No Hell and everyone gets saved

First topic message reminder :

The Bible does not really teach of any burning HELL as the word in the Bible only means the grave or garbage dump where they use to throw dead bodies.

Many religions beside Christianity has taught people this wrong barbaric idea as their religious doctrine, but it is not real.

1) Any God that burns people for any reason is not only a monster but a criminal and a sinner and an evil entity.

2) Burning people is not "forgiveness" as it is rather the opposite of forgiving.

3) Burning people is not "love" as it is rather the opposite of love.

4) Putting any person into a Hell, link, is not justice and such an evil idea can not be justice.

5) To "love" means no pain and no more hurting for anyone, as per: "And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away." KJV. Revelation 21:4.

God is love, link here = 1 John 4:8, and God does not hurt people, and that means no one ever goes to any hell.

Everyone is a sinner at various degrees and depth, and there is no one as righteous.

Nobody goes to some fire and torment of any hell, and the saying of "Hell on earth" in this lifetime now is far more accurate.

In the end everyone gets saved and not even one sinner nor one evil sheep gets lost or left out because salvation is for all of mankind.

Jesus said "Love thy enemies" just as God loves His enemies, Matthew 5:43-48, so love does not burn people and love does not hurt people, and that means not even those that are sinners and enemies.

See 1 Corinthians 3:15 "If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire." So the person is being "SAVED" by the "FIRE" and not hurt by it.

The plan is to have a great salvation, and it would not be great if some people were excluded.

Just FYI.

JP Cusick wrote:

Norm Deplume wrote:
"Malicious" is an adjective, not a verb. Thus it is used to modify nouns such as "intent".

Source: OED 2nd edition

All people have the option of using any word they can in any way that expresses the communication.

We can even make-up words just to suit what we mean to say.

As such I used the word the way that I myself judged to be fitting and appropriate.

FYI.

Can I ask you to explain precisely what you mean here. I cannot tell whether you are making up new meanings.

'There's glory for you!'

'I don't know what you mean by "glory",' Alice said.

Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. 'Of course you don't — till I tell you. I meant "there's a nice knock-down argument for you!"'

'But "glory" doesn't mean "a nice knock-down argument",' Alice objected.

'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.'


You seem to be modelling yourself on a character in a children's book.

Got me laughing Norm:D 

JP Cusick wrote:We do know that humans kill our children very often, and many times we kill children for righteous reason as is recorded in history

Examples?

JP Cusick wrote:so yes God can love the children and still kill them as like a mercy killing.

Except they were NOT mercy killings. They were PUNISHMENTS. The Bible specifically says as much. Because, yeah, toddlers were also having same-sex fun in Sodom and Gamorrah as I'm sure all of the infants during the Flood were just as guilty of commiting evil as the adults. What is worrisome is that this actually makes sense to you.

But here's the real catch:  If authorities, in this case God, treats everyone like a criminal and assumes all crimes, no matter how small, deserve a death sentence, guess what happens. There's no motivation to be good since you're going to get screwed no matter what you do. If this is how God raises "children" then someone ought to call CPS and have the human race taken from their so-called "father."

JP Cusick wrote:I simply reject the idea that God is committing murder when He kills, because murder implies malice and injustice which is contrary to God, while killing is really a normal reality for all life on the planet earth.

This is precisely the reason why I consider Christians and most religious believers as extremely immoral and untrustworthy. Either they make the claim that the only thing keeping them from raping and killing is their belief in God (which definitely makes me take a few steps back from these seething maniacs) or they are like you, people who rationalize their way out of the immorality of some primitive desert tribal god.

As I've said before (and I know you're ignoring my posts), an omnipotent god has an infinite number of options to resolve any problem. An omnipotent god can simply use magic to alter, change or even hit the proverbial "reset button" concerning any dilemma god might face. But out of infinite options, what was the ONE option this god chose? To KILL everyone and act like a rapacious butcher. Since an omnipotent god has infinite options, whatever option this god chooses is the one he WANTED to choose. Omnipotent gods cannot be forced into doing something; there's no such excuse as, "I didn't have a choice." No, omnipotent gods have ALL the choices - infinite choices.

