One Atheist take on three Biblical stories

reply to post by sk0rpi0n


Since the story was an oral tradition handed down for generations, I figure some interpretation is allowed. Maybe Cain thought that it was a good idea at the time and felt remorse when the deed was done. At that point his guilt made him try to cover it up. Could that have been why God was angry? It wasn't the whole hearted sacrifice he desired.

reply to post by Grimpachi


Grimpachi,

Sharing a fact, no prophecy, though I have a devotion to prophecy. Our Lord wants you to become
Roman Catholic. With all His Sacred Heart! Remember, okay?

This is the New Covenant, God has revealed the plan for creation in a much greater way than was shared in the Old Covenant. God, Our Lord Jesus Christ has come down from Heaven to reveal even more the love of God for humanity.

Why don't you share three objections to revelation about Jesus Christ?


God bless you,

reply to post by colbe


Why do YOU want me to become catholic?

Why would YOU want objections to the bible the thread isn't about objections or catholicism.

Did you misinterpret the OP? The irony wouldn't be lost on me if you did.

borracho
reply to post by Grimpachi

 

I know that this will not be well recieved by some. Regarding the story of Cain and Abel, I always thought that the reason that God favored Abels's sacrifice over Cains was because he raised and cared for the animal he sacrificed. That caused him to be attached to it and it was more of a personal sacrifice. Cain seeing this decided to make an even greater sacrifice by sacrificing his dear beloved brother. This had the oppostite of the desired effect and sent God into a an angered state. For this reason he cursed/protected Cain. Just my take on the story. Take it or leave it as you see fit.

I can just see God saying "Are you $%$% kidding me?" to Cain.

"Tomatoes? Really? You're going to give up tomatoes? Your brother gave up his pet lamb!" Then Cain's like "I'll teach you I'll sacrifice my brother!"

But I dunno it doesn't sound like the parts too well...certainly there's a good point to the rearing of the animal.

But I think the more important and central feature of the story is the Blood. Think about how important Blood is throughout the Bible. Even Christ's blood represented by the wine we drink.

Think about it this way.

There is no greater way to feel life leaving your body, then bleeding to death. In bleeding to death you go from warm and healthy, to a weak cold old man, in a matter of moments. And you literally feel the life sucking out of you. You don't just get tired and go to sleep, but like a straw sucking you dry, blood leaves you and leaves you feeling empty.

God built us in a way that Blood is significant. It isn't merely a fluid, another toe, that we can dispense with lightly.

Grimpachi
reply to post by colbe

 

Why do YOU want me to become catholic?

Why would YOU want objections to the bible the thread isn't about objections or catholicism.

Did you misinterpret the OP? The irony wouldn't be lost on me if you did.

Roman Catholicism is the Truth, it is THE faith. The thread title mentions a Catholic book, the Bible.

Well all the stories are highly allegorical. I do not take these literally. Adam and Eve was off planet, and being excluded from paradise meant spirit in human flesh, this is the fall. The serpent DNA and the story is about spirits fall into flesh.

colbe
Our Lord wants you to become Roman Catholic.

OH JUST STOP IT.


TO THE OP .... interesting reading but not really a surprise. Atheists find one kind of moral teaching in those stories whereas religiously indoctrinated people find another. I think they both are at opposite extremes. The truth is probably in the middle ... they are fables and folklore and so there are all sorts of 'moral teachings' people can find in them that may or may not have been the intent of the author. Kind of like looking at clouds in the sky and making shapes out of them ...

reply to post by FlyersFan


You are probably right about the intended moral being somewhere in the middle.

When I read the article I thought it was a interesting experiment. I have wondered what would another civilization think of those stories if all they had was the book and no one there to proclaim what they were supposed to mean. How would they interpret the stories.

We sort of do that now with hieroglyphics. Who knows what the moral to those stories were being taught back then.