The Abrahamic god is the worst serial killer

[Power2the1]

Don't pat each other on the back just yet. Been busy....This is a long reply so hold on :-)

Um... how is that relevant, exactly?

It's relevant that your understanding of what hell is, or what you were told,it is, is not what everyone else thinks it is. Just saying.

Firstly, Jehovah is an obsolete transliteration of the tetragrammaton. It is most probably Yahweh or Yahvah, not Jehovah.

Jehovah is the English phonetical way of trying to pronounce YHWH. The Jews took “do not use God's name in vain” too far, stopped pronouncing it completely. Jehovah, in English, is the closest rendering of that name. Truth is nobody knows 100% how YHWH was definatley pronounced, and I do agree that Yahweh can be valid - I have at times used Yahweh/Yaweh as well.

There is no place in the Bible which makes the claim that Satan was responsible for causing people to worship other gods; and if you're suggesting that's what actually happened (whether or not the Bible does), you'll have to present some damn robust evidence.

Does not the Bible say that Satan and his demons are misleading the earth? Does not it also mention that he is the Father of the lie?

-2 Corinthians 4:4 state that “the god of this system had blinded the minds of unbelivers, that the illumination of the glorious good news about the Christ, who is the image of God, might not shine through.”

-John 12:31 and 1 John 5:19 talks about a 'wicked' or 'evil one' who is Satan.

-1 Corinthian 10:20 tells of the nations sacrificing things to the demons, and not to God.

-There is evidence that demons, called princes, ruling over Greece and Persia. This found in Daniel 10:12-13 and 20. One of these princes were powerful enough to stop an angel from Jehovah going to Daniel for 21 days, until the greater angel Michael came to help.

-At Ephesians 6:12 Paul wrote: “We have a wrestling, not against blood and flesh, but against the governments, against the authorities, against the world rulers of this darkness, against the *wicked spirit forces* in the heavenly places.”

That you seem to think that the Creator of the universe, if there is one (there probably isn't), would require worship, and a specific way of worship, is completely untenable. I should think that a being which is alleged to be completely perfect, and powerful enough to create the universe, would be a bit less egotistical than to require perpetual reminders of its own magnificence. It's simple narcissism; which is a trait frankly unbecoming of an alleged supreme being.

Is it's “egotistical” to be faithful and devoted to your husband or wife alone? No, it is not. Same case here. They are devoted to worship and honor Jehovah alone.

I don't believe the Bible, or any other book, is his book. He is a character in the Bible, but it's very improbable that he exists as anything more than that (if there happens to be a real being in our universe which bears a resemblance to him, it's still entirely possible it's a coincidence; there ought to be a label in the Bible: this is a work of fiction, any resemblance to real persons, living or dead, is purely coincidental). And citing "scriptures" doesn't demonstrate anything, or teach us anything; you might as well be citing scenes from Star Wars to prove the existence of Darth Vader.

If that is how you feel, why did you say above that there “probably isn't” a God. Why the uncertainty?

You'd actually be surprised... And yes, I didn't say that it doesn't say that Sodom and Gomorrah were wicked places. What I said is that it never really specified just what was wicked. The Bible very often does that.

There are multiple mentions of what Sodom was doing, in both the OT and NT from various authors. 2 Peter 2:6; Jude 7; Jeremiah 23:14, etc... there is not question about God redering judgment on the city for it's sins.

Is a mob appearing at your door not enough to warrant a simple: "Don't do anything bad..."? Okay... it's interesting actually, because if you add up all of the people who were with Lot... his wife, his daughters, his sons-in-law, his servants... it adds up to about ten people. Just further evidence that Yahweh didn't bother to come through on his bargain with Abraham.

Where did you see mention of servants? There were none. Only 6 people max, but only 4 left the city as the brother-in-laws stayed there.You're saying that a mob shows up before they were about to go to sleep, the mob tries to force themselves into the house, all after the men and boys surround Lot's house telling them to come out. All in order to say. “Hi, hows it going,?” Doesn't add up.

