Funny what you notice when you actually *read* the bible

[Cupric]

Genesis....lovely story, huh? Come with me on a fantastic journey through biblical drama... Or something like that.

Genesis, chapter 1. To make a long story short, God creates the world. He creates the light, the firmament, the waters. He creates dry land, causes grasses to grow upon it. He populates the world with animals.

Genesis 1:26 Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness....
1:27 So God created man in His own Image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.
1:28 Then God blessed them, and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply..."

Cool, so God makes the planet, and everything on it, including a bunch of human beings. God is also apparently more than one being, with all the "us"'s and "our image" chatter.

1:31 Then God saw everything that He had made, and indeed it was very good. So the evening and morning were the sixth day.

Oh wow, all in the first six days too. Industrious God(s) we have here!

Genesis 2:1-2:6 - we find out that God is done making the heavens and the earth, he blesses the seventh day as a day of rest, and causes a mist to rise from the ground.

Genesis 2:7 And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.
2:8 The Lord God planted a garden eastward in Eden, and there He put the man whom He had formed

What's this? The Gods had already created man ("male and female He created them") back on the sixth day. So now here we are, after the seventh day, and then the LORD GOD creates a new, seperate man, and places him in a special little garden. Why is this? We'll find out in a moment, but first...

I find it interesting, the implications here. This is the first mention of God as "Lord God", which implies to me that we are now talking about an individual God, rather than the multifaceted "Us" God of Chapter 1. But let's keep reading...

2:9 - 2:14 describes the garden, names the rivers, and lets us know Lord God has planted a bunch of really cool trees, including the tree of life, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

2:15 Then the Lord God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to tend and keep it. (Oh, I see...Adam is the janitor. Gotcha.)
16 And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, "Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat;
17 "but of the tree of knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die."

Wow, that's kinda heavy! Lord God has given Adam a pretty straightforward message though - if you eat my special tree, you will die THAT DAY!! No two ways about it, no special circumstances, pretty cut-and-dried. Eat tree = die that day. Got it.

18 And the Lord God said, "It is not good that man should be alone; I will make him a helper comparable to him."

Well, at least Lord God recognizes that tending that big ol' garden is a two-person job...

So Lord God causes animals to rise up from the ground - presumably copies of the animals already created back in the first week. Adam names them, but finds no companion, so Lord God knocks Adam out, swipes a rib, and creates a woman for Adam. (Cloning?) I'm not clear why Lord God doesn't just kidnap one of the woman created back on Day Six, but maybe they're all busy being fruitful and multiplying, or maybe that would just tick off the rest of the God(s). At any rate...let's move on to chapter 3...enter the serpent.

3:1 Now the serpent was more cunning than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made. And he said to the woman, "Has God indeed said, 'You shalt not eat of every tree in the garden'?"
2 And the woman said to the serpent, "We may eat the fruit of the trees of the garden;
3 "but of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God has said, 'You shall not eat it, nor shall you touch it, lest you die.'"
4 Then the serpent said to the woman, "You will not surely die.
5 "For God knows that in the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."

What's this? Here comes the serpent, chatting with our pal Eve. Sounds pretty shamanistic, speaking to serpents, but hey, maybe that's how things worked back then. It does mention he's more cunning than any of the beasts Lord God made, so maybe the other Gods gave their animals the ability to speak. (which is backed up by other religious myths.) But the important thing here is not that the serpent is speaking, but what he's saying.

He's telling Eve - "Hey, guess what? God lied to you! He's just afraid you'll realize the difference between good and evil! You won't die!"

Let's stop a second and examine this. The serpent is directly contradicting God. Essentially, he's calling God a liar.

And think about it...why would God not want human beings to know the difference between good and evil? Doesn't make a whole lot of sense, does it? Unless, perhaps, God didn't want his experimental couple to realize they're being held prisoner...even if the prison is a pretty little garden. Just a guess, of course, but rather suspicious if you ask me.

But let's get back to this story...

3:6 So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree desireable to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate. She also gave some to her husband with her, and he ate.
7 Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves coverings.
8 And they heard the sound of the Lord God walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and Adam an dhis wife hid themseves from the presence of the Lord God among the trees of the garden.
9 Then the Lord God called to Adam and said to him, "Where are you?"
10 So he said, "I heard Your voice in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; and I hid myself"

Well...that's interesting. They discovered they were naked, and sewed fig leaves together to cover up their naughty bits. And apparently, Lord God is pretty easy to fool, if Adam can duck behind some trees and hide himself from the "presence of the Lord God"

I'll paraphrase a bit, I'm getting tired of typing. Essentially, 2:11 through the end of chapter 2 goes something like this:

Lord God asks them - did you eat from that tree I told you not to eat from?

