The bible "It's own enemy"

[geosha]

Let's start at the very beginning;
We read in the bible that this omniscient,omnipresent,omnipotent supernatural being suddenly appeared,and then created everything from nothing,that's powerful won't you say.
Then at some point this omniscient,omnipresent,omnipotent supernatural being created three arch angels,with a host of angels for each of them to lead.
Then at another point, one of these arch angels decided to rebel,and was thrown out of heaven,together with his quota of angels.
Now I can not fathom how this all knowing being,who created everything from nothing for whatever purpose,was unable to know that a third of what he created to worship himself,was going to rebel.
And thus be thrown out of heaven to earth, to do what ?
Aha,wait for Adam and Eve so that he can spoil the great plan his creator had for the future.
We also read in the bible that Satan has the number of 666,I'm sure it is a misprint,because if I look at the bit I've just written,it is God who is 666,or should I say 66.6 God,not a very good percentage for an omniscient,omnipresent,omnipotent supernatural being,whom created everything from nothing.

 

[Tarheeler]

Awesome.

Do you have a similar post prepared for each religion, or did you stop with Christianity?

 

[Quagmire]

Then at some point this omniscient,omnipresent,omnipotent supernatural being created three arch angels,with a host of angels for each of them to lead.

Where is this in the Bible?

Then at another point, one of these arch angels decided to rebel,and was thrown out of heaven,together with his quota of angels.

Or this?

Now I can not fathom how this all knowing being,who created everything from nothing for whatever purpose,was unable to know that a third of what he created to worship himself,was going to rebel.
And thus be thrown out of heaven to earth, to do what ?
Aha,wait for Adam and Eve so that he can spoil the great plan his creator had for the future.

According to Genesis, the culprit there was a talking snake, not an angel.

We also read in the bible

Looks like "we" never have read the Bible.

that Satan has the number of 666,

That's actually supposed to be the Mark of the Beast, not Satan.

I'm sure it is a misprint,because if I look at the bit I've just written,it is God who is 666,or should I say 66.6 God,not a very good percentage for an omniscient,omnipresent,omnipotent supernatural being,whom created everything from nothing.

What kind of kicks do you get out of critiquing a book which you've obviously never read?

 

[JohnLeo]

Let's start at the very beginning;
We read in the bible that this omniscient,omnipresent,omnipotent supernatural being suddenly appeared,and then created everything from nothing,that's powerful won't you say.
Then at some point this omniscient,omnipresent,omnipotent supernatural being created three arch angels,with a host of angels for each of them to lead.
Then at another point, one of these arch angels decided to rebel,and was thrown out of heaven,together with his quota of angels.
Now I can not fathom how this all knowing being,who created everything from nothing for whatever purpose,was unable to know that a third of what he created to worship himself,was going to rebel.
And thus be thrown out of heaven to earth, to do what ?
Aha,wait for Adam and Eve so that he can spoil the great plan his creator had for the future.
We also read in the bible that Satan has the number of 666,I'm sure it is a misprint,because if I look at the bit I've just written,it is God who is 666,or should I say 66.6 God,not a very good percentage for an omniscient,omnipresent,omnipotent supernatural being,whom created everything from nothing.

Mythology?.......Yes..........Proof positive that a creator or first uncaused cause does not exist?.........NO!!!!

 

[JohnLeo]

Where is this in the Bible?





According to Genesis, the culprit there was a talking snake, not an angel.

the idea that a snake, which has no vocal apparatus whatsoever, could talk, proves that all this is the stuff of myth, legend and folklore.

 

[Quagmire]

Where is this in the Bible?





According to Genesis, the culprit there was a talking snake, not an angel.

the idea that a snake, which has no vocal apparatus whatsoever, could talk, proves that all this is the stuff of myth, legend and folklore.

Way to miss the point.

