Q for unbelievers

[YourMaster]

Rant?



Yeah, that's got to be it!

You just got a kick out of the synchronicity of those smilies?

[headheart]

YM,

Are you still looking at them?

So how did your re-read of Ecclesiastes go?

Sincerely,
Eric J. Sawyer

[yo lunch]

It is interesting also to note one of the other deceptions christianity purports, i.e. that a relationship with their god is all fulfilling?

Clearly their story book refutes that notion -

Genesis 2:18 (King James story book Version)

18And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.

NB: Story book god recognised the flaw in its creation because man felt ' alone ' in its story book god's presence and its god was incapable of filling that void itself and healing the feeling of loneliness its creation felt and needed to create a woman to bring the joy and fulfillment this story book god couldn't provide of itself.

Yes, the absurdity of the "alone" statement becomes apparent when we have Adam being created with all of the equipment necessary for procreation but no one to do it with! Surely a God would not think of a woman as an afterthought!

Fact is, as it turns out, God was wrong in His belief that it was not good for man to be alone, because, after all, it was Eve who led him astray and was the downfall of man!

[headheart]

As the thread starter, I would appreciate it, if you stay on topic.

Lunch Meat & Popcorny,

You have both already made your choice, as to the books that you wish to discuss. So your present references to the book of Genesis ( something you might want to discuss elsewhere ) , which by-the-way is not directly related to either 'Ruth' ( Lunch Meat ) or 'Ecclesiastes' ( Popcorny ).

Now either stay on topic, or start a fresh thread of your own, where you can discuss the matter of who was responsible for peeing in your porridge this morning.


Sincerely,
Eric J. Sawyer

[yo lunch]

As the thread starter, I would appreciate it, if you stay on topic.

Lunch Meat & Popcorny,

You have both already made your choice, as to the books that you wish to discuss. So your present references to the book of Genesis ( something you might want to discuss elsewhere ) , which by-the-way is not directly related to either 'Ruth' ( Lunch Meat ) or 'Ecclesiastes' ( Popcorny ).

Now either stay on topic, or start a fresh thread of your own, where you can discuss the matter of who was responsible for peeing in your porridge this morning.


Sincerely,
Eric J. Sawyer

As Jack once said, "You can't stand the truth!"

I already answered your question. I said Ruth. When one answers it and expands on that, what else is there? Your question is inane in the first place and that is why the thread is going nowhere!

Bye!

[headheart]

Ruth!

I chose it as the ideal book because it is non-religious in nature.

..... what else is there?

Non-religious in nature? ---- Please explain ?

[yo lunch]

Non-religious in nature? ---- Please explain ?

My mistake, it is Esther that I was thinking of and should have chosen in the first place and not Ruth. Sorry for the blunder.

[headheart]

My mistake, it is Esther that I was thinking of and should have chosen in the first place and not Ruth. Sorry for the blunder.

Seeing as you feel so intense about Ruth, maybe it is a book you should consider studying. I don't see how Esther matches the reason you (((( chose it as the ideal book because it is non-religious in nature.)))) ???

You are beginning to read like the Christians that you condemn, for not knowing their Bibles. No harm, I am sure you will be more careful next time.

Peace,
Eric J. Sawyer.

[lao tzu]

As far as that goes, while Job has a lot of other interests for me, it's the view into the ancient near east cosmology that makes it my favorite biblical book.

[headheart]

As far as that goes, while Job has a lot of other interests for me, it's the view into the ancient near east cosmology that makes it my favorite biblical book.

I know it's quite a big topic, but would you be interested in opening up about the details of that?

Sincerely,
Eric J. Sawyer

[yo lunch]

Seeing as you feel so intense about Ruth, maybe it is a book you should consider studying. I don't see how Esther matches the reason you (((( chose it as the ideal book because it is non-religious in nature.)))) ???

You are beginning to read like the Christians that you condemn, for not knowing their Bibles. No harm, I am sure you will be more careful next time.

Peace,
Eric J. Sawyer.

You read too much into a simple mistake! I did not "feel so intense about Ruth", seeing that it was not the one that I was thinking about!

Esther is not focused on the usual religious stuff that you find in most of the other books. Perhaps you should be the one to do a closer review of those books!

In any event, this thread is just a waste of my time and therefore i shall now focus on the more germane ones.

Bye

[headheart]

Typical.

[FiFi]

I'm an unbeliever, but I have no idea what the question means.

I can imagine alternate histories in which the books comprising the New Testament were never written. I can imagine, in some of those same alternate histories, only one book of the Old Testament having been written, but I would need a different alternate history for each book that it would have been.

And there are other alternate histories in which all the books of the Bible got written but nobody ever canonized any of them, or they canonized only one of them.

What he said.

As this question was posed to 'unbelievers', why has the only debate arisen from the response by a believer?

Curiouser and curiouser...

[FiFi]

Apologies, I hadn't realised this thread went to 7 pages[/B]!!

[headheart]

Curiouser and curiouser...

wOOf! nOOb! FifFi (btw. Welcome to TWC) - I am the thread starter, and unfortunately my opening post, did not clearly explain what I had on my mind. It does not happen too often but now and then it does.
As a result of the misunderstanding, I attempted to represent my questions (refer. post 10 and post 17, and ....read the thread) , so I spent most of my time explaining that to folks who never bothered to read the thread. ( a common enough problem here in the land of confusion )
Well, suffice to say, the simple version of the question goes like this.

Hypothetically speaking...
a. We are living in a world where there is NO NEW TESTAMENT (basically that would mean that Jesus had not yet arrived and there was no such thing as Christianity.

Hypothetically speaking....
b. There was only ONE OLD TESTAMENT BOOK....that would be from the collection we have, you know 'Genesis.... Leviticus.... Numbers..... (big gap) Isaiah, (gap) Malachi ....

Question:

Choosing from the existing list of Old Testament books, ...which ONE WOULD YOU WANT TO , OR DESIRE TO EXIST and WHY?

Typical answer:

Ruth - because it is a non-religious book. ( first part correct, ...let's talk about the second part....) We talk, the person argues emphatically that it is Ruth that is a non religious book..... then suddenly reads the book, or a short summary somewhere and decides that it had to be Esther. ( after I suspect doing some reading...or Google )
Being that Esther, does not mention the name of God anywhere, ...it is regarded by some as non-religious book (story), yet it is quite clear that the book has a very strong religious theme to it, but the person who raised the point, ...ran off ...screaming... My conclusion..."typical"

Apologies, I hadn't realised this thread went to 7 pages

No harm, FiFi.

So which book would you choose?...now make sure you know why before you do...it's probably the safest way to go, before you end up doing the same sort of thing that Meat did. Poor Meat, poor poor old meat.

Sincerely,
Eric J. Sawyer