Is what the columbine kids did (going on a killing spree out of anger of not being accepted and being unloved) any different to when God killed everyone for not praising him in the (Noah's Ark) flood?

hardly anyone believes in the validity of the bible so i don't see your point

what i'd like to know is why would anyone want to throw away their life to go on a killing spree? I mean whatever anger you have could be used more constructively and in a manner that's life affirming.

I know quite a few people who live by the bible this is directed at those kinds I guess....

And yeah, I agree with the killing spree thing. However, I could see how it would be satisfying. Dont get me wrong I would never kill anyone, I dont hate anyone. BUT.... say there was some virtual reality type game, that seemed exactly like real life, I would probably kill people and have a whole lot of fun doing it. So I guess some people who actually go on killing sprees feel that way but lose the rationality to see that this is not a game and there will be consequences, not just to them but I mean people losing their lives also. Or just get to a point so far that they dont care. Who knows really

Do you think that the kids that were involved with the shooting were as conscious as God when he created the flood and do you think maybe there is something greater to the biblical story that what the church portrays?

I'm sure they felt somewhat godlike. They held the power over life and death for a few moments. And only a god can be concious like a god, anyway.

Whatever the Church has portrayed as the meaning of the flood stands at question. Interpretation of the Bible is suspect to many questions that don't always get answered. Sometimes a particular group of people in a church will try to find concrete answers in Biblical text. The major problem is that there are no concrete answers.

Can anyone completely trust the perspective of interpretation?

What are the differences between the Columbine shootings and the mythical story about the great flood?

It's a little ignorant to classify or find similaritiys between the columbine shootings and the great flood. There would be huge difference.
God created those beings, he demonstrated his power, jelosy, revenge, and love. What did the columbine shooters have to say... "we need to... kick start a revolution. We neeed to get a chain reaction going here". He wanted to start a chain of hate; god wanted to start a chain of love.

yeah its different, they were doing it bcuz they were mad, they counldt handle it anymore, people wre rude, god did it bcuz people wre sinning. yes making fun of someone is a sin of sorts, but its not like what they were doing when god destryed them all. God is god, those kids at colimbine dont have the right to decide who dies and who doesnt. tho ic an understand why they did what they did. if i had the guts i would probably do it t my school, then kill myself too. i mean that would be better than just going quietly, well maybe not, but i can understand, they had so much anger bottled up inside bcuz people have NO feelings, they just reacted.

It was not the case that Noah, if he existed, and his crew, were the only survivors of the Great Flood, which there is archaeological evidence for. The implication of this, of course, is that this means there could be other falsifications leading one to believe that the tale was a moral tale, folklore intended to guide, which is the Catholic Church's unofficial position, among the higher-ups, on most of Genesis.

ok, do you want to explain that again in english? for those of us stupid people?

Not an answer to the original question, just a fine point on the Noah thing. God didn't destroy people because they "weren't praising him". Genesis 6:4 refers to an interesting situation this isn't really mentioned again, that "the sons of God went to the daughters of men and had children by them." A generally accepted view held by many Bible scholars is that mankind had to be cleansed of this, to ensure that Jesus' lineage would be perfectly human. Noah's family was exempted because their offspring was free of this. It can be possibly interpreted that people knew that procreation with the sons of God was wrong; the implication of the 'wickedness of men' and the righteousness of Noah. It's arguable, but that's another debate.

Does this change the tenor of the argument? Probably not, but what the hey, thought I'd throw it in anyway.

since God is, by definition, omnipotent, the columbine kids were possible only through God. They were doing God's will, just as everything else does God's will; otherwise, God is not omnipotent.

God's Will aside, the question was:

It's hard to win a rational argument using bible quotations. There are too many contradicitons in it. Didn't Jesus say that whoever believed in him would have eternal life?

Convictions out rational thought should always win arguments. But in the real world things are not so.
When the day comes that we put aside our ideological differences for the benefit of life itself, then we can say that we have taken a giant step forward in progress.

Earth is Hell!

It will be if the Republicans continue to have their way.

Is Hell a place or an experience or both?
Is Heaven a place or an experience or both?

Heaven and Hell are imaginary places in monotheistic theological myths. Their supposed qualities are such that "hellish" and "heavenly" experiences have acquired their respective names from those myths.

So, what's the payback for someone like Hitler? Did he get away with killing 6 million Jews, amongs other crimes?

I have to agree with you Rick, but what are people who are unable to determine reality to do?
They have no option but to believe something!

This doesn't justify the actions of those who seek power and control over people, but to which 'body' can 'non-understanders' safely turn?

Who can they trust?

To them, we are just one-offs with our own ideas, which is in fact true!

I was brought up as a Christian and am grateful for it - it did me no harm, except that I had to just accept 'rogues who dumped on me'!

There came a time when I couldn't get sensible answers to my questions, and that was when I found a life without a God.
It gives one tremendous responsibilities when you have no God to blame for things; no-one to ask for forgiveness, no-one to provide comfort etc.
Even so, I still think my beliefs are more realistic than in a God.
Nonetheless, for the reasons I give above, I don't try to change someones beliefs unless they effectively ask me to. I know that belief in falsity is not ideal, but having nothing to be able to believe in is existence threatening for some folks.
And at the end of the day we are each entitled to choose in what we will believe. (Indoctrination apart).

Do you think I should be more pro-active, or does my reasoning seem sensible?

I am tending more toward activism, lately. I think belief in man and nature, being the true beliefs, are infinitely better than any comforting false beliefs. Give me reality, no matter how unpleasant compared to fantasy. One who sees the truth has a duty to inform his fellows. You are hereby informed.

"One who sees the truth has a duty to inform his fellows".

This is what all religions (or Muslim Fundamentalists) do and get away with it!

You might be right.

But what rules do you propose that your fellows should adopt for their own good and for the good of society?

Is this statement scientific?:
"Quite predictably, fossil records from the era in which historians now think that beliefs of an afterlife began indicate a concurrent expansion of the human skull around the frontal lobe of the brain, the location at which we appreciate our mortality. In essence, religion was born when we saw death coming."
I took it out of herehere

I don't think Rick needed to read the article to comment on the scientific merit of the statement. He is entitled to his point of view. I just don't think the statement has much merit because 1) the evidence for brain-enlargement based on skull casts is flimsy, 2) the relation between increase in brain-size and increase in frontal lobe size disregards the increases in size of many other brain others, 3) the relation between size of frontal lobes and appreciation of mortality takes the mistaken view of localization of function within the brain to a comic extreme, and 4) the statement seems more like wishful thinking and intellectual masturbation than anything scientific.

There is a good discussion of Gall's 'localization of function' at http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Workshop/4220/gall.html

Although the article is sympathetic to Gall's ideas, it does not change the fact that Gall was wrong; localization of function in the brain is a chimera and an attempt to overly-simplify something that is much more complicated.

Try reading Dr. Mautrice Bucke's 'Cosmic Consciousness'.