There is no god

[OldKingCole]

Inspired by another thread … I was surprised by the level of atheism professed … as I always though I was in a tiny, tiny minority.
would be interested to see the MN response.

IABU - there is a god
IANBU - there is no god

Or did they? Presumably we talking of The Fall.

now why did God create the universe. The usual explanation is do God could experience itself.

could God have experienced itself in the Garden of Eden. Surely that would have required opposites. To know a this tgere must be a that. Where did the serpent come from (well it states that God created every animal (including serpents) so God or Gods/Goddesses (depending on your interpretation of the Elohim) must have created the Serpent.

why did God forbid Adam (Eve wasn’t at that point created accounting to Genesis 2 - it was Adam who told Eve she was also forbidden) eating from the tree of knowledge of Good and evil (this naming again indicates evil existed before The Fall). Furthermore Adam was given dominion over the animals which would have included serpents. So either God wasn’t the only being at the point of creation or God was both Good and Evil. In which case The Fall was an inevitable part of Gods plan. So blaming Eve for the Fall and mankind’s sinful nature is some kind of stretch.

No actually I am not, I am in fact making it clear how the alternative meanings I am discussing fit in both with the wider meaning of that particular text, the woder meaning of other texts in the bible, the meaning of words in contemporary texts and the historical situation at the time the texts were written.

I have not claimed the words you mentioned are made up, I have never referenced them or discussed their meaning or translation.

And I am not gay, I am a married hetrosexual woman so no I am not criticising the bible because it condemns me, it doesn't.Im not even criticising the bible. It does however condemn you for judging those who are not Christians as I have already quoted

1 Corinthians 5:12 NIV
What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church?

Whilst you may be adamant that the bible doesn't contradict itself, other Christians have a different opinion on this

christianity.org.uk/article/does-the-bible-contradict-itself

I don't know whether Paul meant homosexuality or not, my point all along has been that there are other interpretations of the texts and that the Christian Church itself cannot decide on one pure interpretation of the bible, never mind scholars and theologians.

I think it's the height of hubris and arrogance to declare you know the absolutely interpretation of the words of a book written 100s and 1000s of years ago in languages I presume you dont speak (because im pretty sure you would have said by now you did) and translated by humans, not God himself.

Jeremiah 50:31-32
“Behold, I am against you, O arrogant one,”
Declares the Lord God of hosts,
“For your day has come,
The time when I will punish you.
“The arrogant one will stumble and fall
With no one to raise him up;

And meanwhile to pick and choose the bits you want to be vocal about. Not mortgages and loans or use of mixed fibres or the fact that women don't always cover their hair in church, or that they speak in church, or martial rape now being illegal (allowed in the bible) or slavery now being illegal (allowed in the bible), or women wearing plaits or gold jewellery.

It's only ever homosexuality, contraception and abortion that seems to get certain Christians wound up.

The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.” They are corrupt, they do abominable deeds; there is none who does good.

I do have answers to some of your assertions mixed fibres etc. But I'm not going to give them to you.

Your interpretations theories are absurdity.

I do have answers to some of your assertions mixed fibres etc. But I'm not going to give them to you.

That is of course your prerogative, but it's a bit playground, don't you think? @Letitrainletitrainletitrain has gone to a lot of effort to research and present arguments to counter yours, and you can't provide anything better than 'I'm right and you're a bad person because the Bible says so'. May I remind you that you were the one who first started outright name calling on this thread?

You can call me absurd, and a fool and claim you have special knowledge you won't share.

But many many Christians also agree with me. Many of the things I have put on this thread I have got off Christian websites, or Christian scholars.

There is no such thing as a sin, or heaven and hell - they’re just scare tactics in a religious setting.

‘In the bible, the only sexual relations permitted were between married males and females. The rest is all condemned as fornication.’

1. No it doesn’t. Some people have chosen to interpret passages to their own ends while ignoring the ones that say owning slaves is fine etc
2. if that was true, why aren’t unmarried couples hounded and condemned, called sinners, unnatural etc the way gay people are.

if it walks like a bigot, and talks like a bigot…

How did Eve sin by eating the apple? Choosing a life of knowledge instead of ignorance makes her the hero of the story, not someone who has done something wrong.

Precisely

How did Eve sin by eating the apple? Choosing a life of knowledge instead of ignorance makes her the hero of the story, not someone who has done something wrong.

And it does seem shitty that she should be condemned for making this choice before she had acquired the knowledge of good and evil.

I have a massive issue with the concept of sin. Either something is harmful and wrong, or it is not. The deciding factor if you look at legal prohibitions all cultures have in common is whether or not the act harms the community as a whole. Murder, theft, assault are all obvious and pretty much unchangeable. Then it gets more complex: Rape is an obvious wrong, but the Bible condones rape within marriage (as did secular law in many countries until really quite recently, and I imagine it still does in some). Next level is premarital sex: in a late Iron Age society that one is understandable because it's important to know who people's parents are - it prevent inbreeding. In the 2020s it's far less understandable because we have better ways of managing that.

As for gay sex - well, that's just a giant nonsense based in bigotry.

This is why laws need to be secularly based.

There's nothing special about the knowledge concerning the mixed fibres and other laws in the old testament.

@Herroyal
How does your ignorant sophistry prove fornication is not actually forbidden.

