guthmund

No one knows for sure which one is based on which or if they're even related at all. I mean, some would argue that both were drawn seperately from a common source much, much older than either the Hebrew (Noah) or Sumerian (Gilgamesh) versions. For the record, Gilgamesh isn't the Sumerian version of Noah. Gilgamesh was a Sumerian king, who after the death of his one time enemy and then dearest friend, Enkidu, developed a fear of death and began searching for immortality. He runs into Utnapishtim, who is comparable to the Biblical Noah.

Of course, I'm sure there are others here who are better versed in the Epic of Gilgamesh and the story of Noah's Flood who could elaborate on (and possibly, correct) what I've said.

I wasn't aware that Jesus performed any 'miracles' related to food at the last supper. I think you're confusing two stories, Jesus feeding the multitudes and the last supper. Although to be fair, it's been a while since I picked up the Bible.

I would think the standard answer to that would be, 'Jesus is God's son/extension of God on Earth, so he wouldn't have to play by the same rules. By extension, I would imagine as the blessed Son of God, Jesus could delegate what he wanted to when he wanted to do it. It would be his prerogative as he was 'special' and exempt from the rules laid forth.

Well, some would use Psalm 51:5 and John 9:34 to bolster their argument that all are born with sin and that the only way of salvation lies in Baptism. The Egyptians, not exactly a Christian God fearing people, wouldn't have Baptised their kids in the Christian tradition. So following that logic (and it's flawed on so many levels) the Egyptian first born would have been sinful since birth and not really innocent at all. It doesn't take a great leap of logic then to assume that God casting a plague down on the heathen Egyptians wouldn't be the same as God casting down a plague on the Hebrews, who were God's chosen people.

Now, don't get me wrong. I'm just playing devil's advocate here as I don't particularly agree with any of the arguments I've delivered. All that being said, there are many such conundrums in the Bible and by extension the Christian faith, but to be fair there are many such conundrums in the vast majority of other religions out there as well. It's all based on personal perception and our views, beliefs and justifications are all warped by that perception. It really just depends on where you're standing theologically.

Which brings us to this...

There should be no confusion. The problem is that you've picked a religion and are trying to conform and contort yourself and your beliefs to fit the system. It should really be the other way around. You should find out what it is you believe and then find the religion that fits you.

I choose to keep faith and religion seperate. I believe what I believe (my faith) and if I choose to share that faith with like minded people I pick the appropriate religion to share it with. Develop your faith first and then, if you desire, choose the religion that best fits that faith. If you choose to pick religion without faith, you're nothing more than a drone, repeating ad nauseum catechism and edicts to others that you may not truly believe yourself. You're doing yourself a great disservice and making a mockery of those that truly believe and the religion that you've chosen by doing nothing more than paying lip service to an idea you don't really believe in.

__________________
No signature. None. Seriously.