Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The God of Abraham was the one who led Abraham away from his father's religion.
Abraham followed God in his own unique way, in ways that he learned by a personal relationship not depending upon other people's information. For Abraham's seed to bless all future peoples, then they would also need to have their own personal relationship with this same God. Such that even members of these major religions are blessed whenever they interact in this personal relationship.
Maybe that is what Jesus meant when he responded to the Pharisees who asked him about the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Jesus said that it was the God "of the living, not the dead" whom they should follow.
Maybe what it really means is that the patriarchs should only be our models of inspiration in following God on our own in the same way that they did, and not by listening to other people's own stories. Because all stories are eventually stories about dead people. But God is for the living, not the dead.
What do you think of this proposal?
Whether or not Jesus said or meant that, I agree with your premise, Ozzy. Testing things for myself is far better than taking someone else’s word for it. The Christianity I was raised in instilled a fear that God would disapprove of someone not following the formula they believed was laid out in the Bible for relating to God. And since they also taught that God’s disapproval would result in eternal torment, it was daunting to say the least. I love that so many people seem to be shaking free of religious bonds and feel freer to explore spirituality in different ways.
If you understood what the Bible was saying, the message itself is that books are not required for understanding God.
Yet atheists only seem to care about discussing the whether the stories are literal or not. They don't even care about what the purpose or message of the story is, but only whether it literally occurred or not. (The truth is that they are describing how God relates to human beings, which is why people believe them.)
But doesn't your concern over literalism not seem 100% absurd? Really? That's all you care about the stories?
This is not the Christian forum so one is free to question the existence of a God or even if thete is a God if he is the one of the Bible. If the Bible is not literal why are too many believers opposed to evolution or same sex marrage ?
I'll also say this. If there's any truth to the story of the Israelites begging Moses to basically be a go-between for them and God because they were afraid of God, Moses did a great disservice to them in agreeing to do so. People have been repeating the same mistake ever since.
I'll also say this. If there's any truth to the story of the Israelites begging Moses to basically be a go-between for them and God because they were afraid of God, Moses did a great disservice to them in agreeing to do so. People have been repeating the same mistake ever since.
I think that might be key to understanding more of the Bible's message.
That kind of flippant and ignorant response says more about Atheism than you will probably ever realize. I feel sorry for anyone who thinks that way.
I feel sorry for anyone who begins every religious discussion with an unquestioning assumption that God - not just any god - but Biblegod - exists. It shows someone trapped inside a box of their own beliefs and cannot think outside it. I thank random factors and pointy ears daily that I don't have to think like that. Even worse, it assumes that what's in the Bible is believable enough to discuss seriously.
I take MQ's point about 'do we have to have "Evidence for God?" in every post. But (speaking as a poster, and not a Mod) letting Biblegod -believers start a discussion on the nature of Biblegod without having to show that such a being is credible anywhere outside Christianity Forum is giving away ground that we sweated for.
I feel sorry for anyone who begins every religious discussion with an unquestioning assumption that God - not just any god - but Biblegod - exists. It shows someone trapped inside a box of their own beliefs and cannot think outside it. I thank random factors and pointy ears daily that I don't have to think like that. Even worse, it assumes that what's in the Bible is believable enough to discuss seriously.
I take MQ's point about 'do we have to have "Evidence for God?" in every post. But (speaking as a poster, and not a Mod) letting Biblegod -believers start a discussion on the nature of Biblegod without having to show that such a being is credible anywhere outside Christianity Forum is giving away ground that we sweated for.
Why not shift it to Christianity?
I could be wrong, but I don't have the impression that Ozzy believes in "Biblegod".
I feel sorry for anyone who begins every religious discussion with an unquestioning assumption that God - not just any god - but Biblegod - exists. It shows someone trapped inside a box of their own beliefs and cannot think outside it. I thank random factors and pointy ears daily that I don't have to think like that. Even worse, it assumes that what's in the Bible is believable enough to discuss seriously.
I take MQ's point about 'do we have to have "Evidence for God?" in every post. But (speaking as a poster, and not a Mod) letting Biblegod -believers start a discussion on the nature of Biblegod without having to show that such a being is credible anywhere outside Christianity Forum is giving away ground that we sweated for.
Why not shift it to Christianity?
Because my question is directed for the main Religion forum, which is primarily atheist. They are the ones who seem to be turned off by religion, based partly on what I believe is their severe misunderstanding of the Bible.
Because my question is directed for the main Religion forum, which is primarily atheist. They are the ones who seem to be turned off by religion, based partly on what I believe is their severe misunderstanding of the Bible.
It would seem like MQ erred when trying to 'help' you keep us out of it, then
It would seem like MQ erred when trying to 'help' you keep us out of it, then
Perhaps I am the errant one for thinking that anyone would be interested in challenging their preconceived ideas.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
