Can someone answer me these in simple terms?

[enlightenment]

Hi - if at all possible, without quoting scripture, I wonder if anyone would be able to answer the following for me, in as concise a way as possible.

Thank you


1) Do you believe that it is only Christians who will be considered for Heaven?

2) Do you have a good idea of what life in Heaven would be like, besides a bunch of platitutdes?

3) If you believe in a literal Hell, then do you think those there get the opportunity to redeem themselves at some point, either they get to go to heaven, or they have another chance here on earth?

4) Would you say that it is fair comment to call God in the Old Testament jealous, violent, and culpable of murder?

5) If you think you must accept Jesus as the Saviour, what in your view happenss to Jews who don't, at the end of their life?

6) Do you think Satan 'puts' certain souls on earth, such as Hitler and Stalin, for example?

7) Do you beleive that many of the holy books are mostly made up of stories that were intended as a methaphor on something, rather than an actual eye witness account of something supernatural?

8) Do you believe that good and charitable people go to Hell for simply refusing to accept that God created everything? If so, do you find that prospect wrong?

9) Do you think that Christianity is worried about it's shrinking number, when compared to the growing number who are converting to Islam. If so, do you think that they will endeavour to prompt military action to redress the balance?

10) In the Garden of Eden story, it clearly states how god walked around, as if any person would do. Have you ever considered the possibility that god is not an invisible entity, as one might think, but a tangible being, possibly one that can assume different human forms?

 

[China Cat Sunflower]

1) Do you believe that it is only Christians who will be considered for Heaven?

No.

2) Do you have a good idea of what life in Heaven would be like, besides a bunch of platitutdes?

No.

3) If you believe in a literal Hell, then do you think those there get the opportunity to redeem themselves at some point, either they get to go to heaven, or they have another chance here on earth?

No.

4) Would you say that it is fair comment to call God in the Old Testament jealous, violent, and culpable of murder?

Yes.

5) If you think you must accept Jesus as the Saviour, what in your view happenss to Jews who don't, at the end of their life?

NA.

6) Do you think Satan 'puts' certain souls on earth, such as Hitler and Stalin, for example?

No.

7) Do you beleive that many of the holy books are mostly made up of stories that were intended as a methaphor on something, rather than an actual eye witness account of something supernatural?

Yes.

8) Do you believe that good and charitable people go to Hell for simply refusing to accept that God created everything? If so, do you find that prospect wrong?

No.

9) Do you think that Christianity is worried about it's shrinking number, when compared to the growing number who are converting to Islam. If so, do you think that they will endeavour to prompt military action to redress the balance?

Christianity, no. Some Christians- yes.

10) In the Garden of Eden story, it clearly states how god walked around, as if any person would do. Have you ever considered the possibility that god is not an invisible entity, as one might think, but a tangible being, possibly one that can assume different human forms?

In metaphoric analogy Forces are often anthropomorphised.

Simple terms.

Chris

 

[Dream]

let answer = all of the answers
[print answer[y] for y in questions]

even simpler terms

 

[Thomas]

1) Do you believe that it is only Christians who will be considered for Heaven?

No.

2) Do you have a good idea of what life in Heaven would be like, besides a bunch of platitudes?

I do, but you most probably will assume them to be platitudes. It might be worth looking beyond the platitudes, as it were, bearing in mind that any 'description' must start from what is known.

3) If you believe in a literal Hell, then do you think those there get the opportunity to redeem themselves at some point, either they get to go to heaven, or they have another chance here on earth?

Short answer: Yes, the opportunity for redemption is always there ... hell is the consequence of its refusal, an ontological necessity if man is to be truly free, even if the price of freedom seems paradoxical.

4) Would you say that it is fair comment to call God in the Old Testament jealous, violent, and culpable of murder?

No. Like your assumed platitudes of Q1, these Scriptural references are there to make one think.

5) If you think you must accept Jesus as the Saviour, what in your view happens to Jews who don't, at the end of their life?

