don't dogmatically state it cannot be understood.  I like that.  It's your interpretation that it cannot be understood and I can respect that, but only to the point before one makes false accusations on the words therein and post texts void of context.  The Bible needs to be taken as a whole.  The books therein must also be taken as a whole, who wrote it, to whom it was written, the culture, why...all are part of the context.  This is the reason I say, if one wants to understand it, it can be understood, without agreeing with it.  However to make lists of parts of it and say, "How do you like that!...babies killed, whole groups of people killed...see God is an angry God..."  These types of accusations simply are not honest, but bias strikes as sprayed shots rather than accurate shots taken.

BTW I am not a fan of Shakespeare, I feel the art of communication is to make your points or story easily understood by the audience. Maybe Shakespeare could be understood at the time, but for me in my time to read this stuff, gees I'd rather read Red Dwarf.

And isn't it telling that there are no groups of people that actively work to thwart the study and upholding of Shakespeare as a literary work of art? (at least none that I know of).

I don't recall hearing people try to make the claim that every word of shakespeare is true or divinely inspired. Its understood that it is fiction and is treated as such, the way the bible should also be treated the same way.

[Recusant]

The Bible needs to be taken as a whole.  The books therein must also be taken as a whole, who wrote it, to whom it was written, the culture, why...all are part of the context.  This is the reason I say, if one wants to understand it, it can be understood, without agreeing with it.  However to make lists of parts of it and say, "How do you like that!...babies killed, whole groups of people killed...see God is an angry God..."  These types of accusations simply are not honest, but bias strikes as sprayed shots rather than accurate shots taken.

What possible context can justify the murder of infants?  What context can justify wholesale slaughter of entire towns? How about destroying all life on the planet except for one family and the animals (and I guess the plants) which they gathered up? Do you really believe that such things, taken "in context" are in any way acceptable?  You may try to say that asking such questions is dishonest. However, unless there is a context given in scripture which makes what appear to any objective view to be atrocities not atrocities, then it matters little whether you call the questions honest or dishonest.  If that context is "YHVH operates according to a different standard than humans, and we're not qualified to judge his actions," then YHVH's standards are those of a sociopathic murderer.  YHVH supposedly gave us laws to live by which are supposed to be universal.  Are you actually going to say that being the authority which handed down laws makes the rule-giver immune to being judged by those same laws? Whence any sort of moral authority then, except by fiat?  It's just "I SAY SO!"

It probably won't surprise you to learn that I've studied the Bible, and I really cannot think of any context which makes some of the atrocious actions of YHVH acceptable, let alone adorable.  The only way to do it that I can see is to suspend judgment because the reader believes that YHVH is divine, and therefore any criticism of YHVH is unacceptable and invalid. Other than that, can you suggest a context that a person such as myself could use which would make YHVH seem like anything other than an almighty sociopath?

[Fininho]

Truth is that most fundamentalists believe the Bible's almighty is going to fix up the wrongs of the first Plan; which I call Plan A.
Ask any of those bigots and find out for yourself.
It is preached today that that almighty is going to make NEW heavens and a NEW Earth.
All that because we upset "him" a little!
Very temperamental junior almighty, I tell you.
Now, you have to interpret the scene, because NOTHING in the biblical text regarding what is labelled "prophecy" is clear like a bell.
That is, that almighty had no time to put the story in the clearest terms possible for an almighty of "his" stature.
How preposterous can an almighty be, really!
You believe that almighty is the genuine one, with a sincere background to help us, human victims of gods' bad planning?
You tell me, please.

[Whitney]

Ask any of those bigots and find out for yourself.

McQ already asked you nicely to tone it down...do we need to do something else to help you figure this out?

[LegendarySandwich]

Finiho, from all the posts I've seen of yours, you seem to be the very same type of person you claim to hate so much.

[Fininho]

Ask any of those bigots and find out for yourself.

McQ already asked you nicely to tone it down...do we need to do something else to help you figure this out?

This is the way I am, my friend.
Genuine.

The point is whether the gospel is ridiculous or not.
With an almighty that is going to incinerate the entire cosmos only because humans stuck in a worthless planet somewhere in the infinite cosmos upset him a little!
Is this gospel preached in our suburbs not ridiculous?

How else must i put it?

[Whitney]

This is the way I am, my friend.
Genuine.

Ok...well, I'm going to give you a week to think about this because I'm thinking HAF isn't the place for you.

edit:  btw the above means I just put him on a 7 day ban.  Fyi, this is not the first time I've had this discussion with him.

[Sophus]

The Bible needs to be taken as a whole.  The books therein must also be taken as a whole, who wrote it, to whom it was written, the culture, why...all are part of the context.  This is the reason I say, if one wants to understand it, it can be understood, without agreeing with it.  However to make lists of parts of it and say, "How do you like that!...babies killed, whole groups of people killed...see God is an angry God..."  These types of accusations simply are not honest, but bias strikes as sprayed shots rather than accurate shots taken.

What possible context can justify the murder of infants?  What context can justify wholesale slaughter of entire towns? How about destroying all life on the planet except for one family and the animals (and I guess the plants) which they gathered up? Do you really believe that such things, taken "in context" are in any way acceptable?  You may try to say that asking such questions is dishonest. However, unless there is a context given in scripture which makes what appear to any objective view to be atrocities not atrocities, then it matters little whether you call the questions honest or dishonest.  If that context is "YHVH operates according to a different standard than humans, and we're not qualified to judge his actions," then YHVH's standards are those of a sociopathic murderer.  YHVH supposedly gave us laws to live by which are supposed to be universal.  Are you actually going to say that being the authority which handed down laws makes the rule-giver immune to being judged by those same laws? Whence any sort of moral authority then, except by fiat?  It's just "I SAY SO!"

It probably won't surprise you to learn that I've studied the Bible, and I really cannot think of any context which makes some of the atrocious actions of YHVH acceptable, let alone adorable.  The only way to do it that I can see is to suspend judgment because the reader believes that YHVH is divine, and therefore any criticism of YHVH is unacceptable and invalid. Other than that, can you suggest a context that a person such as myself could use which would make YHVH seem like anything other than an almighty sociopath?

Agreed. Why are those sinister Bible stories so easy to put out of mind?

[defendor]

Why do you guys hold such hostility to a God that doesn't exist?

[LegendarySandwich]

Why do you guys hold such hostility to a God that doesn't exist?

:hissyfit:  :brick:  

[Tank]

Why do you guys hold such hostility to a God that doesn't exist?

The lack of a real 'God' is not a problem it's the fact that there are 10,000 or more 'gods' and they are all made up fairy tales to satisfy the egos/ignorance of a bunch of sycophantic, manipulative, megalomaniac, delusional, charismatic Alpha Males, who use mythology/superstition to exploit anybody they can.

[Whitney]

Why do you guys hold such hostility to a God that doesn't exist?

Considering I just banned the OP for 7 dayes because he was so over the top maybe you should reconsider saying "you guys" ..atheists aren't a hive mind.

[defendor]

Why do you guys hold such hostility to a God that doesn't exist?

:hissyfit:  :brick:  

your right