Yes, the Bible deems homosexuality a sin. Unjustly. Arbitrarily. Wantonly. And since when is it up to an invisible wizard to judge our conduct? Never has been in any universe I'm familiar with...

You're kidding, right? The Bible says explicitly that homosexuals are to be stoned to death. Now, what was that about "not abusing them"?

Look closer at what I said. I mentioned that Christians should not abouse them, it is not up to people to judge. For the Israelites, the laws stating that a man who lays down with a man the same manner as with a woman, should be put to death immediately. This was for Israelites that worshiped their God, just as the pagans had their own laws for worshiping their gods like throwing babies into fires and having sex with animals.

That's just weird, really... God, the alleged creator of the universe... is a haematophile... Honestly, why is he so obsessed with blood, if I may ask? It isn't as if it has any special powers or anything... oh, wait, the authors of the Bible thought that it did. That explains it. Blood has magical powers.

You should realize that if the meat is bled properly, there is no issue on what to do with it past that point. Cook rare of well done, it doesn't matter.

You missed Deuteronomy 22:23-24, which explicitly state:

If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour's wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you.

So, in other words, if a girl doesn't scream loud enough whilst being raped, then she's supposed to die. Now that's justice...

I did not miss it, it's just that this is a law against consensual sex/adultry/fornication too, not just rape. If the girl is resisting and screaming, then apparently it's rape. Thats all this passage is saying. If she not, then it's likely consensual. If it's her word against his, then it's a court issue taken before the judges to render justice for both parties.

Yahweh's punishments are still a bit outlandish... I mean, he has the Israelites' enemies defeat them in battle if they don't do things right? It sounds a lot like people just having a war, and then trying to come up with a superstitious explanation for why they lost. Because their small military capacity and relative lack of sophistication couldn't possibly explain why they lost a war...

Why should anyone give a damn about what Yahweh has to say? Why should anyone give a damn about whether Isaiah says that he's "judge", "law giver", or "king"? There are such things as untruth you know. And given that Bronze Age Palestine wasn't exactly a plexus of accurate information...

Why would they make up stories of themselves being enslaved by Egypt, Rome, Babylon, etc...?

Why not simply burn the records these major reversals from the scrolls, like the Egyptians did back with regularity, in order to make themselves and their nation seem invincible and powerful?

If they wanted to cover up their many losses in battle and enslavments but foreign nations and empires, then they'd simply not mention these events in their records. The fact that they did is a statement they were not trying to portray themselves as something other than what they were.

[Alienated Being]

Don't pat each other on the back just yet. Been busy....This is a long reply so hold on :-)

It won't matter anyway. Your arguments equate to arguing from the standpoint of unicorns...

[Power2the1]

[/font]

Adam cannot exist, as abiogenesis, as we know it, is impossible. Secondly, a woman cannot be created from the rib of a man. That is biologically, physiologically impossible.

Also, the question of Jesus' existence is still a widely debated topic.

There are writers that refer to Jesus outside the Bible that you are probably familiar with, such as Flavios Josephus (who was a Pharisee; the Jewish religious enemies of Jesus), who mentions Jesus and James as brothers. Tacitus mentions “Christus suffered the extreme penalty during Tiberius' reign by Pontius Pilate.” There are others, of course. Paul even laid the potential smackdown for others to accuse Christianity with, citing that if Christ had not been really been rasied, then their religion was in vain. Theres much more than just mysterious, vague references to Jesus out there.

How can death be considered "hell"? In death, you don't know that you're dead. You cannot experience any physical sensations whatsoever when you're dead.

