I agree with your first paragraph....if only it didn't imply an acceptance of God.

It goes hand in hand, doesn't it? Can anyone accept the Bible as truth but deny the existence of God? If one accepts both, they would have to - IMO - accept that the Bible is chock full of metaphors because 2000-3000 years ago mankind didn't have the knowledge to understand what it takes to create a universe. Perhaps we don't even have it today - but we think we do much like they thought they did back then. As far as I'm concerned. it's all still just theory.

Do you mean religion is theory?

Well yes it is, but it's a theory that is continually being found to be incorrect. And it's all so convenient for the church that their metaphors only become metaphors when science finds contradictory facts. Up until that point, these metaphors are to be taken literally.

"Oh, it's a metaphor" is a common argument that I have heard. Although after using such an argument many creationists still then try to discredit the theory of evolution, for example. Why?

It must be a metaphor. There would be no other way for God to explain things to people who were walking around thousands of years ago. Imagine trying to explain the Internet to someone from 300 years ago. Then imagine trying to explain the Big Bang Theory to someone 3000 years ago. I imagine that even God has limited patience and decided that breaking creation up into something the primitives could understand - 7 days, "let there be light" - was the best way to go.

I also imagine that if mankind is still around in 2000 years and has continually progressed then much of what we consider fact today (courtesy of the likes of Hawking) will seem like childish fairy tales in the year 2311.

But god is supposedly the all powerful being.

Meaning that he can do what ever he wants and will have no difficulty in achieving absolutely anything that he wants to. If he could not explain to people how it worked, regardless of how long ago it was, then his power must be limited. He is no longer the all powerful being, how would that fit with the believers?

Just because God is supposed to be all powerful doesn't mean people are. I'm not a believer in organized religion but even I know that.

Religion is not interested in the truth, science is all about finding the truth.

Which is why the climatologists at East Anglia and their Global Warming scare was not science.

[but god is supposedly the all powerful being.

Meaning that he can do what ever he wants and will have no difficulty in achieving absolutely anything that he wants to.

Maybe he did explain it - using metaphors.

Just because God is supposed to be all powerful doesn't mean people are. I'm not a believer in organized religion but even I know that.

God made everything.

Everything includes mankind. so why could he not make mankind understand?

[but god is supposedly the all powerful being.

Meaning that he can do what ever he wants and will have no difficulty in achieving absolutely anything that he wants to.

Maybe he did explain it - using metaphors.

Why would god need metaphors

[but god is supposedly the all powerful being.

Meaning that he can do what ever he wants and will have no difficulty in achieving absolutely anything that he wants to.

Maybe he did explain it - using metaphors.

Why would god need metaphors

No God has ever been met as a personage.

No God has ever taken pen to paper

As such metaphors has only been used by man to convey their understanding/interpretation of who/what a god is &

what his/her god may demand

Then imagine trying to explain the Big Bang Theory to someone 3000 years ago.

Try explaining the Big Bang theory to me, now!

As I understand it, there was this lump of 'what'(?) existing, that was solid - no neutrons, no protons, no electrons, no gaps in between. Suddenly it explodes, turning miraculously into all the above, plus quarks, positrons and a dozen other bits and bobs. All these times 10 to the power of brazillion. And that was that, and is still going on.

Who lit the fuse?

[but god is supposedly the all powerful being.

Meaning that he can do what ever he wants and will have no difficulty in achieving absolutely anything that he wants to.

Maybe he did explain it - using metaphors.

Why would god need metaphors

Maybe he did not "need" them. Maybe they suited his purpose somehow.

If God exists (I believe He does, but I say 'if' for the sake of argument here), He must be far beyond our understanding; otherwise we would be God. How do you think God could propagate His message 2000 years ago without using metaphors? Even if He had used the findings of science as we now know it, it would have been totally incomprehensible to people of that period.

Christians believe He also gave us free will... to make as much of a mess of things as we like!

If God exists (I believe He does, but I say 'if' for the sake of argument here), He must be far beyond our understanding; otherwise we would be God. How do you think God could propagate His message 2000 years ago without using metaphors? Even if He had used the findings of science as we now know it, it would have been totally incomprehensible to people of that period.

Christians believe He also gave us free will... to make as much of a mess of things as we like!

If He is such a good fellow, why did he create man ignorant? Why has he left us to work it all out, use our free will, AND revere him and accept his omniscience and omnipotence on faith.

If he wants man to love him and follow his commandments, why just on faith? Surely, SURELY there would be less misery in the world if he proved himself once and for all.

He seems a very cruel, selfish, and spiteful god to me.

At least the Nordic, Greek and Roman gods consorted with Man from time to time to let their presence be known....but this guy, Yaweh, Jehovah, Allah, whatever name he goes by, expects everyone to believe in him while scattering his creations (aka scientific discoveries)around the place to put doubt on his very existance.