 

[Rocky S]

Let's start at the very beginning;
We read in the bible that this omniscient,omnipresent,omnipotent supernatural being suddenly appeared,and then created everything from nothing,that's powerful won't you say.
Then at some point this omniscient,omnipresent,omnipotent supernatural being created three arch angels,with a host of angels for each of them to lead.
Then at another point, one of these arch angels decided to rebel,and was thrown out of heaven,together with his quota of angels.
Now I can not fathom how this all knowing being,who created everything from nothing for whatever purpose,was unable to know that a third of what he created to worship himself,was going to rebel.
And thus be thrown out of heaven to earth, to do what ?
Aha,wait for Adam and Eve so that he can spoil the great plan his creator had for the future.
We also read in the bible that Satan has the number of 666,I'm sure it is a misprint,because if I look at the bit I've just written,it is God who is 666,or should I say 66.6 God,not a very good percentage for an omniscient,omnipresent,omnipotent supernatural being,whom created everything from nothing.

How about something came from nothing from a cataclysmic accident then from that accident, poof life happened. To me that sounds more absurd but thats just me. l

 

[McBell]

the idea that a snake, which has no vocal apparatus whatsoever, could talk, proves that all this is the stuff of myth, legend and folklore.

That is nice as far as it goes, but what does it have to do with the thread topic or even the post you quoted for that reply?

 

[McBell]

How about something came from nothing from a cataclysmic accident then from that accident, poof life happened. To me that sounds more absurd but thats just me. l

That does sound absurd.
Who actually says they believe that?

 

[geosha]

Awesome.

Do you have a similar post prepared for each religion, or did you stop with Christianity?

I was raised in a christian home,so I can only comment on what I have knowledge of,but I suppose that this applies to all three,christian,Muslim and Jew,they all seem to stem from the same beliefs.

 

[Tarheeler]

I was raised in a christian home,so I can only comment on what I have knowledge of,but I suppose that this applies to all three,christian,Muslim and Jew,they all seem to stem from the same beliefs.

You suppose wrong.

What you've posted only covers Christianity, and a very narrow window even within that.
It requires an extremely literal reading of the Christian scriptures to even be a feasible effort. You know, in the time I've been here, I've seen far more atheists who were Biblical literalists that I've seen Christians who were. Interesting, isn't it?

Then we have all of the other non-Abrahamic religions for you to tackle. It's no good to try to refute Christianity if you aren't going to also refute Hinduism, Wicca, and Zoroastrianism (just to name a few), now is it?

 

[JohnLeo]

That is nice as far as it goes, but what does it have to do with the thread topic or even the post you quoted for that reply?

The bible is its own worst enemy because it promotes as fact that which recent discoveries in various sciences have shown cannot be true. For instance: the story of Adam & Eve, the story of Noah's Ark, references to creatures that have never existed such as talking snakes and donkeys, unicorns, dragons, etc.

 

[McBell]

The bible is its own worst enemy because it promotes as fact that which recent discoveries in various sciences have shown cannot be true. For instance: the story of Adam & Eve, the story of Noah's Ark, references to creatures that have never existed such as talking snakes and donkeys, unicorns, dragons, etc.

So you are of the opinion that the Bible has to be taken literally?

What about those (which appear to be the majority mind you) who do not take the Bible in the literal fashion they would have to for your "point" to be relevant?

 

[waitasec]

Let's start at the very beginning;
We read in the bible that this omniscient,omnipresent,omnipotent supernatural being suddenly appeared,and then created everything from nothing,that's powerful won't you say.
Then at some point this omniscient,omnipresent,omnipotent supernatural being created three arch angels,with a host of angels for each of them to lead.
Then at another point, one of these arch angels decided to rebel,and was thrown out of heaven,together with his quota of angels.
Now I can not fathom how this all knowing being,who created everything from nothing for whatever purpose,was unable to know that a third of what he created to worship himself,was going to rebel.
And thus be thrown out of heaven to earth, to do what ?
Aha,wait for Adam and Eve so that he can spoil the great plan his creator had for the future.
We also read in the bible that Satan has the number of 666,I'm sure it is a misprint,because if I look at the bit I've just written,it is God who is 666,or should I say 66.6 God,not a very good percentage for an omniscient,omnipresent,omnipotent supernatural being,whom created everything from nothing.

hey, if you could back up these claims that would be really cool...then we can have a meaningful dialogue about the bible being it's worst enemy.

