[Dr Lecter]

I thought you were drunk!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Edit: Dr Lecter, no offense, sir, but I totally thought you were drunk too...
*Dr. Lecter kicks floppydisk and Dorothy*

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Who said I wasn't drunk, not apon the juice of alcohol, but apon the juice of heavy AGS coding. The kind that would make lesser men so crazy he has to be pinned to the ground and shot 8 times in the head before he can stop thinking about it. This is what I believe in London those weeks ago. That Brazillian guy was a coder, and he was so crazy about a bit of code he was working on that it took a whole clip directly to the brain to cure him of his frustration.

[Hermetical Harry]

[FONT=Arial][SIZE=1]

I will accept for arguments stakes that 'God' exists, in the biblical, christian sense of the word. What I will initially call into dispute is how exactly is that christians can have so much faith in the bible being the literal word of 'God'.

Firstly, Please explain the drastic change of character in 'God' between the old and new testaments. In any normal person such a drastic change from being immoderately jealous and vengeful to wholy benevolent and friendly would be considered somewhat strange.

Secondly, since according to the bible, in the past, 'God' has played a noticeable, very obvious part in the lives humans (Gomorrah anyone? How about some Sodom? Don't follow the supposed will of 'God'? Eat plagues! Hey...think this guy has died and been buried? Think again!) , why has he disappeared from the human experience since the writing of the bible? What is it about the bible that made 'God' decide "You know what? I don't think they need me anymore. I think they are mature enough to find their own way through the moral maze I have laid down without my abitrary smitings and imaculate conceptings." And how do you know he is still around? How do you know that 'God' hasn't scarpered off down the celestial road to have a metaphysical cigarette? Don't try and tell me that he is omni-benevolent and wouldn't scarper, because if theres one thing the bible tells us, its that god is not omni-benevolent and not adverse to changing drastically his nature without warning.

Maybe 'God' is a cunning little haemaroid bicuit and reasoned "At this rate, they'll end up smiting themselves.....Heeeyy....Wait a minute! God, you've done it again. I sometimes can't get over just how smart I am. "

And if you have to accept Jesus to attain forgiveness for your sins, then what of the millions of innocent heathens who have been born, lived and died, without seeing a single solitary cross, let alone the bible, to inform them that, you know, "You've been worshipping false idols! you must accept Jesus! No other way to heaven! Way Truth And Life!"? For that matter what of the people who were born before 'God' made one of those infamous abitrary decisions and thrust his son upon our earth?

And given Jesus was a rampant sado-masochist, why arent you all self-flagellating? I mean, some of you are...but...dammit, more self-flagellation. I'm just into that kind of thing.

[Dorothy]

Hello! Welcome to Chefelf!

Here are just a few thoughts that popped into my head while I read through your post. (sorry about the quotes, apparently that button is rather fickle.)

"Firstly, Please explain the drastic change of character in 'God' between the old and new testaments. In any normal person such a drastic change from being immoderately jealous and vengeful to wholy benevolent and friendly would be considered somewhat strange."

Let me just say that in the Bible (both Old and New Testaments) it states that God loves people, but because he is pure and holy, cannot tolerate sin.

"(W)hy has (God) disappeared from the human experience since the writing of the bible... And how do you know he is still around?"

God has not disappeared, and I know becasue I have a relationship with him through his son, Jesus.

"Don't try and tell me that he is omni-benevolent and wouldn't scarper, because if theres one thing the bible tells us, its that (G)od is not omni-benevolent and not adverse to changing drastically his nature without warning."

God doesn't just throw his hands up and leave us to our own devices because he loves us.

"Maybe 'God' is a cunning little haemaroid bicuit"

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by this, but it offends me a bit.

"and reasoned "At this rate, they'll end up smiting themselves.....Heeeyy....Wait a minute! God, you've done it again. I sometimes can't get over just how smart I am. "

If you are speaking of recent disasters, I don't know why God lets bad things happen to people. The only thing that I can say is that God loved people, and he gave them the option of loving him, and each other. He could have chosen to make us all little androids that were only capable of glorifying him, but he didn't.