Stop the press the bible is open to interpretation because I say so.
That's a global headline right there.🙄

Since when is it bigotry to point out what a book says when asked.
If you feel the book promotes bigotry then that's your feeling on the matter.

Since when is it bigotry to point out what a book says when asked.
If you feel the book promotes bigotry then that's your feeling on the matter.

You outright called a poster on this thread a bigot.

This same poster has pointed out that there are other Christian scholars and other Christian websites than the ones you believe in, and that therefore there is debate around translations and versions of the Bible. You have chosen to believe that yours is the only true one, but belief is all it is. Just as we cannot prove that other interpretations and translations are correct, you cannot prove that yours is. The difference is that you are arrogant enough to think you don't need to.

How is a book that treats women worse than men, and tells you how to deal with your slaves not promoting bigotry, if you take it literally.

Then there is leviticus, quoted often in this thread as being something that should be followed. In it it says that blind, lame, injured, disfigured or people with other visual impairments may not approach God, or give him offerings because they would profane the church.

So if you go with 'well Jesus healed the disabled so he wasn't ableist so the bible isnt ableist' that many Christians say (in a more intellectual way than my simple statment) then I will go with 'Jesus healed gay people so he wasn't homophobic'

Otherwise you can call me a fool for not worshiping God, but as someone with a visual impairment I'm banned anyway.

If you take the bible as a literal account of God's words, that has to be followed literally with no room for interpretation then it is not a good book that promotes wholly good behaviour.

If however, as many Christians do, you take the bible as a book that was written in the context of the times it was written, and understand the many challenges that come with translating a text without bringing your own interpretation into it, then you can study it deeply to understand God's underlying meaning which may have been distorted by human voices.

You can pray for guidance and respect those around you whilst you do so. And you can read what other scholars and theologians have learnt or considered and decide whether you agree with their thoughts.

Or you can go 'I'm right and you are wrong because I say that's what the Bible says.'

Ultimately its your choice. And if you believe in a God who will decide whether you are worthy or not, well I hope his omnipotence covers Mumsnet!

You're just waffling.
Sorry.
I'd suggest it's you that's needs to research correctly. Then you can clear up to the mystery of the mixed fabrics, mortgages, slavery, the biblical view of women.

Critical OBJECTIVE thinking.
Try it, I know it's uncomfortable, as biases, subjective long held ideas and feeling have to be put to one side.

But that's the puzzlement, if God says do x to achieve y, the. Your following the religion of that god, otherwise if it's instead God says x, but then we do c, instead then it's just a religion inspired by the philosophy of god, but then if you did become before that god, it would then a bit of a mix as to what God perceived of the person's devotion ?

if that makes sense

You are incredibly rude aren't you?

And actually I do know that the wool and linen thing was to distinguish non priests from priests, and slaves in Roman times were debtors with time limited bondage not like we might imagine slave etc etc. But I am not the one saying the bible should be read literally without taking historical context into consideration.

Critical OBJECTIVE thinking.
Try it, I know it's uncomfortable, as biases, subjective long held ideas and feeling have to be put to one side.

Right back at you.

After reading this thread I’m very glad to not be following any religion or believing in any God.

I think my point is more than God may have said do x to achieve y

But people have translated that from ancient languages to

do z to achieve y
do c to achieve y
do g to achieve y

So then you have to look at the translation with respect to how the language was used in contemporary texts and the changing opinion at the time the translation was written (e.g. homophobia in corinthians only appeared in 1958)

If we were all still speaking ancient Hebrew and Greek it would be much easier. But instead there is context to be taken into account and the fact that various strands of the Christian Church cannot agree on fundamental issues shows its not as straightforward as some posters are trying to make out.

Ultimately if I was to believe in the Christian God (I'm agnostic) I would want to believe he could see the intentions of my heart not just my words. Some posters like to say they are Christian whilst showing behaviour that is decidedly unchristian. Does that really mean they are more likely to enter heaven than someone who questions context but does so because they intend to be the best Christian they can? After all in Joshua Christians are asked to meditate on it day and night.

Ultimately Christians are asked to defend the bible but do so with gentleness and respect. I have been told I cannot read, or understand, I am a fool, a bigot, I'm absurd, it's been implied I am stupid or boring. None of these seem to be gentle or respectful. That's without some of the viciousness that's been dealt out (and deleted) to gay people on the thread.

Ultimately Christians are asked to defend the bible but do so with gentleness and respect. I have been told I cannot read, or understand, I am a fool, a bigot, I'm absurd, it's been implied I am stupid or boring. None of these seem to be gentle or respectful. That's without some of the viciousness that's been dealt out (and deleted) to gay people on the thread.

Sadly these threads always bring out one or two really unpleasant hardliners who have no humility or respect for anyone who doesn't believe exactly the same as they do.

For what it's worth I respect both the research you have clearly done and the information you have shared as well as the way you have managed to maintain a mostly civil tone in the face of grave provocation.

I appreciate your analysis, you make some excellent points and perspectives.

Which god?

The Christian one? Islamic? Jewish?

Yabu not to soecidy

*specify

so basically to summarise, could it be debated that any and all religions are just faith and hope, but beyond that , we basically have not got a pickle of what any of the gods would give as their rules for humanity, should they even etgsg. Due to different factors.