So if an omnipotent god kills and murders, it is because he WANTS to, not because he has no other choice, not because murder is the only way to resolve the problem. WANTING to kill, especially when you don't have to, is malicious, sociopathic, and as far from being omni-benevolent as any creature can be.

Yet here you are, trying to justify it, and all because it's in the Bible. What I find interesting is how you CLAIM not to belong to any particular religion and yet you continuously quote from the Bible and apparently believe everything in it is true ... and good, just, and fair, apparently. You CLAIM not to worship a particular God and yet you defend the God of the Bible so tenaciously and with such flawed and misguided thought processes that it is impossible not to believe you're a closet Christian - just someone who tries to avoid labels by saying you're an independent thinker, a free soul, if you will, but secretly harboring Christian beliefs.

But that's neither here nor there. It is pretty much irrelevant what you call yourself. What bothers me is your ability to turn flagrant immorality into wholesome goodness. That's what the worst criminals in our society do ... like members of NAMBLA who claim their pedophilia is really love and affection instead of sexual predation.

One could also say, based on your logic, that if Mother Theresa had committed the Holocaust instead of Hitler, then the Holocaust would have been good and just. Your concept of good and evil says that all actions are neutral; whether an act is good or evil depends on the person commiting it. Which is, of course, bunk. Thus if Stalin kills 24 million Russians, that's bad, but if God kills 24 million Russians, that's good.

Talk about turning the concept of morality upside down.

JP Cusick wrote:I simply reject

Of course, when I said those very same words, you called me blind and self-righteous. Hmm .... so which is it? Are you wrong or are you hypocritical? It HAS to be one or the other.  

IMHO Shirina, I do believe it has to be hypocritical, as he has been in so many of his posts. 

stu wrote:JP, which year did noah's flood happen? could you please tell me. 1025bc or when?

I do not know when it happened.

I believe the works of the modern scholarly Biblical Criticism, which tells that the flood was probably some small storm in old Iraq - Ur where the rivers get overflowing and the oral story was first told.

Of course an Arc full of animals is utterly ridiculous, but other aspects of that Biblical story still does have some interesting info included.


================================================

Shirina wrote:

JP Cusick wrote:I simply reject

Of course, when I said those very same words, you called me blind and self-righteous. Hmm .... so which is it? Are you wrong or are you hypocritical? It HAS to be one or the other.  

You did not say reject as you said "refuse" and the difference is significant.

To refuse is an act of stubbornness where you simply refuse to even look or to consider.

To reject means that I looked at the info and studied the subject and then I reject it based on sincere judgement.

A significant difference indeed.


===============================================

Norm Deplume wrote:Can I ask you to explain precisely what you mean here. I cannot tell whether you are making up new meanings.

Humpty Dumpty

You seem to be modelling yourself on a character in a children's book.

Sorry that you feel that way, but establishing meaning and definition is a long established principle in language and in law and in documents.

Kind of like if we go by the English dictionary definition of "God" then we would be using an inaccurate definition, or at least an incredibly biased definition.

The same with any given word can need an explanation for its usage.

The word you and others object too of "malice" and "malicious" then I was using the dictionary definition of those words, and then I used the words as I see fitting, so I used it correctly and it did communicate the sentiments that I intended.

In fact I kind-of figure that you and others really do get my meaning and that is the real reason that you play this silly word challenge with me.

JP Cusick wrote:

Norm Deplume wrote:Can I ask you to explain precisely what you mean here. I cannot tell whether you are making up new meanings.

Humpty Dumpty

You seem to be modelling yourself on a character in a children's book.

Sorry that you feel that way, but establishing meaning and definition is a long established principle in language and in law and in documents.