"And if you have to accept Jesus to attain forgiveness for your sins, then what of the millions of innocent heathens who have been born, lived and died, without seeing a single solitary cross, let alone the bible, to inform them that, you know, 'You've been worshipping false idols! you must accept Jesus! No other way to heaven! Way Truth And Life!'?"

If they do not have a relationship with Jesus, they go to hell.

"For that matter what of the people who were born before 'God' made one of those infamous abitrary decisions and thrust his son upon our earth?"

God loved us so much that his plan was to give us an opportunity to be with him in heaven. He didn't FORCE anyone to choose Jesus, and you have every opportunity not to.

"And given Jesus was a rampant sado-masochist, why arent you all self-flagellating? I mean, some of you are...but... more self-flagellation. I'm just into that kind of thing."

I'm not sure what you mean by this... do you have an example?

Well, if you want to talk about this further, I have Biblical passages that I can supply to support this case.

[Dr Lecter]

My theory: God wanted to the porn industry to develop the way it has so that he can watch it. Hence he did what he had to, to make sure that it did.

[civilian_number_two]

Christians were never expected to be Jewish, in fact the early church dealt with "Judaizers" that said that in order for your commitment to Christ to be real, you had to be circumcised and follow the regulations set out in the Old Testament. But when Jesus came, he fulfilled the requirements of the Old Law for us, so that we are no longer limited to that.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I changed my mind. Jordan is bored of this, and it wouldn't be fair to ask him to sit in for me. Besides, I get a kick out of this stuff.

Jesus never said that he had fulfilled anything. Paul may have said that, but not Jesus. Jesus was Jewish and he kept kosher his whole life. One or two times he slipped, and forgot to wash his hands, like Jordan said. But he never told people "ah fuck it; eat pork," and the famous great commission, where he told his boys to preach to all of the peoples of the world, that never happened. Not only are the Gospels questionable to begin with, butthat bit isn't even in the oldest copies of the Gospels. It was added on later, and even in that version, Jesus delivers this speech after coming back from the dead. Seriously; people don't come back from the dead, outside of Hollywood. That's the part of the story I can't imagine people still believe.

Anyway, Jesus was Jewish. He hung out with Jews. This one time he talked to a woman outside his faith, and he admitted that once the children of God had been fed, it would be ok for the dogs to get the scraps that fell from the table. That's how he felt about Gentiles, that God was for the Jews, but that once they were taken care of maybe everyone else could have a bit. He never preached to them, despite that one interaction with a particularly brash water-gatherer who cornered him while his posse wasn't around. This idea that Christianity was NOT Jewish is as crazy as your short-term memory loss about Christians persecuting Jews. Are you serious? Do you think Christianity was invented in the 80s, in North America, and that all you need is a "personal relationship with the Lord?" Christianity has a 20-century history of wars and persecution, most of that time as the party in power.

Jordan is right: Paul made the big deal about homosexuality. Dorothy is right, too:Paul was Jewish, but he made the religion into a Roman and Gentile one. Numerous attempted stonings and accusations of heresy from orthodox Jews and even other Christians made Paul a bit of a separatist by nature. Probably this came from having begunhis career in public life as a persecutor and murderer of Christians.

Paul took elements of Mithraism and made them Christianity, discarding Judaism almost entirely. This did not come out of a special revelation, but out of a council meeting, where Paul was called on to defend his Gentile friends and to explain why they still made blood sacrifices and kept their foreskin. This was a meeting not where "Judaizers" tried to hijack the Church, but one where pagans hijacked a Jewish sect and stripped it of its Jewish background. It was agreed that in exchange for their foreskin they'd give up on sacrifices, and the whole doctrine of the sacrifice by proxy came about (you can find stuff in the Gospels, but a lot of that was written later, remember, and anyway it doesn't lead to the conclusion everyone hears unless they've also ready Paul).