Adam points a finger at Eve - she did it! She picked the fruit and gave it to me...

Lord God asks the woman if it's true, she points a finger to the serpent and says "He decieved me! But yeah, I ate."

So Lord God curses the serpent to crawl on his belly (I guess serpents had legs? Umm...lizards?), and to eat dust, and to always have animosity between his descendants and Eve's descendants. Two points here - snakes don't eat dust, so apparently that part of the curse didn't take hold. And I personally have a pet serpent, so I guess either I'm not descended from Eve, or my snake isn't descended from this particular serpent. Or, another part of Lord God's curse was innefectual.

Then Lord God goes on to curse Eve to feel pain in childbirth and to be ruled over by man. Then he curses Adam to toil on an earth that won't be as peachy-keen as that garden was.

Then God slaughters a couple animals to make skin clothing for Adam and Eve.

This one I'll quote directly:

2:22 Then the Lord God said, "Behold, the man has become like one of Us, to know good and evil. And now, lest he put out his hand and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever" -

And then Lord God boots Adam and Eve out of the Garden and placed a cherubim and a flaming sword to make sure he didn't sneak back in.

But who was Lord God talking to? Ahh...the rest of the Gods, those guys who helped create the planet way back in the beginning. Lord God has screwed up - his little experiment was getting out of hand and humankind was getting just a bit too enlightened for his taste.

So this is shaping up to be quite the soap opera! But wait just a second...something is wrong. Back in 2:17 Lord God tells Adam that if he eats from the tree of knowledge, "in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die".

Does Adam die the day he eats the fruit? Why no! He doesn't, and neither does Eve. They have Cain, and Abel first. Cain, shunned by Lord God (who seems to have a real penchant for dead animals) murders his brother and is exiled. And amazingly, finds a wife!

A wife!? Where did she come from? Oh yes...those people that were created back on the sixth day. Those people who are not under the Lord God's dominion - for Gen 4:16 explains that "Cain went out from the presence of the Lord and dwelt in the land of Nod on the east of Eden". Out of the presence of the Lord...well that makes sense, there have been indications all along that Lord God is some sort of localized diety.

And after the whole Cain and Abel debacle, they have more children. A son named Seth. And Gen 5:4 - 5:5 tells us

4 After he begot Seth, the days of Adam were eight hundred years, and he had sons and daughters
5 So all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years; and he died.

Hey, 930 years!? Not too shabby! Especially considering 800-some years before he died he was told by Lord God he would die the very same day he ate of the fruit of knowledge.

So all in all what have we learned?

1. Lord God is not the only God
2. Lord God is, or at least used to be, a local diety
3. Adam and Eve are *not* the forbearers of all mankind, only a small percentage of it. Nor was Adam the first man.
4. The serpent never lied or decieved Eve at all - every word the serpent said was the truth.
5. Lord God is not above making empty threats

And just think, we're less than 5 chapters into the first book of the Bible, and already contemporary Christianity is looking a lot like a sieve.

 

[Tiassa]

Well, paint me pink and call me Harvey

By the rhythm, as I live and breathe ... m'lady Cupric ....

My favorite part is that God thinks an apple and a banana will make Adam and Eve his equals.

In the meantime I can only hope Imbolc went well enough--if I could remember that far back, I'd fill you in on mine.

Anyway, I'll give the thing a closer read. 'Tis lovely to see you m'dear. (Do you realize that it's been four months exactly since we've heard from you? And I have no idea why that's significant. But it's so nice to see you around these days.)

thanx,
Tiassa

 

[Taken]

Actually there is no need to bother reading the Bible if you aren't going to approach it with an open mind and exercise a little common sense. No need to read ANYTHING if not under those conditions.

 

[Tiassa]

Open minds

I'm not the biggest fan of the ongoing redefinition of open-mindedness. It seems that you've somehow found it impossible to consider, Taken that someone could read the Bible with an open mind and arrive at conclusions necessitating such questions.

On the other hand, my own history with open-mindedness is, in itself, goofy.