But you neither establish meanings nor use established conventions. By trying to create your own conventions you are

• failing to communicate clearly;
  
• leading others to assume that you are an under-educated buffoon;
  
• wasting other people's time if they have to guess what you really mean;
  
• attempting to distract attention from your more outrageous statements with pointless non-standard usage;
  
• preparing the ground for a feeble defence of your statements along the lines of "I really mean something completely different".
  

Idiomatic English is not terribly logical but it is what native speakers use and the fewer writers who ignore its conventions the easier communication becomes.

JP Cusick wrote:
Kind of like if we go by the English dictionary definition of "God" then we would be using an inaccurate definition, or at least an incredibly biased definition.

The same with any given word can need an explanation for its usage.

The word you and others object too of "malice" and "malicious" then I was using the dictionary definition of those words, and then I used the words as I see fitting, so I used it correctly and it did communicate the sentiments that I intended.

Your understanding of dictionaries is skew-wift. Definitions are are based on the way that words are used in general practice. By using words in unconventional ways you are indulging yourself in kicksey-winsey neologisms that obscure the message and suggest that you are ignorant of the standard forms.

You were not using the dictionary definition of "malice" since it is not used as an adjective. Nor need it be when "malicious" exists as the adjectival form of the root word.

You wrote "an incredibly biased definition" and not "an incredible bias define" indicating that you do comprehend standard forms. Exchanging parts of speech is common but not universal.

JP Cusick wrote:
In fact I kind-of figure that you and others really do get my meaning and that is the real reason that you play this silly word challenge with me.

I infer from this that you do not really car about language. How sad.

Notes: the word "too" is not exchangeable with "to". Kind-of" is not normally hyphenated.
"Skew-wift" (adjective and adverb) is a term meaning awry or askew. "Kicksey-winsey" (noun, adjective and adverb) is an obsolete term meaning erratic, fanciful or topsy-turvy.

[/quote="JP Cusick"]
All people have the option of using any word they can in any way that expresses the communication.
 
We can even make-up words just to suit what we mean to say.
 
As such I used the word the way that I myself judged to be fitting and appropriate.
 
FYI.[/quote] 
The english language is one of the most beautiful and complex languages on the planet. There is a huge vocabulary which enables precision and nuances, that simply are not possible to achieve in most other languages. If you need to make up or alter words and/or their meaning, it indicates that you do not have a decent grasp of the language, and lack vocabulary. It would be better if you could get yourself a decent education rather than trashing our wonderful language.
 
[/quote="JP Cusick"]
We do know that humans kill our children very often, and many times we kill children for righteous reason as is recorded in history, and other times kill children for very evil reasons too.[/quote] I have to take issue with this as it is patently false. Please give a real example of a parent righteously killing their child. I don't mean hypothetical, I mean a real life example.
 
[/quote="JP Cusick"]
The Bible actually tells us specifically that God ordered children killed as included in the flood with Noah's Arc, and again God ordered the children along with the adults to be killed in Sodom and Gomorrah, and of course those notorious times where God told the armies to kill every man, woman and child, so yes God can love the children and still kill them as like a mercy killing. " What is merciful about killing those children? Were they is agonizing pain with no hope of recovery? No! It was vengeful, malicious and petulant. Even if those examples actually happened, they were the acts of a petulant pschycopathic child, not someone who should be worshipped. They are certainly not acts of love.
 
[/quote]I simply reject the idea that God is committing murder when He kills, because murder implies malice and injustice which is contrary to God, while killing is really a normal reality for all life on the planet earth.[/quote] 
Killing as a normal reality for life on this planet is about survival. How does killing children help god survive?

JP, YOU ARE REALLY obstinate when refusing to look at other people's point's of view. That is why it is like talking/conversing with a brick wall.  

I can't really say I can agree with JPC or relate to him going off what I've read so far but I would say that he at least tries to back up his points and is polite in doing so. His mangling of the language is strangely endearing as well.

Best of luck then Dan in trying to get a positive answer from him. 

JP, at least you accept that the bible is full of fairy stories like noah's ark. So why believe the rest.

