Such garbage. If this really were the word of a god, you would think that that god's followers would be more vigilant about translating it correctly. Yet they teach the story to children. I'm not buying it. The whole idea is nonsense.
Upvote
0
Noah cursed Ham's line after "he saw what he had done." What remained after Ham had done something? Noah sobered up and saw something.Such garbage. If this really were the word of a god, you would think that that god's followers would be more vigilant about translating it correctly. Yet they teach the story to children. I'm not buying it. The whole idea is nonsense.
The god depicted in these stories is powerful, angry, violent, judgmental, white, male.
Noah cursed Ham's line after "he saw what he had done." What remained after Ham had done something? Noah sobered up and saw something.
OK.... Sunday School teachings? Or?
The Bible is also for adults. Also mature adults.
The Bible is about REAL life and what happens to sinners.
You might not like my more symbolic interpretation, but it would link Ham to the serpent in the garden, since both of them were more interested in uncovering and showing a person's shame.
Its not even symbolic. Its fantasy. Inane reasoning. Like pulling pink, sickly rabbits, out of your hat.
I suppose you never did anything terribly wrong in your life?
But, others have. God must deal accordingly.
Ironically... God violently hates those who would want to bully you... to torment you.
So what "terribly wrong" thing did the babies and toddlers do that justifies the divine commandment to go and kill them all? And what about the virgin girls that were to be taken as "war booty" and enslaved? Or the cattle, which also had to be exterminated?
Such garbage. If this really were the word of a god, you would think that that god's followers would be more vigilant about translating it correctly. Yet they teach the story to children. I'm not buying it. The whole idea is nonsense.
Martin Luther didn't really change anything for the better about the church. If anything the Protestants took all the worst aspects and only amplified them.
Some examples, please.
They believe that they must pay tithes and offerings to the church. The threat may not be so forceful, but the essence is the same. A "Christian" who doesn't tithe is not a true believer, right? Otherwise he would be giving cheerfully, wouldn't he.
Fishers of men-who-work-for-a-living, that is what the church has always been. Even the gospel writers could see through the nonsense.
They believe that they must pay tithes and offerings to the church. The threat may not be so forceful, but the essence is the same. A "Christian" who doesn't tithe is not a true believer, right? Otherwise he would be giving cheerfully, wouldn't he.
Fishers of men-who-work-for-a-living, that is what the church has always been. Even the gospel writers could see through the nonsense.
I have made no such hermeneutical commitments. It is bad form to misrepresent someone's argument and then attack that misrepresentation of your own creation (logical extension fallacy/A.K.A "a strawman argument")Just because your literalistic interpretation is the most popular doesn't make it right. Popularity doesn't mean that it is divine or holy. Have you ever heard that the road to destruction is a wide road?
He has been doing that terribly with the Bible. So, why not a mere human being?I have made no such hermeneutical commitments. It is bad form to misrepresent someone's argument and then attack that misrepresentation of your own creation (logical extension fallacy/A.K.A "a strawman argument")