You'll note that no Christians are actually taught to approach their faith with an open mind. It's a concept that comes up later in life, when questions of the automatic nature of faith arise. What, incidentally, are we to think of a book that instructs us to close our minds?

After all, there are many ways to perceive the notion that Thou shalt have no other gods before me, but the prevailing one seems to be simplistic literalism. Thus, people resist the identification of "non-Christian" ideas while simultaneously proclaiming other principles than God to be their guiding force. Certes, they may mask as Christians, but we've both noted the density of fakes among the flock.

To have no other gods could mean to raise the principles of a harmonious society as outlined by God in the Bible; thus, the artist seeks to better life through communication, the industrialist through products that serve human needs. As it is, however, the artist is alienated as having trespassed on that simplistic notion of God, having raised the creation of art as more important than Biblical study and faith in Jesus. Something about open minds?

Open-mindedness is important, Taken, but give me a freaking break: how is it open-minded to reserve judgement until you can construct a method to support a preexisting prejudice? Such as, say, the correctness of that silly book?

What I perceive in your criticisms is the simple notion that we're not open-minded until we agree with you. While you generally hedge away from such principles, I'm calling you out on this one.

As a general principle, though, you have an excellent point. In light of this, would you please point out the lack of open-mindedness you're criticizing? Perhaps we can resolve that perception.

thanx,
Tiasssa

 

[Taken]

Even if you have no acknowledgment or consideration of the Bible being true...it would still be a great litterary work. It holds it's own among philosophical merit. It is an insight in to the humanity that drives us and the individuality that seperates us all. It yields a great historical context and an awesome look into the culture and mentality of a generations that arose long before our time. It, with out any credibility would still be a work of art, a litterary masterpiece, and a journey anyone could gain from.

The Bible, wheather litteral or illustrative, is in fact filled with the people, the ideas, and the beliefs that have had an enormouse impact on who we are today. When we look at it, we are looking at the book among books, the history among historys that has had the greatest impact on our cultural evolution of any other in the world. It is by that fact an important step in understanding ourselfs.

To read or quote bits and pieces of it for the simple task of pokeing fun at it or those who find value in it serves no purpose. Basically the person who read it has wasted a piece of their time...which is a valuable comodity.
Anyone who is open-minded, by definition...looks to learn, collects knowledge, values understanding. I do not have to believe you to see the value in understanding you. With learning comes understanding...which begats tolerance, acceptance, compassion, mercy and in the perfect assimilation of all these things.."the dream" of peace.

No one who is narrow minded, disrespectfull, self-righteouse, or simple has the right to then stand and persecute another person, or group of people (Christians) for the same crimes. I see in that post Christians being tried by the same methods that they are being persecuted for useing. It just seems like a waste of time, and defeats the purpose of intelligent discussion.

 

[Bambi]

Just two points...

Originally posted by Taken

It holds it's own among philosophical merit. It is an insight in to the humanity that drives us and the individuality that seperates us all. It yields a great historical context and an awesome look into the culture and mentality of a generations that arose long before our time. It, with out any credibility would still be a work of art, a litterary masterpiece, and a journey anyone could gain from.

Which makes it no greater than the Egyptian literature, or the Mesopotamian stone tablets, or the massive cultural output of the Greeks (who arguably affected modern civilization at least as much as Christianity, and very arguably in a much more positive direction.) The Vedics tout their texts above the Bible in all of the categories you provided. Then there are the Chinese philosophers, Buddhism, ... Not even mentioning the various verbal traditions from all over the world, beautiful and ugly alike (just because they haven't been written down until recently doesn't make them any less worthwhile.)

The Bible, wheather litteral or illustrative, is in fact filled with the people, the ideas, and the beliefs that have had an enormouse impact on who we are today. When we look at it, we are looking at the book among books, the history among historys that has had the greatest impact on our cultural evolution of any other in the world. It is by that fact an important step in understanding ourselfs.

I hear ya. And some of us also wonder wistfully what the world might be like if it weren't for the Bible. 1500 years of stagnation coupled to ongoing state of war is nothing to sneeze at. Not that the Bible caused it all by itself. But it played a hell of a role.

