Castanet

cliffy1 wrote:Many of the reasons given in the bible for god's violence are illogical, irrational and sometime down right psychotic. I fail to see the how people can rationalize such behaviour.

This is what I'm talking about. Please give a specific example and include at least the book its in. If you want to that is. There maybe much more to the story then you or I know.

Graham Adder wrote:The god of which you speak, is actually a trans gender pedophile ego maniacal child abuser.
That's my truth, and you nor any other bible thumping sheep can tell me different...nor do you have any more right to discount my belief over yours. Neither has any fact based foundation, and both were contrived out of a perception one person had.

A saw and a man...pfft.

Imagine someone telling you the same about your beliefs in the same way you just described theirs. I think accepting that people will have different beliefs than yours without having to resort to insults would be a big step forward.

If you personify god its easy to pose questions to him .but if you believe god is the goodness within you,not some dude in the sky but a spiritual concept it gives us all the power of god .Listen to the voice in your head that tells you to do the good thing .thats god.

kibbs wrote:If you personify god its easy to pose questions to him .but if you believe god is the goodness within you,not some dude in the sky but a spiritual concept it gives us all the power of god .Listen to the voice in your head that tells you to do the good thing .thats god.

" At the centre of the universe dwells the Great Spirit and that center is really everywhere, it is within each of us. "
Black Elk

I read this somewhere ... You are the spiritual being you've been waiting for.

Hmmm wrote:Please give a specific example and include at least the book its in. If you want to that is. There maybe much more to the story then you or I know.

Billions of parents genitally mutilate their babies today because the Bible and Quran said to.

Sneaksuit wrote:
Billions of parents genitally mutilate their babies today because the Bible and Quran said to.

Where in the Bible does it say to mutilate your child again?

Graham Adder wrote:The god of which you speak, is actually a trans gender pedophile ego maniacal child abuser.
That's my truth, and you nor any other bible thumping sheep can tell me different...nor do you have any more right to discount my belief over yours. Neither has any fact based foundation, and both were contrived out of a perception one person had.

A saw and a man...pfft.

zzontar wrote:Imagine someone telling you the same about your beliefs in the same way you just described theirs. I think accepting that people will have different beliefs than yours without having to resort to insults would be a big step forward.

I don't see any insults in what GA said. He stated his truths about this "god" of yours (the Christian god), and as he said .... "contrived out of a perception one person had". That he sees that god as "a trans gender pedophile ego maniacal child abuser" is perfectly described as far as I am concerned, too.

My belief is as good as yours is - or as GA's is, too.

Given all the churchy Christian child sexual abuse that's coming to light more and more, I find it rather unbelievable that more church followers are just picking up the edge of the rug and giving all this dirt and garbage a nudge with their boot under the carpet to ignore it or to cover it up and pretend it isn't happening or ever happened. Does that mean it is okay for church leaders to prey sexually upon the congregations' children?

Hmmm wrote: Where in the Bible does it say to mutilate your child again?

Gen 17:10-14
10 This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised.

11 And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you.

12 And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed.

13 He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant.

14 And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant.

Start your own thread grumpy granny, this one has nothing at all to do with your comment. I don't like religions either but this isn't about that.

Sneaksuit wrote:
Gen 17:10-14
10 This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised.

11 And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you.

12 And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed.

13 He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant.

14 And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant.

So this is found in the Bible, now what do you disagree with for the reason for it?

Hmmm wrote: Where in the Bible does it say to mutilate your child again?

Sneaksuit wrote:Gen 17:10-14
10 This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised.

11 And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you.

12 And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed.

13 He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant.

14 And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant.

Address this please.

Hmmm wrote:So this is found in the Bible, now what do you disagree with for the reason for it?

There is no stated reason for it other than to distinguish believers from non-believers. After clarifying the purpose of cutting off a chunk of your son's penis answer why females must be silent in the church (1 Corinthians 14:34).

Sneaksuit wrote:
There is no stated reason for it other than to distinguish believers from non-believers. After clarifying the purpose of cutting off a chunk of your son's penis answer why females must be silent in the church (1 Corinthians 14:34).

Have you ever been to a church? Are the women silent? So the answer is, you don't really know why it says it or the reasons. I'm also not hear to explain them to you. My intentions were to point out that most of the harsh critics really don't have any clue about the whys?

Hmmm wrote: Have you ever been to a church? Are the women silent?

No. But the issue is not whether or not believers still obey some rules. If some rules are clearly outdated then shouldn't one question the validity of the entire book?

Hmmm wrote:So the answer is, you don't really know why it says it or the reasons. I'm also not hear to explain them to you. My intentions were to point out that most of the harsh critics really don't have any clue about the whys?

Not true. Theologians, anthropologists, psychologists, and philosophers of religion generally agree with what other posters have already said. That is - scripture is written for people of a particular era and culture by the people, inspired by their beliefs.

grammafreddy wrote:I don't see any insults in what GA said. He stated his truths about this "god" of yours (the Christian god), and as he said .... "contrived out of a perception one person had". That he sees that god as "a trans gender pedophile ego maniacal child abuser" is perfectly described as far as I am concerned, too.

Why doesn't that surprise me? Like if someone calls you an old biased rednecked backwoods hillbilly hag, but they say it's their perception of truth, then it's not an insult, I get it now. Really Gramma, there's no insult against religion that you wouldn't relish and you're trying to judge whether it's an insult or not?