Bearman wrote:The english language is one of the most beautiful and complex languages on the planet. There is a huge vocabulary which enables precision and nuances, that simply are not possible to achieve in most other languages. If you need to make up or alter words and/or their meaning, it indicates that you do not have a decent grasp of the language, and lack vocabulary. It would be better if you could get yourself a decent education rather than trashing our wonderful language.

 Sorry to inform you, but the English language is extremely crude, and when we study the English languages then that crudeness become intolerable.

The old human languages had colorful tones and specific meaning to the words and often could have the words replaced by pictures - but not English or any of the so-called "Romantic-Languages".

Like the name "George Bush" or "Margarette Thatcher" as the words for the names have no real meaning as they are just guttural sounds (just distinct noise), as like a dog barking is a sound that other dogs understand yet it is still just barking. George means nothing just as Margarette means nothing but they are sounds we recognize in English, while both a "bush" and a "thatcher" could be given some literal meaning - they do not mean "bush or thatcher' when used to name those people, as the names are just noise or sounds without any real meaning.

And it is noteworthy here to tell that Shakespeare was the creator of many new English words, as Shakespeare made-up many words to suit his own meanings - and rightly so. See it in the link here = Shakespeare - online.

Bearman wrote:

JP Cusick wrote:We do know that humans kill our children very often, and many times we kill children for righteous reason as is recorded in history, and other times kill children for very evil reasons too.

I have to take issue with this as it is patently false. Please give a real example of a parent righteously killing their child. I don't mean hypothetical, I mean a real life example.

 I will just give a couple of big examples, but I can give more.

1) The battle of Masada where the Jewish defenders decided to kill their families (including children) and kill their selves instead of surrendering to Rome.  

2) Recounted story in the novel "Beloved" where the black Mother killed her two year old daughter so that she would not be taken into slavery. That book is a fictional account of a true event.

People have some times killed children for righteous reasons, and God some times will kill people for rightful reasons too.

Bearman wrote:

JP Cusick wrote:The Bible actually tells us specifically that God ordered children killed as included in the flood with Noah's Arc, and again God ordered the children along with the adults to be killed in Sodom and Gomorrah, and of course those notorious times where God told the armies to kill every man, woman and child, so yes God can love the children and still kill them as like a mercy killing.

What is merciful about killing those children? Were they is agonizing pain with no hope of recovery? No! It was vengeful, malicious and petulant. Even if those examples actually happened, they were the acts of a petulant pschycopathic child, not someone who should be worshipped. They are certainly not acts of love.

The children were already indoctrinated into the sins of their family and their society.

Trying to UN-indoctrinate them would have been impossible.

And "sin" does not really mean just disobeying God, as sin means the people there were living in unhealthy and destructive ways which is sin.

As such it was mercy-killing, based in love and not on malice.

Bearman wrote:

JP Cusick wrote:I simply reject the idea that God is committing murder when He kills, because murder implies malice and injustice which is contrary to God, while killing is really a normal reality for all life on the planet earth.

 
Killing as a normal reality for life on this planet is about survival. How does killing children help god survive?

Humanity is a reflection of God.

As like any inventor, when the invention has troubles then so too its inventor has trouble, and when the invention breaks down then so goes the inventor.

God is directly affected by the sufferings of humanity and of every individual too.

Just as any parent suffers when any of their children suffers.

And speaking of butchering the English language ...

JP Cusick wrote:To refuse is an act of stubbornness where you simply refuse to even look or to consider.

To reject means that I looked at the info and studied the subject and then I reject it based on sincere judgement.

To "refuse" is not an "act of stubborness." The definition of refuse, according to the dictionary, is "to be not willing to do something" ... which is different than simply being stubborn.

The definition of "stubborn" according to the dictionary is -- "to show a dogged determination not to change one's attitude or position on something, especially despite good arguments or reasons to do so.

So when is someone holding true to their principles -- and when is someone simply being stubborn? Is "stubborness" defined in your world as -- "Showing a dogged determination not to agree with JP Cusick."