The Romans liked all this because it wasn't Judaism, which they weren't fond of. The Hellenists liked it later because John worked gnosticism into it, which is some wild stuff, man. The church that became Catholicism decided which books would be the ones you are reading now when you say you have a personal relationship with Jesus. Catholics. I dare say most Christians in this forum have no connection to that odd bunch of crackpots, but you still read their Bible? These guys banned numerous writings early on, some of which were miraculously discovered in a cave in 1945. These banned books painted different pictures of Jesus than the one you have, in some ways making him more wise, and in others more human. Why not read the books the Catholics cut out, or look into the histories of the ones they kept? Why accept as the protected word of God the collected books of only one group of Christians, and a group on whom so many Christians have turned their backs?

PS: If they haven't formed a relationship with Jesus, they go to hell? To bad for centuries of peoples outside Europe and the Middle East! Too bad for the Mayans!Too bad for Moses, even! Too bad indeed!

[Dorothy]

Sorry this took a while, I had to go get some lunch (mmm, mcdonalds)

Jm - What I read about that passage didn't really directly address the issues that you were talking about. It is an interesting quote, though. If you want it I can post it for you...I'll keep looking for something that addresses that specific verse.

civilian_number_two - You are an interesting person, and I enjoyed replying to your arguements.

"Jesus never said that he had fulfilled anything."

Matthew 5:17 " Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prhphets. I did not come to destroy, but to fulfill."

"Jesus was Jewish and he kept kosher his whole life. One or two times he slipped, and forgot to wash his hands, like Jordan said."

I can only assume that you are talking about Matthew 15, when it was Jesus' followers that didn't wash THEIR hands. Is that right?

"Jesus delivers this speech after coming back from the dead. Seriously; people don't come back from the dead, outside of Hollywood. That's the part of the story I can't imagine people still believe."

It's hard, I know...but I bellieve that God is omnipotent, that he could do anything.

"Anyway, Jesus was Jewish. He hung out with Jews. This one time he talked to a woman outside his faith, and he admitted that once the children of God had been fed, it would be ok for the dogs to get the scraps that fell from the table. That's how he felt about Gentiles, that God was for the Jews, but that once they were taken care of maybe everyone else could have a bit."

In the Bible it talks about how God loved the world , so he sent Jesus to die.

"He never preached to them, despite that one interaction with a particularly brash water-gatherer who cornered him while his posse wasn't around."

Actually, the woman at the well was a Samaritan, a half-jew and half-gentile that would never presume to address Jesus, because of the relations between Samaritans and Jews, and because she was a woman. Jesus began the conversation by addressing her.

"This idea that Christianity was NOT Jewish is as crazy as your short-term memory loss about Christians persecuting Jews."

What do you know about my memory??? I was merely stating that I needed specific examples of said persecution to address them in an intelligent manner. I cannot debate something if I don't know what the heck you are talking about. Christianity has it's basis in Judaism, of course, but it was not intended to be exclusively for the Jews.

"Are you serious? Do you think Christianity was invented in the 80s, in North America,"

No, and if you want to go into it, I can lay before you an outline of church history.

"and that all you need is a "personal relationship with the Lord?"

Yes.

"Christianity has a 20-century history of wars and persecution, most of that time as the party in power."

Again, I need to know the examples that you are speaking of in order to make an educated argument.

"(1)but he made the religion into a Roman and Gentile one. (2)Numerous attempted stonings and accusations of heresy from orthodox Jews and even other (3)Christians made Paul a bit of a (4)separatist by nature. Probably this came from having begunhis career in public life as a persecutor and murderer of Christians."

Okay, I split this section up, so that I can address these all individually:
1. He didn't MAKE the religion anything. God did.
2. True.
3. When was he stoned by Christians?
4. Paul seperated from the church not because of his beliefs differing, or because of his history of near-death experiences, but because he was called to go and travel to other areas and teach them.

