The mercy of the relatively short human lifespan

[F1fan]

I read every text as they are written, I don't twist their meaning to fit to my own desires.

Except your desires are to "read every text as they are written" and not in the context of ancient people who lacked knowledge of how things are in reality. There is no rational reason to interpret the Bible literally. Even Jews don't interpret Genesis literally as many Christians do. Christians can't explain how their interpretation of the Torah is valid and the Jews are wrong given it is their book.

Well educated minds that don't have a religious agenda, like you do, will examine the history of the people and how they created the Bible at various stages of cultural development. The Bible was created by humans, and the various edits, translations, and interpretations have been created by different people and groups over the lest few millennia. What believers like you believe in the 21st century has changed dramatically over time, and it is odd that whatever one sect believes they don't acknowledge they are a subset of the evolution of Judaism and Christianity.

 

[F1fan]

Sorry, I don't see why anyone should interpret that to mean something else than what is directly said.

Because your approach is shallow and narrow. You want an unsophisticated interpretation that allows you to avoid being educated on any topic of science and history. That is why your posts are easily disputed and criticized.

You should be asking yourself why you are so attracted to an interpretation that is inconsistent with what we understand in the 21st century. The dilemma of dogma is not being able to see beyond what is believed true. That is how it's a trap to believe so fervently.

 

[F1fan]

As one can tell by what is written here and in other threads, the confusion of what is Hell, is there a Hell, is Hell a parable, is there an eternal Hell, is the soul eternally in Hell or destroyed in Hell, is earth the worst Hell we will experience... the list is quite large and varied.

Correct, Christianity is a broad and confused set of sects that lack any coherent "truth". Heaven and hell are absurd ideas if assumed to be literal. This is especially true since what some Christians claim is that a person can be cast in hell for as little as not accepting Jesus as lord and savior. To my mind that is an excessive punishment and suggests this God believed in is either a sociopath, or incompetent. The odd thing about Christians and Christianity as a whole is that it is forgotten that believers are ambassadors for their religion, and the more vile and irrational a believer is the more negative that religion is understood as being.

I wonder if we are concentrating too much on the subject that wasn't the message in the Bible and how it relates to our personal lives with the minimal information in reference and how it applies the lives of everyone else vs the multiple and complete information about being forgiven and forgiving, united with God, enjoying life to the fullest and how to live this life on the earth and the message of love therein and to experience it... personally.

Why do any of this? Why not just be who you are without a need to believe in some religious framework?

 

[Kenny]

The odd thing about Christians and Christianity as a whole is that it is forgotten that believers are ambassadors for their religion, and the more vile and irrational a believer is the more negative that religion is understood as being.

That is SO true.

You have hit the nail on the head.

Correct, Christianity is a broad and confused set of sects that lack any coherent "truth". Heaven and hell are absurd ideas if assumed to be literal. This is especially true since what some Christians claim is that a person can be cast in hell for as little as not accepting Jesus as lord and savior. To my mind that is an excessive punishment and suggests this God believed in is either a sociopath, or incompetent.

This are is somewhat of an exaggeration but taking into account the first quote, i can understand.

Why do any of this? Why not just be who you are without a need to believe in some religious framework?

That is everyone's right! Some people just are interested and want to hear

 

[1213]

Except your desires are to "read every text as they are written" and not in the context of ancient people who lacked knowledge of how things are in reality. There is no rational reason to interpret the Bible literally. ...

Every text becomes meaningless, if readers can twist them to mean anything they want it to mean. I think it would be better, if they would write new own books, if the don't like the old.

 

[F1fan]

Every text becomes meaningless, if readers can twist them to mean anything they want it to mean.

And that is what we have with you diverse sects of Christians. There are many different sects that interpret the bible in different ways. You have a literalist interpretation which is inconsistent with what we know of reality, so talk about meaningless. You interpret the Bible in your way and that interpretation means something to you and your kind of Christian, but it isn't useful information for living in the 21st century. I see the most fervent believers in modernity struggling and desperate for their beliefs on various religious books to be relevant in an age of growing knowledge about reality. It's OK to let things go.

I think it would be better, if they would write new own books, if the don't like the old.

Oh they do. Look at Islam, the Mormons, the Urantia folks, they all have new books beyond the Bible. And there are many books written to describe certain interpretations of the Bible, as tutorials. The Urantia Book is over 2000 pages, it makes the Bible look like a pamphlet. @cOLTER can tell you what he believes, he often cites the UB. Those folks are as dedicated to their beliefs as you are.

 

[1213]

You have a literalist interpretation which is inconsistent with what we know of reality

I think that is a lie. It may be inconsistent with your beliefs, but it is not inconsistent with reality.

 

[F1fan]

I think that is a lie.

No, it’s an observation. Literalist interpretation of most all Bible stories won’t be consistent with reality. Why? Because they invoke magic and supernaturalism.

It may be inconsistent with your beliefs, but it is not inconsistent with reality.

You are the one with beliefs, and they are not fact based. Critical thinkers follow evidence to sound conclusions and that is never religious belief.

 

[excreationist]

No, it’s an observation. Literalist interpretation of most all Bible stories won’t be consistent with reality. Why? Because they invoke magic and supernaturalism.

I think there are better arguments than that.... e.g. in Genesis it says that plants were created a day before the sun, moon and stars.

 

[Brian2]

I think there are better arguments than that.... e.g. in Genesis it says that plants were created a day before the sun, moon and stars.

I believe it tells us that the sun, moon, stars and earth were created in Gen 1:1.

 

[YoursTrue]

Well nobody actually knows what Hell will be like.

They don't? The Bible explains hell as one poster supplied a scripture regarding it -- but when Jesus resurrected Lazarus did Lazarus say, "hey, I was having such a good time in heaven..." ??