 

[Taken]

"Which makes it no greater than the Egyptian literature, or the Mesopotamian stone tablets, or the massive cultural output of the Greeks (who arguably affected modern civilization at least as much as Christianity, and very arguably in a much more positive direction.) "


Take a poll and see which one is most known, and understood by modern man. Which has the most impact on our cultural definitions and social orders. Which has the most effect on our freedoms and government. Which is most responsible for how and what most of us have been taught and which one most base their frame of reference from when judging the world and it's present state. Id be willing to bet that there would be ten times as many people in the entire world who have some knowledge of the Bible than who would know the first iota about the others.

Doesn't matter if you believe it, doesn't matter if you like it....it is an insight to what we have become and why.

 

[Bambi]

Originally posted by Taken

Take a poll and see which one is most known, and understood by modern man.

Most modern man cannot read at third grade level. What do you expect?

Which has the most impact on our cultural definitions and social orders. Which has the most effect on our freedoms and government.

Democracy derives from Greek, in case you didn't know. Republic is also a Greek idea. As is most of the philosophy upon which Locke, Hamilton, Jefferson, Adams and others built.

Which is most responsible for how and what most of us have been taught and which one most base their frame of reference from when judging the world and it's present state.

Very good questions. Don't forget to also pose them in the context of eleventh-century Europe, for example. Neither Christianity nor the Bible changed since then. So how come the world did, even though only centuries later when the works of the Greeks were finally rediscovered? (Hint: ever heard of the Renaissance?)

Id be willing to bet that there would be ten times as many people in the entire world who have some knowledge of the Bible than who would know the first iota about the others.

I won't bet on that. In any case, you can count most of Africa, pretty much the entire Europe and most of Asia out of your equation.

Doesn't matter if you believe it, doesn't matter if you like it....it is an insight to what we have become and why.

You really aren't very good with history, it seems.

 

[Adam]

Open-mindedness, the christian bible, et cetera...

Well, it's not really that great if you are talking about its philosophical statements and such. Very simplistic and just generally rather bad. Lots of incest, murder, unquestionable authority figures smiting the crap out of entire towns, some "do as I say, not as I do", that sort of thing. Really scraping the bottom of the barrel as far as moral philosophy goes.

As for its literary value, well, it's ripped off mostly from other religions and older stories, and the christian bible versions are somewhat simplified. They seem to me to be the mass-market soap-opera variety of religious tales, intended to illustrate to the uneducated masses of centuries past why they should work hard, obey the church, and don't ask questions.

All in all, it's just not a very good book.

 

[Tiassa]

But does it merit what it gets?

Even if you have no acknowledgment or consideration of the Bible being true...it would still be a great litterary work.

Well and fine. I will, however, nod to Adam's point that the Bible is largely a rip-off of prior mythologies.

The Odyssey is a great literary work. Rather than revisit the histories inspired by these two literary works, the Bible and the Odyssey, I'll just leave it at that.

Take a poll and see which one is most known, and understood by modern man.

Take a survey and see who the hell has been beating knowledge and human progress into the ground. True, the Egyptians went by the wayside. Of course, they never purged entire continents, either, did they? The Christian bloodlust is responsible for the primacy of its philosophical influence in the West.

To read or quote bits and pieces of it for the simple task of pokeing fun at it or those who find value in it serves no purpose. Basically the person who read it has wasted a piece of their time...which is a valuable comodity.
Anyone who is open-minded, by definition...looks to learn, collects knowledge, values understanding. I do not have to believe you to see the value in understanding you. With learning comes understanding...which begats tolerance, acceptance, compassion, mercy and in the perfect assimilation of all these things.."the dream" of peace.

Hmm ... That first part, about quoting bits and pieces, almost doesn't deserve the dignity of a response. In fact, it doesn't.

As to the second part, of anyone who is open-minded: tollerance and acceptance are the first two things on that list that disqualify Christian adherents from being open-minded. This is part of the Bible; you have no excuse around it.

No one who is narrow minded, disrespectfull, self-righteouse, or simple has the right to then stand and persecute another person, or group of people (Christians) for the same crimes. I see in that post Christians being tried by the same methods that they are being persecuted for useing. It just seems like a waste of time, and defeats the purpose of intelligent discussion.

Oh, cry me a fucking river.

What, someone is narrowminded if they find humor in the Bible? It really is quite the amazing document. God is scared of fruit, and blesses incest just for the purpose of making future examples. Destroys people for aspiring and creates strife by segregating communication .... Sodomy is so bad that one should throw their daughters out to be gang-raped in order to spare God the abomination of a single act of sodomy .... What the hell is the problem here?

