Any Christians want to take a stab at these?

Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Any Christians want to take a stab at these?

Matthew 5:37 Simply let your 'Yes' be 'Yes,' and your 'No,' 'No'; anything beyond this comes from the evil one.

Ok. Now... God has clearly laid out the rules. I just want you to follow them. I will ask questions with "Yes or No" answers, and you answer them. Ok?

1) The god of the old testament and new testament is the same entity. Yes or No?
"Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever." Hebrews 13:38 :: "I and the Father are one." John 10:30

2) God dictated Old Testament Law to the Israelites. Yes or No?

Leviticus 20:1 The LORD said to Moses, 2 "Say to the Israelites:" (Look this up if you like... Lots of laws follow. Virtually every chapter in the books of law begin with such a statement.)

3) Please review the following list of laws, taken directly from the Bible. Did God make these laws? Yes or No?

Quote:
9 " 'If anyone curses his father or mother, he must be put to death. He has cursed his father or his mother, and his blood will be on his own head.

10 " 'If a man commits adultery with another man's wife—with the wife of his neighbor—both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death.

11 " 'If a man sleeps with his father's wife, he has dishonored his father. Both the man and the woman must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

12 " 'If a man sleeps with his daughter-in-law, both of them must be put to death. What they have done is a perversion; their blood will be on their own heads.

13 " 'If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

14 " 'If a man marries both a woman and her mother, it is wicked. Both he and they must be burned in the fire, so that no wickedness will be among you.

15 " 'If a man has sexual relations with an animal, he must be put to death, and you must kill the animal.

16 " 'If a woman approaches an animal to have sexual relations with it, kill both the woman and the animal. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

17 " 'If a man marries his sister, the daughter of either his father or his mother, and they have sexual relations, it is a disgrace. They must be cut off before the eyes of their people. He has dishonored his sister and will be held responsible.

18 " 'If a man lies with a woman during her monthly period and has sexual relations with her, he has exposed the source of her flow, and she has also uncovered it. Both of them must be cut off from their people.

19 " 'Do not have sexual relations with the sister of either your mother or your father, for that would dishonor a close relative; both of you would be held responsible.

20 " 'If a man sleeps with his aunt, he has dishonored his uncle. They will be held responsible; they will die childless.

21 " 'If a man marries his brother's wife, it is an act of impurity; he has dishonored his brother. They will be childless.

4) Did God kill 42 children for calling a man "Baldhead?" Yes or No?
2 Kings 2: 23 From there Elisha went up to Bethel. As he was walking along the road, some youths came out of the town and jeered at him. "Go on up, you baldhead!" they said. "Go on up, you baldhead!" 24 He turned around, looked at them and called down a curse on them in the name of the LORD. Then two bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the youths.

5) Do you believe these laws, commands, and actions by God are loving and good? Yes or No?

Remember guys -- NO CHEATING. I've just quoted directly from the Bible. I've not taken anything out of context. God has instructed you that you should answer only yes or no. Stick to it!

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Whoops! in question 4 I

Whoops! in question 4 I said "killed" instead of "mauled." Sorry!

The question should read, "Did God maul 42 children for calling a man 'baldhead'?"

Sorry about that!

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Voided
Posts: 1195
Joined: 2006-02-20
User is offlineOffline
Dude please tell me you're

Dude please tell me you're making that into a flyer.


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
I can't help noticing the

I can't help noticing the sound of crickets chirping.

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Voided
Posts: 1195
Joined: 2006-02-20
User is offlineOffline
Maybe if you send it to one

Maybe if you send it to one of those christian help sites.


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
The silence is deafening.

The silence is deafening.

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
43 reads and nobody's giving

43 reads and nobody's giving it a shot.

(hambydammit hums the jeopardy tune to himself)

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
I kinda don't think there's

I kinda don't think there's gonna be one. Laughing out loud


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
(Picture me walking around

(Picture me walking around my room doing the chicken dance and clucking maniacally)

Yeah, and I'm going to keep this damn thing at the top of the active threads anyway.

Oh... 49 reads and counting.

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Of course we don't know how

Of course we don't know how many of the reads were from atheists, either.


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Ok, this is true, but I

Ok, this is true, but I think judging by how fast a thread discussing, say, the nature of reality vs. the supernatural gets jumped on, we can safely assume that some Christians have read this.

Can't admins look at all the pages someone's been to if they're online?

(Not that I'd want to publicly point out if some of the more outspoken apologists had viewed this and didn't want to chime in... )

Anyway, I can keep this thing at the top of active posts for a long time.

Oh.. 59 reads.

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Still Waiting. 66 reads.

Still Waiting.

66 reads.

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Voided
Posts: 1195
Joined: 2006-02-20
User is offlineOffline
I don't think a lot of

I don't think a lot of people who post here are what you would call theist. You probably won't get a response till you start asking them directly.


neon
neon's picture
Posts: 151
Joined: 2006-02-20
User is offlineOffline
I'm reader #79... Anyhoo, it

I'm reader #79...

Anyhoo, it seems Christians do the stare-and-stammer thing whenever you ask them about something really violent or horrible.

If any of them come look at this, expect one or two of the 'they deserved it because they were sinners' types, and some more of the 'you're taking it out of context' crap. Both of which are untrue, of course, but those are the stock fundamentalist answers.


Randalllord
Rational VIP!
Randalllord's picture
Posts: 690
Joined: 2006-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit, I did a similar

Hambydammit,
I did a similar thing a few weeks ago. 170 views and not one response from a defending xian:

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forums/sapient/atheist_vs_theist/question_for_our_christian_visitors

Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful. - Seneca


Voided
Posts: 1195
Joined: 2006-02-20
User is offlineOffline
neon wrote:I'm reader

neon wrote:
I'm reader #79...

Anyhoo, it seems Christians do the stare-and-stammer thing whenever you ask them about something really violent or horrible.

If any of them come look at this, expect one or two of the 'they deserved it because they were sinners' types, and some more of the 'you're taking it out of context' crap. Both of which are untrue, of course, but those are the stock fundamentalist answers.


ROTF I once used context to show it was really violent. It was kind of interesting as he hasn't responded to it. Maybe there is something he could say to it, but it wasn't like he said he was done or anything so I don't know.


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
92 reads and counting. It's

92 reads and counting. It's definitely slowed down. I think most of the outspoken apologists have read it and moved on to more fertile soil.

