The Bible Is Fiction: A Collection Of Evidence

By Daniel Miessler on May 13th, 2007: Tagged as Atheism | History | Mythology | Religion
  • Adrian Bool
    .. or perhaps God just doesn't have a very good imagination? ;-)

    aid
  • gaten
    ... or perhaps god finally got a winner in Jesus? Better salesman than say, Buddha or the various Greek myths. I think they got the point that the whole man animal thing just creeps people out. What's the old saying, "If you tell a lie over and over, the people will believe it"? Something like that. Maybe they just kept changing the lie until one finally stuck.
  • Craig S Wright
    Of course if we are to rely on Occam’s Razor we have to discount String Theory. Acyually, we have to discount quantum. But these are only approximations.

    Maybe there is an alternate to your explaination? Maybe these are stories, mythology to explain a complex world in a time before science.

    In the case of the middle east there is a wide history of story telling and verbal history. Over time, people swapped tales and they grew. All of these tales have a history many years prior to the advent of writing.

    Most of the tailes in the early bible started being written in the time of David. The predated tales until then are verbal representations.

    As for the last comment and thes text, Buddha is in effect an Atheist. Buddist religion is nontheistic.

    Prometheus did not sacrifice himself and the theft of fire was to spite the Gods - not to aid man. He was punished for this, but he did not do it out of anything "nice".

    You need to try to avoid the Wiki versions of things they are too trite and democratic. They are about the equal of a golden book encyclopeadia. For a simple introduction to Myth before a real academic text, try Bulfinches Mythology.

    Regards,
    Craig
  • Craig S Wright
    As a Post Script, you need to take into account another legand before you can make your assertions.

    If you are going to use Occam’s Razor you need all the facts. The First Chinese dynasty has a flood legand that predates that of Gilgamesh.

    The Miao Legend relates a story were a single human couple escaped the flood in a wooden drum, and then gave birth to the first members of post flood civilization. From Shu King, China's first "history":

    "destructive in their overflow are the waters of the inundation. In their vast extent they embrace the hills and overtop the great heights, threatening the heavens with their floods"

    Yu, a mythological Noah figure in Chinese Myth predates Gilgamesh. Though he has a lot of similarities with several Sumerian myths there are also key distinctions.

    So some more reading for you. Again, do not trust all you read on Wiki.

    Regards,
    Craig
  • Craig,

    We all know not to trust everything on a Wiki. The stuff being linked to isn't controversial; it's well-established mythology that resides on bookshelves all over the world.
  • About Prometheus: my understanding is that it was a little of both -- both spite and a sacrifice for human knowledge. But I admit I'm no expert in mythology.

    Taylor, The Diegesis, pp. 192-4. Taylor indicates that the following stanza is found in "Potter's beautiful translation" of Aeschylsus's play: *"Lo, streaming from the fatal tree, His all-atoning blood! Is this the Infinite? 'Tis he - Prometheus, and a God! Well might the sun in darkness hide, And veil his glories in, When God, the great Prometheus, died, For man, the creature's sin."* However, this stanza apparently does not appear in modern translations, including Potter's. It is well-known that the Christians mutilated or destroyed virtually all of the works of ancient Greek and Roman authors, such that we might suspect this stanza has either been removed or obfuscated through mistranslation.
  • You're preaching to the choir, baby, and it sounds great!
  • just wanted to say I read the text up there, and each of the words taken individually were fine. maybe next week you could do gwb: not really an intellectual?
  • Craig S Wright
    Actually there is a great amount of academic disagreement surronding
    the Greko-Romanic myths.

    This is an area I know well, by doctoral dissertation was "Gnarled
    roots of a creation myth". In this I campared and contrasted the
    Pandora and Eve mythos.

    Pandora being the first woman in Greek mythology. I would also state that the commonly believed story of Pandora opening the box and letting evil into the world is not the original. In the original myth, Pandora was given a gift from Zues
    as a dowry. This contained gifts to mankind. She opened the box allowing
    these to escape into the world leaving man-kind with only the greatest
    gift, hope.

    On a different note, the original or at least the earliest Genisis
    stories have a toad in the garden, not a serpent. Satan and Hell were
    not a part of the early jewdacia story and had been added later. I
    would guess that a toad was not "scary" enough?
  • The link between traitors in Buddhism and Christianity is a rather long shot. I mean stories about traitors are always in the news. One day it's a Chinese American who passed on secretes, another day it's a black sheep of a family who shames himselfs and harms others, at other times you have politicians who challenge their party leaders. C'mon, having traitors in tales is pretty common.
  • Craig S Wright
    Before you can contend the argument that you are putting forth, there other concerns that you need to address.