Because I see no good reason to work so hard at rationalizing how murdering children is somehow merciful and moral. To do such a thing taints my very essence with corruption. That isn't being stubborn any more than someone refusing to do drugs or refusing to rob a bank. Yes, I refuse to sit around twisting the Bible into a pretzel in order justify infanticide and child murder.

stu wrote:JP, YOU ARE REALLY obstinate when refusing to look at other people's point's of view. That is why it is like talking/conversing with a brick wall.  

I believe that any honest person giving an honest evaluation here can see that I most certainly do consider every other person's point of view.

In fact it is very important to me that I must always consider the words and feelings of any other person.

Not to do that would be a sin and a defect for me.

Just because I reject things that are not true or not accurate does not mean that I failed to consider it. I read every comment and click every link and more for everyone.


=================================================

Dan Fante wrote:I can't really say I can agree with JPC or relate to him going off what I've read so far but I would say that he at least tries to back up his points and is polite in doing so. His mangling of the language is strangely endearing as well.

Wow, that is the best compliment that I could possibly get.

Thank you very much for telling it, and for having the gumption to post it.


==================================================

stu wrote:Best of luck then Dan in trying to get a positive answer from him.

It would not be fitting nor honest nor honorable to give a positive answer when the negative is called for.

stu wrote:JP, at least you accept that the bible is full of fairy stories like noah's ark. So why believe the rest.

Actually the Bible itself tells us to separate the fairy stories (fables) from the true stuff, see here = "Jewish fables" in Titus 1:14.

Stories like Jonah swallowed by a big fish was like telling "Robin Hood" or "King Arthur" as they tell a meaning as a children's story but are not meant to be viewed as truth or true story.

Other parts of the Bible are far more compelling and authoritative and useful.

Shirina wrote: "Showing a dogged determination not to agree with JP Cusick."

Because I see no good reason to work so hard at rationalizing how murdering children is somehow merciful and moral. To do such a thing taints my very essence with corruption. That isn't being stubborn any more than someone refusing to do drugs or refusing to rob a bank. Yes, I refuse to sit around twisting the Bible into a pretzel in order justify infanticide and child murder.

My position is that I know that there is a real God, and I simply try to understand whatever that God might be.

So lets consider that your position is accurate and true - this is me considering your side.  

So even if God were a murdering hate-filled monster of a creature God, then that is what we have.

To say that we do not like that God because he is evil - does not make it to go away.

The only way that God can be evil or with malice is if God is real, and that is my point, and that real-God is where you and I connect.

But you try to play both sides by saying God is both evil and that God does not exist when you can not have both, and thereby you destroy any realistic discussion with you.

JP Cusick wrote:Like the name "George Bush" or "Margarette Thatcher" as the words for the names have no real meaning as they are just guttural sounds (just distinct noise), as like a dog barking is a sound that other dogs understand yet it is still just barking.

Our names represent the individual people just like the word "chair" represents an object specially made to sit on. What are human names supposed to mean other than as a point of reference denoting individual persons?

Are we supposed to have names like ...

"Hello, my name is Mr. Helicopter Trashbin. Pleased to meet you."
"Pleased to meet you, too, Mr. Trashbin. My name is Mr. Doghouse Lightbulb."

JP Cusick wrote:1) The battle of Masada where the Jewish defenders decided to kill their families (including children) and kill their selves instead of surrendering to Rome.

2) The woman killing her daughter to keep her from being a slave was wrong and immoral. Perhaps, as a slave herself, the idiot woman should have thought about that before having children.

The Jews were not omnipotent, omni-benevolent gods with limitless choices and infinite options -- unlike the God of the Bible.

The woman who killed her daughter to keep her out of slavery was wrong; she is a murderer. As long as the daughter was alive, there was a chance, there was hope for freedom. Now all the daughter is ... is dead. Besides, she should have thought about that before the idiot woman had children.

But what I would like to know is -- where do you draw the line, Mr. Cusick? Perhaps it is perfectly acceptable for Andrea Yates to drown her five children because:  "It was the seventh deadly sin. My children weren't righteous. They stumbled because I was evil. The way I was raising them, they could never be saved. They were doomed to perish in the fires of hell."