Exactly, you're spot on. Hai'des (Hades) is a Greek word that when used in the Bible mean the grave, and is, basically, the counterpart of the Hebrew She'olh (Sheol). Jesus is mentioned as going to Hades after his death. However, the King James (not trying to hate on it, just saying though) often changes 'hades' and 'sheol' to 'hell', making to sound like Jesus went to a burning fiery place instead of just simply the grave. Acts 2:25-32 mentions David being within the gates of hades. Obviously David and Jesus were not in a firey 'hell', but simply dead, as in the grave. Numbers 26:10 mentions Israelite rebels going to Sheol, and this was not a burning hell (remember that the Jews at that time had no heaven or afterlife since that was Christian; they only had the resurrection for the righteous, or the grave for the unrighteous).

Women are often referred to as "property" in the bible. Secondly.... with regards to the rape...

Isaiah 13:15-18(NIV)

15 Whoever is captured will be thrust through; all who are caught will fall by the sword. 16 Their infants will be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses will be looted and their wives violated.

This talk of wives being violated is actually a description of the Babylon's destruction as foresen in a vision by Isaiah.

As for property, this is normally in reference to slaves. In contrast to slavery of other nations, slaves under the Israelites, even women, were to be treated as a daughters. In the event of the master taking another wife, the there was to be no diminishing in her sustenace and clothing. So slaves, including female slaves, were to be taken care of.

I really don't see how an omniscient being would give two damns about two members of the same gender engaging in intercourse on one planet out of hundreds upon trillions... Really, really...

I don't see why I can't wear jeans on a golf course either. But I go along with that requirement if I want to enjoy game. To be a law abiding citizen of a country, you have to do this and that and act according to the laws of that country. To be a servant of Jehovah you have to do this and that and act according to his laws.

My question stands, though... why would God need to test Isaac? he is supposed to be all-knowing. He would know what Isaac would do, so therefore the test would be irrelevant.

I suspect that many would rather God have 'programmed' us to be exactly the same and have no independent thought outside of our 'programming'. If that happened I suspect everyone would be complaining on how they cannot think or act independently. Would you rather be 'shoehorned' and giving no choice but to serve a god, or giving the optional to doing so only if you wanted?

Why would we need to communicate to "god"? For an individual who is so powerful, and possesses the ability to number the hairs on our head, one would assume that he'd be able to analyze our situation, and help us.

Prayer is actually how he can help us, if we ask for it. To petition for the holy spirit in prayer is to ask for his blessings - we pray and (hopefully) we'll be blessed in some way, no matter if we realize it or not. A Prayer can be quick and simple, or it can be long and heartfelt. It's up to the individual and their situational need. John 16:24: “Ask and you shall receive.” Obviously, not everyone recieves this and not all prayer are going to be heard by Jehovah, in the name of Jesus, but to do so is a great privledge.

But "god" is omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent.

According to the dictionary definition of "almighty"...

al·might·y

   [awl-mahy-tee] Having unlimited power; omnipotent, as God

He has unlimited power, therefore resting would be pointless.

He did not rest because he was 'tired'. Isaiah states he has abundant energy and does not tire out. Jesus said that his Father has kept working until now, and I (meaning Jesus) continues to work. He 'rested' from the work inbvolved in creation, not because he was fatigued.

[Alienated Being]

I find the fact that you constantly refer to the bible for evidential reinforcement to be absolutely hilarious.

[Arbitran]

Don't pat each other on the back just yet. Been busy....This is a long reply so hold on :-)

It's relevant that your understanding of what hell is, or what you were told,it is, is not what everyone else thinks it is. Just saying.

Um... yes it is. In the New Testament anyway. I mean, there aren't nine circles mentioned or anything, but the torture and fire and brimstone is made very clear.

Jehovah is the English phonetical way of trying to pronounce YHWH. The Jews took “do not use God's name in vain” too far, stopped pronouncing it completely. Jehovah, in English, is the closest rendering of that name. Truth is nobody knows 100% how YHWH was definatley pronounced, and I do agree that Yahweh can be valid - I have at times used Yahweh/Yaweh as well.

How do you deem Jehovah to be the "closest rendering of that name"?

Does not the Bible say that Satan and his demons are misleading the earth? Does not it also mention that he is the Father of the lie?