Well, God made certain promises to the Jews, and He does not go back on His promises. I think the faithful Jew can trust in God.

6) Do you think Satan 'puts' certain souls on earth, such as Hitler and Stalin, for example?

No.

7) Do you believe that many of the holy books are mostly made up of stories that were intended as a metaphor on something, rather than an actual eye witness account of something supernatural?

No. I believe they tell of embodied metaphors, so in that sense they are eye witness accounts of supernatural events.

8) Do you believe that good and charitable people go to Hell for simply refusing to accept that God created everything? If so, do you find that prospect wrong?

No.

9) Do you think that Christianity is worried about it's shrinking number, when compared to the growing number who are converting to Islam. If so, do you think that they will endeavour to prompt military action to redress the balance?

Well, I'm sure some are, and some aren't.

As for military action, I would wonder how, or with what resources. The Vatican's Swiss Guard were a force to be reckoned with in their day, but I think that day has passed. Maybe the Anglican Communion in the UK could organise a Morris side if pushed ... ?

What is frightening in that aspect is Christian fundamentalism, tied to national aspiration, as we see evident in the US.

10) In the Garden of Eden story, it clearly states how god walked around, as if any person would do. Have you ever considered the possibility that god is not an invisible entity, as one might think, but a tangible being, possibly one that can assume different human forms?

Yes, but dismissed it as metaphysically unsound. I think in this account myth, as a means of transmitting transcendental truths, comes in to play.

God bless,

Thomas

 

[greymare]

1. No
2. Not really, Hopeing my family that have passed before me are there, and my pets.
3.Hell? not sure. Another chance. No . We have all our chances all our life.
4. Yes and No. cant blame Him for persons actions just because they say God told them to do it.
5. Jesus died on the cross for ALL of us.
6. no. although it would be much easier for us, (humans) to declare the devil made me do it.
7.dont know. wasnt there. good morales in the stories tho.
8.no, i reckon when they get to heaven they will think......"oooops!"
9. serious???????? Mate, you must be joking!!!
10.God is capable of anything. If I can see Him in the little creek near my house, and the cry of the eagles overhead, Im sure he could "walk" around or anything else.

 

[vizenos]

Hi - if at all possible, without quoting scripture, I wonder if anyone would be able to answer the following for me, in as concise a way as possible.

Thank you


1) Do you believe that it is only Christians who will be considered for Heaven?

Absolutely not! As an Orthodox Christian I believe in the universal salvific will of Christ, which means that everyone has a chance, by the grace of Christ our God, to spend eternity with God, because He is good, and loves us all.

2) Do you have a good idea of what life in Heaven would be like, besides a bunch of platitutdes?

No, and I don't even have those platitudes, whatever they may be.

3) If you believe in a literal Hell, then do you think those there get the opportunity to redeem themselves at some point, either they get to go to heaven, or they have another chance here on earth?

The majority of Orthodox Christian teachers who have expressed an opinion on this say no, once you decide to go to hell, for whatever reason, your free-will decision is permanent. The minority position, (eloquently expressed by St. Gregory of Nyssa, writing in the fourth century) holds that repentence is possible, even in hell, so it is possible to get out of hell and that, however difficult, anyone can eventually do so.

4) Would you say that it is fair comment to call God in the Old Testament jealous, violent, and culpable of murder?

No, never.

5) If you think you must accept Jesus as the Saviour, what in your view happenss to Jews who don't, at the end of their life?

I do not believe that this is a requirement, since any such requirement contradicts the doctrine of the universal salvific will of Christ.

6) Do you think Satan 'puts' certain souls on earth, such as Hitler and Stalin, for example?

That would appear to attribute creativity to Satan, which is an attribution Orthodox Christians would regard as Manichean rather than Christian.

7) Do you beleive that many of the holy books are mostly made up of stories that were intended as a methaphor on something, rather than an actual eye witness account of something supernatural?