"Paul took elements of Mithraism and made them Christianity, discarding Judaism almost entirely. This did not come out of a special revelation, but out of a council meeting, where Paul was called on to defend his Gentile friends and to explain why they still made blood sacrifices and kept their foreskin. This was a meeting not where "Judaizers" tried to hijack the Church, but one where pagans hijacked a Jewish sect and stripped it of its Jewish background. It was agreed that in exchange for their foreskin they'd give up on sacrifices, and the whole doctrine of the sacrifice by proxy came about (you can find stuff in the Gospels, but a lot of that was written later, remember, and anyway it doesn't lead to the conclusion everyone hears unless they've also ready Paul)."

This whole section is a bit confusing to me... I'm not exactly sure where you got this information, it sounds like whoever you have been talking to has mashed a bunch of different scripture passages into one.

"Mithraism and made them Christianity"

How so?

"why they still made blood sacrifices and kept their foreskin. This was a meeting not where "Judaizers" tried to hijack the Church, but one where pagans hijacked a Jewish sect and stripped it of its Jewish background. It was agreed that in exchange for their foreskin they'd give up on sacrifices, and the whole doctrine of the sacrifice by proxy came about "

Actually, the early church had to deal with several sects, both with false teachers and Judaizers. What passage are you taking this from?

"The Romans liked all this because it wasn't Judaism, which they weren't fond of. (1)The Hellenists liked it later because (2)John worked gnosticism into it, which is some wild stuff, man. (3)The church that became Catholicism decided which books would be the ones you are reading now when you say you have a personal relationship with Jesus. Catholics. (4)I dare say most Christians in this forum have no connection to that odd bunch of crackpots, but you still read their Bible? (5)These guys banned numerous writings early on, some of which were miraculously discovered in a cave in 1945. These banned books painted different pictures of Jesus than the one you have, in some ways making him more wise, and in others more human. (6)Why not read the books the Catholics cut out, or look into the histories of the ones they kept? (7)Why accept as the protected word of God the collected books of only one group of Christians, and a group on whom so many Christians have turned their backs?"

1. Hellenists were merely Greek speaking Jews. The only reason for the distinction in the early church was that Jews and Hellenists spoke different languages.
2. How so?
3. Actually, early Catholicism and modern Catholicism are very different. And there was a point, called the Reformation, that the Christian church broke of from a Catholicism that they felt no longer taught God's word. If you want to go into church history, just let me know, because we can.
4. I can speak for myself, I do not read a Catholic Bible.
5. Many writings that were found were judged to be non-canonical when compared with other writings in the Bible. There was a set of guidelines that were followed. If you want to go into the formation of the collection of books that make up the Bible, we can.
6. There are books, called Apocriphal literature that may be included in Catholic Bibles, that are not included in other denominations Bibles. If you want to go into the differences between denominations, we can.
7. Going back to point #3, and 6, and 5. If you want to talk about these areas, we can.

"PS: (1)If they haven't formed a relationship with Jesus, they go to hell? To bad for centuries of peoples outside Europe and the Middle East! (2)Too bad for the Mayans! (3)Too bad for Moses, even! Too bad indeed!"

1. Yes.
2. Yes.
3. Moses was covered by the Old Covenant, that is, the old "agreement" that God made with the Jews, which is what had them making sacrifices, and having temples and the like. If you want to talk about Old Testament History, we can.

"(A)nd the famous great commission, where he told his boys to preach to all of the peoples of the world, that never happened. Not only are the Gospels questionable to begin with, butthat bit isn't even in the oldest copies of the Gospels."

What are your sources for this information? If you don't present a full arguement, this has the possibility of deteriorating into a "yes it is" "no it isn't" match.

In summary (and a teeny bit of explanation):

All of these are interesting arguements, and obviously you have put a lot of research and thought into it. But in order to make the best arguement that I can, I need to know your sources. Each of the areas that you have brought up, I have done research on, and if you wanted, I could present you with an article complete with sources, but I don't know if this is the appropriate place, or if Chefelf really wants to devote that much space to it. But if you really want the information, I can provide you with a list of authors that deal with these subjects, or I can provide a compilation that you can access. Just let me know.

Edit: Also, let me know if anything could use some clarification.