Adamgrant had a good go at the verse that says "let your yes be yes and your no no" on another thread. It is an argument most theists don't voice, whether they think about it or not. (The smarter ones don't voice it because they know it's a trap.)

Anyway, the argument is that the "yes, yes, no, no" verse is taken out of context and that Jesus has been speaking about oaths.

It is entirely true that Jesus has mentioned oaths before giving the instructions to let your yes be yes and your no, no. The kicker is that Jesus instructed Christians not to swear any oaths. Period. Since a legal document is a written oath, that means Christians cannot buy anything on credit, sign a lease, own a house, or get a passport to travel abroad.

The only reasonable conclusion is that Jesus was speaking metaphorically, and one could quite reasonably conclude that he was pointing out the evil of convoluting things, as that path leads to deception. So, the moral of the story is to speak clearly and simply, and they still can't answer my questions because of where it would lead.

(Also, it's fun to make the argument that Jesus told Christians to never swear oaths, and sucker the apologist into admitting that it's metaphorical. I wish I had done that beforehand so I could have gotten a Christian to tell me that Jesus was speaking of how Christians should answer directly without being convoluted. Next time, I'll let them bait their own hook before they bite it.)

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


GodStoleMyFriends
GodStoleMyFriends's picture
Posts: 173
Joined: 2006-08-09
User is offlineOffline
The thoughts of a Christian

The thoughts of a Christian after reading the original post:

"HUMPH! This guy is so wrong...so idiotic that he doesn't even deserve a reponse! He's going to Hell, praise Jesus."

"If only God would give me some clear sign! Like making a large deposit in my name at a Swiss Bank."-Woody Allen

"Atheism is life affirming in a way religion can never be."-Richard Dawkins


darth_josh
High Level DonorHigh Level ModeratorGold Member
darth_josh's picture
Posts: 2650
Joined: 2006-02-27
User is offlineOffline
Only count me for four or so

Only count me for four or so of those reads. One or two anon I think.

These same examples have been raised multiple times on another message board that I frequent. It shuts the thread down for a few days but they eventually come back to it.

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
122 reads, no response. I'm

122 reads, no response.

I'm so sad.

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
131 Victory by silence is

131

Victory by silence is hollow, because the silence means that in spite of the obvious conclusion that Christianity is shit, nobody who's read this is going to leave it. They're just going to ignore it and go on with the delusion.

I worry sometimes that the arguments here are a game for the Christians. Maybe it's about winning and losing -- not about whether or not there's a possibility of changing anyone's mind.

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
141 I'm just going to have

141

I'm just going to have to reprint this with a new topic.

It's getting boring talking to myself about this.

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


neon
neon's picture
Posts: 151
Joined: 2006-02-20
User is offlineOffline
Sorry. I did read it

Sorry. Sad

I did read it another couple of times...


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
192 reads, no

192 reads, no response.

(sigh)

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
And almost a week now.....

And almost a week now.....


Randalllord
Rational VIP!
Randalllord's picture
Posts: 690
Joined: 2006-04-12
User is offlineOffline
The Xian's must be waiting

The Xian's must be waiting for God to give them the answer before they respond. We'll be waiting for a long time!

Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful. - Seneca


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
:: As soon as the tooth

:ROTF: As soon as the tooth fairy and Easter Bunny weigh in!


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
(picture me standing in the

(picture me standing in the Captain Morgan pose with one foot on a stack of bibles)

The thing that pisses me off is that out of the 222 views, I bet at least 100 have been xtians, and I have no doubts that all of them read it, then cursed my name all the way to sunday school.

I've been having a pretty serious internal debate about my goals as an atheist, and this "hollow victory by silence," has made it easier for me to remember why I'm here.

I have no misconceptions about my ability to win an argument on the internet. You guys have heard the joke, right?

Why is arguing over the internet like competing in the special olympics? Because even if you win, you're still a tard.

Ok... not PC, not even all that funny a joke, but I try to remember it as my mantra when I start getting frustrated at the xtians and their bullshit. My purpose in being here is to support other atheists. The more atheists who see that there are a lot of us out here, the more "closet atheists" will be brave enough to come forward. Once we realize our true numbers, we'll also realize we have this thing called...(dramatic pause) POLITICAL POWER! The power to take all of the stupid xtian laws off the books, to allow stem cell research, promote safe sex, protect abortion rights, and maybe even encourage it in some cases, etc... etc...

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
That's true. Imagine if

That's true. Imagine if there were all kinds of repressive laws out there based on belief in the tooth fairy? Or if restaurants were only allowed to serve spaghetti on Fridays out of deference to the Flying Spaghetti Monster?

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


darth_josh
High Level DonorHigh Level ModeratorGold Member
darth_josh's picture
Posts: 2650
Joined: 2006-02-27
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote: Why is

Hambydammit wrote:

Why is arguing over the internet like competing in the special olympics? Because even if you win, you're still a tard.

Ok... not PC, not even all that funny a joke, but I try to remember it as my mantra when I start getting frustrated at the xtians and their bullshit.

LMAO.
It's been a week. Have you sent it out on Myspace?
If it's still here next week with no attempted responses then I'll put on my robes, grab my bible, and play apologetic.

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.


MarthaSplatterhead (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
(261 reads, Sorry I'm not a

(261 reads, Sorry I'm not a xtain) In your quoted area of the laws in the bible I just want to say that these were laws at one time in the past for a reason. People were having sex with animals back then and men were marrying a woman and her mother, etc. It might go on today but I just wanted to note that these wouldn't have been made illegal if it wasn't going on. wtf Right?


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
(picture me rolling on the

(picture me rolling on the floor holding my sides)

That would be too funny.

Next week! You and me. I'll be Hambydammit Skywalker, and you be Darth Josh, and we'll just see whether evil will win because good is dumb!

I haven't sent it out on myspace because I really use myspace for just my friends, and have a private account. I have a livejournal account that's public, though, and it's met with total silence as well.

If you're interested, it's hambydammit/livejournal.com. A good number of repeats from this site, but lots of stuff that I don't post here, too.

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Quote:these wouldn't have

Quote:
these wouldn't have been made illegal if it wasn't going on. wtf Right?

Another joke comes to mind... The English say it's the bloody peasants. The bloody peasants say it's the Irish. The Irish say it's the Scots. Well, fuck all of them! I say it's the sheep who are the sluts.