Perhaps we should allow parents to murder their children if they have a birth defect or a disability that will reduce their quality of life. Perhaps we should let religious parents murder their children if the children end up gay or transgendered? Perhaps poor parents should be allowed to murder their children because they won't be as well off as richer kids. Perhaps parents should be allowed to murder their kids if the kids are suffering from depression or some other mental affliction.

Where does it stop, Mr. Cusick? Because we can sit around all day rationalizing every type of crime imaginable.

JP Cusick wrote:The children were already indoctrinated into the sins of their family and their society.

And "sin" does not really mean just disobeying God, as sin means the people there were living in unhealthy and destructive ways which is sin.

As such it was mercy-killing, based in love and not on malice.

You don't KNOW any of those things. You're just making shit up again.

JP Cusick wrote:God is directly affected by the sufferings of humanity and of every individual too.

Affected how? I can only guess, by the amount of suffering that goes on in this world, that God gets some kind of pleasure out of suffering. Otherwise, God would have stopped it ages ago -- or at least do more to prevent unjust suffering. That's what a parent would do, not sit back and say, "Sorry kid. I could help you, I have the power to make it stop. But, meh, I just can't be bothered."

JP Cusick wrote:So lets consider that your position is accurate and true - this is me considering your side.

JP Cusick wrote:But you try to play both sides by saying God is both evil and that God does not exist when you can not have both, and thereby you destroy any realistic discussion with you

So you're allowed to argue from my side ... but if I argue from your side, you try to claim that I'm playing both sides and so you cannot have a realistic discussion with me.

Does that seem fair to you?

Atheists do not believe any god exists but they argue against the god of the bible/Qur'an/torah because believers generally are not in tune with the god they demand everyone should worship. They conveniently ignore his excesses and outrages while proclaiming what a loving Father-God he is. He isn't. If you need any more proof that god is the result of desert nomads imagination, you only have to read the OT.

Shirina, JP reminds me very much of a sit on the fence agnostic, so when you argue a point for atheism he is a theist. Yet when you argue the point for theism, he is an atheist. I am afraid nobody will ever agree fully with JP.

Shirina wrote:So you're allowed to argue from my side ... but if I argue from your side, you try to claim that I'm playing both sides and so you cannot have a realistic discussion with me.

Does that seem fair to you?

I thought that you would appreciate me arguing your side - so much for gratitude.

The thing is that you refuse to argue my side just as you refuse to consider it.

My side is that there is a real loving caring Father God that watches over us all.

You inject malice where there is none, and that is never my side.


============================================

stu wrote: I am afraid nobody will ever agree fully with JP.

I tend to agree with that.

But maybe long after I am dead then some enlightened person will search online and say "wow" when they see the enlightenment that I have told.

 

Why do you think we atheists argue against his existence then Snowyflake?

 I don't think so JP, long after you are dead and gone, if anyone happen's accross your post's they will probably say unprintable things, and then say wasn't it like banging your head against a brickwall to correspond with him. 

JP Cusick wrote:

Shirina wrote:So you're allowed to argue from my side ... but if I argue from your side, you try to claim that I'm playing both sides and so you cannot have a realistic discussion with me.

Does that seem fair to you?

I thought that you would appreciate me arguing your side - so much for gratitude.

The thing is that you refuse to argue my side just as you refuse to consider it.

My side is that there is a real loving caring Father God that watches over us all.

You inject malice where there is none, and that is never my side.


============================================

stu wrote: I am afraid nobody will ever agree fully with JP.

I tend to agree with that.

But maybe long after I am dead then some enlightened person will search online and say "wow" when they see the enlightenment that I have told.

 

Your side, which you are perfectly entitled to, is based on ancient superstition, and has not one shred of empirical evidence to validate it. Even though you keep claiming you do, if it were the case then it would long ago have been published and scientifically verified, yet in thousands of years of theology no theist has ever achieved this. Why do we suppose that is??  