    You state that the association of Gilgamesh and Noah are similar enough that the bible must be associated with this text. I would argue this. These are a number of swapped stories, but I would rather see a common regional heritage in pre-historic times. There is also a possibility of mirrored experience from pre-historic events – such as the melting of the ice.

    As for evidence of this hypothesis, I have mentioned a flood myth in Chinese mythology. This can be explained through Sumerian trade. What can not is The Inca, Maya, Teotihuacán and Aztec myths.

    The Inca for instance had a myth where Mama Qoca punished the wicked leaving the Inca people and the lama on the highest mountains as a flood covered the earth. Eventually Illapu relented and Inti brought the sun and Cuichu the rainbow and the world dried up.

    There was no trade in the timeframe that accounts for this myth. As the same myth is in the America’s, there needs to be another way to account for your supposition. This is a contradiction to shared local stories as an idea (and there are others).

    My supposition as stated is a shared story dating to about pre-migration times told through verbal memory as the ice melted and peoples where separated which would be a verbal myth carried to explain a changing world following the end of the ice age. However, there is little proof as there are not any 11,000 year old written records.
  • suexian
    I prefer God's earlier work - "Creation of the Universe" ...
  • The bible is an assertion. And as with any assertion, it's fiction until it is proven by independent observers and objective proof or evidence. If my neighbor says there's a unicorn in his backyard, it doesn't mean the unicorn exists until I disprove it.

    But logic, evidence, facts, and rationality means nothing to believers who want to believe. They've created a massive cult around a unicorn.
  • Sherif
    This is silly, there are many atheists that believe the Bible is not fiction and its fact! To me the silly thing is being an atheist.

    Pointing to a whole stack of wikipedia articles doesnt mean anything. The meaning of truth is deluded on the internet as there is no truth - anyone can contribute anything without having logical facts or whitenesses

    To be an atheist means that you have assesed everything out there and concluded that there is no God. To be able to asses everything out there, would mean you would need to have infinite knowledge on every topic and proposal of the notion of God. Thus to be an atheist cannot be logically true - it doesn't make sense. No one can have infinite knowledge on any topic - unless they are God themselves.

    I think those people who worship idols that dont do anything have more logic in them then an atheists.

    Just my thoughts
  • Ugly American
    re: Sherif

    I can't prove that I didn't pop into existance just this instant with all my memories pre-made either.

    But I find the chances so remote as to be mathematically disharmonious.


    There's something you should know about atheists. Most of us play along with religious people and their god myths the same way most of us play along with children and their love of Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny. Not because they're real but because you're not ready for the truth.
  • sion
    I would agree with Craig that the Genesis myths are leftover interpretations from the end of the last ice-age.

    As far as the Christ myth goes, the primary driver for this was St Paul - who never met the central character of his mythology. Paul came from the birthplace of Mithras, whose own mythology parallels the Catholic record of the Christ myth. Combine this with the popularity of Mithraism in Rome and its easy to see how it would have been convenient in creating a new religion to steal sections of an existing mythology. Given the dearth of independent historical references to a Jesus character - and the glaring innaccuracies in the new testament record, it is doubtful whether even a basic historical figure existed, at best it is likely to have been an amalgam of one or two zealots of the time.

    This alone does not "disprove" all religion, but it does give grist to the application of Occam's razor. The results of scientific endeavour push any deity into the gaps - and ultimately to be merely one possible progenitor of the universe. Science, emasculates deities by taking away their necessity in the orderly running of the universe - i.e. there is a vague possibility they may have struck the cue ball, but there is no evidence that they are running around the universal pool table altering the ongoing course of things.

    What is clear, is that Christianity was a convenient method of command and control for populations that no longer lived a subsistence and nomadic lifestyle, but was more suited to the needs of a settled urban population - much as the core tenet's of Judaism before it were best suited to the middle eastern nomadic lifestyle.

    Ultimately though IMO it would be better if we didn't have "religion" there seems to be a core need for the explanation and disassociation of events in the human psyche which forces many people to reach for a collective mental crutch.

