Customer Discussions > religion discussion forum

who created god,apart from the writers of the bible


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-25 of 73 posts in this discussion
Initial post: 17 Feb 2014 13:00:51 GMT
Last edited by the author on 17 Feb 2014 17:47:49 GMT
Stu says:
You have over a hundred writers of the old testament,most of whom contradict themselves with what they wrote in the bible, the old testament especially. Then you have the new testament telling you different stories,how are you to believe this book if taken literally. Did he (god) just appear out of nowhere?who made him?

In reply to an earlier post on 17 Feb 2014 13:10:33 GMT
Bearman says:
Which god are you referring to Stu? The Christian god is based on the jewish god which comes from an Abrahamic tradition based on earlier gods and so on.

In reply to an earlier post on 17 Feb 2014 13:12:32 GMT
Pendragon says:
stu

"who created god, apart from the writers of the bible"

Was it MBen?

In reply to an earlier post on 17 Feb 2014 13:19:05 GMT
Stu says:
Thanks Bearman, you say and so on,just how far back can we trace?

In reply to an earlier post on 17 Feb 2014 13:21:13 GMT
Stu says:
No Pendragon he just thinks he did,and then he got it wrong.

Posted on 17 Feb 2014 13:25:12 GMT
Hi stu

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_religion

makes for fascinating reading. If we assume (is this reasonable) that grave practices represent some form of religious ritual then it is amazing how far back this goes.

I only recently came across
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6bekli_Tepe
which is also absolutely fascinating. We (I!) tend to think of Summer and Babylon rather than Turkey as the birthplace of religion but this is quite surprising.

In reply to an earlier post on 17 Feb 2014 13:36:12 GMT
Stu says:
Thanks Nestov, off to have a read,as to basically satisfy myself and also be able to answer spins question if you know what I MEAN.

In reply to an earlier post on 17 Feb 2014 13:36:55 GMT
Bearman says:
That's a difficult one to answer. I think the oldest writings that refer to gods go back to the ancient Sumerians, about 5000 years ago, however various carved figurines have been found around Europe such as the Venus of Hohle Fels which is 40,000 years old and may represent a Mother Earth Godess, or at least a talisman for fertility. Older objects found in Isreal (Venus of Berekhat Ram) and Morocco (Venus of Tan-tan) date back 300,000 to 500,000 and may be similar carvings by Homo erectus, though there are arguments between the experts over what they really are.

Posted on 17 Feb 2014 13:39:06 GMT
Bearman says:
Just seen Nestov's wiki reference - its a bit more detailed than my contribution!

In reply to an earlier post on 17 Feb 2014 13:58:16 GMT
Stu says:
Just finished reading them Bearman, absolutely amazing reads, and that is coming from an atheist too.

In reply to an earlier post on 17 Feb 2014 14:01:43 GMT
Stu says:
Just posted a reply to Bearman, Nestov,brilliant reads and that is coming from an atheist too.

In reply to an earlier post on 17 Feb 2014 15:13:51 GMT
It shows the hill that atheism has to climb. Best part of half a million years of indoctrination. Won't be looking for a change any time soon then...

8-}}

In reply to an earlier post on 17 Feb 2014 15:31:05 GMT
Stu says:
Doubt it Nestov, but with each new generation more move over I believe.

In reply to an earlier post on 17 Feb 2014 18:50:16 GMT
richard says:
Nestov, yes Southern Turkey is emerging as something quite special. also the thinking that Jericho could be 10,000 years old. the thing with Southern Turkey is that it had extensive areas of wild crops so a natural setting for groups of hunter/gatherers to come together to harvest this crop and along with that came greater organisation and a need for storage of grain. the next step might well have been to move to fertile areas to become more settled farmers and hence the move to Mesopotamia and Egypt as domestic strains appeared. of great interest is that it looks like a religious basis formed the glue which drew these groups together to start wild crop harvesting. it always looked like civilization came first and religion followed but this could turn that around!

In reply to an earlier post on 17 Feb 2014 19:08:26 GMT
Don't take it literally then. It might make it easier to believe what it says.

In reply to an earlier post on 17 Feb 2014 19:48:17 GMT
Stu says:
You must be joking WDB.

In reply to an earlier post on 17 Feb 2014 19:50:47 GMT
Is that really the best way to verify facts, by choosing the easiest way to believe something that is so palpably erroneous it can't be taken literally?

In reply to an earlier post on 17 Feb 2014 20:09:03 GMT
Norm Deplume says:
Would not taking the Eddas literally make it easier to believe in the Norse gods? Or would they still look like fantasy?

In reply to an earlier post on 17 Feb 2014 20:11:37 GMT
'Mr. W. D. Burchell says:

Don't take it literally then. It might make it easier to believe what it says.'

I wonder if I'm supposed to take Mr Burchell's remark literally?

In reply to an earlier post on 18 Feb 2014 14:40:22 GMT
Not joking, but serious. In my experience the only people who read the Bible literally (C.S. Lewis defined the term literalistically) are fundamentalist Christians and Atheists and at least one of those groups actually realises that some of it was not written to be read that way.

In reply to an earlier post on 18 Feb 2014 14:41:01 GMT
No it is not the best way to verify facts. It is just sensible.

In reply to an earlier post on 18 Feb 2014 14:43:39 GMT
I have no idea as I have never read the Eddas. But a guess based on my knowledge of Norse Mythology would suggest that reading it literally IS going to make it easier to believe in the Norse gods.

In reply to an earlier post on 18 Feb 2014 14:46:29 GMT
Dan Fante says:
Do you think the accounts of the resurrection are metaphors then?

In reply to an earlier post on 18 Feb 2014 14:50:53 GMT
Stu says:
WDB,why did 100 writers or more write a biblical story which if you do not take literally,is actually b/s then and full of lies.

In reply to an earlier post on 18 Feb 2014 15:12:55 GMT
Drew Jones says:
Sceptics agree with literalist (not fundamentalists as that is probably a different quality) because they at least have an objective means of reading their scripture. Sceptics/atheists and interpretive Christians at least come to some agreement that the Bible if read as it is on the page doesn't quite match up to the knowledge subsequently uncovered since it was written.
‹ Previous 1 2 3 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


More Customer Discussions

Most active community forums
Most active product forums

Amazon forums
 

This discussion

Discussion in:  religion discussion forum
Participants:  12
Total posts:  73
Initial post:  17 Feb 2014
Latest post:  20 Feb 2014

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.

Search Customer Discussions