But you try to play both sides by saying God is both evil and that God does not exist when you can not have both, and thereby you destroy any realistic discussion with you wrote:JP Cusick

What an absurdly illogical thing to say. Surely you can see that an Atheist polemic contradicting a theists claims about their chosen version of their chosen deity is hypothetical, and in no way constitutes an admission that that deity exists?

I believe that any honest person giving an honest evaluation here can see that I most certainly do consider every other person's point of view. wrote:JP Cusick

   

Nope, I utterly refute that, and as proof one only has to look at the way you dismissed without hesitation the news video footage I posted when it refuted your own opinion, you dismissed them all as propaganda, without acknowledging they had already been verified as true by every major news network. That's the action of a bigot, not someone who "considers every other person's point of view".

[quote="stu"Why do you think we atheists argue against his existence then Snowyflake?][/quote]
Hi stu I think atheists argue against the existence of god because it is so obviously WRONG. Having been a believer at one point in my life and believing that God was real and true and then slowly growing away from this notion, I understand completely where believers are coming from. The thing that made the biggest difference to me was education and more importantly, my education in science completely convinced me that god was not real or true. There is no evidence to support the existence of a supreme being. The only major questions unanswered by science are how did life begin (for which we have perfectly reasonable hypothesis, but no definitive proof) and what was the trigger to the Big Bang?

Theists think the that the answer 'I don't know' is proof of the existence of God. It isn't. It's just an unanswered question.

JP Cusick wrote:

stu wrote:JP, which year did noah's flood happen? could you please tell me. 1025bc or when?

I do not know when it happened.

I believe the works of the modern scholarly Biblical Criticism, which tells that the flood was probably some small storm in old Iraq - Ur where the rivers get overflowing and the oral story was first told.

Of course an Arc full of animals is utterly ridiculous, but other aspects of that Biblical story still does have some interesting info included.


================================================

Shirina wrote:

JP Cusick wrote:I simply reject

Of course, when I said those very same words, you called me blind and self-righteous. Hmm .... so which is it? Are you wrong or are you hypocritical? It HAS to be one or the other.  

You did not say reject as you said "refuse" and the difference is significant.

To refuse is an act of stubbornness where you simply refuse to even look or to consider.

To reject means that I looked at the info and studied the subject and then I reject it based on sincere judgement.

A significant difference indeed.


===============================================

Norm Deplume wrote:Can I ask you to explain precisely what you mean here. I cannot tell whether you are making up new meanings.

Humpty Dumpty

You seem to be modelling yourself on a character in a children's book.

Sorry that you feel that way, but establishing meaning and definition is a long established principle in language and in law and in documents.

Kind of like if we go by the English dictionary definition of "God" then we would be using an inaccurate definition, or at least an incredibly biased definition.

The same with any given word can need an explanation for its usage.

The word you and others object too of "malice" and "malicious" then I was using the dictionary definition of those words, and then I used the words as I see fitting, so I used it correctly and it did communicate the sentiments that I intended.

In fact I kind-of figure that you and others really do get my meaning and that is the real reason that you play this silly word challenge with me.

The story was plagiarised from an even older superstition. Nothing to see here.....

Hi Sheldon, is this guy JP just a little mixed up with his post's or not? I believe he need's to take a break for a while to give his posting mind a rest.

Hi snowyflake  exactly, the theist's of course will say god did this or that or the other, which we know to be false. Yet we as atheist's cannot give exact proof/evidence either.

Hi stu

No we cannot say definitively that God does not exist any more than we can say that anything the human mind has imagined does not exist. Fairies, Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, the Easter Bunny, Captain James T. Kirk, Unicorns or leprechauns are no more real than God. BUT believers in God will fight tooth and nail, get out their biggest weapons and manpower, send out our youngest and bravest, to prove the enemy's God is wrong.

It's madness on a colossal scale.