See, back in the bible days, people were a lot closer to nature than they are now. It got mighty cold out on the desert at night, and those tents just weren't as insulated as our lovely western style condominiums. If you happened to be out tending the sheep and got cold, how are you going to get warm? You're going to make friends with your favorite sheep. And (making lots of assumptions here... namely that marthasplatterhead is female, and likes men... sorry if I assume wrong) if you've ever slept with a man for more than two or three nights, you know we wake up with, um... certain... um... risen situations pretty damn often. Well, it's cold, you're cuddling, you're half asleep... that wool is so soft against your skin...

Ok... I'm creeping myself out. Watch. I'm finally going to get some theist on here to argue, but it's going to be because I made a joke about the ancient Hebrews screwing sheep.

More to your point, marthasplatterhead, yes, people were screwing animals, and their mother-in-laws, and their mother-in-laws' sisters, and their cousins, and those cute little boys with the firm thighs that hung out down near Lester's farm. Still do all of that in parts of Mississippi. Trust me. I've been there... I left as fast as I could.

Even more to the point, the primary reason for the draconian laws regarding sex in most parts of the ancient world (not just the middle east) was that the entire system was based on a man having absolute control over a woman. It had little or nothing to do with the "inherent goodness" of anything, including monogamy. (Notice that the more powerful men in the world have always been mainly polygamous, one way or another.) If you had two or more men who'd been "knowing" a woman, you ended up with two men fighting, and this was generally discouraged as bad for keeping the army together. It also messed up the distribution of wealth from father to son, and generally stunk of male weakness. After all, if you can't keep your woman barefoot and pregnant, what good are you as a man?

Ok. I'm going to finally get my argument, but it's going to be over sex, not my original, damn near infallible proof that God is a misogynistic, egomaniacal, abusive rat-bastard -- or that he doesn't exist.

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


MarthaSplatterhead (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
:: (yes, me=female) That is

:ROTF: (yes, me=female) That is too funny-

Hambydammit wrote:
Well, it's cold, you're cuddling, you're half asleep... that wool is so soft against your skin...

Btw, it still doesn't really qualify as an arguement since you just restated what I said about this stuff going on. Sorry, dammit. (I hope my kidding comes across okay. Sometimes it's hard for me to get that across when I write instead of speaking directly).


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Yeah, despite my best

Yeah, despite my best efforts, I find it difficult to argue with people who agree with me. That whole thing about me being correct and other people admitting it...

Seriously, I've tried very hard before to explain to people that the age of a moral standard has little or no bearing on its relevance as an ethical indicator. In fact, it can be said that with many moral standards, the older they are, the less likely they are to be relevant, since we've made significant strides in ethics in just the last century. Slavery, racism, sexism... these are things that have been condoned by many civilized cultures until very recently. If we believe that these things are wrong, why would we turn around and assume that old laws regarding sexual behavior would be sacrosanct because of their age?

Ok, for the record, I'm basically against having sex with sheep, but that's more a matter of asthetics... Barf!

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Liam_M
Liam_M's picture
Posts: 16
Joined: 2006-10-19
User is offlineOffline
I just hurled it to the

I just hurled it to the masses via myspace. I may not have many xtians on there, but hopefully some fellow atheists will read and enjoy.

Theism is for n00bs.


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Don't be surprised if it

Don't be surprised if it gets deleted - MySpace is owned by FAUX News, and I read they recently have strict rules on what they allow there.

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Yeah... you can spam people

Yeah... you can spam people with shit about private cam shows and college girls going wild, but you can't say the word atheist too loud.

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Randalllord
Rational VIP!
Randalllord's picture
Posts: 690
Joined: 2006-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote:Yeah...

Hambydammit wrote:
Yeah... you can spam people with shit about private cam shows and college girls going wild, but you can't say the word atheist too loud.

That's because Atheism is to Jesus as Kryptonite is to Superman.

Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful. - Seneca


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
HA! 337 God Damn

HA!

337

God Damn IT!

Somebody offer some resistance, please?!?!

(errr... Holy Spirit Damn It..... Damn the holy Casper... Casper the friendly misogynist.... what do I have to do to go to hell?)

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Seriously. Somebody give

Seriously.

Somebody give them a stab?!

337 views, and nobody wants to touch this. Could it be that your religion is BULLSHIT?! Defend it!

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


darth_josh
High Level DonorHigh Level ModeratorGold Member
darth_josh's picture
Posts: 2650
Joined: 2006-02-27
User is offlineOffline
Acting christian apologist

Acting christian apologist darth_josh reporting as planned, my group of wayward sinning infidels.
Hell awaits your immortal souls for testing the lord thy god, his holy embodiment in the form of his son, and the spirit everlasting.

Hambydammit wrote:
Matthew 5:37 Simply let your 'Yes' be 'Yes,' and your 'No,' 'No'; anything beyond this comes from the evil one.

One must remember to take the full message of the gospel into account before putting limitations upon god or his messengers.
Prior to this verse there is also:
5:34 But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God's throne:

When I read this, it means that my answers to your questions are mine alone. god, in his ultimate wisdom, has kept his plan to himself. He has done this, in my opinion, to shield us from the truths that we must face one day.

Quote:
Ok. Now... God has clearly laid out the rules. I just want you to follow them. I will ask questions with "Yes or No" answers, and you answer them. Ok?

1) The god of the old testament and new testament is the same entity. Yes or No?
"Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever." Hebrews 13:38 :: "I and the Father are one." John 10:30

Yes.

Quote:
2) God dictated Old Testament Law to the Israelites. Yes or No?

Yes. Old Testament Law.

Quote:
Leviticus 20:1 The LORD said to Moses, 2 "Say to the Israelites:" (Look this up if you like... Lots of laws follow. Virtually every chapter in the books of law begin with such a statement.)

Yes. The laws of the Israelites

Quote:
3) Please review the following list of laws, taken directly from the Bible. Did God make these laws? Yes or No?

Yes. The laws of the Israelites

Quote:
9 " 'If anyone curses his father or mother, he must be put to death. He has cursed his father or his mother, and his blood will be on his own head.

10 " 'If a man commits adultery with another man's wife—with the wife of his neighbor—both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death.

11 " 'If a man sleeps with his father's wife, he has dishonored his father. Both the man and the woman must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

12 " 'If a man sleeps with his daughter-in-law, both of them must be put to death. What they have done is a perversion; their blood will be on their own heads.

13 " 'If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

14 " 'If a man marries both a woman and her mother, it is wicked. Both he and they must be burned in the fire, so that no wickedness will be among you.