This post has been edited by Dorothy: 11 August 2005 - 03:04 PM

[Patrick Bateman]

Could Jesus microwave a burito so hot that even he could not eat it???

[Mnesymone]

A very good question.

For me, the Bible is an interesting story, but it doesn't move me.

It fails to convince pretty much from the beginning.
God is described as being perfect, omnipotent and benevolent - also omniscient.
Read Genesis. Read it properly.
Consider: he creates the trees of the garden - among them the Tree of Knowledge - to eat of the fruit of the tree is to learn all realms of possibility and to undo Paradise. This he tells Adam as he makes him. This he also tells Eve as he makes her. The serpent tempts Eve, saying that the reason God told them not to eat it was because by the knowledge it would grant them they would become his equals. Eve is tempted, an eats the fruit of the tree. She then tempts Adam. Fruit of the tree is eaten, and Paradise is undone. The curse is inflicted on Man and sin is admitted into Earth.
a)God, being perfect and omnipotent, would produce a perfect creation - one that would not be tempted.
a:counter)He wanted a creation with the freedom of choice.
b)God is said to have created everything. This includes the snake.
Why in heck did he make the snake.
It is pointless - a perfect creator makes an imperfect creation, then makes another imperfect creation that will tempt the other creation.
If he hadn't made that damn snake, then it would have been fine.
B:counter) *throws smoke grenade* (patter of footsteps)

So here are your choices:
God is not omnipotent - his creations were thusly imperfect, and could tempt and be tempted.
God is not benevolent - his creations were perfectly as he intended to make them, but he would design them so deliberately to bring the downfall of paradise.
God does not exist - he is a personification of inexplicable chaotic forces designed to order reality for the comfort of man.

Final thingy - I divide religion into tree things - theology, faith and organisation.
Theologies are a collection of flawed and relatively harmless ideas - they mean as much as the reader is willing to allow them to mean.
Faith is a good thing - it allows people hope in greater good and a sense that justice will, ultimately, be done.
There is no greater evil wrought by man than organised religion. More people have killed or harmed other people over divisions of denomination and rifts of religion than anything else. Not greed, not fear, not rage, not democracy nor communism nor fascism. It is the pretext for countless evils. Whether you are Matthew Hopkins, Walter the Penniless, Peter the Hermit or Richard Couer de Leon you have broken the laws of your religion and killed in the name of your god.
If there is a true and just hell, only those of utmost faith in their gods and religions burn there.

[Revan-47]

But if homosexuality is a sin and you don't repent it, then how can you be forgiven?  Christians are suppose to avoid sin and if they do sin they feel guilty.  A gay person does not feel guilt or try avoid his life style, he embraces it.  So how can he/she go to heaven if they don't repent.  Confessing faith and living faith or two different things.

Either it's a sin or it isn't.  If it is a sin then they could go to hell, if not then no problem.  Is it a sin or not?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

ok first of all a lot of gay people do feel guilty. thats why they have all the trouble that they have when they first find out. but do you expect them to ignore their natural sexual feelings? i would hope not. even if you believe that homosexuality is a sin, thats not the point. the only factor that decides whether you end up in heaven or hell is if you've accepted Jesus Christ as your savior.

[Revan-47]

A very good question.

For me, the Bible is an interesting story, but it doesn't move me.

It fails to convince pretty much from the beginning.
God is described as being perfect, omnipotent and benevolent - also omniscient.
Read Genesis. Read it properly.
Consider: he creates the trees of the garden - among them the Tree of Knowledge - to eat of the fruit of the tree is to learn all realms of possibility and to undo Paradise. This he tells Adam as he makes him. This he also tells Eve as he makes her. The serpent tempts Eve, saying that the reason God told them not to eat it was because by the knowledge it would grant them they would become his equals. Eve is tempted, an eats the fruit of the tree. She then tempts Adam. Fruit of the tree is eaten, and Paradise is undone. The curse is inflicted on Man and sin is admitted into Earth.
a)God, being perfect and omnipotent, would produce a perfect creation - one that would not be tempted.
a:counter)He wanted a creation with the freedom of choice.
b)God is said to have created everything. This includes the snake.
Why in heck did he make the snake.
It is pointless - a perfect creator makes an imperfect creation, then makes another imperfect creation that will tempt the other creation.
If he hadn't made that damn snake, then it would have been fine.
B:counter) *throws smoke grenade* (patter of footsteps)