While I'd say that is too sweeping a generalization to abide the challenge, even Augustinus of Hippo Regius (a 5th century convert from Manichaeism) wrote of the dangers of interpreting Genesis literally. I believe it would be better to avoid generalizations and examine each particular text on a case-by-case basis.

8) Do you believe that good and charitable people go to Hell for simply refusing to accept that God created everything? If so, do you find that prospect wrong?

I reject that as a possibility.

9) Do you think that Christianity is worried about it's shrinking number, when compared to the growing number who are converting to Islam. If so, do you think that they will endeavour to prompt military action to redress the balance?

Considering that the single largest Christian jurisdiction, the Roman Catholic Church, is growing at the rate of approximately 100 million members per decade, I doubt if the RCC, at least, would see this as a possible problem. Other Christian jurisdictions, denominations, etc. may of course see this issue differently. As for a possible military "solution", well, George W. Bush tried that, and it didn't work out very well--for him, at least.

10) In the Garden of Eden story, it clearly states how god walked around, as if any person would do. Have you ever considered the possibility that god is not an invisible entity, as one might think, but a tangible being, possibly one that can assume different human forms?

As an Orthodox Christian, I understand God as being three Persons sharing one essence. Of those three Persons, only the Son has taken on physical form and human nature in addition to His Divine nature. The Father and the Holy Spirit have not done this.

Regards,
vizenos

 

[enlightenment]

I fail to see how anyone even vaguely familiar with the OT to deny that the god described in it was culpable of great jealousy, disproportionate acts of violence, not to mention the killing of humans who had done no wrong, sometimes on a scale that would be easily seen as a genocide today.

Now, if that is the nature, or at least a part of the nature of god, then you naturally have to stop and question what sort of abode he might create, and if you actually really want to go there (is heaven what you really think it is..?). Equally, any being that would create a literal hell, in which people would be tortured and suffer unspeakable pains for all eternity, well, all but a psychopath would regard that as totally unacceptable.

Just my thoughts....

 

[enlightenment]

How do you feel about god performing personal miracles for people, either remotely, or maybe through someone, like a preacher type, in the modern age?

Have there been any examples of the blind suddenly being able to see again, with this being attributed to god?

Are there examples of the lame being able to walk again, perhaps free from wheelchairs and so on?

Have any of those examples been properly examined and reexamined, and shown to be a genuine medical mystery?

 

[enlightenment]

Lot of killing going on here..


Dwindling In Unbelief: How many has God killed? (Complete list and estimated total)

 

[vizenos]

I fail to see how anyone even vaguely familiar with the OT to deny that the god described in it was culpable of great jealousy, disproportionate acts of violence, not to mention the killing of humans who had done no wrong, sometimes on a scale that would be easily seen as a genocide today.

Now, if that is the nature, or at least a part of the nature of god, then you naturally have to stop and question what sort of abode he might create, and if you actually really want to go there (is heaven what you really think it is..?). Equally, any being that would create a literal hell, in which people would be tortured and suffer unspeakable pains for all eternity, well, all but a psychopath would regard that as totally unacceptable.

Just my thoughts....

Having, perhaps, a more scientific outlook than you appear to have, I find arguments from incredulity, such as the above, less than overwhelmingly convincing. YMMV, of course....

Regards,
vizenos

 

[enlightenment]

Having, perhaps, a more scientific outlook than you appear to have, I find arguments from incredulity, such as the above, less than overwhelmingly convincing. YMMV, of course....

Regards,
vizenos

Sorry...what?

When it comes to the OT, even Christians I know admit that it is a violent book, and that god is incredibly prone to violence in it.

What does that have to do with what scientific(sic) measure I may or may not have, compared to you?

If we were bringing science into it, then we likely would not need to have this discussion, at all!

But since we are speaking of something 'other than', then all I would ask anyone who is unsure to do, is read up on some of the most violent parts of the OT, and the wholly unusual and immoral things that god wishes you, as a believer in him, to do on earth.

 

[vizenos]

How do you feel about god performing personal miracles for people, either remotely, or maybe through someone, like a preacher type, in the modern age?