15 " 'If a man has sexual relations with an animal, he must be put to death, and you must kill the animal.

16 " 'If a woman approaches an animal to have sexual relations with it, kill both the woman and the animal. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

17 " 'If a man marries his sister, the daughter of either his father or his mother, and they have sexual relations, it is a disgrace. They must be cut off before the eyes of their people. He has dishonored his sister and will be held responsible.

18 " 'If a man lies with a woman during her monthly period and has sexual relations with her, he has exposed the source of her flow, and she has also uncovered it. Both of them must be cut off from their people.

19 " 'Do not have sexual relations with the sister of either your mother or your father, for that would dishonor a close relative; both of you would be held responsible.

20 " 'If a man sleeps with his aunt, he has dishonored his uncle. They will be held responsible; they will die childless.

21 " 'If a man marries his brother's wife, it is an act of impurity; he has dishonored his brother. They will be childless.

Yes. These were very important to the Israelites

Quote:
4) Did God kill 42 children for calling a man "Baldhead?" Yes or No?
2 Kings 2: 23 From there Elisha went up to Bethel. As he was walking along the road, some youths came out of the town and jeered at him. "Go on up, you baldhead!" they said. "Go on up, you baldhead!" 24 He turned around, looked at them and called down a curse on them in the name of the LORD. Then two bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the youths.

Yes. It says 'tare' in the KJV which means to remove weeds from a good field in that time. Essentially, the mocking children were not good children. Elisha was going into meet Jeroham, Jehosaphat, and the king of Edom. The lesson of the 'taring of the children' is a precursor to separating the Moabites from the Israelites.
Again, one must consider the broader picture of the testimony. god's lesson plan often works in this way. Terrible events such as the deaths of the bad children are prophecies. Bethel was a town in the north on the border which was probably mixed with Israelite, Moabite, and others. The bad children MAY have been Moabite.

Quote:
5) Do you believe these laws, commands, and actions by God are loving and good? Yes or No?

Yes. The Israelites lived in the time before the rest of the world was ready for the love that god brings to it through his embodiment, the son jesus christ.

Quote:
Remember guys -- NO CHEATING. I've just quoted directly from the Bible. I've not taken anything out of context. God has instructed you that you should answer only yes or no. Stick to it!

Actually, I did point out where you took it out of context. While god is/has/will be always the same, humankind has had to grow in the spirit. Remember that god's love is evidenced by his open-mindedness towards man. Moses plead for the lives of the Israelites several times during the Exodus. god's mercy was shown to them just as it is to us through jesus christ.

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.


MarthaSplatterhead (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
darth_josh wrote:Acting

darth_josh wrote:
Acting christian apologist darth_josh reporting as planned, my group of wayward sinning infidels.
Hell awaits your immortal souls for testing the lord thy god, his holy embodiment in the form of his son, and the spirit everlasting.

Hambydammit wrote:
Matthew 5:37 Simply let your 'Yes' be 'Yes,' and your 'No,' 'No'; anything beyond this comes from the evil one.

One must remember to take the full message of the gospel into account before putting limitations upon god or his messengers.
Prior to this verse there is also:
5:34 But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God's throne:

When I read this, it means that my answers to your questions are mine alone. god, in his ultimate wisdom, has kept his plan to himself. He has done this, in my opinion, to shield us from the truths that we must face one day.

Quote:
Ok. Now... God has clearly laid out the rules. I just want you to follow them. I will ask questions with "Yes or No" answers, and you answer them. Ok?

1) The god of the old testament and new testament is the same entity. Yes or No?
"Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever." Hebrews 13:38 :: "I and the Father are one." John 10:30

Yes.

Quote:
2) God dictated Old Testament Law to the Israelites. Yes or No?

Yes. Old Testament Law.

Quote:
Leviticus 20:1 The LORD said to Moses, 2 "Say to the Israelites:" (Look this up if you like... Lots of laws follow. Virtually every chapter in the books of law begin with such a statement.)

Yes. The laws of the Israelites

Quote:
3) Please review the following list of laws, taken directly from the Bible. Did God make these laws? Yes or No?

Yes. The laws of the Israelites

Quote:
9 " 'If anyone curses his father or mother, he must be put to death. He has cursed his father or his mother, and his blood will be on his own head.

10 " 'If a man commits adultery with another man's wife—with the wife of his neighbor—both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death.

11 " 'If a man sleeps with his father's wife, he has dishonored his father. Both the man and the woman must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

12 " 'If a man sleeps with his daughter-in-law, both of them must be put to death. What they have done is a perversion; their blood will be on their own heads.

13 " 'If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

14 " 'If a man marries both a woman and her mother, it is wicked. Both he and they must be burned in the fire, so that no wickedness will be among you.

15 " 'If a man has sexual relations with an animal, he must be put to death, and you must kill the animal.

16 " 'If a woman approaches an animal to have sexual relations with it, kill both the woman and the animal. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

17 " 'If a man marries his sister, the daughter of either his father or his mother, and they have sexual relations, it is a disgrace. They must be cut off before the eyes of their people. He has dishonored his sister and will be held responsible.

18 " 'If a man lies with a woman during her monthly period and has sexual relations with her, he has exposed the source of her flow, and she has also uncovered it. Both of them must be cut off from their people.

19 " 'Do not have sexual relations with the sister of either your mother or your father, for that would dishonor a close relative; both of you would be held responsible.

20 " 'If a man sleeps with his aunt, he has dishonored his uncle. They will be held responsible; they will die childless.

21 " 'If a man marries his brother's wife, it is an act of impurity; he has dishonored his brother. They will be childless.

Yes. These were very important to the Israelites

Quote:
4) Did God kill 42 children for calling a man "Baldhead?" Yes or No?
2 Kings 2: 23 From there Elisha went up to Bethel. As he was walking along the road, some youths came out of the town and jeered at him. "Go on up, you baldhead!" they said. "Go on up, you baldhead!" 24 He turned around, looked at them and called down a curse on them in the name of the LORD. Then two bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the youths.

Yes. It says 'tare' in the KJV which means to remove weeds from a good field in that time. Essentially, the mocking children were not good children. Elisha was going into meet Jeroham, Jehosaphat, and the king of Edom. The lesson of the 'taring of the children' is a precursor to separating the Moabites from the Israelites.
Again, one must consider the broader picture of the testimony. god's lesson plan often works in this way. Terrible events such as the deaths of the bad children are prophecies. Bethel was a town in the north on the border which was probably mixed with Israelite, Moabite, and others. The bad children MAY have been Moabite.

