(September 11, 2013 at 4:34 pm)John V Wrote: ETA: Interestingly, this is the same chapter which forbids battlefield rape and regulates marriage of captives, but somehow you guys always miss that part on your way to the part about stoning children.

It only takes one passage to impugn an omniscient deity.

(September 11, 2013 at 4:20 pm)Godschild Wrote:

(September 11, 2013 at 4:03 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote: So basically you're suggesting that he search through all 3500+ of your posts to find one you are thinking of, rather than defend your assertion and you think that's reasonable.

Holy needles in haystacks, Batman.

I've posted an explanation several times, besides I'm tired of people not listening, and getting told I'm wrong without any proof.

GC

In this case, you're being told you're wrong because you haven't offered anything but an opinion.

Incidentally, I looked, and the only explanation from you that I found was that the law did not apply to "little" children. Even if that were true, it would still be unjust.

(September 11, 2013 at 4:52 pm)Faith No More Wrote: It only takes one passage to impugn an omniscient deity.

Why? If it's only one passage, maybe we're getting it wrong.

(September 11, 2013 at 4:55 pm)John V Wrote: Why? If it's only one passage, maybe we're getting it wrong.

True, if that can be determined to be the source of error. My point was that getting a couple of commands right doesn't negate getting one so horribly wrong. That is why you don't hear atheists mention the other verses.

(September 11, 2013 at 4:54 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote: Incidentally, I looked, and the only explanation from you that I found was that the law did not apply to "little" children. Even if that were true,

Seems like it is, as the passage says the kid is a drunkard.

Quote:it would still be unjust.

Why? Who knows a child better than his own parents?

---

(September 11, 2013 at 4:58 pm)Faith No More Wrote: True, if that can be determined to be the source of error. My point was that getting a couple of commands right doesn't negate getting one so horribly wrong. That is why you don't hear atheists mention the other verses.

You don't hear atheists mentioning the other verses because they've never read them. They just hear about the allegedly evil verses and go straight to those.

(September 11, 2013 at 4:58 pm)John V Wrote:

(September 11, 2013 at 4:54 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote: Incidentally, I looked, and the only explanation from you that I found was that the law did not apply to "little" children. Even if that were true,

Seems like it is, as the passage says the kid is a drunkard.

Quote:it would still be unjust.

Why? Who knows a child better than his own parents?

Because the punishment is not commensurate with the offense.

I believe the passage about telling the chief priests that your child is incorrigible or a drunkard are just examples, not that your child has to be a drunkard before you can stone him.

At any rate, GC has failed to prove his assertion that there are no passages about killing unruly children. There definitely is nothing about any age limit mentioned in those passages.

(September 11, 2013 at 4:58 pm)John V Wrote:

Quote:it would still be unjust.

Why? Who knows a child better than his own parents?

So you're saying that parents should stone to death their own children just for being lazy or for getting drunk a lot? Why not just kick them out of the house until they wise up? Interesting that you're actually defending the practice of killing your own offspring if they don't turn out the way you want.

JonV Wrote:Child" in the sense of son or daughter is correct, but this isn't referring to young children, as it says that the child is a drunkard.

Second, note who makes the determination - the person's own parents. If you're so bad that your own parents turn you over to be stoned, you just might deserve it.

ETA: Interestingly, this is the same chapter which forbids battlefield rape and regulates marriage of captives, but somehow you guys always miss that part on
your way to the part about stoning children.

Oh.... my.. gigglesnort.. goodness.







Excuse me. Uhm. BAH HA ha hahahaha hah ahahahahahahahahahahahhhaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa








Did you literally just, I mean.....are you even real? I'm starting to believe you're a Poe.

*giggle

Oh, yeah.. kid totally deserved it. Them captives too, they totally deserve to have god regulate their lifelong rape . Oh and then god is soo oo o ooooooo amiable, he even made rules for how his people will kill your entire villiage and pillage your city and those holy soldiers of his are just so incredibly holy they needed god to tell them not to rape us.

Dear lord do you listen to yourself?


Also, GC: NO ONES DOING THAT. If you have a problem with reposting that's no one's fault but your own. If you're tired of being refuted then MAYBE YOU"RE WRONG, you interminably precocious babbling sour dipstick.

Fishy: You have nothing relevant whatsoever to add to this thread. Why are you still here? Why won't you just go troll someone else or better yet, why haven't you been banned for being a contemptuous foul mouthed little cretin with nothing substantial to add whatsoever? Is this what you want, troll? You're so desperate for attention you seek vocal rebuke from strangers? Good. god. You know, maybe you should be one of those church-going Christians. At least they have to talk to you. Me? I'm out. Peace be with you, may you live long and prosper, fuck off.

(September 11, 2013 at 4:58 pm)John V Wrote: You don't hear atheists mentioning the other verses because they've never read them. They just hear about the allegedly evil verses and go straight to those.

Possibly. But when you're arguing against the validity of something, why not focus on that which seems most invalid? One doesn't have to read the entire bible to reject it, so if one hasn't read the entire thing but still wants to debate its validity, focusing on the verses that clearly appear invalid is optimal.

(September 11, 2013 at 4:54 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote:

(September 11, 2013 at 4:20 pm)Godschild Wrote: I've posted an explanation several times, besides I'm tired of people not listening, and getting told I'm wrong without any proof.

GC

In this case, you're being told you're wrong because you haven't offered anything but an opinion.

Incidentally, I looked, and the only explanation from you that I found was that the law did not apply to "little" children. Even if that were true, it would still be unjust.

I've given a detailed explanation of the passage several times and you're screwed up at thinking child

GC