 

[JohnLeo]

So you are of the opinion that the Bible has to be taken literally?

What about those (which appear to be the majority mind you) who do not take the Bible in the literal fashion they would have to for your "point" to be relevant?

It seems to me that believers in the bible make certain distinctions they ought not to make. For instance information therein which they like, is interpreted literally. On the other hand, information which conflicts with their cherished notions is dismissed as metaphor, parody, allegory, etc. The very question of whether the bible should be interpreted literally or not leads to another question. Is God not capable of communicating his thoughts to people in a clear, unambiguous fashion so that there would be no mistake what the meaning was? Then we wonder, since there is so much disagreement between theists over what various passages mean, can we conclude that God is deliberately trying to obfuscate and create confusion? That seems to me an absurdity. Therefore the most likely resolution of these matters is the simplest: The bible is mostly ancient myths and legends and lacks any divine authority.

 

[McBell]

It seems to me that believers in the bible make certain distinctions they ought not to make. For instance information therein which they like, is interpreted literally. On the other hand, information which conflicts with their cherished notions is dismissed as metaphor, parody, allegory, etc. The very question of whether the bible should be interpreted literally or not leads to another question. Is God not capable of communicating his thoughts to people in a clear, unambiguous fashion so that there would be no mistake what the meaning was? Then we wonder, since there is so much disagreement between theists over what various passages mean, can we conclude that God is deliberately trying to obfuscate and create confusion? That seems to me an absurdity. Therefore the most likely resolution of these matters is the simplest: The bible is mostly ancient myths and legends and lacks any divine authority.

Yes, you seem stuck on the whole "The Bible is Myth" mantra.
Now all you have to do is show how your favored mantra is related tot he thread topic.

And I DID notice you failed to answer both questions...

 

[geosha]

Where is this in the Bible?



Or this?




According to Genesis, the culprit there was a talking snake, not an angel.




Looks like "we" never have read the Bible.



That's actually supposed to be the Mark of the Beast, not Satan.




What kind of kicks do you get out of critiquing a book which you've obviously never read?

The 666 story is just a bit of word play,not in the bible only my interpretation of some quotes.Works out does it not,God creating 3 arch angels and then 1 revolts leaving only 66.6 % of what he created,thus God is only a 66.6 % God.

 

[geosha]

It seems to me that believers in the bible make certain distinctions they ought not to make. For instance information therein which they like, is interpreted literally. On the other hand, information which conflicts with their cherished notions is dismissed as metaphor, parody, allegory, etc. The very question of whether the bible should be interpreted literally or not leads to another question. Is God not capable of communicating his thoughts to people in a clear, unambiguous fashion so that there would be no mistake what the meaning was? Then we wonder, since there is so much disagreement between theists over what various passages mean, can we conclude that God is deliberately trying to obfuscate and create confusion? That seems to me an absurdity. Therefore the most likely resolution of these matters is the simplest: The bible is mostly ancient myths and legends and lacks any divine authority.

This is basically the point I'm trying to make,the bible is a record of life from a period in the past,and because the human race can not just live life without having to try and please something higher than themselves, they embrace this written word as from above.The real reason they believe is the fact that it offers an after life,somewhere where there is no pain or suffering,and there is peace.
While here we destroy not only each other,but also our means of survival,the earth.The real God is money,,but any religion is a good place to hide and be someone else.

 

[Rakhel]

interesting

 

[waitasec]

So you are of the opinion that the Bible has to be taken literally?

to be fair, from what i gather, JohnLeo doesn't believe that but he's commentating on those that do believe it is supposed to be taken as literally

What about those (which appear to be the majority mind you) who do not take the Bible in the literal fashion they would have to for your "point" to be relevant?

depends on how you look at it...
54%, if i am not mistaken, of those that go to church on a regular basis do take the bible literally....that is a significant number

perhaps the title of this thread should be:
the bible "it's own enemy", if taken literally

would be a better title...but isn't that a given?