Quote:
5) Do you believe these laws, commands, and actions by God are loving and good? Yes or No?

Yes. The Israelites lived in the time before the rest of the world was ready for the love that god brings to it through his embodiment, the son jesus christ.

Quote:
Remember guys -- NO CHEATING. I've just quoted directly from the Bible. I've not taken anything out of context. God has instructed you that you should answer only yes or no. Stick to it!

Actually, I did point out where you took it out of context. While god is/has/will be always the same, humankind has had to grow in the spirit. Remember that god's love is evidenced by his open-mindedness towards man. Moses plead for the lives of the Israelites several times during the Exodus. god's mercy was shown to them just as it is to us through jesus christ.

Finally, some response. And it took an atheist to do it. Good job darth_josh at being a fine devil's advocate. Evil

darth_josh wrote:
In order to truly hate something, one must fully understand it.

Indeed.


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Wow, Darth!

Wow, Darth!

I admit it, I'm impressed.

I'm not kidding. I've not seen that good of an argument from a Christian... ever. You should switch sides, dude. I suspect that your knowledge of the logical pitfalls made it easier for you to avoid them as much as possible, or hide them very well.

Ok. Let's see...

Quote:
When I read this, it means that my answers to your questions are mine alone. god, in his ultimate wisdom, has kept his plan to himself. He has done this, in my opinion, to shield us from the truths that we must face one day.

Here's your problem. If that's what it said, in plain English, or Hebrew, or Celtic, for that matter, I'd be happy to go along with you. To put things in context, you have to look at the whole paragraph. Without mincing any words, Jesus is talking about swearing oaths. Even so, it's possible that he's speaking metaphorically. I'll grant you that. However, if he is, there are lots of more likely explanations than yours. There's no reference to God's plan, or of him divulging his plan or keeping it to himself. None. If you were in English 101 in high school, you'd get an F for your interpretation because there's no basis for it.

Even if Jesus expected his word to be read metaphorically, he would have to give us some clue as to where to go with it. Otherwise, we're right back to a "He said, She said" kind of argument in which God becomes completely unknowable, and your explanation is bunk anyway.

So, either make with the defense for your non-literal reading, or abandon it.

Quote:
Yes. The laws of the Israelites

So, before Jesus, you're saying that God was not concerned with anyone except the Israelites? He didn't give laws to anyone but them? (This is a simple yes or no question as well!)

Quote:
Yes. The Israelites lived in the time before the rest of the world was ready for the love that god brings to it through his embodiment, the son jesus christ.

So you're saying that before Jesus came to earth, man was different than he is today -- more evil, maybe? Or less able to understand simple instructions? Imbued with less conscience? There are lots of possibilities here, but here's the main point. People changed. You have several questions to answer here, you spunky theist, you...
1) How did they change? Evolution, maybe? Didn't see that question coming, did you!?

2) If not evolution, did God change them all at once? What about the people who were born before Jesus died, but outlived him? Did they suddenly become fundamentally different creatures? Or were they under O.T. law?

3) What is your Biblical proof of your answer to questions number 1 and 2?

4) Let's assume your point is valid. Before Jesus, the rest of the world was not ready for the love of God. This is still deflecting from the question. Even if these laws were only for the Israelites, you still seem to be saying that execution is a suitable punishment for a child cursing his parent. Is that so? This would clearly be an Israelite child, not a Moabite child.

Quote:
Actually, I did point out where you took it out of context. While god is/has/will be always the same, humankind has had to grow in the spirit.

No, I pointed out where you were ignoring the context and substituting your own baseless interpretation. Make with the basis or abandon this argument.

I skipped one earlier...

Quote:
The lesson of the 'taring of the children' is a precursor to separating the Moabites from the Israelites.

Ok, so we're still back at the same argument. You're saying one of two things. Either A) It is good for God to maul 42 Moabite children for calling a man baldhead, or B) It is good for God to maul 42 Israelite children for the same thing.

If A, then God is a racist son of a bitch, wouldn't you agree? Why pick one little nation to treat favorably (if you call all the torment he put them through favorable treatment!) and then kick the shit out of everyone else for not being born Jewish? Isn't it God's fault for making them heathens? They didn't ask to be born.

If B, then he's still a son of a bitch for making a race so stupid that he had to maul 42 kids to teach them a lesson about how they were not being racist enough.

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


darth_josh
High Level DonorHigh Level ModeratorGold Member
darth_josh's picture
Posts: 2650
Joined: 2006-02-27
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote:Wow,

Hambydammit wrote:
Wow, Darth!

I admit it, I'm impressed.

I'm not kidding. I've not seen that good of an argument from a Christian... ever. You should switch sides, dude. I suspect that your knowledge of the logical pitfalls made it easier for you to avoid them as much as possible, or hide them very well.

For me, there are no sides. All of humanity must one day face the fact of evolution or become extinct by their own ignorance. Expecting the sky-daddy to come and fix everything isn't a very proactive approach to solving the existing problems or potential future problems with our present world. We've got to build a bridge using science and get over the river of superstition. (Fucking metaphors. I hope y'all get the point.)

Anyway, back to pretend theism.

Quote:

Ok. Let's see...

Quote:
When I read this, it means that my answers to your questions are mine alone. god, in his ultimate wisdom, has kept his plan to himself. He has done this, in my opinion, to shield us from the truths that we must face one day.

Here's your problem. If that's what it said, in plain English, or Hebrew, or Celtic, for that matter, I'd be happy to go along with you. To put things in context, you have to look at the whole paragraph. Without mincing any words, Jesus is talking about swearing oaths. Even so, it's possible that he's speaking metaphorically. I'll grant you that. However, if he is, there are lots of more likely explanations than yours. There's no reference to God's plan, or of him divulging his plan or keeping it to himself. None. If you were in English 101 in high school, you'd get an F for your interpretation because there's no basis for it.

How would you see the reference to Matthew 5:34? I see it as a commandment that my answers are not god's answers. My reference to god's plan is simply that. I am but a child in the kingdom of god. The lord need not explain his actions to me in order to save me and allow his grace in heaven to reveal all to us at his chosen time. As a christian, I am given the scripture to learn how to interact with god and his embodied spirit in the form of jesus christ.

So many atheists see the good book as a rulebook instead of a guidebook. This is the tail end of the sermon on the mount. In order to place the answers of YES/NO in context then the choices offered by jesus in the form of the beattitudes must be considered. The fulfillment of the law was the teaching of these ways to all people.