A religion spins off from another, demonizes it, and never really gets its shit straight before kicking the world around. This is like the Northern Ireland negotiations in a way: just as the only route to peace, for years, was for Catholics to stop complaining about internationally-ignored injustices, the only route to accord is for everyone to become Christian.

A nagging wife is like a leaky faucet--drip, drip, drip. Come on ....

When Cupric puts these sentiments onto the ballot, then I'll take the complaint seriously. A couple of things about the wrongs of Christians versus the wrongs of others:

* Others do not have instructions from God to lie there and take it.
* Those others do not operate from a statistical majority whereby their own bits-and-pieces theology can be turned into a horrendous political weapon.

The end result, Taken, is that while I accept your lament, I must necessarily point out that it pretty much means that most Christians in the world are wasting their time.

And that is a point I can't thank you enough for making, though I'm quite sure you hadn't intended to make it so clear.

thanx,
Tiassa

 

[Adam]

That reminds me of something. We had a clever history teacher in year 7, first year of high school. He asked us to make up comics of the Odyssey. A great way to get kids into it. But I was slightly obsessed with ancient Egypt at the time, so it all looked a tad odd.

 

[Cupric]

Hey!

Harvey!! I mean, Tiassa!!

Hey you old reprobate, how are things?

Four months to the date, huh? Well, waddaya know? It's that whole spiral thing, I guess.

Imbolc...well, unfortunately I spent it hacking up phlegm balls the size of my foot, not a whole lot of merriment there.

Glad to see you again, my friend. So you haven't given up on this place yet, eh?

Taken,

So you assume I approach the bible with a closed mind, hm? Mighty fine of you to make such an assumption, considering you know virtually nothing about me. But alright. I can see how it's much easier to just write me off as a smart-ass and not bother to address anything I've spoken of.

"The Bible, wheather litteral or illustrative, is in fact filled with the people, the ideas, and the beliefs that have had an enormouse impact on who we are today."

And you think this is a good thing? So, when a few homophobes get together and beat a young man nearly to death and leave him hanging on a fence to die, we should praise the bible for showing us the way - thank you, Lord God, for teaching us to hate in Your Name.

I contend that the bible needs a new interpretation, a more honest one not driven by those with a vested interest in maintaining the status quo.

Can you deny the bible has been manipulated and twisted through the ages? Can you deny that they used to fight very hard against "common man" reading the bible for himself, in the fear that he would find someting in it the authorities didn't wish to have brought up?

Can you deny the bible has brought trouble and strife to our society? Take a look at the number of priests molesting little children before you answer that one. Take a look at how many people have been murdered in God's name throughout the years.

Now come back and tell me that I, as a thinking human being, do not have the right to read the bible from a fresh perspective. Tell me I don't have the right to read it without a childhood priest droning sermons in my hindbrain. Tell me I don't have a right to read "the Word of God" for myself and discover what meaning, if any, it might have for my own life.

If anything, I would say *you* have the closed mind - you seem to have decided the bible is what it's been presented as, and don't seem to wish to hear anything to the contrary. I, at least, am reading for myself, and forming my own conclusions based on what I have read.

Point to something in my post, and explain how it's closed minded. I'm rather curious about that. Oh, I made some flip comments to be sure, but that's not the same as having a closed mind.

I'm listening...

 

[Markx]

Re: Hey!

Very interesting Cupric.

 

[Amp]

Wha zzzup?

IMHO, though the bible HAS been tampered with 'to maintain the status quo' It and other writings of equivalent significance have helped humans progress from purely survival oriented behaviours and actions to ideals of morality and community in service to the rest of humanity that has slowly opened up more avenues of potential relief from the greed that causes much of the problems on Earth. Those who see deeper may realize that on this little ship called Earth all our futures are tied together. Peace,Joy and Love :~) Amp

 

[LIGHTBEING]

First, I would like to congratulate tiassa and Cupric for their display of open-mindedness which will ultimately win this debate.
You two are really on point and I totally agree with your comments. Cupric, I view Genesis in the same way.

It seems that the concept or phrase "open minded" is becoming more and more popular to Christians.

"You need to open your mind and open your heart to let God in"

"You need to be open minded to read the Bible"

The fact of the matter is when you do read the Bible with an open mind you will come up with a different almost opposite conclusion of what the Church did. If your conclusion does not agree with the Church....then your mind is closed?????? It's a double standard.