I'm in favor of such things, so long as the preacher-type doesn't descend into blaming the victim whenever the hoped-for miracle doesn't occur.

Have there been any examples of the blind suddenly being able to see again, with this being attributed to god?

I know of one such, by report of an eye-witness I consider to be reliable, attributed to God through the icon of the Theotokos of Kazan.

Are there examples of the lame being able to walk again, perhaps free from wheelchairs and so on?

I can't recall any such, specifically, though I'd expect to find something of the sort in the Coptic Orthodox records of the healing ministry of God working through Pope St. Kyrillos VI and St. Mina the martyr. Probably there are also examples of such miracles from sites such as Lourdes and Medjugordje(sp?) as well.

Have any of those examples been properly examined and reexamined, and shown to be a genuine medical mystery?

Since I'd have to do a lot of research to know, I'll just say I don't know, because I'm not going to do that; I have absolutely no motivation to defend my opinions on the subject, whatever they might prove to be. I do know that, on the two occasions when I needed a miracle from God, under circumstances in which there was no hope of a medical or surgical remedy, God gave me what I needed when some fool had the temerity to ask Him. God bless all fools-in-Christ, of whatever persuasion!

I'm of the opinion, as supported in Sirach 38, that when a medical or surgical remedy exists, God expects us to avail ourselves of it.

Regards,
vizenos

 

[enlightenment]

There are televanglesits in the US who have actually been prosectuted, and I find that entire genre stomach turning, to be honest.

It is sad that there are so many desperate and superstitious people out there, in US society, that they would send money they could use for bills and food to some two bit television preacher, who is merely exploiting their vulnerable state. It is the ultimate in Capitalism meets God, in the end.

What gets me is that these televangleists often sound so bloody fake, that I am surprised even the desperate are fooled.

Anyway, to my mind, there are no such things as 'miracles', in the accepted sense of the word.

We can dismiss all biblical miracles on the basis that there is no evidence to examine or test. Therefore, those alleged miracles are of no use to anyone who wishes to test for the validity of the 'miracle'.

Rare things can happen, that is for sure.

And things may even happen which we cannot fully explain (at the moment).

That is not to say that the event could not be explained, in the fullness of time. It is always an error to plug the gap in knowing with a large assumption, and one which carries NO EVIDENCE, at all.

Imo

 

[vizenos]

Sorry...what?

Arguments from incredulity. You know, like Michael Behe's soi-dissant "irreducible complexity" absurdities.

When it comes to the OT, even Christians I know admit that it is a violent book, and that god is incredibly prone to violence in it.

Well, if they believed the accounts to be both accurate and entirely objective, I guess they would. I don't, but I wish them the joy of it, if any.

Prior to the Exilic and Post-exilic periods, most biblical authors conceived of God as being esssentially the Hebrew tribal deity, so when they told of atrocities committed by humans (or in some cases animals) upon people they regarded as enemies, they naturally claimed that the people (or in some cases animals) who committed those atrocities were acting either by God's express command or at least in accordance with His will. If you believe their accounts were both accurate and objective, I have some (formerly) beach-front property to sell you--as is, of course, and cash up front only.

What does that have to do with what scientific(sic) measure I may or may not have, compared to you?

I believe that you are examining the textual evidence on the basis that it must be either objectively true or patently false. That is a theologically-motivated false dichotomy, not a scientifically critical examination. IMO, of course, and YMMV.

If we were bringing science into it, then we likely would not need to have this discussion, at all!

Ideally it would appear so, but the reality of it appears to be otherwise.

But since we are speaking of something 'other than', then all I would ask anyone who is unsure to do, is read up on some of the most violent parts of the OT, and the wholly unusual and immoral things that god wishes you, as a believer in him, to do on earth.

Been there, done that, applied the critical methodology to it that you apparently haven't--and will not, so long as your motivation is to attempt to engender negative emotional responses to it, rather than to discover what could actually be learned about the texts in question and the reality-views of their various authors.