How do you think God could propagate His message 2000 years ago without using metaphors? Even if He had used the findings of science as we now know it, it would have been totally incomprehensible to people of that period.

He's god.

He can do anything. Absolutely anything he wants to. Anything imaginable and anything that we have not yet imagined. Absolutely anything without limitation. He would have made it comprehensible to people of that period because he can do anything. If he wanted to he could unmake people and remake them into people that could understand.

Again, he can do absolutely anything without limitation. Yet it would seem that he does have limitations after all.

[but god is supposedly the all powerful being.

Meaning that he can do what ever he wants and will have no difficulty in achieving absolutely anything that he wants to.

Maybe he did explain it - using metaphors.

Why would god need metaphors

Maybe he did not "need" them. Maybe they suited his purpose somehow.

Ah.

That old chestnut: "God works in mysterious ways"

[but god is supposedly the all powerful being.

Meaning that he can do what ever he wants and will have no difficulty in achieving absolutely anything that he wants to.

Maybe he did explain it - using metaphors.

Why would god need metaphors

No God has ever been met as a personage.

No God has ever taken pen to paper

So how did the bible come about?

So how did the bible come about?

Which bible?

We will assume the King James version?

The bible is the recounting of events.

For instance the new testament is the writings of apostles recounting their experiences.

Also remember the bible was not written in English. Folks translated it as best they could.

Folks like Shakespeare. Just in translation there is again a chance for misinterpretation of what the original diaries of these men contained. Perhaps not purposely but perhaps the translators thought they meant to write this instead of that etc. Also there is not always a word to convey every intent when transcribing one language to another

Again looking at the new testament as an example & the supposed recollection of men who were disciples of the man called Jesus

These men walked with him & yet their recounting does not all agree.

Lastly although these recounts were written by men they were as I said not only translated but they were also censored & changed further at different times throughout history.

But as I said No god has ever taken pen to paper.

All religious based scriptures were written by man.

Men who claimed to be inspired by a god but men none the less

Ah.

That old chestnut: "God works in mysterious ways"

There is reason why old chestnuts are old chestnuts.

How do you think God could propagate His message 2000 years ago without using metaphors? Even if He had used the findings of science as we now know it, it would have been totally incomprehensible to people of that period.

He's god.

He can do anything. Absolutely anything he wants to. Anything imaginable and anything that we have not yet imagined. Absolutely anything without limitation. He would have made it comprehensible to people of that period because he can do anything. If he wanted to he could unmake people and remake them into people that could understand.

Again, he can do absolutely anything without limitation. Yet it would seem that he does have limitations after all.

Self-imposed limitations? That, surely, is what free will means. Why, Harcourt? I don't know why... but at least He's more credible than the Nordic, Greek and Roman Gods you refer to (I don't know how anyone can ever have believed in them!)

Ah.

That old chestnut: "God works in mysterious ways"

There is reason why old chestnuts are old chestnuts.

Old chestnuts only last to become old chestnuts because they were good chestnuts in the first place.

How do you think God could propagate His message 2000 years ago without using metaphors? Even if He had used the findings of science as we now know it, it would have been totally incomprehensible to people of that period.

He's god.

He can do anything. Absolutely anything he wants to. Anything imaginable and anything that we have not yet imagined. Absolutely anything without limitation. He would have made it comprehensible to people of that period because he can do anything. If he wanted to he could unmake people and remake them into people that could understand.

Again, he can do absolutely anything without limitation. Yet it would seem that he does have limitations after all.

Self-imposed limitations? That, surely, is what free will means. Why, Harcourt? I don't know why... but at least He's more credible than the Nordic, Greek and Roman Gods you refer to (I don't know how anyone can ever have believed in them!)

That brings me to another question......Who is right? The Pope? Ayatolah Khameini? The Anglicans? Reverend Bob Clements of Hickory Valley, Tennesee? Rabbi Shlomo Amar?.....or Rabbi Yona Metger for that matter? Mullah Omar?.......Hey....how about Sri Bhakdivedanta Prahupada? ...Or Yogi Narayan?

The fact that none of the leaders of any religions can agree on every point of religion and scripture implies that not all of them are right......Which one is right?

Is it the one with the most popular following?

The oldest copies of scripture?

The most holy relics?

????

So how did the bible come about?

Which bible?

We will assume the King James version?

The bible is the recounting of events.

For instance the new testament is the writings of apostles recounting their experiences.

Also remember the bible was not written in English. Folks translated it as best they could.

Folks like Shakespeare. Just in translation there is again a chance for misinterpretation of what the original diaries of these men contained. Perhaps not purposely but perhaps the translators thought they meant to write this instead of that etc. Also there is not always a word to convey every intent when transcribing one language to another

Again looking at the new testament as an example & the supposed recollection of men who were disciples of the man called Jesus

These men walked with him & yet their recounting does not all agree.

