Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most Biblical religions are not Biblical literalists. Very few are in fact, just the extreme fundamentalist sects.

Which means they are just making it up.

No, that’s not what that means. If you actually believe that, you have a pretty simple understanding.

DP. A simple understanding, but likely also an accurate understanding.

DP - actually, no understanding at all. The whole premise of this thread is kindergarten level, illogical, all or nothing, silliness.

+1. The Old Testament is the story of a people recording and trying to explain their history. If somebody’s baby or wife died, or a plague struck thousands, people at the time had no medical or scientific explanation and thought it must be God’s doing. But why would God do this? It must be because they had done something wrong. Many millennia ago, free will wasn’t a thing and every incident somehow had to be explained within a framework of God’s justice. Old Testament thinking evolved on this and New Testament thinking is quite different.

As somebody said on page one of this thread, very few people take the Old Testament literally, instead they draw broader spiritual lessons.

This thread is an excercise in playing gotcha games with a tiny number of bible literalists based on a kindergarten-level understanding of the role of the Old Testament.

Why then can’t we agree it is not literal or factual but metaphorical and allegorical ? Then this whole thread can be put to bed.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most Biblical religions are not Biblical literalists. Very few are in fact, just the extreme fundamentalist sects.

Which means they are just making it up.

No, that’s not what that means. If you actually believe that, you have a pretty simple understanding.

DP. A simple understanding, but likely also an accurate understanding.

DP - actually, no understanding at all. The whole premise of this thread is kindergarten level, illogical, all or nothing, silliness.

+1. The Old Testament is the story of a people recording and trying to explain their history. If somebody’s baby or wife died, or a plague struck thousands, people at the time had no medical or scientific explanation and thought it must be God’s doing. But why would God do this? It must be because they had done something wrong. Many millennia ago, free will wasn’t a thing and every incident somehow had to be explained within a framework of God’s justice. Old Testament thinking evolved on this and New Testament thinking is quite different.

As somebody said on page one of this thread, very few people take the Old Testament literally, instead they draw broader spiritual lessons.

This thread is an excercise in playing gotcha games with a tiny number of bible literalists based on a kindergarten-level understanding of the role of the Old Testament.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most Biblical religions are not Biblical literalists. Very few are in fact, just the extreme fundamentalist sects.

Which means they are just making it up.

No, that’s not what that means. If you actually believe that, you have a pretty simple understanding.

DP. A simple understanding, but likely also an accurate understanding.

DP - actually, no understanding at all. The whole premise of this thread is kindergarten level, illogical, all or nothing, silliness.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most Biblical religions are not Biblical literalists. Very few are in fact, just the extreme fundamentalist sects.

Which means they are just making it up.

No, that’s not what that means. If you actually believe that, you have a pretty simple understanding.

DP. A simple understanding, but likely also an accurate understanding.

DP - actually, no understanding at all. The whole premise of this thread is kindergarten level, illogical, all or nothing, silliness.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most Biblical religions are not Biblical literalists. Very few are in fact, just the extreme fundamentalist sects.

Which means they are just making it up.

No, that’s not what that means. If you actually believe that, you have a pretty simple understanding.

DP. A simple understanding, but likely also an accurate understanding.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most Biblical religions are not Biblical literalists. Very few are in fact, just the extreme fundamentalist sects.

Which means they are just making it up.

No, that’s not what that means. If you actually believe that, you have a pretty simple understanding.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most Biblical religions are not Biblical literalists. Very few are in fact, just the extreme fundamentalist sects.

Which means they are just making it up.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, if you think you’re trashing Christianity, this is a massive fail. Even that childish rationalwiki page says the NT god is completely different from the OT god, and its attempt to explain this by saying the NT is “shorter” is frankly hilarious.

So the OT does not count, and we can ignore it totally? I’m good with that.

(Please answer to the NT things referenced, like in revelations)

Anonymous wrote:Most Biblical religions are not Biblical literalists. Very few are in fact, just the extreme fundamentalist sects.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does the Bible say the things that are linked or not?

Depends how it's been translated. If you can't read it in the original, that means that you are reading at translation of a translation of a translation.

How about the version you follow? Does it say those things?

No. Most words have about 10 different legitimate interpretations. Something like the way people interpret the constitution

Can you post what your version is and what it says in the place of those verses please? That certainly would be evidence against the OPS point

op’s linked website states God is a fictional character and the Bible is man-made, and non/believers should avoid taking any moral lessons from the Bible.

Why should anyone try to “prove” anything? Nobody cares! op and company already have their minds made up…and that’s fine. Anyone debating them is wasting time and mental space.

You’ve worked very hard to avoid answering the question. The reason is because your bible says exactly what this web site illustrates, and you are trying to distract from that fact.
That’s pretty obvious.

You have worked pretty hard to avoid citing any exact verses in this entire thread

They are linked in the very first post of this thread. A big list of them. Did you not read it?

Please tell me you did not spend all this effort arguing when you didn’t even read the founding post of the thread.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does the Bible say the things that are linked or not?

Depends how it's been translated. If you can't read it in the original, that means that you are reading at translation of a translation of a translation.

How about the version you follow? Does it say those things?

No. Most words have about 10 different legitimate interpretations. Something like the way people interpret the constitution

Can you post what your version is and what it says in the place of those verses please? That certainly would be evidence against the OPS point

op’s linked website states God is a fictional character and the Bible is man-made, and non/believers should avoid taking any moral lessons from the Bible.

Why should anyone try to “prove” anything? Nobody cares! op and company already have their minds made up…and that’s fine. Anyone debating them is wasting time and mental space.

You’ve worked very hard to avoid answering the question. The reason is because your bible says exactly what this web site illustrates, and you are trying to distract from that fact.
That’s pretty obvious.

You have worked pretty hard to avoid citing any exact verses in this entire thread

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does the Bible say the things that are linked or not?

Depends how it's been translated. If you can't read it in the original, that means that you are reading at translation of a translation of a translation.

How about the version you follow? Does it say those things?

No. Most words have about 10 different legitimate interpretations. Something like the way people interpret the constitution

Can you post what your version is and what it says in the place of those verses please? That certainly would be evidence against the OPS point

op’s linked website states God is a fictional character and the Bible is man-made, and non/believers should avoid taking any moral lessons from the Bible.

Why should anyone try to “prove” anything? Nobody cares! op and company already have their minds made up…and that’s fine. Anyone debating them is wasting time and mental space.

You’ve worked very hard to avoid answering the question. The reason is because your bible says exactly what this web site illustrates, and you are trying to distract from that fact.
That’s pretty obvious.

Anonymous wrote:OP, if you think you’re trashing Christianity, this is a massive fail. Even that childish rationalwiki page says the NT god is completely different from the OT god, and its attempt to explain this by saying the NT is “shorter” is frankly hilarious.