-2 Corinthians 4:4 state that “the god of this system had blinded the minds of unbelivers, that the illumination of the glorious good news about the Christ, who is the image of God, might not shine through.”

-John 12:31 and 1 John 5:19 talks about a 'wicked' or 'evil one' who is Satan.

-1 Corinthian 10:20 tells of the nations sacrificing things to the demons, and not to God.

-There is evidence that demons, called princes, ruling over Greece and Persia. This found in Daniel 10:12-13 and 20. One of these princes were powerful enough to stop an angel from Jehovah going to Daniel for 21 days, until the greater angel Michael came to help.

-At Ephesians 6:12 Paul wrote: “We have a wrestling, not against blood and flesh, but against the governments, against the authorities, against the world rulers of this darkness, against the *wicked spirit forces* in the heavenly places.”

Firstly, none of the verses you just quoted mention Satan. Second, none of them refer to Satan being in Eden.

Is it's “egotistical” to be faithful and devoted to your husband or wife alone? No, it is not. Same case here. They are devoted to worship and honor Jehovah alone.

I was not referring to the devotion of the worshipers, but to the egotism of the deity himself for his evidently insatiable appetite for praise.

If that is how you feel, why did you say above that there “probably isn't” a God. Why the uncertainty?

Because I reserve the possibility that there might be a god. Just as I reserve the possibility of leprechauns and fairies. They could exist, but they probably don't.

There are multiple mentions of what Sodom was doing, in both the OT and NT from various authors. 2 Peter 2:6; Jude 7; Jeremiah 23:14, etc... there is not question about God redering judgment on the city for it's sins.

Again, it's not in question that the Bible notes the "sin" of Sodom and Gomorrah. I have simply pointed out that it never once refers to precisely what these alleged sins were.

Where did you see mention of servants? There were none. Only 6 people max, but only 4 left the city as the brother-in-laws stayed there.You're saying that a mob shows up before they were about to go to sleep, the mob tries to force themselves into the house, all after the men and boys surround Lot's house telling them to come out. All in order to say. “Hi, hows it going,?” Doesn't add up.

It's of note that it never refers to the people as a "mob". It could have been, perhaps, as few as five or ten people, depending. You do realize how small populations were at that time in the region, right? And yeah, it certainly is plausible that they might show up and customarily request to meet with the strangers.

Look closer at what I said. I mentioned that Christians should not abouse them, it is not up to people to judge. For the Israelites, the laws stating that a man who lays down with a man the same manner as with a woman, should be put to death immediately. This was for Israelites that worshiped their God, just as the pagans had their own laws for worshiping their gods like throwing babies into fires and having sex with animals.

Please cite me an example of archaeological or historical evidence which demonstrates that these unnamed "pagan" cultures enjoyed "throwing babies into fires and having sex with animals"?

You should realize that if the meat is bled properly, there is no issue on what to do with it past that point. Cook rare of well done, it doesn't matter.

That doesn't really address the issue at all... I mean, regardless of whether meat was able to be bled properly, is it not an entirely arbitrary and useless law for it to be illegal to consume bloody meat?

I did not miss it, it's just that this is a law against consensual sex/adultry/fornication too, not just rape. If the girl is resisting and screaming, then apparently it's rape. Thats all this passage is saying. If she not, then it's likely consensual. If it's her word against his, then it's a court issue taken before the judges to render justice for both parties.

That's all quite irrelevant. Is it not an unjust law to execute a victim of rape for having been raped?

Why would they make up stories of themselves being enslaved by Egypt, Rome, Babylon, etc...?

Why not simply burn the records these major reversals from the scrolls, like the Egyptians did back with regularity, in order to make themselves and their nation seem invincible and powerful?

If they wanted to cover up their many losses in battle and enslavments but foreign nations and empires, then they'd simply not mention these events in their records. The fact that they did is a statement they were not trying to portray themselves as something other than what they were.

They certainly were enslaved by the Romans and Babylonians. As for Egypt, probably not.