Quote:
Even if Jesus expected his word to be read metaphorically, he would have to give us some clue as to where to go with it. Otherwise, we're right back to a "He said, She said" kind of argument in which God becomes completely unknowable, and your explanation is bunk anyway.

jesus did the best that he could do with the disciples that he chose, in my opinion. Had jesus been sent primarily for the jews then his teachings would have been laid down the same way as the prophets of the old testaments were. jesus came to explain the methods by which to live by the law by preempting the emotions that caused man to commit sins. For instance, instead of 'don't kill your brother' jesus says, 'don't even get angry with your brother.' Instead of 'don't commit adultery', jesus says, 'don't even look at another woman in lust.' This is a very proactive approach to fulfilling the old testament laws.

god is unknowable to us mortals. However, when we die that piece of our being that holds our true self, the consciousness, passes from this world. I know that it may be hard for you to deal with the fact that science cannot answer the questions concerning the soul.

Quote:
So, either make with the defense for your non-literal reading, or abandon it.

That is my best defense. The literal reading of the bible will make you fear god unless you open your mind to the awe of his power and then learn respect. I concede that some places in the bible make god appear to be cruel. However, sometimes it is important to punish children in order for them to grow. And obviously, we have grown in our understanding of why things are so. We do not have the same problems that the Israelites faced. Obviously, the world is under the plan of god to lift us up from ignorance into the knowledge of the unknowable.

Quote:
Quote:
Yes. The laws of the Israelites

So, before Jesus, you're saying that God was not concerned with anyone except the Israelites? He didn't give laws to anyone but them? (This is a simple yes or no question as well!)

Yes. Not for the reason that you might think though. To offer an alternative theory for you.... perhaps the Israelites were 'chosen' to be the example for the rest of the world rather than to be set above it. Certainly such a notion has crossed your mind. 'Chosen' people does not necessarily mean 'favored' people.

Quote:
Quote:
Yes. The Israelites lived in the time before the rest of the world was ready for the love that god brings to it through his embodiment, the son jesus christ.

So you're saying that before Jesus came to earth, man was different than he is today -- more evil, maybe? Or less able to understand simple instructions? Imbued with less conscience? There are lots of possibilities here, but here's the main point. People changed. You have several questions to answer here, you spunky theist, you...
1) How did they change? Evolution, maybe? Didn't see that question coming, did you!?

2) If not evolution, did God change them all at once? What about the people who were born before Jesus died, but outlived him? Did they suddenly become fundamentally different creatures? Or were they under O.T. law?

Yes. Actually I did see that question coming. The phrase 'growing in the spirit' would imply a sort of societal evolution wouldn't you say?

Those before and after jesus are judged by the same laws. However, I think that you would concede the point that it is much easier for us to follow those laws now by modern moral standards. And that those who would abandon, nay even rebuke, the laws of either the old or new testaments should face stiffer penalties in the hereafter because ignorance of god's laws is near impossible since the spread of the 'good news' to all of mankind.

Quote:
3) What is your Biblical proof of your answer to questions number 1 and 2?

I would cite Paul's metaphorical use of the word 'fruit' in his description of the fruits of the spirit in:
Galatians
5:22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,
5:23 Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.

When we speak of fruit, it implies that the fruit must grow on the tree. Certainly, no one can simply make fruit appear on the tree. It must grow and not only in size but until the fruit is ripe within.

Quote:
4) Let's assume your point is valid. Before Jesus, the rest of the world was not ready for the love of God. This is still deflecting from the question. Even if these laws were only for the Israelites, you still seem to be saying that execution is a suitable punishment for a child cursing his parent. Is that so? This would clearly be an Israelite child, not a Moabite child.

I'll answer this twofold.
Exodus
20:12 Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.

This is a commandment, not a suggestion. Disobeying this is in direct contention with the almighty.

Leviticus
20:9 For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him.

I think he's serious. One question.... who judges the curse? Oh wait. The answer is in:

Deuteronomy
21:18 If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them:
21:19 Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place;
21:20 And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard.
21:21 And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.

Now we understand that this is for the worst of the worst children. Imagine a child so completely obnoxious that his parents want him to die. Surely, you don't imagine that every child who backtalks his parents would be taken to the gates of the city and stoned. Israeli parents love their children as much as anyone else loves theirs. This is in fact a control measure. As a child, my grandmother often told me that spoiled children were sold to the gypsies. I learned proper manners in this way. In fact, the stories of gypsies and boogeymen seem quite less realistic than a god who would command the death of a 'bad seed'.

Quote:
Quote:
Actually, I did point out where you took it out of context. While god is/has/will be always the same, humankind has had to grow in the spirit.

No, I pointed out where you were ignoring the context and substituting your own baseless interpretation. Make with the basis or abandon this argument.

I hope that I explained this earlier.

Quote:
I skipped one earlier...

Quote:
The lesson of the 'taring of the children' is a precursor to separating the Moabites from the Israelites.

Ok, so we're still back at the same argument. You're saying one of two things. Either A) It is good for God to maul 42 Moabite children for calling a man baldhead, or B) It is good for God to maul 42 Israelite children for the same thing.

Yes. How many other examples are there of unruly children in the bible?

Quote:
If A, then God is a racist son of a bitch, wouldn't you agree? Why pick one little nation to treat favorably (if you call all the torment he put them through favorable treatment!) and then kick the shit out of everyone else for not being born Jewish? Isn't it God's fault for making them heathens? They didn't ask to be born.

Again. 'Chosen' isn't the same as 'favored'.

Quote:
If B, then he's still a son of a bitch for making a race so stupid that he had to maul 42 kids to teach them a lesson about how they were not being racist enough.

Would there be a reason not to place a control over the Israelite project in the form of ethnic separation? god wanted them to be kept separate in order for them to develop into the great nation of their time to give an example for the rest of the world to follow. They also later had to pay the price for contaminating themselves.

I think you're doing a wonderful job, Hambydamnit. These same arguments will come up countless times when pointing out the ridiculous idea surrounding the god yahweh. His brutality excused by bad parenting. His wrath explained by tutoring.
Truly the Randolph Churchill quote mentioned by Dawkins in The god delusion holds much truth for us.
"god, isn't god a shit." lol.

Here's an idea to try some time.
Find a church of christ. Ask to talk to the pastor. Refrain from any form of profanity while dicussing this with him. He'll give VERY similar answers to what I did. The absolute frustration of it all is that you and I both know that the biblical god does not exist and if he did then he really is a fucktard.