So here are your choices:
God is not omnipotent - his creations were thusly imperfect, and could tempt and be tempted.
God is not benevolent - his creations were perfectly as he intended to make them, but he would design them so deliberately to bring the downfall of paradise.
God does not exist - he is a personification of inexplicable chaotic forces designed to order reality for the comfort of man.

Final thingy - I divide religion into tree things - theology, faith and organisation.
Theologies are a collection of flawed and relatively harmless ideas - they mean as much as the reader is willing to allow them to mean.
Faith is a good thing - it allows people hope in greater good and a sense that justice will, ultimately, be done.
There is no greater evil wrought by man than organised religion. More people have killed or harmed other people over divisions of denomination and rifts of religion than anything else. Not greed, not fear, not rage, not democracy nor communism nor fascism. It is the pretext for countless evils. Whether you are Matthew Hopkins, Walter the Penniless, Peter the Hermit or Richard Couer de Leon you have broken the laws of your religion and killed in the name of your god.
If there is a true and just hell, only those of utmost faith in their gods and religions burn there.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

the snake wasnt a snake. it was satan. God banished satan..therefore satan hates God.
also, without evil there cannot be good. it doesnt work like that.

This post has been edited by Revan-47: 11 August 2005 - 09:28 PM

[Mnesymone]

You didn't have to quote the whole thing to do that.
God did not banish satan at that point - Remember the conversation between Lucifer and God in Job.
God created Lucifer - the potential for evil in him was therefore made by God.
Lucifer, though not on good terms with God, is actually doing God's work. To separate the wicked from the righteous and burn the wicked down.
And as for "without evil there cannot be good. it doesnt work like that."
well... if you say that, doesn't that make believing in God completely pointless and self-defeating.

[J m HofMarN]

Dorothy- Civilian Number 2 has an excellent point about the Roman church screwing around. They also changed the Sabbath from Sautrday to Sunday, and suppressed a whole lot of Christian writings. Check out the Book of Enoch sometime. You can find it online at a site called reluctant messanger, in its full ethiopean text. It's written before the bible, but is generally recognized as Christian and reputed to have been written by Enoch, who later ascended to become Medatron.

thats why they have all the trouble that they have when they first find out. but do you expect them to ignore their natural sexual feelings? i would hope not. even if you believe that homosexuality is a sin, thats not the point. the only factor that decides whether you end up in heaven or hell is if you've accepted Jesus Christ as your savior.

I have to agree with that. Pretty much everyone is a sinner so I don't see why we should make such a big deal out of one petty harmless kind of sin, and especially not turn it into a legal matter. The job of law is not to save someone's soul, but to keep people from poking eachother's eyes out. The only basis for laws against homosexuality is religious, so we may as well have laws against eating pork as well.

The point is that homosexuality, if it is a sin at all, is harmless, and therefore aught to be legal and accepted. If it is indeed a sin in God's eyes than it will be forgiven like any other sin if the person has led an otherwise good life and accepts Jesus. It's not as though God is going to say "Well, you stole something, but I can forgive you... and hmmm next is... a homobutthumper! Oh no forgiveness for you, you go to hell." So since homosexuality is as forgivable as any other sin than why campaign against it so much more than, say, sloth or lying or greed?

[Dr Lecter]

I swear I called God a white supremacist somewhere around here...

This post has been edited by Dr Lecter: 12 August 2005 - 10:29 AM

[Slade]

That's kind of silly, since he was in contact with people in the Middle East...