For example, if a modern-day creationist says, "goddunnit", do you believe him? If so, good luck with that. If not, why would you believe the same thing because it was Joshua or Samuel saying it, without even asking to see their "pope card" first?

Regards,
vizenos

 

[enlightenment]

. If you believe their accounts were both accurate and objective, I have some (formerly) beach-front property to sell you--as is, of course, and cash up front only.


,

Me?

Believe the accounts in the Bible? Not I. Not as literal, accurate, intelligently recorded, evidence based information.

Nope, as far as I am concerned, god has not killed anyone, created anyone, nor sent anyone to heaven or hell. There is no evidence for it, and in the absence of evidence, one can fairly discount the 'data'.

My guess would be that most of what is written in the bible to be a collection of stories written by mainly poorly educated and unscientific men, who were deeply superstitous, in a culture that would be quite unlike a modern Europe or modern US.

But millions do believe it as literal truth.

Just as millions think that man and dinosaur co existed, at the same point in time.

Madness!

 

[vizenos]

There are televanglesits in the US who have actually been prosectuted, and I find that entire genre stomach turning, to be honest.

Aha! I just knew there would be things we would agree about, and this is definitely one of them!

It is sad that there are so many desperate and superstitious people out there, in US society, that they would send money they could use for bills and food to some two bit television preacher, who is merely exploiting their vulnerable state. It is the ultimate in Capitalism meets God, in the end.

And unfortunately, that's what one gets when one tries to mix capitalism (or just about any -ism) with theism.

What gets me is that these televangleists often sound so bloody fake, that I am surprised even the desperate are fooled.

It's really not that surprising, just terribly sad. These alleged people prey on those who have no other hope, and give them nothing but lies and false hopes. They are utterly reprehensible, IMO.

Anyway, to my mind, there are no such things as 'miracles', in the accepted sense of the word.

Well, the definition I find acceptable is, "an effect or extraordinary event in the physical world that surpasses all known human or natural powers and is ascribed to a supernatural cause." Of course, that begs the question of what constitutes a "supernatural cause". Also of course, that's the very definition you cite below.

an effect or extraordinary event in the physical world that surpasses all known human or natural powers and is ascribed to a supernatural cause.We can dismiss all biblical miracles on the basis that there is no evidence to examine or test. Therefore, those alleged miracles are of no use to anyone who wishes to test for the validity of the 'miracle'.

Certainly they are completely untestable, but remain as anecdotal accounts which, in many cases, can prove both interesting and instructional.

Rare things can happen, that is for sure.

And things may even happen which we cannot fully explain (at the moment).

That is not to say that the event could not be explained, in the fullness of time. It is always an error to plug the gap in knowing with a large assumption, and one which carries NO EVIDENCE, at all.

Imo

Well, I've always found the "goddunnit" approach to be rather absurd at best. Not only does that rule out any real effort to discover actual causes, but even worse--from my perspective, at any rate--it leads to the "god of the gaps" approach to mysteriology, which inevitably results in one's god becoming smaller as human knowledge becomes greater. Me, I prefer Steven J. Gould's NOMA hypothesis, which strikes me as a far more viable approach.

Regards,
vizenos

 

[enlightenment]

Well, I've always found the "goddunnit" approach to be rather absurd at best. Not only does that rule out any real effort to discover actual causes, but even worse--from my perspective, at any rate--it leads to the "god of the gaps" approach to mysteriology, which inevitably results in one's god becoming smaller as human knowledge becomes greater. Me, I prefer Steven J. Gould's NOMA hypothesis, which strikes me as a far more viable approach.

Regards,
vizenos

Yes - fully concur.

God of The Gaps, liked that.

What people do when they turn to a god to answer the 'big questions', is that they essentially fill a gap in their knowledge. Of course, whether or not the knowledge being given is crap or not is almost moot since the point seems to be to invent almost child like answers, for huge questions.

The whole science of time and space for example, is very complex, and ever changing, as new data comes to light.

It is much easier to just think that god(sic) made everything in six days, no instuctions needed, case closed.