Edited September 12, 2012 by Arbitran

[Arbitran]

There are writers that refer to Jesus outside the Bible that you are probably familiar with, such as Flavios Josephus (who was a Pharisee; the Jewish religious enemies of Jesus), who mentions Jesus and James as brothers. Tacitus mentions “Christus suffered the extreme penalty during Tiberius' reign by Pontius Pilate.” There are others, of course. Paul even laid the potential smackdown for others to accuse Christianity with, citing that if Christ had not been really been rasied, then their religion was in vain. Theres much more than just mysterious, vague references to Jesus out there.

Flavius' mentions of Jesus are almost universally agreed to be later Christian redactions of the text.

Exactly, you're spot on. Hai'des (Hades) is a Greek word that when used in the Bible mean the grave, and is, basically, the counterpart of the Hebrew She'olh (Sheol). Jesus is mentioned as going to Hades after his death. However, the King James (not trying to hate on it, just saying though) often changes 'hades' and 'sheol' to 'hell', making to sound like Jesus went to a burning fiery place instead of just simply the grave. Acts 2:25-32 mentions David being within the gates of hades. Obviously David and Jesus were not in a firey 'hell', but simply dead, as in the grave. Numbers 26:10 mentions Israelite rebels going to Sheol, and this was not a burning hell (remember that the Jews at that time had no heaven or afterlife since that was Christian; they only had the resurrection for the righteous, or the grave for the unrighteous).

You evidently haven't gotten to the "fire and brimstone" and "weeping and gnashing of teeth" bits yet...

This talk of wives being violated is actually a description of the Babylon's destruction as foresen in a vision by Isaiah.

As for property, this is normally in reference to slaves. In contrast to slavery of other nations, slaves under the Israelites, even women, were to be treated as a daughters. In the event of the master taking another wife, the there was to be no diminishing in her sustenace and clothing. So slaves, including female slaves, were to be taken care of.

You speak of slavery and calling people property so casually... as if them being "taken care of" diminishes in any way the utter violation of basic human rights...

I suspect that many would rather God have 'programmed' us to be exactly the same and have no independent thought outside of our 'programming'. If that happened I suspect everyone would be complaining on how they cannot think or act independently. Would you rather be 'shoehorned' and giving no choice but to serve a god, or giving the optional to doing so only if you wanted?

It's a bit more nuanced than that. Because it isn't really the "choose to serve" or "choose not to serve" model you've implied. It's more like a "choose to serve", "choose not to serve", "serve without consideration", or "considerately don't serve". (I think it's hardly worth mentioning that the "choose not to serve" and "considerately don't serve" aren't really free choices, given you're threatened with eternal torment if you do either one...)

Prayer is actually how he can help us, if we ask for it. To petition for the holy spirit in prayer is to ask for his blessings - we pray and (hopefully) we'll be blessed in some way, no matter if we realize it or not. A Prayer can be quick and simple, or it can be long and heartfelt. It's up to the individual and their situational need. John 16:24: “Ask and you shall receive.” Obviously, not everyone recieves this and not all prayer are going to be heard by Jehovah, in the name of Jesus, but to do so is a great privledge.

A shame that one can't simply have their wishes granted by telepathically talking to their invisible djinn... At least not in this universe.

[Abramelin]

Forum:

Paranormal Books, Authors and Publications.

Thread:

Fiction Recommendations

What's on your bookshelf?

My post in that thread:

The 2 most famous ones: the Bible and the Qur'an: lots of action, slaughter and mayhem, miraculaous healings, people walking on water, people flying to the skies on a white horse, spontaneously burning bushes, zombies rising from their graves, people trumpetting a huge wall to pieces, two people populating the whole earth, parting seas, angry gods, and so on, and so on.

I just love it.

.

.

Edited September 12, 2012 by Abramelin

[Abramelin]

There will come a day, a thousand or more years in the future, that people will find a copy of Tolkien's "The Silmarillion", and create a religion based on it.