It seems to me that many Christians are taught from the very beginning concepts such as Jesus is God, Christianity is right, Everything else is wrong, thus when they are finally capable of reading the Bible they are being Bias. Ofcoarse there are exceptions, but most Christians start when they are born and more or less forced into this concept which would ultimately eliminate open mindedness.

Think about it

And also being good literature is matter of opinion. Just doesn't happen to be my opinion.

Peace

 

[G0D]

Re: Hey!

Originally posted by Cupric
If anything, I would say *you* have the closed mind - you seem to have decided the bible is what it's been presented as, and don't seem to wish to hear anything to the contrary. I, at least, am reading for myself, and forming my own conclusions based on what I have read.

Point to something in my post, and explain how it's closed minded. I'm rather curious about that. Oh, I made some flip comments to be sure, but that's not the same as having a closed mind.

I'm listening...

Wow! All that in just the first few lines of the bible. For a LOT more cruelties, inconsistencies, etc see -
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/

Taken's attitude reflects the perscecution complex noticible in religionists. One dislikes to draw a trend from a few examples, but it does seem that Taken is the first to cry "racist!" or "disrespectful" and to accuse other posters of "prejudice" and "persecution", etc.

I recall seeing a few examples on this forum, like in this thread.

Originally posted by Taken
So do we now resort to being disrespectfull of and ridiculing that which we do not understand? Is that prejudice? Racial?

and of course, in this thread we see Taken telling us that

Originally posted by Taken
No one who is narrow minded, disrespectfull, self-righteouse, or simple has the right to then stand and persecute another person, or group of people (Christians) for the same crimes. I see in that post Christians being tried by the same methods that they are being persecuted for useing. It just seems like a waste of time, and defeats the purpose of intelligent discussion.

Just my thoughts ...

 

[Aware]

in reading this topic i found that what i had written in another topic in a way pertained to this one so i well....copy and pasted ;p


i am not suggesting that the bible is the ultimate spiritual book but am meerely pointing out the humanistic flaws it has been givin. if u were in a room full of hundreds of people where at the first person there was givin to him a message. that message needed to travel to each individual person untill it came to the final peson. it is hard for me to concieve that the final person's message would be the same as the first person's whether it is the lack of communication flaws which humans are known for (flaws in general i meen), or whether it has been changed to meet the requiremens of a particular individual as to gain something from his conception. these particular views must be acounted for when dealing with any type of documantation passed down from generations and in particular, relegious documents. relegion can be of a great means of controling someones actions in society and therefore will be changed accordingly when it is necessary and when it can be done unnoticed. do u all agree?

 

[LIGHTBEING]

I agree, but unfortunately Christians would neglect that theory. They would argue that the Bible is "The Word of God" and nothing can change that.

 

[Aware]

yea i can see how that could be argued...but i could swear that i have encountered examples of this happening in the Christian faith within England before the Americas had been discovered. ill try to find some of these deceptions for personal gain using relgion and post it.

 

[Cupric]

God,

Thank you for the link to that site, it's pretty interesting stuff. I'm very tempted to spend a couple weeks browsing through it, but I'm trying (for now anyway) to worm my way through the "good book" for myself, chapter by chapter. I only had enough energy to start with the first few parts of Genesis for now, if this interests or amuses me enough I'll continue on. (How's that for an attitude, LOL)

I should point out that while I don't accept the Bible as anything more than yet another myth with perhaps a bit more history than is usual for such things; I have not written off it's value completely. There are indeed a few gems to be found in there, if nothing else great examples of what *not* to do.

Christianity is an interesting creature. On one hand it's horribly cruel, vindictive, judgmental and murderous; the other hand is full of rainbows and sunshine and lambs-laying-with-lions.

I have always thought Christianity is an excellent religion for violent convicts - they seem to need a fire-and-brimstone sort of relationship with a punishing God to keep themselves in line. But for the rest of us that can make our own decisions without causing harm to others, it feels like a child's restrictions being placed on a functional adult.

But here I still sit, amazed that nobody has bothered to contradict some of the "implications" I talked about! Here I am, appearing to attack the very foundations of Christianity and all I get are a few feeble and misspelled insults. I'm so disappointed!

Maybe if I mention I'm a Neo-Pagan witch I'll get some attention? (Yes, I *am* just trying to cause trouble at this point, chalk it up to sheer boredom)