Hypothetical: The Bible makes a claim regarding God's wishes; what conclusion do you draw?

What you need to remember is that the bible was compiled under the auspices of the roman emperor Constantine and his successors in an attempt to bring all of the various belief systems of the empire under a common faith.

The result was to be the universal or catholic faith. The word Catholic is derived from the Greek adjective καθολικός (katholikos), meaning "universal".

There is nothing wrong with this and I do not mean for it to sound derogatory. You just need to realize that it is an amalgamation of the various faiths and the dogma and theology of these belief systems. Even assuming benevolence on the part of Rome, making this all make sense would have been a monumental task.

The bible relied heavily on Jewish scripture and the New Testament was highly modified to support Paul’s teachings, which included such localized ideas as blood sacrifices to wash away sins, virgin births and resurrection of deceased deities.

Sadly much of the central part of the Jesus theology was lost in the blended mythology. A mythology was created around a great teacher comparable to the Buddha and he was turned into an amalgam of all of the Mediterranean deities. His teachings on love and non-judgment were all but lost in a maze of judgmental often-vindictive gibberish that he would have never agreed with.

Sadly some of the greatest teachings of all time were all but lost in Rome’s effort to be all things to all people

Love and blessings Don

You're a very naughty girl! And you also wasted a great opportunity. Instead of setting up a straw man argument about something that just is not in the Bible, you COULD have picked an example that IS in the Bible. So why didn't you? Because you couldn't find anything remotely similar to the obnoxious example you went on about?

The Bible always states the reasons for God's judgments on individuals and groups of people. It always has to do with wickedness and accumulating evil. For example, he gave the Amorites over 400 years before acting to destroy them. The 400 years only caused the Amorites to commit more and more atrocities against other people. But look how God's patience is used as an excuse to rage against God's eventual judgment!

Well, Mark, thank you for making me laugh - at seven of the clock this Friday morning! Excellent!

Apple gives the best ripost to your question, by the way. No need for me to say more.

2

If I were evaluating a new writing to decide whether or not to include it in the Bible, then I would have the luxury of finding #2 after much research to determine that it is in fact contradictory to other scripture.

Since scripture has been accepted for thousands of years and no fault has been found in it, then who am I to make such assumptions now? Is my limited understanding superior to that of God? Am I a prophet that I may judge the scriptures? I would not be in the position to choose #2, and I wouldn't be the first to choose #1. In fact, if it was known that blue eyes were an easy way to identify a sociopath, then there would be a clause in the U.S. Constitution mandating the death of any with blue eyes. No one would question it anymore than people question the indefinite detention of terrorists, life imprisonment for murderers, abortion of deformed fetus, etc. After a few hundred years of killing blue-eyed devils, there wouldn't be any around long enough to find out any different about them.

Now ask yourself almost the same question. If science proved that homosexuality was a subconscious choice which could be undone with simple psychology, would you:

1. Accept that it is your decision that is keeping you homosexual and that you deserve what you get, or

2. Conclude that science is flawed and the whole scientific community must be homophobic?

I gotta go with 2, but I have to wonder... is "evil" such just because God says so? What "right" does an entity have to impose his will on others just because he's stronger? Do Christians really think might makes right? How silly.

In any event:

"What you need to remember is that the bible was compiled under the auspices of the roman emperor Constantine and his successors in an attempt to bring all of the various belief systems of the empire under a common faith."

Somebody hasn't done their homework. The bible was compiled long before Constantine got his hands on it.

Your starting point is that you believe the universe was created by an extraterrestrial being (extraterrestrial = not from earth = an alien) that came *poof* out of nothing and created all that is using magic.

.

If you don't have enough brain power to realize everything after that is at least questionable then there is no help for you.

.

Religions evolved as Political tools used to keep the masses inline and to teach them how to live together without killing each other. (And in some cases to inspire the masses to kill off other masses that threaten the civilization (or tribe) in question.)

.

The stories in the bible are sometimes loosely based on fact but even then they have been manipulated by the authors in order to make some point or teach some idea.

They are very much like a "Guide to How to Live" rewritten into the format of children's bed-time stories.

NOT FACTUAL ACCOUNTS.

Just a simple means to teach ideas to people who at the time could not even read and who had limited vocabularies.

.

.

Your thing on blue eyes was probably written by and for for dark skinned masses at a time when they were threatened by light skinned masses.

.

.

While I'm at it.

2000-3000 years ago the words "devil" and "satan" did not mean what they do today.

Neither word identified a specific person or entity.

They were semi-specific generic terms used like the word "enemy" is today.

In other words every instance of "satan' or "devil" in all the popular holey books could be (and probably are) talking about DIFFERENT entities.

For example: 2000 years ago it would have been completely proper and correct to say "Satan was found Pakistan" when referring to Osama Bin Laden.

.

Fortunately I have a close relationship with God and although He raises hell now and again He really is not a fan of avidly sledgehammering anything , especially that which is out upon a ledge, yet he sincerely encourages with ample and divine celerity that for the rest of us to intercede against other's who wish to ledge-end-dance on the sound-proofing baffles of God's own house of human imaginings, that that would be to an appreciation of fortitude that all life is sure to find joyousness ---for a God that cannot speak freely in a holy studio of imagination without raciocinating bull's eyes into autonomous crosses of counter- theological congresses , by writ of misinterpreting of authoritarian grandiose-ness, and without old Beatle's fans falling from the baffles of a well-couthed maze of audiological acoustitry composed of baffles...ye, baffles, then God as someone who you could honor in a few private blasts of your favorite potion is as disappointed as what you would be. Let opennesss be a clothed adore.

The bible was written....and I'm pretty sure no God wrote any of those words.

But [___place answer here__] believes anything they read or hear.

Most of us don't seem to think for themselves...they want to buy things because a commercial told them to, they want to do things because someone sold them the idea, and they believe things because they were told it's true.

My conclusion is obvious: the bible is no more real than JRR Tolkien s Lord of the Rings. I would bet in a couple thousand years there will be a growing sect of people who believe those books to be the actual history of mankind. They will prey to Gandolf and say that non believers will be tortured by Sauron.

My conclusion would be that this supposed god has not met the standards of evidence required for belief.

I do not ascribe actions or thoughts to beings that fail to meet the extremely easy task of proof of existence. it is a waste of time.