And then there will be some sort of internet where they will spread the "good news".

Btw, Tolkien based his book(s) on legends, AND some true history.

[Power2the1]

Excuse me for butting in here. I know you're having a conversation with others, but I was just interested in this bit. I'll be honest and say that I don't believe a word of what you've written here, but you write it like it's a clear, objective and obvious fact.

Honesty is welcomed. Well the main discussion is about the Abrahamic God. Therefore the Bible is used as a source of information. Not sure how some here are so surprised. I'd reference an auto repair book if it was relevant...

The reason I have for doubting it is that all this information can be found in one place only. An ancient book. I think it very likely that this book was written by men who had no better idea about god than Romans, Greeks, Native Americans etc....

Even if it was just a bunch of hogwash (which I do not believe it is), let's pretend it really is nothing more than a huge book of mythology and rambling. That being said, it's fact that it is certainly the most popular 'mythology' despite being one of the 'newest' out there. It's also fact that the Biblical message appeals to many, and despite the haters and naysayers that have tried to kill off the message of the Bible. It's also fact it is the most popular book there is, ever! Roman had their empire, so did the Persian, Greeks, and others and these spread over large portions of the known world at that time. Still, where are their books of prophecies that billions throughout history have and do adhere to? That is just one thing, out of many, that sets it apart from the other 'stories' for other cultures and their own beliefs and that there is a message for mankind that offers a hope that no other mythologies do.

If all you believe is based on what was written there, shouldn't you take that into account, or at least understand why there are many that don't find it convincing at all.

And this I do, I'm not at all surprised in the least? Christ told his followers to preach and talk to others about it, so that's all I'm doing, although this is probably one of my last posts here. What can be said has probaly already been said.

It's testament to power the human mind has to gloss over what it doesn't like that anyone can read some of those OT stories and still see the deeds of an all-loving god as he massacres his way through women and children who are in the way of his 'chosen' people.

Yet, all the posters against the Bible here, from the lack of criticism against the pagan lifestyle, also gloss over the fact that those people were perfectly fine with incest and sexual relationships with their own sons, daughters, and relatives; who offer up their babies to burning fires while everyone danced in prise to their gods; whose men and women would have sex with animals, of all things. But you are right, it is human power to gloss over things like that.

[Power2the1]

Flavius' mentions of Jesus are almost universally agreed to be later Christian redactions of the text.

That could be possible, still, the other mentions of Jesus, including others, give strong evidence that he was more than a legendary person. Really there is much more evidence that he was real, than not.

You evidently haven't gotten to the "fire and brimstone" and "weeping and gnashing of teeth" bits yet...

Much of that are King James translations that are sometimes right, sometimes wrong though. Nobody would argue that. Look at Psalms 9:18. It talks about the nations and wicked being sent to hell in the King James version. The actual word for 'hell' was originally 'Sheol,' (the grave or where dead are laid to rest) but to those know knowing this, it appears as if the Jews had a fiery 'hell' instead of the grave that Sheol or Hades is defined. Even Job wished to go to Sheol to bring his tribulations and suffering to an end. If he wanted to escape suffering, surely a buring hell would be the last place he would want to go. In the case you are refering to, Jesus used htat example and the one in Mark chapter 9, starting with verse 43. Here Jesus did not use Hades or Sheol, but was referring to Gehenna, the places in the valley of Hinnom where trash was dumped and burned away. In this instance the fire was a process of annihilation instead of an infinite process of a hell where nothing is destroyed.

You speak of slavery and calling people property so casually... as if them being "taken care of" diminishes in any way the utter violation of basic human rights...