 

[YoursTrue]

Tells me everything I need to know. I'll keep my atheism, thanks.

Edited to add: It is far beyond my ability to understand why anybody would worship a deity who thought it would be "delightful" to witness forever the suffering of others. Such a monster may well be worthy of fear and dread -- but certainly not love and worship.

The concept of what will happen in the future re: hell, gehenna, heaven, the earth is often completely misunderstood and mistaught by religion.

 

[excreationist]

I believe it tells us that the sun, moon, stars and earth were created in Gen 1:1.

Genesis 1:1 says God created the heavens. On the fourth day it says God created lights in the sky (sun, moon and stars). So if they already existed why does it say God was creating them on day 4?

 

[Brian2]

Genesis 1:1 says God created the heavens. On the fourth day it says God created lights in the sky (sun, moon and stars). So if they already existed why does it say God was creating them on day 4?

The words are different. Gen 1:1 is bara, create. Gen 1:16 the word is asah, to make, in the broadest possible sense.
If you were a Young Earth Creationist you would have been told that these words mean the same thing. But they are different and have different meanings.
Gen 1:1 says the sun and moon etc were there already and Gen 1:16 says that they started to shine through and be seen as lights in the sky and not just as light coming through the dark cloud layer around the earth. (Job 38:9)
This cloud surrounding the earth was why there was darkness on the face of the deep. (Gen 1:2) And the deep probably refers to the ocean that the earth had early on.
That is the way I see it anyway.

 

[excreationist]

The words are different. Gen 1:1 is bara, create. Gen 1:16 the word is asah, to make, in the broadest possible sense.
If you were a Young Earth Creationist you would have been told that these words mean the same thing. But they are different and have different meanings.
Gen 1:1 says the sun and moon etc were there already and Gen 1:16 says that they started to shine through and be seen as lights in the sky and not just as light coming through the dark cloud layer around the earth. (Job 38:9)
This cloud surrounding the earth was why there was darkness on the face of the deep. (Gen 1:2) And the deep probably refers to the ocean that the earth had early on.
That is the way I see it anyway.

Yeah I'm somewhat familiar with this Old Earth Creationist argument. So you're saying that the lights in the sky only started to shine through an age (or a day) after the plants were created... but I think some plants might have trouble surviving if the sun wasn't visible in the sky yet. Genesis 1:1 just says the heavens - it says nothing about lights in the sky. Though I guess it is a clever counter-argument and involves a belief in mainstream science. BTW what do you think about it saying that birds were created before any of the land animals?

 

[Brian2]

Yeah I'm somewhat familiar with this Old Earth Creationist argument. So you're saying that the lights in the sky only started to shine through an age (or a day) after the plants were created... but I think some plants might have trouble surviving if the sun wasn't visible in the sky yet. Genesis 1:1 just says the heavens - it says nothing about lights in the sky. Though I guess it is a clever counter-argument and involves a belief in mainstream science. BTW what do you think about it saying that birds were created before any of the land animals?

I'm saying that the light shone through on day 1 when God said "let there be light". It took a while for the clouds to clear enough for the lights to be distinguished separately as sun, moon, stars etc. imo.

I have had a problem with birds and try to keep my eye on the various fossils that have been found and notice that earlier and earlier fossils of bird like creatures are found as time goes on.
An alternative understanding of the scriptures for me is that, as with the rest of Gen 1 when each pronouncement is made by God, it is only the embryonic stages that are made and they evolve over time to fill the sea and sky and land etc with the final product.
On day 5 this would be what happened with the fish and the birds. God did all He needed to do and let things go so that the birds could eventually evolve, even if it may have been from the land creatures. iow the necessary features of birds (hollow bones, feathers, laying eggs etc) were included in the genes and even showed in some creatures before the actual birds came along.

 

[excreationist]

I think Genesis 1 has a poetic structure and doesn't need to be interpreted as being sequential and historical.... (I also think most of the Bible isn't historical but believe in a non-obvious God)

Genesis creation narrative - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

First Triad		Second Triad
Day 1	Let there be light - and day and night	Day 4	Let there be lights to rule the day and night (sun / moon / stars)
Day 2	Waters and sky	Day 5	Sea creatures and birds
Day 3	Land and vegetation	Day 6	Land animals and humans

 

[Brian2]

I think Genesis 1 has a poetic structure and doesn't need to be interpreted as being sequential and historical.... (I also think most of the Bible isn't historical but believe in a non-obvious God)

Genesis creation narrative - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

First Triad		Second Triad
Day 1	Let there be light - and day and night	Day 4	Let there be lights to rule the day and night (sun / moon / stars)
Day 2	Waters and sky	Day 5	Sea creatures and birds
Day 3	Land and vegetation	Day 6	Land animals and humans

Yes there are a number of ways to interpret Gen 1 and 2. I started off with the YEC ideas and realised that what science was discovering about the early earth did in fact agree with Genesis if Genesis was read in a certain way. eg I found that the early earth was covered in clouds and dark and had an ocean. I found plate tectonics and the rising and falling of the land and the appearance of dry land etc. I discovered the early atmosphere and how an appropriate atmosphere for life had to evolve etc.
I still have problems but am hopeful that the more science discovers the more that what the Bible says will be confirmed.
And I always have the poetic way of looking at Genesis if I need it, but I can't give the historic narrative away completely since parts at least have been confirmed and the creation of life can fit in with evolution.
But of course any faith in what the Bible says is going to run into science problems and problems with skeptics.

 

[1213]

Because they invoke magic and supernaturalism.

That is baseless opinion.

 

[F1fan]

That is baseless opinion.

No, it's an observation. I notice you offered no rebuttal, so I guess you just didn't like the honest answer I gave, but couldn't explain how it isn't true.