Take your only son and kill him!
OK, YHWH, here I go. I’ll just raise my butcher knife and chop him up like this…
Wait! Stop! I didn’t mean it! Sheesh…I was just testing you! 
Really? What a relief! Suddenly I feel much closer to you now, God. What a great relationship this is. Hey, wanna grab a beer?
Amazing. So if I put my goldfish in the microwave, I don’t have to go to confession? Magical stuff is so fascinating. Someone should write all this down.
Ja, ich weiss. Tut mir leid.
Q
And after 14 pages, we get what we already knew. Lucanae, it’s clear that when people show you evidence of suspect that the bible is just another chapter in human desire to create a tale, you run around the evidence.
Luc, the Summerian myth was written and believed 3,000 years before men wrote the story of Adam & Eve. How can you think it’s the other way around? Yeah, yeah, “the way I was raised, God cannot lie, I believe all bible translations…”
From the Enki story, it’s clear to me that the particularly shady story of Adam & Eve was inspired by Summerian myth. Since we’re taking myth to be true, THIS Sunday I will praise the birth of Uttu, giver of egg and mixer with sperm who gave human life to the earth when said mixture was planted near the riverbeds. At least since we know and see growth, it would be a lot easier for me to believe we grew from the riverbeds, shedding more light on evolution and the need for water that us humans have than believing that a bone (huh, huh, he said bone!) was the vessel for the existence of women.
As far as your Genesis 6 belief: In Genesis 6:2 the “sons of God” were the righteous line of Seth (Genesis 4:26) intermarrying with evil Cainites. It also has its disclaimer capabilities from your line of reasoning: “And, um, oh, yeah, don’t believe in them other gods you may have heard of, they’re fake, i’m REAL!” Please.
What’s really nice mythology is that most godlike creatures have faults, ESPECIALLY the mythology you prefer. “Thou shalt not commit murder” - a BIG lie from your big guy.
He hasn’t read that part either, evidently.
To answer the original question:
…somebody that didn’t like him too much.
Ha! Oh, yeah, original question, 14 pages ago.
Lucanae, start a new thread or something.
Monday (Day of the Moon), if you’ve got time. Make it more specific. Pick a bible story to debate. Happy Easter to you! (That was sincere.)
This is an official Warning that posting direct personal insults are not permitted, even in non-English languages.
[ /Moderating ]
And why should anyone consider you credible? You deny scientific facts by pointing to a book that you misquote and mistranslate when the majority of people who follow that book do not actually deny the scientific facts that you deny. Then you post gibberish of the sort that involves bears and penguins. Your claims to be looking for truth are denied by your refusal to take the time to actually learn about either genuine science or the specific statements of the bible.
Thank you. May I have permission to cut and paste your response on other websites?
Sans the part about bears and penguins of course. 
…
No.
Animal sacrifices are no longer required for the atonement of sin because the death of Jesus Christ caused the old law to become obsolete and the new law of forgiveness and grace took the place of the old law.
Thank you. Happy belated Easter to you.
So, out of His infinite Love, YHVH sentenced 10’s of thousands of years worth of humans to eternal, unbearable torment. Out of Love.Then, in His infinite wisdom, He sacrificed Himself to Himself in order to stop His plan for torturing all of humanity for eternity.
But only if people have heard the Word and accepted it (and/or accomplished certain works, depending on who you ask). But He still saw fit that not everybody would hear the Word. And, what’s more, that although He could broadcast the Word in full glory on the back of every cereal box, TV, radio, computer and on the sky itself in holographic majesty, He instead chooses to rely on a poorly translated ancient bit of writing bound in an actual, physical, book. Made of dead trees.
Yep, makes perfect sense.
Why was any sacrifice required at all. If God wanted to change the law, there was nothing stopping him from just changing the law. What did he need to kill a hippie for?
Satan is the father of all lies (John 8:44). Satan, knowing where mankind really came from, would obviously start lies about the truth to deceive mankind. Any myth about creation (and I don’t consider the Bible or it’s contents or anything or anyone it speaks of a myth) would be a web of deceit spun by Satan.
Genesis 4:26 is not a cross reference to Genesis 6:4. The sons of God were not from the line of Seth. Let me show you…
Genesis 6:2–“…the sons of God saw the daughters of men…”.
…the footnote in my Bible says this about Genesis 6:2… “The sons of God refer to a different group from either the men or their daughters”.
If the “sons of God” were of the line of Seth, don’t you suppose it would say “the sons of Seth”? Whenever it says “son of” in the Bible it could even be referring to people whom are many generations apart.
Genesis 6:4–“There were giants on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men and they bore children to them. Those were mighty men who were of old, men of renown”.
…the footnote in my Bible says this about Genesis 6:4… “The Hebrew word for giants means “fallen ones” (from the verb meaning “to fall”). Many ancient cultures have legends of titans and demigods”.
Job 1:6–“Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan also came among them”.
Clearly “sons of God” is referring to fallen angels. Satan is a fallen angel.
Also, Alister Crowley’s law (Thelema), “Do as thou wilt this shall be the whole of the law”, is derived from a series of books called Gargantua and Pantagruel. This is a story about two giants.Thelema
God caused the flood to cleanse the Earth of these giants because they lived by the law of “do what thou will”. These giants ate everything and anything they could and eventually became cannibals because they had eaten up everything else.
So it seems to me that if God didn’t kill these giants with the flood, mankind would have destroyed itself many thousands of years before now. Now mankind is once again destroying itself, and as the Bible says…
Matthew 24:37-39
But as the days of Noah were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark,
And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
The World Ends Tomorrow and YOU MAY DIE!
I do not consider anything “Bob” had said to be a myth. On the other hand, you are obviously trapped in the web of lies spun by Greyface.
I have seen the light!
Magic!
Reminds me of when Sleeping Beauty was kissed and changed into a frog. Magic! Or am I mixing multiple myths?
So if he wasn’t sincere in his willingness to kill Isaac, wouldn’t God know that? And even then, what kind of sick relationship is that??? “Abraham, I need you to sacrifice your son [wink, wink].” “OK, God, here I go, I’m holding up the knife and I’m about to kill him [wink, wink].” “OK, you can stop now.”
That makes no sense. Obviously, Abraham in the myth thought that it was entirely in God’s M.O. to demand a child sacrifice. You’re just trying to re-interpret the story to be more in line with your morality.
But that had not been commanded yet. Presumably, no one knew that it was wrong to steal, kill, or boil a kid goat in its mother’s milk until the time of Moses.
I kind of like you. You’re certainly much more civil than most people who show up here with only one issue to press.
You’re off to a good start- you don’t froth at the mouth when presented with information that contradicts your views. The next step is to work that information into your views, and to maybe find a broader base of sources to argue from.
That apologist press stuff you keep linking to is, frankly, not scholarly, and doesn’t attempt to be objective. If you, as somebody with a point to prove, want to link to outside sources to reinforce your arguments, you’ll do much better if you can find some sources which aren’t pushing an agenda.
Welcome to the Dope.