Many people's mind when they think of slavery, they think of Roman, American, Greek, Assyrian, etc... slavery where the slaves had *no* rights. Infact slavery was a norm in the ancient world. The difference is that among the Israelites a slave could *not* be killed without consequence; families could stay together (men would have their ear pierced with an awl to deonte this); women were *not* be raped under any circumstance; people could *not* be kidnapped and sold or the seller would be put to death; etc... Now, to prove my point compare how slaves were treated under the Roman, Egyptian, Persian, or Assyrians and come back to their violations of humans rights, and we'll compare

It's a bit more nuanced than that. Because it isn't really the "choose to serve" or "choose not to serve" model you've implied. It's more like a "choose to serve", "choose not to serve", "serve without consideration", or "considerately don't serve". (I think it's hardly worth mentioning that the "choose not to serve" and "considerately don't serve" aren't really free choices, given you're threatened with eternal torment if you do either one...)

Then what are you waiting for, better get to church if you fear an eternal hell! But I am showing evidence of is not what mainstram Christians think - for one they cannot explain why a God would burn someone for eternity, for simply a few decades of sin - then in the same breath talk about how he is a 'God of Justice and Love'. Notice how the whole torture and burning concept mirrors other religions:

Babylon/Sumeria: A Land of No Return, The Underworld from which none would return

Islam: Hell as a burning place, similar to common Christian belief.

Greeks: Hades as a god of the undeworld, a river with a ferryman crossing into the afterlife where one could go to tartarus where they would suffer eternal toment.

Egypt: The afterlife is a place of horror and peril, mosters, a freeyman who must be thwarteded by magic, etc...

Hindu: A version of 21 hells. Sinner are eaten by animals and snakes, roasted, tormented by hunger and thirst, sawed into bodyparts, boiled in oil, etc...

Jainism/Buddism: There is a version of hell where sinners are tormented for great length of time. Sometimes hell is a process of rebirth as well.

Zoastrianism: Hell is a cold place of great stench, where sinners are tormented.

Romans: Hell to them was called Infernus (sometimes Orcus), who was ruled by either Pluto or an Orcus.

Some of these above religions donot consider hell/afterlife to be an eternal punishment, though, but still have burning punishment occur nonetheless. God would not try so hard to have his people be seperate from the pagans and their beliefs, yet have them beleive in the exact same concepts of the afterlife. It's a belief that has slowly crept into being to the point it is accepted as canon, originating with the pagans and their beliefs. Colossians 2:8 speaks of belifs not coming from Christ, but from the traditions of men.

Incase you miseed the other posts, this is likely my last post about all this for this thread. Take care man!

[Power2the1]

Um... yes it is. In the New Testament anyway. I mean, there aren't nine circles mentioned or anything, but the torture and fire and brimstone is made very clear.

See the other posts above about that....

How do you deem Jehovah to be the "closest rendering of that name"?

For English, it's it closest since YHWH are all consonants, and the lack of vowel makes it nearly impossible to figure out the precise pronounciation. In the various translation of the Bible, 'Jehovah' has been used most often at least, although Yaweh/Yahweh is used occasionally.

Firstly, none of the verses you just quoted mention Satan. Second, none of them refer to Satan being in Eden.

Satan is referred to as the 'wicked one', or 'evil one', in the Bible, and Genesis mention that the Devil used a snake to speak to Eve with.

I was not referring to the devotion of the worshipers, but to the egotism of the deity himself for his evidently insatiable appetite for praise.

Were not the pagan gods not also as egotistical in wanting worship as well, what deity worth anything is not? It's hard to imagine a deity of any kind not caring about if he/she is worshiped.

Because I reserve the possibility that there might be a god. Just as I reserve the possibility of leprechauns and fairies. They could exist, but they probably don't.

“And faith, without works, is dead.” Believing in the possibility that there might be a god is the same as not believing in a god at all. Surely you know this?

Again, it's not in question that the Bible notes the "sin" of Sodom and Gomorrah. I have simply pointed out that it never once refers to precisely what these alleged sins were.

I assume you are not looking at the scriptures I am using? Jude 7 says that Sodom and Gomorrah, and the surrounding cities, were going after fornication and the unnatural use of flesh (homosexulaity)...Jeremiah 23:14 mentions how Israel had become like Sodom with the prophets committing adultery. I did not add this verse originally, but 2 Peter 2:7-8 mentions the Lot was distressed by the law-defying people and their loose conduct....and lawless actions.