There is no way in which those that wrote the bible could possibly have looked at things through the same eyes as a scientist would, in 2011. The individual would naturally look at it through their own eyes, and if they happened to belong to a mainly scientifically ignorant and superstitous man, then his account is likely to be tainted with that.

 

[vizenos]

Me?

Believe the accounts in the Bible? Not I. Not as literal, accurate, intelligently recorded, evidence based information.

Actually, many, perhaps even most, of the accounts are both "accurate" and "intelligently recorded"--from the author's perspective, at any rate. To see how successful the author's effort may have been, one needs first to discover the author's purpose(s) in saying or writing what he said or wrote.

Of course, to have any hope of doing this, one must first forget all the nonsense others have written about the text, and just read the text as it has come down to us, which often says a very different set of things than what a large number of soi-dissant "biblical scholars" have said that it says.

Nope, as far as I am concerned, god has not killed anyone, created anyone, nor sent anyone to heaven or hell.

Works for me!

There is no evidence for it, and in the absence of evidence, one can fairly discount the 'data'.

Or better yet--IMO, of course--examine the accounts and their authors to learn what was really said or written, and why.

My guess would be that most of what is written in the bible to be a collection of stories written by mainly poorly educated and unscientific men, who were deeply superstitous, in a culture that would be quite unlike a modern Europe or modern US.

Actually their educational levels varied rather widely, the only commonality being of course that none of them--and none of their contemporaries--had anything similar to a modern scientific education.

But millions do believe it as literal truth.

Unfortunately for them, facts are never determined by majority vote, and those who forget this tend not to prosper, ultimately.

Just as millions think that man and dinosaur co existed, at the same point in time.

Madness!

More usually merely a mixture of ignorance and stupidity. Fortunately, ignorance is curable; unfortunately, stupidity isn't.

Regards,
vizenos

 

[vizenos]

Yes - fully concur.

God of The Gaps, liked that.

I don't claim credit for the term; I believe it was originally coined by Lenny Flank, the scourge of creationists first on Fidonet and later on the internet.

What people do when they turn to a god to answer the 'big questions', is that they essentially fill a gap in their knowledge. Of course, whether or not the knowledge being given is crap or not is almost moot since the point seems to be to invent almost child like answers, for huge questions.

Well, that's certainly true as far as it goes, but of course there are a multitude of other reasons for turning to God which do not ultimately reduce God to a "god of the gaps". My own reasons for becoming one of God's more unprofitable servants, for example, are entirely experientially-based, and therefore both anecdotal and absolutely untestable; yet they have the significant advantage that, as my own understanding of human knowledge grows greater, my God does not grow smaller, but also greater.

And I am far from the only person who can say this. More than a decade ago, now, my long-time friend, Bishop Mor Eliyahu, rejected creationism and affirmed the neo-darwinian synthesis on the basis that creationism failed to give sufficient glory to God, whereas the theory of evolution succeeded amazingly well.

The whole science of time and space for example, is very complex, and ever changing, as new data comes to light.

And of course this is the inevitable result of honest scientists insisting that there is no "Absolute Truth"(tm), but only our current best appoximation of the truth. This leaves room for the possibility of knowing more today than we knew yesterday, and of knowing more tomorrow than we do today.

It is much easier to just think that god(sic) made everything in six days, no instuctions needed, case closed.

Actually, IMO, it requires an ever-increasing amount and intensity of systematic and willful ignorance to believe that.

There is no way in which those that wrote the bible could possibly have looked at things through the same eyes as a scientist would, in 2011. The individual would naturally look at it through their own eyes, and if they happened to belong to a mainly scientifically ignorant and superstitous man, then his account is likely to be tainted with that.

Which of course fails to take into account the fact that, up until less than 200 years ago, even the most scientifically educated people were unable to discover any mechanism to support their growing understanding that life as they knew it must have evolved from life as they didn't know it. They had the evidence that it had done so, but no mechanism to show how such a process could have occurred.