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Geez. You are an absolute

Geez. You are an absolute master at crystal clear confusion. I need to learn how to do that... I could probably sell the Brooklyn Bridge... (just to play on your metaphor from the first paragraph)

I hope I have the gumption to hit all of this tonight... if not, I'll have to wait a few days, as I have company coming in.

Quote:
How would you see the reference to Matthew 5:34? I see it as a commandment that my answers are not god's answers.

You can see it that way if you like, but by the same logic, I can see it as a literal command to never swear an oath. Both conclusions are equally ridiculous. If Jesus meant it literally, then he had no prescience, or surely he would have known that life would be impossible for his followers if they took him at face value. If he meant it metaphorically, then you still owe me an explanation for why you believe this to be his meaning.

In literature, authors (at least good authors) don't just throw out a metaphor and let the readers take it any way they want. They give it context, and use recognizable symbols. There are no recognizable symbols for modern man in this passage. Remember, the bible also says that we are to be childlike in our belief. If you'll permit me to use your metaphorical license, God would seem to be saying that we don't need to be a freaking Hebrew Scholar to be able to understand the metaphors in the bible. Furthermore, if you rebut that we have pastors for scholarship, I'll counter that the bible says that jesus came so that each one of us can have direct contact with him, without the need for a go between.

All this aside, we're getting kind of off-topic...

Quote:
So many atheists see the good book as a rulebook instead of a guidebook.

Point of order: atheists see the bible as a conglomeration of contradictory stories and incompatible versions of a make believe god. It is the theists who have to invent wildly metaphorical versions of the bible to make it seem to have validity.

Quote:
jesus did the best that he could do with the disciples that he chose, in my opinion.

God, in his infinite wisdom, had to deal with dumb shits for disciples? There are plenty of examples of very wise men before Jesus. Greek history is filled with people wise enough to understand rather complex forms of law and government. The Chinese had ancient laws and customs by the time the Hebrews were just figuring out that you shouldn't hump your sheep.

Ok, I'm being a little dramatic, I admit, but surely you see my point. Again, we're talking about making things as complicated as possible to explain what ought to be easily seen as a crappy text written by some rather short-sighted, patriarchal, misogynistic desert people.

Quote:
6 For you are a people holy to the LORD your God. The LORD your God has chosen you out of all the peoples on the face of the earth to be his people, his treasured possession.

7 The LORD did not set his affection on you and choose you because you were more numerous than other peoples, for you were the fewest of all peoples. 8 But it was because the LORD loved you and kept the oath he swore to your forefathers that he brought you out with a mighty hand and redeemed you from the land of slavery, from the power of Pharaoh king of Egypt. 9 Know therefore that the LORD your God is God; he is the faithful God, keeping his covenant of love to a thousand generations of those who love him and keep his commands.

Here's the passage I was thinking of. In context, metaphorically, with green eggs and ham... any way I read this, it sure sounds like "favored." Unless you need to change the definition of favored to not include things like "affection," "covenant of love," "redeemed," and "treasured possession."

Anyway, I suppose by your logic, you could change all those words to mean "execute for damn near anything," and "make you wander in the desert for 40 years," and "allow you to fall into captivity to the Babylonians," etc... By your definition, "love" and "good" certainly do have a twinge of um... nastiness to them.

As to your answer to the question of stoning bad kids, it leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Whether the elders judged the kid beyond hope or the parents did, we're still talking about a deity commanding parents to deliver their kids up for death. Since I have read your posts and know you have kids, I ask you... does your heart feel warm at the thought of delivering your kid up to the mayor so he could be put to death? Would you love a deity that made you do that? You claim to.

If I had a son who was a rebellious teenager, and he got into drugs, and started yelling at me and cursing my name, I'd do everything in my power to help set him on a better path. Even if it seemed I couldn't do anything to help him, I'd still want him to have that chance. Your god isn't like that, though. Your god would have him stoned before he made it to adulthood.

(Think of it another way. How many kids did you know in high school who were crazy rebellious and are now married, have kids, and live very decent, maybe even christian, lives?)

Again I submit to you: Your god is not good, and you're changing the definition of good to try to make him be so.

Quote:
Would there be a reason not to place a control over the Israelite project in the form of ethnic separation?

There would be if you're not racist. We know now that the races are just variations in a single species. There's nothing inherently better or worse about any of them. To single one out is arbitrary, and makes your god capricious and racist.

As to societal evolution and the fruits of the spirit: you're making quite a leap there, aren't you? Paul mentions that the spirit of god bears "fruit" in the form of all those wonderful things. Never mind that lots of non-christians have all those qualities, and always have. Anyway, from this mention of the fruits of the spirit, you're jumping to an "evolution of the spirit" between the old and the new testament?? I don't see it. I see two unrelated things that you're trying to take out of context to prove your point. Even if I were to concede that this is a reasonable conclusion (I'm not conceding the point, by the way) you would have to admit that there are many other possible conclusions one could reach from reading this passage in Galatians. So we're back to the question of "how do we know which metaphorical rendition of the bible to believe?"

Oh, and you totally ignored my question of when this spiritual evolution took place, and what happened to the people who outlived Jesus. (And I asked for biblical back up for your position.)

Ok... I answered all of that so you wouldn't say I was avoiding any issues. However, I have to call you out on the basic argument. I have asked the question "Is the god of the bible inconsistent, cruel, and abusive?" You have responded essentially by saying, "Yes, but only if you think of those things in human terms."

That's impossible for you to defend because the only terms I am capable of understanding are human terms. If a woman married a man who treated her like the god of the O.T. treated the Israelites, they'd put him away, or at the very least, slap a restraining order on him. To justify this behavior by saying "his definition of good is unknowable, so we should just accept it," rings in my ears the same as saying that a woman should just shut up and take what's coming to her, because she has no idea what it's like to have to work all day and then come home to four screaming kids and an ungrateful bitch of a wife.

(Back to kind and gentle Hambydammit)

Like I said, I've got some company coming in, so I might not get to check the boards much in the next few days, but don't despair! I'll be back. The thing that you're doing better than most xtians is that you're spending very little time on the most crucial flaws in your argument. (It's almost like you're avoiding them on purpose, {chuckle}) Even though I know exactly what you're doing, it's still very difficult for me to keep my mind on exactly what we're arguing about. It would be very easy for me to get off on a tangent and miss the fact that you're essentially arguing for "unknowable definitions."