    Sadly for those who "believe" - even most vaguely, it would appear that no amount of rational argument can persuade them.
  • I recognize that as a believer in God, my opinion may not be welcome here, but there is a third, plausible option (if you are willing to accept the existence of God, at least hypothectically for the sake of argument):

    3. The Flood occurred before story of Gilgamesh was created. According to the Bible's internal history, the Flood occurred several thousand years before the Book of Genesis was written (remember, Genesis was written as a history of past religious events). Thus, Gilgamesh and other myths are modified accounts of the same world event. In this light, myths of the flood from all of the world (viz. Gilgamesh, Miao Legend) serve to corroborate the biblical account. It's natural that specifics would vary through time and across cultures.

    The same reasoning above applies to myths similar to Jesus Christ. What if, like the flood, the knowledge of a savior was general to the world's earliest inhabitants via revelation from God? If this were the case, it would be reasonable that stories of a Christ-figure would propagate throughout the myths of history and share similarities.

    My faith, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (i.e. Mormonism) teaches this very thing.
  • Tony,

    Your opinion is very much welcome here. We're a meritocracy. :)
  • Craig S Wright
    Tony,
    You can of course take the fact that all continents have a flood myth as I stated above in this manner. The choice of belief is one that I believe to be personal. I do however believe that it has to be made on rational judgement and thought. Contrary to both Atheist and Theist belief, there are in fact holes with both. IT could be logically argued that agnostic thought is the only logical answer, but I do not like to sit on a fence – I like discourse and controversy. I am also not agnostic.

    My only issue is with fundamentalism in any of its guises. This is fundamental Christian or fundamental atheist. None of us have proof and none of us can categorically prove that the belief structure that is held by others is valid or not.

    Sion has the idea that we do not need to believe, but all creative thought is a type of madness and belief. Believing in rationality and what you see is still belief.

    Faith and fact are both necessary tenants to the human condition. As droll as it seems, respect in belief is a valuable idea. In fact, the rational world of science works on belief. There are many things we can not explain and we have only added more.

    My only tenant is that one should be able to rationalise and justify their belief and not just accept it as it seems about right.

    Regards,
    Craig

    PS - this does not mean that I think we should all just get along either. It just means that an organised disagreement is best ;)
  • Jason Powell
    I am an atheist, just to be clear from the start.

    Daniel,
    We're great friends who debate often. I've struggled with a response to this post, but have finally decided to go ahead with it and be blunt. Though you're on a great track with juxtaposing Christian stories with that of other cultures, I'd strongly suggest that these similarities do not disprove the Bible. Although I wouldn't take the track that Tony Vance has and say these stories have common roots in real events (perhaps the flood does, but it's irrelevant to my stance), I do believe they share a common thread, but it's something embedded in the human psyche. I like the term psyche, but it's certainly not scientific. I like it as a nebulous, ambiguous term and use it to reference all that is the human mind and experience, both from a scientific analysis and from a more philosophical perspective. To me, the psyche is more of a question than an answer, I guess.

    I am an avid proponent of Carl Jung and Joseph Campbell, and these guys have performed much better treatments of these themes than I ever could. The points you raise about the similarities of stories are explored not as proof of the Bible being false by guys like them, but from the perspective these stories exist, in many forms, across many cultures, because their themes are relevant to our experiences and existence. Though I suppose you can take the avenue of their commonalities as evidence of falsehoods, I think it's a misappropriation of very valuable tool. I could write a book on this point, but better men than me already have.

    Craig,
    I won't reply to any further posts you make, just to be clear from the start.

    Please, just stop. You're embarrassing yourself--hell, I'm embarrassed for you. You're regurgitating stories that, while it's cool you can do that, you obviously have little ability to understand them or draw real conclusions beyond what I could in middle school:

    "Hey! They're similar...isn't that neat?!"

    I'm not familiar with the toad appearing in early versions of the Genesis story, but assuming it's true, why can't you see the toad is the serpent (or dragon, really)? Really, it isn't even that. He's an animal messenger, a frequent symbol in stories (virtually all, if you can recognize the animal...e.g., R2D2 is an animal messenger). These symbols foreshadow the primal realms, the unknown or here-to-fore unexperienced, the protagonist is about to enter; this is exactly the function of the serpent (or toad) in the Genesis story. Take a look at the tale of "The Frog Prince," if you've any doubt. Surely you read that in elementary school.

    You know, it's not your blatant misinterpretations that are making me want to punish you so publicly. It's the haught with which you express your simplistic analogies. Daniel's points are made in a similar vein, but he didn't claim to have written a dissertation on the topic with the overly trite title involving "gnarled roots." Step away from the adjectives, dude, you'll injure yourself without proper training.

    Further, dissertations, by definition, aren't "compare and contrast" essays, as you stated yours was. I sincerely hope that if you were awarded a degree for it, a tiny, probably online, school, somewhere, lost it's accreditation for giving it to you. You've exhibited nothing but enthusiasm for showing how you've memorized two or three stories, muddling up the details, of course, and a complete lack of understanding of the English grammar. I sincerely beg anyone reading this thread and my reply to not put much faith in what you've said about Prometheus or Pandora.

    Before you go feeling good that you elicited a "flame" from someone more knowledgeable...ah, I'll let you have that. I don't normally respond to people who shout incorrect information with such conviction, so you've done much in getting me to respond at all. Just don't expect it to happen again--I rarely feel good about flexing my ego.

    Also, don't pluralize America with an apostrophe "s." That's just hideous.

    Cheers!
  • Craig S Wright
    Hello Jason,
    For all your rant, my arguement was that shared stories do not disprove the bible or prove it. Rather as I had stated, there is a shared theme amongst many cultures - includng those without a trade based foundation.

    The result of this is that there is a similarity in story that crosses geographic boundaries. The idea I discuss is that there is some cross cultural sharing in selected areas, that this does not make for a separate story.

    Regards,
    Craig
  • Craig S Wright
    "Another story is that Pandora was sent in good faith, by Jupiter,to bless man; that she was furnished with a box, containing hermarriage presents, into which every god had put some blessing. She opened the box incautiously, and the blessings all escaped, HOPE only excepted. This story seems more probable than the former; for how could HOPE, so precious a jewel as it is, have been kept in ajar full of all manner of evils, as in the former statement?"
    Bulfinch 1855

    Prefer a Psycho-Analysis relateded reference (you state you like Jung))
    "On Hope: Its Nature and Psychotherapy"
    HN Boris - International Review of Psycho-Analysis, 1976

    "by definition, aren’t “compare and contrast”"
    Herbert Simon wrote a dissertation designed to compare and contrast - he has a nobel prize.
    Thomas Morgan, also a nobel prize winner also compare and contrasted themes in his dissertation.
    Herbert Simon also has used the same approach.

    So feel free to not respond. I have references. Bulfinch is not exactly new and is taken to be a good if dated reference.

    Craig
  • Craig S Wright
    As a final response, your not having heard of the toad defence makes this not true? This seems to be the general idea you seek to portray?

    Milton's Satan metamorphoses into cormorant, toad, and snake. The idea was common in his time. “Squat like a toad, close at the ear of Eve.” There are several references to a number of animals – it is just set as a serpent with the advent of modern printing. I am not the first with the idea and it is not my idea. The idea was proposed by a number of rabbinical scholars the translation should more correctly have been a toad in the bible.

    As for your assertion of the animal messenger, I have to agree with you on this point. I see that you believe that you are more knowledgeable, I have not seen evidence of this. You do realise that the world of psychology has moved on from Carl Gustav Jung? He is a good read and his philosophy is interesting, but it is rather dated.

    Regards,
    Craig

    See John Milton's "Paradise Lost"
  • Craig S Wright
    Just a little more.
    I would suggest a read of:
    "Satan: From Toad to Atlas" Ann Gossman (1976)

    Ovid created the story that we currently know of Pandora (though this was based on the tales of Hesiod). This is the common story with the box of ills known today. The common myth prior to this time and the one which makes more sense is the one I alluded to.

    Homer has another (and dichotomous) version of the myth where there are two jars:
    “There are two urns that stand on the door sill of Zeus. They are unlike.
    For the gifts they bestow, an urn of evils, an earn of blessings.
    But when Zeus bestows from the urn of sorrows he makes a failure
    Of man, and the evil hunger drives him over the shining
    earth, and he wanders respected of neither gods
    nor mortals.”

    The ancient Greek concept of evil as embedded and spread by the female gender was propagated in a number of these stories. The origin myth was one where, as I stated, Pandora was issued a jar with the gifts of the Gods. There is a large amount of literature that explores the supposition that the commonly known Pandora myth was an anti-feminine invention of the poet Hesiod (First in Works and Days and subsequently in the Theogony).

    The word Pandora means “she to whom all gifts were given”. See it how it is, I however prefer the original and not the updated version of the Myth. The original was a jar or urn of all the gifts to mankind and in my opinion this makes more sense. After all having hope hiding with evil (as Bullfinch alluded in 1855) is a little incongruous.

    In either case it is a discourse on myth, neither of which is true. I prefer the story of the woman carrying the gift of the gods. The origin of this relating to the concept of pregnancy, life and birth. Hesiod believed that there was a golden age where there were only men. His story argues that the inception of woman was the root of all evil in the world.

    See:
    Ellen D. Reeder, Pandora's Box: Women in Classical Greece (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1995) 201.
  • Craig S Wright
    Jason,
    Based on your rant above and your claim to be a supporter of Jung. Please note that your reference to Ego is simply wrong. I could categorically make this assertion alone the manner of your reply. I could also argue the point and choose to learn. I could take a view from common concepts and liturgy. I could likewise take the view of Freud (2 goods things about Freud, he was wrong and he is dead).

    You have rather decided to attack. A function of the ID.

    The ID is a function which consists of amoral, irrational, driving instincts for sexual gratification, aggression, and general physical and sensual pleasure. The ID is a drive to lose control and lash out.

    The superego constitutes of the external moral imperatives and expectations imposed on the personality by its society and culture. The ego stands as the mediator between the impulses of the id and the asceticism of the superego.

    The ID, being dominated by the pleasure principle is what you have to have flexed. The ego (Das Ich) mediates the ID maintaining a state of control. One of the functions of the Ego is to repress the ID and provide tolerance.

    I will leave you with this:

    "You always become the thing you fight the most".
    Jung, "Diagnosing the Dictators." Hearst's International Cosmopolitan, January 1939 pp.22
  • sion
    Craig - I believe you missed my point. My point about "belief" was misinterpreted by you to mean "all belief" whereas in fact I mean "religious belief".

    Science is a belief system, but is underlined (generally) by the proposition that it will alter consistently to absorb new facts, even if major parts of the original edifice are shown to be false.

    Religion on the other hand (although this does vary between religious systems) takes one of two paths:
    1. Denial of hard facts, often coupled with edicts to prevent the encompassment of new material e.g. God wrote the Bible/Torah/Koran, the Bible says God created man from earth, therefore any evidence to the contrary is false.
    2. Inconsistent encompassment of new knowledge, or perversion of the knowledge to fit the "religious facts". e.g. Dinosaur bones were created by God to test the faith of his followers.
  • Craig S Wright
    Sion,
    I see that there are also levels of belief in religion as well. There is the extreme view where people assume that the text is the works of a diety personally, and there is also the other where it is a guide to interpretation from individuals.

    There are also scientists who have a belief in a diety, but do not believe that the text of the bible for instance is word for word as what occured, rather, and to take from J Cohen, "lies we tell children". In this view, the words could be interpreted as a simple way to explain to a simple people an idea.

    I do not agree with the creationist idea, and there are holes in the theory, but it comes to extremes on either side.

    Regards,
    Craig
  • This is great.
  • Sarah
    Hello guys!

    Im really not that good in expressing my thoughts but let me just share this one thing I know. Believing in Christ and in the Bible is certainly a personal choice for it requires a personal experience of meeting the Saviour "face-to-face" in order for one to truly accept Him and His love and to correspondingly believe the things written in the Bible. I have met Christ and experience His wonderful love and goodness everyday in my life and ever since that day I believed in Him, I could not account for anything wonderful that has happened to me but His goodness. And in my life and in other people who also believed in Him, I haven't seen anything harmful or upleasant because we chose to accept Him as our Saviour.

    My prayer is that you would also get to meet Christ and experience His love. Not just in this present time but also in the future when everything man has done will be judged.

    Sarah
  • joe
    SARAH/.....
    WHAT?? you may not have seen anything harmful or unpleasant for worshipping christ. but che che check out how we got there baby! ....
  • john
    Religions and their beliefs are mostly based on what part of the world you were born in. If you were born in a western culture chances are you were only taught christianity. Born in the middle east you would be defending the Koran. Born in Israel you would be still waiting for the saviour.

    Break it down even more, if you were catholic you looked at protestants as a lower level of christianity. Its all sillyness.

    I was born into the catholic faith and I was rushed off to be baptized within a few months. I didn't really have a choice. Like most religions your families doctrinate you into there belief structure and thus religion is more or less a family tradition.

    When I became old enough to make my own decisions in life and look at most belief structures in the world and those that don't have any, I can honestly say most generalational believers do so out of fear of offending their families.
  • David
    Just about 2 cents worth here.
    There are some very interesting things being said here, a little educational as far as history, a little cynical, a little humor.
    It's all very simple, really...

    Man is fault ridden. Man can not do anything at all perfectly. Man has never created anything from nothing. The bible is written by man thus full of mistakes and faults. God may have inspired it, but man screwed it up as man it always apt to do.
    Religion is a creation of man. All religions are faulted from their conception.

    God is without fault. Yes the earth is older than 5 - 10 thousand years. Proven by science, again a mans creation.

    Man has become so arrogant as a result of advancement in intelligence and science. But, man can still not say absolutely how anything was created from nothing.

    Man simply does not have the capacity to "know" these things nad never will. We will destroy ourselves long before the time we need to advance to a level of understanding to "know" all of the answers.

    I submit that there is God. Not the same God that we have created but the God that created us and all things.
    The more arrogant man becomes, the more we want to create a God that fits neatly into our perception of what is.

    This is ultimately going to lead to our demise.
    Once we reach the point, many, many years from now, that we feel we cxan explain everything and in our minds, as small as they are, believe we have reached God equality, we will face the one true God.

    Seems to me that you are just not getting it. You will open your mind to an athiest's beliefs, suppported by theory, yet you will not open your mind to the true meaning and very teachings of God?
    The stories in the Bible may in fact be stories that are similar to other stories not included in the Bible from other cultures and times. Does this negate the meanings of the stories? The core truths?
    Funny how man will do far more work to disprove the existance of God than to do the simplest thing and "know" that God exists.
    Lay religion aside, there is still an inherent seed in man that looks up and searches for God.

    I offer this simple statement: I would much rather believe in God and find out I was wrong when I cease to exist in this horrible place filled with man's evil than to not believe in God and find out I was wrong in the same way. Wouldn't you?
  • @David

    You said: I would much rather believe in God and find out I was wrong when I cease to exist in this horrible place filled with man's evil than to not believe in God and find out I was wrong in the same way. Wouldn't you?

    I find it a sad existence to hedge one's bets in such an obviously fear-based approach to living. You'd think the same way about Zeus or Allah if you grew up in another time or place. The simple fact is that you've been indoctrinated to fear something, and you'd rather die fearing and believing that doctrine than face the punishment it promises for not doing so.

    This doesn't make you a bad person. I know many great people who are in the exact same position. I don't blame you for the damage that's been done to you, but I do pity you for not being free.

    And by the way, the argument that you just put forth is hundreds of years old. It's called Pascal's wager. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_wager
  • David
    O.K. Thanks for the link... Not at all claiming the argument as mine, just presenting it. (I would think that the argument is even older than that)

    I am really not in fear of God. I anxiously await the moment I am in God's presence, I have questions!
    I do not like this plane, world, or anyway you wish to describe it. Too much evil, too much hatred, too much ugly. The problem is, it will never be any better. The free you stated is a state of mind. The evil I am stating is evident in everyday life throughout the world. The freedom you state is for the individual. I agree, "you" can be free from all the evil that exists, but only in "your" mind. The many are still affected by evil.I am affected by evil. The hungry, the poor, the hated, the exterminated...

    I do not believe that the punishment written, as it is, even exists. As I understand it, the ten commandments are the only laws we have to follow. These simple 10 rules can even be found in other ancient writings. Did Moses steal some of them? Maybe from the Egyptions? Entirely possible. Remember, man "wrote" and "recorded by writing" the bible. So? Who is to say that God did not inspire the Egyptians to write these same rules? They blew it due to free will and so God chose to the "Sea People" or the Hebrews in order to bring his creation, man, back to Him. (or so it was written by man)

    Yes I would believe the way I was taught had I been born in another land or time. So what? The God I know exists on a spiritual level and sees our true selves, not these petty little differences between us in this world and on this plane of existance. Not the different Gods we have created.
    I do not have the "amswers", but neither do you or anyone else. As stated above, man does not have the capacity to know all things.
    I hold sorrow for those that feel that this is all there is. I feel sorrow for those that believe that when these bodies fail and cease to live that the entity and true core of that person that was, was nothing more than a few chemistry equasions.

    The spiritual level on which God exists and we will eventually return to is just that. An energy that man can not explain as there are no words. It is there that the evil will not exist. Evil will not burn in fire as fire is physical, but eveil will simply not exist.

    I feel that the punishment you speak of will be more of a removal from the center of what God truly is. The more spiritual and faithful to the ten commandments one is, the closer to the center one will reside.

    Even in different faiths, within those faiths the followers are to believe that their God is The God. O.K. Still the ten commandments exist. Worded different, but they exist.

    The angst I feel from time to time toward God due to my lack of understanding is only a testiment to my belief in God.
    The energy put forth by those trying to prove God does not exist is also a testimony in their core belief that God Does exist.

    You simply can not get around the fact that man bases all of his beliefs and faith on what he has gathered in knowledge from his experiences. This is a very limited amount of knowledge. Now put that into perspective. What are we on the physical plane, compared to the star creating gases captured on photos by the hubble telescope? Less than a speck, that's what. So how can we presume to know enough about anything to assume the posture of arguing that God, by our weak definitions, does not exist?
  • Fully Skeptic

    Hello all. I am glad I found this site. All my life, I have been questioning the bible, and the existence of god. I have read all the comments, and I find them very interesting. To Sarah, don't believe everything society throws at you. Don't close your mind to science. Many scientists throughout the course of history have proven many things that don't coincide with the bible. As a child, I was forced to go to church every Sunday. I dreaded it. I did enjoy the singing though. Being a singer and guitarist, that was right up my alley. Been singing and playing since a little boy. Anyhoo, I only realized later in life that everything that was thrown at me was either misleading, hypocritical, or based on lies. We are told the tooth fairy, Santa, and the Easter bunny are all real until later in life. I read a comment on here earlier that talked about these fables and I thought it was brilliant. We are not ready for the truth. Especially ufo's. imagine what that would do to our society. Religious zealots would go ape-shit. As a lad, I belonged to a church that "spoke in tongues". I found this to be very confusing. I was led to kneel in front of the pastor and the church members. (please save the perverted jokes) I was told to speak in tongues. They would not let me go until I did. They told me to let it go and let if flow. I tried. As a confused young boy, and wanting to please the churchgoers, I tried. So I faked it. I just mimicked what they sounded like when they spoke in tongues. It was all mumbo-jumbo. I made it all up. Then when I was done, the pastor "translated" it. PLEASE! My eyes started to open. I was horrified. I have met bible thumpers who don't believe in dinosaurs because god didn't "create" them. So all the fossils we find are man-made? Or apemade? Please!!!!!! It was Adam and Lilith, not Adam and Eve. Lilith was his first wife, and she wanted to be independent, so she took off. Sound familiar to any fellas here? lol. In all seriousness, the "serpent" in Genesis was most likely taken from the Mesopotamian stories. Because their version states that god was a snake like goddess. To David: science is man's creation? No, it proves how old earth is, it proves how the earth was formed. If god created earth for living beings, why not on our other planets? if there was an "all loving god", why would he kill first borns? Thou shalt not kill? Does that "commandment" ring a bell? Flooding the earth and all the citizens of it died a horrible death by drowning? All loving god? IMO the commandments were made up by society to "keep us in line". I am also skeptical about ET's, but that Nasa photo with the object passing in front of the rod has really been intriguing. If the existence of aliens does come to fruition, how will you explain that? Don't even start on the what if god comes back to earth and proves himself, because as a man of faith that you are David, you shouldn't even question it being a man of faith and all. Jesus was already supposed to make his "return". Where is he? Seeing is believeing. I will eat my hat, pants, and sweat stained shirt if he shows. I also like the comment about how there were many dieties before J.C. who was a saviour of man, but the stories never stuck, until this oneof J.C. Anyone can write anything. I'll start my own religion. I will open churches and force feed poeple there really is a Santa. But he lives at the South Pole. Him living at the North Pole is fiction. hehehe

blog comments powered by Disqus

Twitter Microblog

twitter_icon      facebook_icon

Sample Original Content


Information Security

Tutorials and Primers

Culture & Society

Technology & Science

Politics

Philosophy & Religion

Miscellaneous

Tools & Projects


Blog Archives