Our own broader, wider, and longer view of reality stems from only one thing: We have that augmented view not because we are giants, but because we are standing on the shoulders of the real giants--from Darwin and Wallace to Dobzhansky and Meyr!

Regards,
vizenos

 

[wil]

Hi - if at all possible, without quoting scripture, I wonder if anyone would be able to answer the following for me, in as concise a way as possible.

Thank you

2 funny don't use scripture to discuss Christianity....tis ok as long as you don't reference it to dispute me.

1) Do you believe that it is only Christians who will be considered for Heaven?

heaven? heaven is a state of consciousness, it is within...

2) Do you have a good idea of what life in Heaven would be like, besides a bunch of platitutdes?

see number one

3) If you believe in a literal Hell, then do you think those there get the opportunity to redeem themselves at some point, either they get to go to heaven, or they have another chance here on earth?

why would one believe in one without the other or vice versa...truth be known...I don't know what happens after this life our outside of this dimension and don't beliefe anyone does

4) Would you say that it is fair comment to call God in the Old Testament jealous, violent, and culpable of murder?

no I do not. I believe the books that I can't quote are referring either to man blaming an unseen G!d for thier own foibles or metaphoricial stories of what goes on in our own lives.

5) If you think you must accept Jesus as the Saviour, what in your view happenss to Jews who don't, at the end of their life?

I don't and do believe that the same happens to all of us.

6) Do you think Satan 'puts' certain souls on earth, such as Hitler and Stalin, for example?

don't believe in any little red horny guy.... funny thing is all of this so far is stuff atheists believe about Christians...

7) Do you beleive that many of the holy books are mostly made up of stories that were intended as a methaphor on something, rather than an actual eye witness account of something supernatural?

yes

8) Do you believe that good and charitable people go to Hell for simply refusing to accept that God created everything? If so, do you find that prospect wrong?

no

9) Do you think that Christianity is worried about it's shrinking number, when compared to the growing number who are converting to Islam. If so, do you think that they will endeavour to prompt military action to redress the balance?

10) In the Garden of Eden story, it clearly states how god walked around, as if any person would do. Have you ever considered the possibility that god is not an invisible entity, as one might think, but a tangible being, possibly one that can assume different human forms?

doh

I fail to see how anyone even vaguely familiar with the OT to deny that the god described in it was culpable of great jealousy, disproportionate acts of violence, not to mention the killing of humans who had done no wrong, sometimes on a scale that would be easily seen as a genocide today.

I believe that was your question 4

How do you feel about god performing personal miracles for people, either remotely, or maybe through someone, like a preacher type, in the modern age?

no, not then, not now

Have there been any examples of the blind suddenly being able to see again, with this being attributed to god?

Are there examples of the lame being able to walk again, perhaps free from wheelchairs and so on?

Have any of those examples been properly examined and reexamined, and shown to be a genuine medical mystery?

are you having fun yet?

Me?

Believe the accounts in the Bible? Not I. Not as literal, accurate, intelligently recorded, evidence based information.

good

Nope, as far as I am concerned, god has not killed anyone, created anyone, nor sent anyone to heaven or hell. There is no evidence for it, and in the absence of evidence, one can fairly discount the 'data'.

even better

My guess would be that most of what is written in the bible to be a collection of stories written by mainly poorly educated and unscientific men, who were deeply superstitous, in a culture that would be quite unlike a modern Europe or modern US.

can you provide what the literate and scientific were writing in Jerusalem at that time?

But millions do believe it as literal truth.

millions believe in Glenn Beck, millions in Rush Limbaugh, Millions in Bill Maher, millions in Mohamed, Millions in Krishna, millions in peter pan, millions in sponge bob.... so what.

Just as millions think that man and dinosaur co existed, at the same point in time.

hate to burst your bubble.... they are in the vast minority and with almost 7 billion people in the world, exactly how many million people do you think hold that belief and what percentage are they. And then continue your rant on that small portion of 1% of the population

Madness!

I seriously think an atheist would something more productive.