Genetics of Jews

The Doctor · **Posted:** 10 Aug 2012, 21:00

Hopeless_Romantic wrote:

The Doctor wrote:

^^ In fairness, most of those are differences between the old and new testament. God is quite clearly a different being in both, it is quite possible He learned the error of His ways and became the pacifist He is in the New Testament.

God "learned the error of his ways"? Do you realize how incredibly hilarious that sounds? God "the perfect being" making mistakes?
In this regard, the God portrayed in the bible seems to have very human qualities. So in that case, why should we assume it is even a God? After all, the humans that wrote the bible only had other humans to study when they created this fictional being, imbued with human qualities. I remember the first time when I knew for sure that the bible was totally false. It was when I was reading an old testament verse that commanded readers to not worship any other gods, because God is jealous, in fact it stated God's name was "jealousy". That one verse was enough to seal the deal for me so to speak. I knew that the bible was a crock of shit theologically speaking. It does have historical value for studying ancient Hebrew culture, but it has almost no spiritual value in my opinion...well the New Testament does have some good parts to it, but the eastern philosophies like Buddhism are far superior spiritually speaking.

I don't, nor have I ever, believed that God is perfect. His imperfections are very apparent in the Bible. I find it very difficult to believe, however, that the Bible is entirely false. I believe it is based on true events, but the records of those events have been skewed by endless translations, fallible memories, and even outright lies. Much of it is metaphorical as well which leaves much open to interpretation. For example, I see the genesis myth as a fairly accurate representation of the order in which the Earth was created (with the exception of the fourth day), but not necessarily the time scale.

Stranger1983 · **Posted:** 13 Aug 2012, 16:49

The Doctor wrote:

^^ In fairness, most of those are differences between the old and new testament. God is quite clearly a different being in both, it is quite possible He learned the error of His ways and became the pacifist He is in the New Testament. Also, much of the rest can be contributed to people's various recollections of the events as they were passed down verbally until finally written down and canonised. Anything else is likely to be pure invention by those who wished to control the population.

All in all, it is very easy for a person to cite the Bible to get their own beliefs across because of all this contradiction, but to hold it as absolute truth, every word, is completely stupid considering you cannot have both 'an eye for an eye' AND 'turn the other cheek' as truth.

God never changes. Mal.3:6.

The Doctor · **Posted:** 13 Aug 2012, 18:39

Stranger1983 wrote:

The Doctor wrote:

^^ In fairness, most of those are differences between the old and new testament. God is quite clearly a different being in both, it is quite possible He learned the error of His ways and became the pacifist He is in the New Testament. Also, much of the rest can be contributed to people's various recollections of the events as they were passed down verbally until finally written down and canonised. Anything else is likely to be pure invention by those who wished to control the population.

All in all, it is very easy for a person to cite the Bible to get their own beliefs across because of all this contradiction, but to hold it as absolute truth, every word, is completely stupid considering you cannot have both 'an eye for an eye' AND 'turn the other cheek' as truth.

God never changes. Mal.3:6.

And yet, He does.

Stranger1983 · **Posted:** 13 Aug 2012, 18:54

The Doctor wrote:

Stranger1983 wrote:

The Doctor wrote:

^^ In fairness, most of those are differences between the old and new testament. God is quite clearly a different being in both, it is quite possible He learned the error of His ways and became the pacifist He is in the New Testament. Also, much of the rest can be contributed to people's various recollections of the events as they were passed down verbally until finally written down and canonised. Anything else is likely to be pure invention by those who wished to control the population.

All in all, it is very easy for a person to cite the Bible to get their own beliefs across because of all this contradiction, but to hold it as absolute truth, every word, is completely stupid considering you cannot have both 'an eye for an eye' AND 'turn the other cheek' as truth.

God never changes. Mal.3:6.

And yet, He does.

Tell it to the bible, I was just quoting it, if it is your opinion that your god changes then I don't care to hear it.

Rammspieler · **Posted:** 25 Aug 2012, 13:58

If Abrahamic God and The Bible were as cool as say Greek mythology or the Norse Eddas, then I wouldn't be a "technical" Buddhist now. But I found, that even as a child, churchgoing to be boring and Bible stories to be pretty lame compared to the ancient pagan stories which they are based upon. Herakles was way cooler than Samson and they're basically the same guy.

Ethnocide · **Posted:** 25 Aug 2012, 15:51

gmartinfan wrote:

Hopeless......

used to be "just like you" I debated and countered every Biblical fact with some scientific, or "new" research

and you know what.

I was wrong. the Bible IS right.

Based on?

gmartinfan wrote:

It's called FAITH.

Oh... so... not really based on anything then.

gmartinfan wrote:

I give you ten years!

This sounds like an appeal to life experience. As if gaining more life experience somehow changes the objective fundamental nature of reality.

Hopeless_Romantic · **Posted:** 25 Aug 2012, 17:25

Eduard Limonov wrote:

If Abrahamic God and The Bible were as cool as say Greek mythology or the Norse Eddas, then I wouldn't be a "technical" Buddhist now. But I found, that even as a child, churchgoing to be boring and Bible stories to be pretty lame compared to the ancient pagan stories which they are based upon. Herakles was way cooler than Samson and they're basically the same guy.

Even Buddhism kinda lost its way and became bogged down with odd rituals, statue worship, and the kooky orange robed monk fashion. I do like Eckhart Tolle's "The Power of Now" because it borrows heavily from buddhism and presents everything in such a simplified manner without being convoluted.

Rammspieler · **Posted:** 26 Aug 2012, 01:34

Hopeless_Romantic wrote:

Eduard Limonov wrote:

If Abrahamic God and The Bible were as cool as say Greek mythology or the Norse Eddas, then I wouldn't be a "technical" Buddhist now. But I found, that even as a child, churchgoing to be boring and Bible stories to be pretty lame compared to the ancient pagan stories which they are based upon. Herakles was way cooler than Samson and they're basically the same guy.

Even Buddhism kinda lost its way and became bogged down with odd rituals, statue worship, and the kooky orange robed monk fashion. I do like Eckhart Tolle's "The Power of Now" because it borrows heavily from buddhism and presents everything in such a simplified manner without being convoluted.

True. Hence why I call myself a "technical" one, as in I agree with a lot of what Prince Siddhartha said. But even I think most Buddhists are as hypocritical as the Abrahamic religions and have forgotten that they are supposed to be a philosophical movement and not a religious one. Shit I would go so far as to say fuck Tibetan independence. Thanks to the Chinese, they aren't living in a theocratic feudal shithole anymore.

Forum rules

Genetics of Jews

Who is online