Lastly although these recounts were written by men they were as I said not only translated but they were also censored & changed further at different times throughout history.

But as I said No god has ever taken pen to paper.

All religious based scriptures were written by man.

Men who claimed to be inspired by a god but men none the less

I agree with all this except maybe the bit, "Folks translated it as best they could". I believe they probably could have been more accurate but it was too good of an opportunity to pass up to add a few things or twist a few things for their own benefit.

Although I think I am as much the sceptic, I don\t think I am quite as much the cycnic.

How do you think God could propagate His message 2000 years ago without using metaphors? Even if He had used the findings of science as we now know it, it would have been totally incomprehensible to people of that period.

He's god.

He can do anything. Absolutely anything he wants to. Anything imaginable and anything that we have not yet imagined. Absolutely anything without limitation. He would have made it comprehensible to people of that period because he can do anything. If he wanted to he could unmake people and remake them into people that could understand.

Again, he can do absolutely anything without limitation. Yet it would seem that he does have limitations after all.

Self-imposed limitations? That, surely, is what free will means.

Free will.

Having to obey god's command and countless people being killed for not believing in him. It seem a case of: "You do whatever you want, provided you do exactly what I tell you to do" "Oh, and here's some metaphors for you to take literally for thousands of years"

Free will?

but at least He's more credible than the Nordic, Greek and Roman Gods you refer to (I don't know how anyone can ever have believed in them!)

Is he?

So how did the bible come about?

Which bible?

We will assume the King James version?

The bible is the recounting of events.

For instance the new testament is the writings of apostles recounting their experiences.

Also remember the bible was not written in English. Folks translated it as best they could.

Folks like Shakespeare. Just in translation there is again a chance for misinterpretation of what the original diaries of these men contained. Perhaps not purposely but perhaps the translators thought they meant to write this instead of that etc. Also there is not always a word to convey every intent when transcribing one language to another

Again looking at the new testament as an example & the supposed recollection of men who were disciples of the man called Jesus

These men walked with him & yet their recounting does not all agree.

Lastly although these recounts were written by men they were as I said not only translated but they were also censored & changed further at different times throughout history.

So basically then the bible that so many people follow so devoutly is a big bunch of ball-bags?

But as I said No god has ever taken pen to paper.

All religious based scriptures were written by man.

Men who claimed to be inspired by a god but men none the less

Men who were hearing voices in their heads?

I should have been a bit smarter, and realised that any post supporting religion will be wilfully misunderstood. I shall know better next time!

Willfully misunderstood?

On the contrary, some of us here are just trying to see some sense and logic in it all. Are we to just accept everything without question?

I should have been a bit smarter, and realised that any post supporting religion will be wilfully misunderstood. I shall know better next time!

I hate to be a pedant but you're talking about Christianity - not religion. It doesn't happen so much any more but it used to drive me wild when I went into a bookshop and found that the shelf labelled 'religion' only had books on Christianity on it. If you wanted a book on Buddhism or Shinto you had to go to the shelf labelled 'New Age' or 'Strange Foreign Nonsense'.

There is nothing after you die, you are just no longer there. All that remains are the memories of you held by others.

But that is you. The point I am making is *extremely complex* so I am going to boil it down to a scenario.

Imagine a future where people can be teleported to the moon. You are one of the workers who are on a monthly basis teleported to the moon. All other space flight is no longer possible because of too much space garbage blocking earth orbit. Then, while you are on the moon, a discovery is made that the teleporter does not transport you after all, but kills you and then makes a person that appears identical to you appear on the moon. That person has the memories of the dead person, has the same physical appearance, but the original person is long dead.

Would you, in order to return to your family back home, use the transporter?

A surprising number of people answer 'yes' to this even though that would involve dying, and them not seeing their family. So this suggest 'I' is not quite as bounded to are bodies as we might like to think. Indeed, it suggests the memories held by others are an absolute part of us. We want a copy of us to make our life with our family, and this is preferable to us staying alive.

I should have been a bit smarter, and realised that any post supporting religion will be wilfully misunderstood. I shall know better next time!

I do not have a problem with religion, but I am also not sure that it is real. The fact that there are so many different ones certainly throws me off.

Lastly although these recounts were written by men they were as I said not only translated but they were also censored & changed further at different times throughout history.

I agree with all this except maybe the bit, "Folks translated it as best they could". I believe they probably could have been more accurate but it was too good of an opportunity to pass up to add a few things or twist a few things for their own benefit.

Yes true but that was the other part I mentioned & quoted above.

At times in history times the church actually removed passages that they did not agree with.

For instance around 550 AD reincarnation references were removed from the bible at the Council meeting of the Catholic Church in Constantinople. That was as you say to twist things for their own benefit & solidify church control.