It's of note that it never refers to the people as a "mob". It could have been, perhaps, as few as five or ten people, depending. You do realize how small populations were at that time in the region, right? And yeah, it certainly is plausible that they might show up and customarily request to meet with the strangers.

5 or 10 people? That few poeple do not consitute a city, or even a town. As I have shown above the scriptures do tell of what when on in Sodom and the surrounding area. Note what translations of Genesis 19:4 state:

New International Version (©1984)

Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom--both young and old--surrounded the house.

New Living Translation (©2007)

But before they retired for the night, all the men of Sodom, young and old, came from all over the city and surrounded the house.

English Standard Version (©2001)

But before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, both young and old, all the people to the last man, surrounded the house.

New American Standard Bible (©1995)

Before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, surrounded the house, both young and old, all the people from every quarter;

King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)

But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter:

GOD'S WORD® Translation (©1995)

Before they had gone to bed, all the young and old male citizens of Sodom surrounded the house.

Regardless of translation, it makes if clear that a 'gang rape' of some magnitude was about to take place.

Please cite me an example of archaeological or historical evidence which demonstrates that these unnamed "pagan" cultures enjoyed "throwing babies into fires and having sex with animals"?

These cultures were not unnamed. They were the worshipers of Ba'al and other deities, like the Caanaites and the Amorites (the dominant tribe or name of all of Cannanite tribes). Another god as Molech, where children were passed through the fire. King Ahaz, an Israelite, got in on the worship of Molech and started sacrificing children in his reign. Ezekiel 16:20-21 mentions that sometimes the children were killed, then burned.

This book goes into some graphic detail on bestiality in the ancient world. Talks about sex with goats, sheep, baboons, crocodiles, and just about every other animal one can think of.etc...It's sickening, but evdence nonetheless, so be warned.

http://unicorn.werea...besthistory.txt

One of the best and widspread book about archaeology on the burned and charred remains of children is The Bible Handbook by Henry Halley. He was oneof the first guys to document these findings. There seem to be lots of excerpts online....

It is very exceptional that Jehovah was the only deity that seemed to forbid all of those things as a whole, and make laws against those things, enabling Israel to stand above those cultures in their worship. This does lend more weight to the scriptures that Satan is behind the religious practise of those other cultures for they certainly do not originate with God's ways.

That doesn't really address the issue at all... I mean, regardless of whether meat was able to be bled properly, is it not an entirely arbitrary and useless law for it to be illegal to consume bloody meat?

First let me say that more reading up on this, rare meat was likely not looked to highly of in those times, so I it's very likely that when meat was bled, it was not eaten rare when cooked, but cooked sufficiently. Genesis 9:3-6 mentions that blood was not to be eaten/consumed., Leviticus 17:12 mentions that “no soul of you (in Israel) is to eat blood.” Th laws was to protect from, as we know bloody meat can casue, contamination from parasites; salmonella; E-coli and not to mention bactrial problems. Of course the Israelites probably had little idea of this, but we do, and can look back and see it was for the best.

That's all quite irrelevant. Is it not an unjust law to execute a victim of rape for having been raped?

Deuteronomy 22: 23-29, it lays out what would be done, and the only time the girl would die is in consensual sex, which would not be rape in the first place. It even mentions that even if there is no one to hear her screaming or what have you, nothing must be donw to her in the event no one was ther to rescue her. So here it's evident that a rape victim would go free.

They certainly were enslaved by the Romans and Babylonians. As for Egypt, probably not.

Then can you explain why they would voluntarily humiliate themselves, instead of simply not mentioning their defeats? It doesn't add up if their failure were due to Bronze Age technology.

________________

Anyway, as I've mentioned no need to continue to beat a dead horse - I think that all that can be said about the this Bible topic has been said so no real need to continue. Take care!

Edited September 12, 2012 by Power2the1