?

and be refreshed after resting?

Gen 2:2 And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.

Gen 2:3 And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.

Exd 20:11 For [in] six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them [is], and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

Exd 31:17 It [is] a sign between me and the children of Israel for ever: for [in] six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed.

I'm curious since one or more people were so deeply offended that my answer to the following question was reported twice. First, upon appeal, it was reinstated. Then it was reported again, removed again, and, upon appeal found to "violate" guidelines.

Question: Atheists: how do you explain the empty tomb?

My answer: How do you explain Poseidon's trident?

Are people incapable of understanding that my answer says I explain the empty tomb in the same way as that person would explain Poseidon's trident: mythical, non-existent?

As I have answered over 5000 questions and had only about 4 or 5 answers reported, 2 of which were reinstated (and 1 of which that was not reinstated being simply a bible verse directly from the bible in response to a question about the bible), this has me puzzled.

It's not remotely important, of course, but I just wondered if someone who is offended by it would tell me why?

Thanks!

Link to the original question and the answers which were not yanked: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AroRi...

Just got this in my email from a "true Christian" on Yahoo Answers:

"Subject: You never were a Christian

Message: You never were a Christian, you played at it for a while, got bored, or got offended and moved on... True ex-christians are very rare and they don't make asses of themselves on forums."

So, do you all agree that a total stranger can discern how someone once believed based on how they believe now? Do you agree that it is "Christian" to call someone an "***"?

and God had not punished humankind with death, would humans not have procreated? For if humans did not die but did have children, eventually there would be a population problem much, much worse than there is now. So do you think God never intended humans to live forever on earth or to never procreate or was he going to expand the earth or put us on different planets or.... what?

(Non-literalists and fellow nonbelievers are free to answer, of course, but I believe as many of you do regarding the non-literalness of the bible and am really just curious as to what the literalists will say.)

October 2-4 in Burbank? Richard Dawkins and Bill Maher will be there, among others. Including me. Wondering if I might run into any of you.

http://www.atheistconvention.org/

Thought some of you might be amused/appalled by this news story re. a religious fanatic who thought it was... Feel free to comment or answer my question. :)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090909/ap_on_re_la_am...

You tell us that God made us and loves us, yet you also tell us that only humans have eternal souls while all His other creations have very limited existences. In addition, while humans supposedly first "sinned" and brought "evil" into the world, animals, God's other creations, also suffer tremendously just as if they had sinned. Why? Oh, and if you are going to try to tell me He does love His other creations by allowing them to not live forever, then why would He not also allow us to not live forever?

Whenever I see Blacks preaching, singing gospel, witnessing, etc., I cannot help but wonder: do any of them ever think, "this religion was forced on my ancestors by their slave masters"? I also cannot help but think the slaves' descendants have traded one slave master for another: the Lord and Master Jesus, a "good master", but who, nevertheless, severely punishes those who do not do as they are told.

So my question is: have you ever considered these things?

A child who strives to be responsible by cleaning his room, feeding the pets, using good manners without having to be constantly rewarded (or promised rewards) or punished (or threatened with punishment) or a child who only does his chores and uses good manners if you constantly threaten him, punish him, promise to reward him at some future date and who sneaks around misbehaving knowing that, if he apologizes, you will forgive him?

As an atheist, I appreciate the first child more than the second. As a god, I think I would appreciate a human who was like the first child more than one who was like the second. Why would your god design a system in which the second child gets an ice cream cone (is rewarded with eternal life in paradise) while the first child gets a spanking (suffers unimaginable suffering for all eternity)?

The story of your deity is brutal, and he cannot be both "merciful" and "loving" and still send people to hell just for not believing in him, just for not "fearing" him. The mental gymnastics you must have to do to keep believing in this god!

~Atheist, agnostic, ex-fundie-xian

or does it have to be the Christian god?

If you say it has to be the Christian god you are saying that all Jews, all Hindus, all Muslims, all Wiccans, etc., are incapable of having morals.

If you say "any god will do", you are saying it is better to believe in a false god, a non-existent god, than in no god at all.

Or is there a third possibility that I have failed to see?

This question only applies to those who say we must believe in a god in order to be moral, but, of course, everyone is free to answer. You'll just be preaching to the choir if you are not of the targeted audience. :)

Those who believe in a young earth and in biblical literalism (and that is a fairly high number in the U.S.), calculate the flood to have been 4000 to 4500 years ago (about 1500 to 2000 years after the creation,). If the story is literal and accurate, there would be no continuing cultures from before the time of the flood to the time after the flood. Yet there were. Also, if there had been such a worldwide flood 4000 years ago, all archaeological finds from cultures older than 2000-2500 BC would have evidence of water damage. How do you explain this discrepancy?

when the male Christians go on and on about how much they "love Jesus!" It's a bit strange, seems to me. Could their extreme "love" of Jesus be an outlet for homosexual tendencies? Of course, I guess the same goes for the female Christians proclaiming such urgent love for Jesus. It too is quite erotic, highly emotional and sensual. But, of course, heterosexual. Since God, apparently, is male...