Actually, if this were a real theist emergency, I probably wouldn't have indulged in as much refutation from the bible, since that's always a trap. I usually prefer to leave the bible out of it and deal with the logical inconsistencies necessary to make a biblical argument, but it's kind of fun to twist the bible around when I know the argument's make believe.

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


darth_josh
High Level DonorHigh Level ModeratorGold Member
darth_josh's picture
Posts: 2650
Joined: 2006-02-27
User is offlineOffline
Y'know the worst part? We've

Y'know the worst part?
We've maintained too civil of a discussion anyways. lol. In past experiences, I would have seen this degenerate into an insult throwing, damnation speech by this post or one side simply repeating over and over and over. New information via tangential conversation will keep the flow of the convo going.

Sometimes you might have to let the initial point fall by the wayside until they dump the right answer on their own. To use another metaphor: Give them enough rope to hang themselves.

You're right about the problems concerning going to the bible for refutation. However, if they start the scripture quotin' then taking it back to them will cause them to use the god's plan argument. I don't know how many times it has to happen before that particular MO theory becomes Law.

You're initial point is still the strongest use of the bible to keep them honest that I've seen in years.

One thing that I can't mention enough is that when you're having an argument with a theist, christian or other, it's important to remember that the audience is the one that you're trying to convince that you're right not the theist. Some of them especially the ones that the squad gets here are almost beyond help. The moderates reading in the fringes are the ones who are looking for either affirmation or refutation. They're here and I feel that they wouldn't be here if their faith was truly blind.

Call it optimism, but that 44% that we hear Sam Harris or others speak about must contain a certain percentage of doubters that just haven't seen arguments that make that little theistic motor hum in their brains.

Way too many metaphors. I'm over my limit today already. lol.

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.


leroy
leroy's picture
Posts: 19
Joined: 2006-11-29
User is offlineOffline
Hi Hambydammit Hambydammit

Hi Hambydammit

Hambydammit wrote:

Ok. Now... God has clearly laid out the rules. I just want you to follow them. I will ask questions with "Yes or No" answers, and you answer them. Ok?

Okay
Hambydammit wrote:

1) The god of the old testament and new testament is the same entity. Yes or No?

Yes
Hambydammit wrote:

"Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever." Hebrews 13:38 ::


Yes but in my Bible Hebrews 13 only goes to 25
Hambydammit wrote:

"I and the Father are one." John 10:30

Yes
Hambydammit wrote:

2) God dictated Old Testament Law to the Israelites. Yes or No?
Leviticus 20:1 The LORD said to Moses, 2 "Say to the Israelites:" (Look this up if you like... Lots of laws follow. Virtually every chapter in the books of law begin with such a statement.)

Yes
Hambydammit wrote:

3) Please review the following list of laws, taken directly from the Bible. Did God make these laws? Yes or No?

Yes
Quote:

9 " 'If anyone curses his father or mother, he must be put to death. He has cursed his father or his mother, and his blood will be on his own head.
10 " 'If a man commits adultery with another man's wife—with the wife of his neighbor—both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death.
11 " 'If a man sleeps with his father's wife, he has dishonored his father. Both the man and the woman must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.
12 " 'If a man sleeps with his daughter-in-law, both of them must be put to death. What they have done is a perversion; their blood will be on their own heads.
13 " 'If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.
14 " 'If a man marries both a woman and her mother, it is wicked. Both he and they must be burned in the fire, so that no wickedness will be among you.
15 " 'If a man has sexual relations with an animal, he must be put to death, and you must kill the animal.
16 " 'If a woman approaches an animal to have sexual relations with it, kill both the woman and the animal. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.
17 " 'If a man marries his sister, the daughter of either his father or his mother, and they have sexual relations, it is a disgrace. They must be cut off before the eyes of their people. He has dishonored his sister and will be held responsible.
18 " 'If a man lies with a woman during her monthly period and has sexual relations with her, he has exposed the source of her flow, and she has also uncovered it. Both of them must be cut off from their people.
19 " 'Do not have sexual relations with the sister of either your mother or your father, for that would dishonor a close relative; both of you would be held responsible.
20 " 'If a man sleeps with his aunt, he has dishonored his uncle. They will be held responsible; they will die childless.
21 " 'If a man marries his brother's wife, it is an act of impurity; he has dishonored his brother. They will be childless.

Hambydammit wrote:

4) Did God kill 42 children for calling a man "Baldhead?" Yes or No?


No
Hambydammit wrote:

5) Do you believe these laws, commands, and actions by God are loving

No
Hambydammit wrote:

and good? Yes or No?

Yes


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Whoops... Hebrews 13:8.

Whoops... Hebrews 13:8. Typo there, dude. Sorry.

I want to make sure you're answering the right question. If you look at the beginning of the thread, I amended the question about the bears. I wrote "kill" when I should have written "maul." Are you still content with your answer, or would you like to change it based on my revision of the questions?

Do you mean to say that those actions are not loving, but are good?

Thanks for your clarifications!

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


leroy
leroy's picture
Posts: 19
Joined: 2006-11-29
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote: I want to

Hambydammit wrote:

I want to make sure you're answering the right question. If you look at the beginning of the thread, I amended the question about the bears. I wrote "kill" when I should have written "maul." Are you still content with your answer, or would you like to change it based on my revision of the questions?

Based on your revision "did God call down a curse on 42 children and a couple of bears mauled them" my answer would be yes.
Hambydammit wrote:

Do you mean to say that those actions are not loving, but are good?

They don't sound loving to me.


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
God's prophet called down a

God's prophet called down a curse, and god sent a bear, if you want to be nit-picky, and I'm guessing you do, since you somewhat sarcastically called me out on a typo.

Anyway, I'm satisfied that you understood the question and answered accordingly. Thanks.

So you admit that god isn't loving?

(picture me holding my breath waiting for the inevitable pseudo-intellectual hopscotch that's about to ensue, where someone tries to explain to me that loving for god isn't the same as loving for man, and god's laws are different than our laws, yada yada yada. I think I'm too bored to even respond to it.)

The really cool thing about this thread is that it's not here to win an argument, because there's no winning when you argue with a christian. It's here to illustrate the level of intellectual dishonesty necessary to believe in the god of the bible.

Anyway, I think my work here is done. When the inevitable argument arises, I will leave the picking apart to someone else with more energy than me.

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism