Do you believe in God?

[PaliRichard 10]

It may well have seemed like the whole world had gone, to the people who experienced the aftermath of the flood don't you think? Even then men were so conviced of their own importance that it seems likely he would have to find someone to blame for his misfortune. After all God had given him a perfect world to live in , designed just for his convienience so it could not just go belly up unless someone, somewhere had done something really bad to deserve it!

Is there a likelihood that the writers of the bible had already read fictionalised stories of the flood? I don't know. Its possible they wanted to put their own slant on it, or its possible more than one person could have had similar thoughts about it.

How does a believer distinguish truth from fiction-- ah! To start with not a lot do! Many are fed bible stories all their lives and accept it without question because everyone else around them believes it and wiser men than they at some synodd or other decided they had to believe it or be condemned to the fiery pit!

Personally I just use common sense and logic. Jesus lived on earth, people who knew him wrote about him at the time. What he said made sense. He said God was good and wanted us to love each other. He forgave prostitutes and thieves and turned away from violence and retribution. Yet if you look in the old testament you are faced with a whole different kettle of fish.

A God who would punish innocent children for the sin of their fathers, who turned people to salt for being curious, who invoked war and divided families by showing favouritism to one over another of his so called children! That doesn't sound very divine to me!

 

But the flood was in the Old Testament, you yourself said 'I think he realised he'd made a a fatal mistake trusting humanity to use the brain he gave them in the way he'd intended and decided to start again!!', so you clearly believe in the flood story, why that and not the other parts of the old testament?

 

I don't like to use this term, it's usually the reserve of atheists who are obsessed with their own superiority over religion, but you really do seem to 'Cherry Pick' what you want from the Bible.

 

Do you think Jesus was God then? I'm trying to establish your position because you're not making yourself very clear.

 

I'm also not sure about you saying 'That doesn't sound very divine to me', why? Divinity isn't a prerequisite for a certain set of moral principles, it merely means Godlike, or trancendental, so why couldn't such a being do what they choose? The Bible certainly suggests that God does what he pleases wether it is harmful or not to his creation.

 

So let me rephrase my question in order to get a clearer answer.

 

Specifically which parts of the Bible do you accept and why do you accept them?

 

It seems to me like you accept the parts which fit in with your own moral framework of the world, isn't that just man creating God in his own image?

 

I will repeat I'm not taking the mic, I'm genuinely interested but you really do seem to be cherry picking, and I'm more than a little confused

[Chris_Sleeps 10]

Maybe its something to do with this.

You explain it to me. I've read a lot of Tudor history, and it rarely even features Ireland. Henry VIII was too busy killing his wives and fighting with France to push any real troubles on Ireland. It was the Stuarts that started the "troubles" in Ulster.

[Ryedo40 10]

Personally I just use common sense and logic. Jesus lived on earth, people who knew him wrote about him at the time.

 

But nobody wrote about him at the time. Everything that was written about him was written decades - and hundreds of years after his claimed existence.

 

What he said made sense. He said God was good and wanted us to love each other. He forgave prostitutes and thieves and turned away from violence and retribution.

 

Nobody really knows what he said because a great deal of it has been invented. Take "Let he who is without sin, cast the first stone" story as an example. It was basically a nice sounding tale that was added to the bible during the 5th century. The bible is brimming with similar additions and interpolations. It was also put together by people with agendas and personal biases; some of which were fashioned against Jews and those who don't believe.

 

It's simply not a book that can be trusted. That aside, and according to the tales attributed to him, he hardly turned away from violence and retribution. Not only did he take a whip to people in the temple, he also threatened people with retribution for not wanting to hear his words. I won't even mention what he did to that poor fig tree...

 

And if you take the Infancy Gospel of Thomas into account, you've got Jesus killing two children and an adult - and whole new bunch of crazy miracles that are just as unbelievable as the miracles that were put in the Bible.

 

[PaliRichard 10]

Snowbird

 

Sorry, I didn't address all of your points.

 

It may well have seemed like the whole world had gone, to the people who experienced the aftermath of the flood don't you think?[/Quote]

 

Yes, but the Bible tells us it was the whole world, if as you say here

Even then men were so conviced of their own importance that it seems likely he would have to find someone to blame for his misfortune. After all God had given him a perfect world to live in , designed just for his convienience so it could not just go belly up unless someone, somewhere had done something really bad to deserve it![/Quote]

 

There seems to be a reasoning for God to destroy the world, but the evidence doesn't say the whole world was destroyed. We're going in circles a bit here. Did God flood the world to punish man or not? If not why are you suggesting he did, if he did where is the evidence for a worldwide flood?

 

Is there a likelihood that the writers of the bible had already read fictionalised stories of the flood? I don't know. Its possible they wanted to put their own slant on it, or its possible more than one person could have had similar thoughts about it.[/Quote]

 

It seems likely. I also agree with you about them putting their own slant on it.

 

How does a believer distinguish truth from fiction-- ah! To start with not a lot do! Many are fed bible stories all their lives and accept it without question because everyone else around them believes it and wiser men than they at some synodd or other decided they had to believe it or be condemned to the fiery pit![/Quote]

 

A reasonable point, and one that would apply to all systems.

 

Personally I just use common sense and logic. Jesus lived on earth, people who knew him wrote about him at the time. What he said made sense. He said God was good and wanted us to love each other. He forgave prostitutes and thieves and turned away from violence and retribution.[/Quote]

 

Indeed he did (or we are told he did), many people throughout history have displayed similar attributes, the difference been they weren't applied with the divinity label for it.

 

Yet if you look in the old testament you are faced with a whole different kettle of fish.

A God who would punish innocent children for the sin of their fathers, who turned people to salt for being curious, who invoked war and divided families by showing favouritism to one over another of his so called children! That doesn't sound very divine to me!

 

See my above post.

[janie48 98]

You explain it to me. I've read a lot of Tudor history, and it rarely even features Ireland. Henry VIII was too busy killing his wives and fighting with France to push any real troubles on Ireland. It was the Stuarts that started the "troubles" in Ulster.

 

I do not presume to know as much about Irish History as you Chris.I only have knowledge from bits i have read,and what i have been told by some Irish people,who believe that if Henry had not interfered with Ireland and had made himself King (which he seemed to find time to do in spite of other distractions)then they wouldn't have had the troubled periods they had with the Stuarts that led to the recent troubles of the last century.

[denlin 12]

That's not what the Bible says.

 

What about my earlier points/questions ' Firstly it wasn't a world wide flood so the moral of the Bible story is somewhat irrelevant.

 

Secondly if you acknowledge it is based on an earlierstory isn'titalso true that other Biblical episodes could also be 'borrowed'? If this is the case how do you seperate what you are told in the Bible from what could easilybestylized or fictional stories?

 

How, in other words, does the believerdistinguish between thefact and the fiction of the Bible?'

 

 

If you're acknowledging God, but picking and choosing from the Bible the bits you like what criteria are you using for those choices?

 

But we don't believe the bible and the scientific explanation of refraction causing rainbows definitely has more creedence:hihi:

[denlin 12]

Who said anything about Cromwell being born before Henry? I don't get the joke or the point you're making?

 

You kept implying that Cromwell and Henry were linked in some way and I was pointing out that they weren't. As for the Irish blaming Henry I think either they didn't do history at school or they were feeding you a bit of blarney:hihi:

[janie48 98]

You kept implying that Cromwell and Henry were linked in some way and I was pointing out that they weren't. As for the Irish blaming Henry I think either they didn't do history at school or they were feeding you a bit of blarney:hihi:

 

Where have i implied that they were linked?

 

Since you were the one who introduced the Irish topic,maybe you should read this.

 

http://www.historyonthenet.com/Chronology/timelinenorthernireland.htm

Edited May 9, 2012 by janie48

[esme 10]

You've answered your own question! God is greater than us and would not have done these things- ergo it didn't happen like that!!

I know I did I was being rhetorical .. or allegorical or some such, however in that case then there's a lot of things in the bible that didn't happen.

 

I wonder which ones they are ?

[buck 11]

You explain it to me. I've read a lot of Tudor history, and it rarely even features Ireland. Henry VIII was too busy killing his wives and fighting with France to push any real troubles on Ireland. It was the Stuarts that started the "troubles" in Ulster.

The Irish,of which I'm a family member are fond of talking about freedom after 800 years of oppression, which puts the situation way beyond Henry VIII. I have never heard much about his involvement, except his destruction of Irish abbeys along with the ones in Britain that he also destroyed. His daughter Elizabeth 1 sent the Earl of Essex over to suppress some Irish aristocrats and he finished up getting pally with them. He got some idea about a little rebellion of his own, and lost his head for it.

[RootsBooster 24]

I have never heard much about his involvement, except his destruction of Irish abbeys along with the ones in Britain that he also destroyed. His daughter Elizabeth 1 sent the Earl of Essex over to suppress some Irish aristocrats and he finished up getting pally with them. He got some idea about a little rebellion of his own, and lost his head for it.

 

I don't know enough about it to have an opinion on this, but reasoning like this is not very convincing.....

 

The Irish,of which I'm a family member are fond of talking about freedom after 800 years of oppression, which puts the situation way beyond Henry VIII.

 

Being fond of talking about something does not count as evidence for anything!

[Chris_Sleeps 10]

I do not presume to know as much about Irish History as you Chris.

I wasn't intending to patronise. I just wanted it explaining to me. I might be wrong, I can't read everything. My apologies.