Charlamarla, I noted seven sources the bible identifies as causing suffering, and said that that wasn’t even an inclusive list.  Go back and read the comment.

People can live with themselves if they read the bible?  Sure, many do.  And some kill themselves, some kill other people, and some are unhappy.  What people get out of the bible is very closely related to what they bring to it.

Decrepitoldfool,

You asked:

“People can live with themselves if they read the bible?“

You misunderstood.  Let me clarify for you.  I was asked how do I reconcile being a liberal and a Christian.  I responded that you can find the answer by reading the Bible.  If you accept what you have been TOLD, you would think that being a liberal and a Christian are two opposing viewpoints.  If you actually READ the Bible, you would see that a variety of political views are acceptable for a follower of Jesus Christ.

Hope that clears up the confusion.

If, after reading the bible, I haven’t come to the same conclusions as you have does this mean I haven’t actually READ the bible?

To actually READ the bible do I need a decoder ring or 3-D glasses, how do I READ it?

Charlamarla said: You misunderstood.  Let me clarify for you.  I was asked how do I reconcile being a liberal and a Christian.  I responded that you can find the answer by reading the Bible.  If you accept what you have been TOLD, you would think that being a liberal and a Christian are two opposing viewpoints.  If you actually READ the Bible, you would see that a variety of political views are acceptable for a follower of Jesus Christ.

So… you can get pretty much what you want out of the bible?  I believe I said that.

I have bible-reading liberal friends and bible-reading conservative friends, and they’re all pretty smart so it is logical to assume that they’re getting out what they put in.  The bible is a Rorschach test for your political and ethical convictions, plus a convenient justification for them.  If you took any large collection of writings it could demonstrate the same characteristic.

So…how does that differ from what I said?  If the sentence “she took the money off the table” can have seven different interpretations, what do you think of the Bible, which is a library written by different authors at different periods of time, writing on different subjects covering the same theme?

Like I said, if you read the Bible, you can see that different political viewpoints can be held by followers of Jesus Christ.

I’m a bit boggled at why you felt the need to reiterate that (several times) for me.

God bless!

Personally I think the Bible is a great read, even if you don’t believe it.

So… you can get pretty much what you want out of the bible?  I believe I said that.

You said it, DoF!  A friend of mine, raised Jewish, became a Jesus freak (she called herself that) after reading a book which proved the divine origin of the Bible by a numerological analysis of the numbers of words in the verses.  Any sufficiently complex text can indeed support (using the word loosely) an indefinite number of interpretations.  What you said.

Unfortunately, mere demonstration of this, such as magicians bending spoons to repudiate Uri Geller, is insufficient to shake belief in many cases.  In the case of my Jesus freak friend, I was able in about two minutes to find the number 666 in her name, but for some reason this didn’t impress her.

Personally I think the Bible is a great read, even if you don’t believe it.

Amen, charlamarla.  And there’s some real wisdom in there too, not just talking snakes and cud-chewing rabbits.

Sorry to “boggle” you, Charlamarla, but if the bible says whatever you want it to say, what good is it?  That’s what I’m getting at, and what you’re missing time after time.  I think we’re boggling each other. 

Oh, it’s a “great read.“  Yes, some parts are worth reading; others closely resemble the rantings of a lunatic, and still others sound like a kind of prehistoric telephone book.

Yes, I have “actually read” the bible. But as argument for, or proof of anything, it’s worthless. That was, and is, my point.

Captcha: “reached,“ as in: “I have reached the end of my interest in this topic.“

...and still others sound like a kind of prehistoric telephone book.

Hee hee.  That too.

I challenge anyone to prove to me that God does not exist in 3 lines of reason, not rhetoric or anecdote.  To say that God cannot be proven is either an act of the will so that one can continue a particular lifestyle without consequences or an act of utter foolishness.  The existance of God can be proven to anyone who wishes to see the truth.  You must start with no assumptions at all.  It is scientific infidelity to start with the assumption that there is no God just as it is to assume that God does exist.  I believe in a monotheistic God based on observation of facts and careful assimilation of those facts.  I believe in the Bible based on facts and faith together.  God has given us a gift more beautiful than anything.  It is the gift of free will and He will respect that even to the detriment of us, His creation.

I challenge anyone to prove to me that God does not exist in 3 lines of reason

Okey dokey:

reasonreasonreasonreasonreasonreasonreasonreasonreaso

reasonreasonreasonreasonreasonreasonreasonreasonreason

reasonreasonreasonreasonreasonreasonreasonreasonreason

Is God in these three lines of reason?  I think not, unless He’s really small.  Therefore, these are three lines of reason God does not exist in.

I love it when the trolls use phrases like “scientific infidelity.“ It cracks me up every damned time.

This God that absolutely exists must have no concept of the mandates reduce, reuse, recycle.

He is a wasteful glutton of a consumer who spends energy and matter like nobody’s business, throwing out perfectly good containers as his whims suit him. It would be best not to support his ruinous behavior.

Good one zilch!

Zilch - LOL!  I was just about to click “unsubscribe” to this thread when Teddy dropped by.  You never know what’s going to happen to brighten your day. 

So far so good. I can tell that all of you guys arguments are founded in deep logic

Zilch, Very clever, However why would I have to see God in those thre lines if he exist

Zilch, May I ask you a question in addition to the one I am asking you now?

Brock,  why is it that God must conserve energy?  Since he is the creator of all energy and matter and can create more without effort, then why must he be limited in scope to what he can do.  He owns everything yet He allows you freewill, to chose Him or not.

Zilch,  Can something come from nothing?

That was a good one zilch.

The burden of proof remains on the person making the claim that something does indeed exist.

Teddy - You can post multiple thoughts in one thread, just identify who you’re speaking too as you did in your last post.

Come on guy’s.  Someone say something.  Have fun with the evangelical conservative Baptist.  Yes, a Baptist.

We are having fun with you. Or at least I am, I’ve laughed at every comment so far. Somehow I don’t suspect your suggestion that you’re looking for a deeply logical explanation are even remotely sincere so there’s no point in expending the effort.

Besides, DeadScot is correct, you’re the one claiming he does exist so the burden to prove it is on you.

Deadscot, thank you.  You are right the burden of proof is on me.  I would offer the very act of existance as proof that God exist.  It is well accepted that the universe and matter itself had a beginning and may possibly have an end.  Something cannot come from nothing.  Yes I believe in the big bang, but that would go along with a theistic view much more than an atheistic view.  Something cannot come from nothing.  Since the Universe had a beginning, something must have created it.  It could not create itself.

Wow, he wants to start over right at square one. We’ve covered that nonsense several times here at SEB. Use the search function and then come back once you’re finished reading.

We’ll wait.

I would also offer that time itself is proof of God.  Time could not have always existed.  If time always existed then there would be an infinate number of minutes before the one we are at.  This proves that time had a beginning, because since there would be an infinate number of minutes before this minute, we could never get to this minute because you could never traverse an infinate amount of time.  Once again if time had a beginning then it had to have a beginner.

Les,  I would like to start at square one because that is where all atheistic views fail.  It is the presupositions that are flawed.  I believe you are starting with a presupostion that there is no God, when in fact, to be neutral as an atheist it would seem that one should start with no opinion as to whether God exist or not.  So please bear with me and start at the beginning.  I would hope that someone at your level would appreciate ripping me apart and making me look foolish on such basic knowledge.