Thread: The Nature of Satan

Noogah I'm sorry to say this but either you are deliberately skipping around facts to piss us off or you are intellectually impared.

Okay, first, about taking the verses out of context. You tell me, please, what has been taken out of context? What is there to take out of context? It's in the context of God commanding people to fucking kill other people. It's true, I read it in the bloody bible. If you look up the verses I quoted, you can see for yourself that they are in the context of God commanding people to fucking kill other people.

I don't care if you won't admit to this, but you obviously just skimmed over all of the texts and brushed it aside in your head with this automatic response. Some part of yourself, probably the human side, can't bear that God would possibly command genocide against his own creation, so you cover it up and just keep the good parts.

And also, of course incest might not be directly mentioned in the bible (but I bet it is), but the point everyone's trying to make is that incest must have happened in order for people to be descended from Adam and Eve. This is something that you must accept, so why do you respond negatively? If God intended Adam and Eve to populate the Earth, which you believe, and that he condoned it, which you believe, then God was by definition condoning incest.

By deduction we can also say that God still condones incest because God does not change as it says in Malachai (3:6).

It would be much better for you to take a non literal approach to the bible, it's embarassing and it is so obvious that the bible contradicts itself all over the place. This is in no way a threat to your Christianity, if you think it is then explain to us why you still believed the bible was the word of God even though it never speaks of Jesus ever commanding anyone to write down anything. The word of God should be Jesus' words, but you have absolutely no way of knowing that they have not been changed. On the other hand, we in the fields of reality understand that his words clearly have been changed, by looking at archaeological evidence, while the rest of the Christian world have not evolved past their preference of new books simply because they are not tatty.

You could go so far as to simply accepting a Jesus as an archetypal figure, and actually using your brain to sort out moral situations, but I do not mean for you to go that far. To me Christianity makes enough sense as long as it's not bloody literal. Check your facts, please!

"Noah was spared because amidst all the evils of the world, he was righteous. And if he hadn't, you wouldn't be where you are as you read."

Why is that a good thing? If Noah hadn't been spared then I wouldn't be on my way to hell would I?