So many Christians here and elsewhere seem to think that "atheists believe in nothing", and that atheists are negative, angry, hateful, unfulfilled, not goal oriented, immoral, hedonistic misanthropes, etc., etc. How can you not know that there is so much wonder and beauty in this world and in this life regardless of whether or not one believes in a deity? Not believing in a god does not in any way mean we believe in nothing. Many of us believe in the potential of humans to do good, we believe in our family and friends, we believe in ourselves, we love, we are loved, we ponder the awesomeness of nature and the universe, we enjoy wonder, we love mystery and when we solve one mystery often new mysteries are born. Life is good even without gods, and life is even more precious without a belief in eternal life.

~Atheist, ex-fundie-Xian, former New Ager

If so, why did he not write down anything himself?

Were the disciples able to write? If so, why did they not write anything down themselves? (You know, I'm sure, that the gospels were not written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John...)

If you say Jesus could not write, well, what kind of an omnipotent, omniscient god would that be? If you say he DID write but we lost it, well, what kind of omnipotent, omniscient god would allow that to happen while safeguarding the hideous stories in the Old Testament?

Truly, why did Jesus not leave humankind a written document in his own hand, in his own words?

Jesus said to eat his body. Catholics believe they literally do so. Some protestants believe they do but only figuratively. A Catholic told me they eat "the whole body". Is it obscene to ask, "What part of him do I eat?"

Do I eat his ear? His arm? His spleen? What?

It is official. My response to a question of a previous asker has "violated community guidelines". All I asked, in response to a question regarding Jesus being the tree of life, was "what part of him do I have to eat?" YA has reviewed my appeal and found me in violation of their rules of conduct.

I had little if any respect for YA already. I think I'm in the negative amount now.

Sigh.

Does anyone here know where I can find an intelligent forum for intelligent debate in which the powers that be would not deem such a simple, silly question "obscene" or in "violation" of any rules of conduct?

Thanks in advance.

~Atheist, ex-fundie-Xian, former New Ager (responsible adult, parent, magna *** laude college grad)

Do you think Yahoo Answers will censor the bible if I quote the bit about eating one's own dung and drinking one's own piss?

I hope so. :)

2 Kings 18:27 (King James Version)

But Rabshakeh said unto them, Hath my master sent me to thy master, and to thee, to speak these words? hath he not sent me to the men which sit on the wall, that they may eat their own dung, and drink their own piss with you?

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=12&ch...

~Atheist and ex-fundie-Xian

I was reported to Yahoo answers and had my answer deleted. I had replied to a question regarding Jesus being the tree of the life from which we eat. My reply to the question was "what part of him do I have to eat". Funny that someone found that so obscene they felt they had to report it. Notice there were no dirty words. Anything obscene took place in the mind of the person reading, not in my post. :)

So, do Christians eat the body of Christ during communion or not? Is transubstantiation NOT a part of the Catholic belief system anymore? Is it obscene to speak of eating the body of Christ?

Would Yahoo Answers censor Jesus?

"Take, eat; this is my body." Matthew 26:26 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=47&ch...

I'm not talking about Adam and Eve 6000 years ago. I'm talking about after the flood when all human and animal life had been destroyed except for those on the ark. Old Noah and his old wife (who the bible never mentions them "begatting" any more children after the flood), and their 3 grown children with their spouses. So all the unthinkable numbers of animal life and all human life is now a result just of those few on the ark? In 4000 years? That's one heck of a lot of begatting going on and a remarkable survival rate.... (Oh, and if you haven't thought of this before, you do realize all that begatting was initially with 1st cousins, if not with brothers, sisters, parents...) And how did we "evolve" (if I can use that word here) into all the different races, colors, etc., from 3 couples in 4000 years?

Why do we go to Hell unless we repent and accept Jesus just because Adam and Eve disobeyed God? When your child disobeys you, do you get in your car, drive to the next county, and spank every child you see to punish them for your child's disobedience? Do you punish your child's children 30 years later for your child's disobedience? And, secondly, how could Adam and Eve, who were innocent, have truly "disobeyed" when, before they ate of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, they, well, had no knowledge of good and evil, and, thus, no concept of right or wrong, thus, no ability to "disobey" with the intention of disobeying... And, heck, in the Bible story, Eve hadn't even been created yet when God told Adam not to eat the fruit! (Depending on which version of the creation you follow, seeing as how there are two contradictory ones within the first two chapters of the Bible...)

and why it it almost never mentioned when you tell us the story of the Garden of Eden and the "fall" of mankind due to the other tree. If you read the story, it clearly states that God never did intend for humans to "live forever", not unless they remained ignorant of both good and evil. Why wouldn't God want humans to be able to discern good from evil? So he kicked them out of the garden lest they become like Him (the bible would have us say "them" for God speaks of Himself in the plural at that point). And then there is that pesky cherub set up to guard the tree.... Why don't your ministers preach on this topic? Why don't you ever mention it yourselves?

Genesis 3:22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

23Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.

24So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.