If we can prove the bible is no more than a comic book, we are at least halfway there are we not snowyflake?

stu wrote:Hi Sheldon, is this guy JP just a little mixed up with his post's or not? I believe he need's to take a break for a while to give his posting mind a rest.

He's barking mad stu, sorry, but how can you have a rational debate with someone who thinks FGM of pre-pubescent girls is acceptable. It's interesting stu, but when you are in the unfortunate position of trying to talk to a deeply misogynistic man you slowly realise how completely unaware they are that they are in fact misogynists. It's less like it's a wilful subjugation of women, and more like they think they're actually caring for the "poor lambs", because they can't look after themselves. Much the impression Bradders always gave in fact, using words like caring for, and protecting, which always sent a little shiver down my back to think of the poor women in his life.

I know Sheldon, he think's because they are not allowed to drive, they are being chauffered everywhere. also we are lying about what those poor women did to get whipped,or it's better to get whipped than serve 20years in prison. what is this guy like,would not want him as a neighbour.

Hi Sheldon

Anyone who thinks that genital mutilation of any kind (male or female) is acceptable is a nutsy Fagan in my books. Sorry, JP, but there is a limit to tolerance of cultural acceptability. It is not acceptable to sacrifice infants to gods, it is not acceptable to sacrifice virgins to volcanoes, it is not acceptable to kill teenagers for disrespect to parents, it is not acceptable to kill homosexuals by virtue of being homosexual. It is also not acceptable to make people who were supposedly made in the image of God hack off pieces of their anatomy in some kind of covenant to god to prove their loyalty. Did God also hack off his foreskin from his schmeckel when he made Abraham do it?

And if you think about this carefully, how silly is this notion of hacking off parts of your perfect self, made in the image of a perfect God?

stu wrote:I know Sheldon, he think's because they are not allowed to drive, they are being chauffered everywhere. also we are lying about what those poor women did to get whipped,or it's better to get whipped than serve 20years in prison. what is this guy like,would not want him as a neighbour.

Well that was astonishing from Cusick, as if the reason they are being whipped is paramount, rather than the fact that women and girls can be arbitrarily stopped and publicly flogged without any recourse to a criminal justice system or legal representation, or even a trial of any sort, utterly barbaric practice, and a totally repulsive negation of their basic human rights, and this clown tries to suggest it's analogous to women wearing revealing clothes, as if they're forced to do that anyway.

 Hi snowyflake well now you can see what I look like now I've hacked off all that I can

stu wrote:If we can prove the bible is no more than a comic book, we are at least halfway there are we not snowyflake?

Excuse me, but please don't compare the Bible to comic books. There are many excellent comics and graphic novels that have actual literary value.

Sam Hunter wrote:

stu wrote:If we can prove the bible is no more than a comic book, we are at least halfway there are we not snowyflake?

Excuse me, but please don't compare the Bible to comic books. There are many excellent comics and graphic novels that have actual literary value.

There's Neil Gaimans work for starters!

Sam Hunter wrote:

stu wrote:If we can prove the bible is no more than a comic book, we are at least halfway there are we not snowyflake?

Excuse me, but please don't compare the Bible to comic books. There are many excellent comics and graphic novels that have actual literary value.

Well quite, and most of them contain more literal truth than the bible as well.

JP Cusick wrote:

Bellatori wrote:The list of vengeful and spiteful slaying of opposition is legion.

You see malice because the malice is inside of your self, and you project your own malicious perception onto God who does not have it. - Humans are filled with violence, and we can not see clearly until we remove the evil from our self.

Malice in the heart of God. If God had malice in his heart then he would create a world in which every creature would compete with every other, where each destroys other living entities (or recently killed) in order to survive. He would set up edifices in order to knock them down. He would create all sort of desires within each individual and then condemn them for satisfying them. He would create a bottomless pit filled with fire to throw people into when they die (and give them eternal life to appreciate the pain).

Let's think about it. What kind of God would do all of that?

Heretic

Hi lads, got me laughing about the comics!! Very true Heretic, also can I thank you for your beautiful post to Peter. I WISH I had your way of putting things I really do.