[Zatoichi]

I am new around here. I happen to believe in God and Jesus, and go to church regularly. That said, I have read the entire thing (all 25 pgs) in about a day (no skimming), and think most of the stuff is quite good.
Goddamn it, that was long. Oh shit, I used the Lords name in vain. Fuckin’ a, I just swore, ARGH!!!
Yes I am an asshole, and yes I am only joking around. Do not take that seriously please (I should hope that everyone here can take a joke).
Please continue
I am starting to write this at three o'clock in the morning. I also plan to cover a just about every thing I can manage (yeah, lets see how long I last for this morning). It might take several goes at it, and it might not be entirely coherent.

THE BIBLE
(Hey, it was written, edited, and translated by man. These people were for the most part inspired by God, some more so than others. Man is definitely not perfect, that is a given. Therefore what is in the Bible must be taken with a grain of salt.)

The Old Testament

Genesis:
Creation of everything - How do we know God's idea of 7 days is the same is ours? (Yeah, I believe in evolution) Isn't time endless? Isn't God infinite? I consider setting up things such as Physics, Geology, all other sciences, Math, so on and so forth miracles in themselves. Therefore he set up everything to eventually come about (evolution). When setting up everything God often refers to him self as us. Perhaps he also means The Holy Spirit, the angels, and/or the other gods present in various mythology (who later betray him of course). While describing Eden, actual rivers are named. Isn’t that neat (Pishon, Gihon, Tigris, and Euphrates). Humans are made in God’s image (Well if we are so made in his image, how could we possibly screw up? Therefore God may be omnipotent, but He is by no means Omniscient.). Why put a damn tree for the knowledge of good and evil in said garden and tell your humans not to eat the fruit? Was it to test their obedience? Well if I was all knowing, I would know that Adam and Eve were going to screw up, and fail. Why would I bother testing them in the first place, especially if I already knew the outcome? The fact that I was testing my creations and already knew that they would eventually fail, makes the test pointless and my creations imperfect. So, if God already knew that humans were going to be a failure, why would he bother to create us? Therefore God is NOT all knowing, and definitely not perfect himself, only much wiser and all-powerful (He breaks the Thou Shalt Not Kill rule so many times you have to wonder what the point of making it was, and I thought he was trying to save people whether they turned their backs on him or not.). The Snake’s punishment was that he would have to crawl on his belly, meaning that before this incident it walked. Snakes have evolved from lizards, which have legs don’t ya know (Score for evolution, and if you want me to back it up I recently did a final paper about Snakes). Two questions arise from this: Why didn’t the Snake eat the fruit, and how come Adam and Eve get to talk to animals?(Just disregard those) In the beginning, there was just Adam, Eve, and Cain (Abel being dead). Now, it reads that God created others afterwards, but did procreation not play a large role or was incest rampant? Also, Adam and Eve are referred to as husband and wife, but a wedding never occurs. Is getting married actually required for a marriage?
The Flood - Then people start to behave like crap and get killed for being evil. Only Noah and his family survive because they are good. There is also something about heavenly beings taking women for their own as lovers. So they don’t need marriage for sex, but we do? Then God makes the Covenant with Noah. This is where the Jewish faith begins. Something funny, in the list of descendants one of the names (sons only) is Magog (wait, do you mean one of the things in Revelations? Well damn, now that is perplexing.)
The Tower of Babylon – Lang change. I would like to be sure on this, but it seems to me to me either God is jealous, afraid, or just taking preventive measures.
The rest of Genesis – It seems as though many of the people act like real shits with a few exceptions. Actions include, but are not limited to rape, murder, pillaging, incest, adultery, and slavery. People who have embraced God do these things. What the hell? Matbe I am wrong.

Bah, I give for now, need sleep to go on. Sorry about half-assing the end. At this rate I won’t get through the Bible for a while, but I hope to generate some more good discussion. Maybe even some good arguments for why God exists (many people say pfft, what a load of bull that is)

Btw – I’ve got to give props to Revan. He is only fourteen, and can argue with almost everyone on the same level. Given that, he was making mistakes, but he even apologized for them. Most “adults” I know can’t even do that.

PS Watch me end up doing the same damn thing on accident. Don’t take me seriously when it happens though. Still, if anybody is still out for blood, I’ll make note of myself as being a good target.