One question for Christians

[Faith No More]

Could you forgive someone who raped you? What if they had raped you 3 times a day for 10 years? What if they raped 3 times a day for 30 years? What if they are still raping you, and will continue to do so for the rest of your life? Now what if the whole planet decided to do that? Now what if every man woman and child who ever lived or ever will live did that every day their whole lives? Could you just forgive everyone each time they did that for as long as they lived?

When you compare apples to apples...

So, comparing apples to apples is that sin causes god to feel raped?

[Godscreated]

The scriptures, just because you dislike them does not mean they do not tell us the facts of Christ. How many people did the Romans crucify, is there any historical records of each of them.

I'm intrigued GC, how do you deal with the complete lack of historical evidence for your god boy?

Do you just stick your fingers in your ears and go "la la la" until the naughty thoughts go away?

Or do you smash yourself repeatedly in the face with a bible until unconscious?

Either way it is blindingly obvious that you refuse to register that the scripture are historically worthless and of no import here.

BTW, the scriptures are the claim, not the evidence.

You wouldn't believe it if many historians had written about Christ, you would have called them... so and so and said they wrote 2000 yrs. ago what do they know. If you believe then you would have to give up yourself and you seem to be unwilling to do so for Christ.
If the historians had given us proof of Christ then the scriptures would be wrong, faith is the way to salvation, then the road to knowledge of who God is.

[Faith No More]

If the historians had given us proof of Christ then the scriptures would be wrong, faith is the way to salvation, then the road to knowledge of who God is.

Interesting...you are now claiming that the lack of historical documentation actually supports the bible?

[Esquilax]

Thought this one through to the end did you?

...So who would read what had been written? You are aware that 95% of the 1st century population was illeritate don't you?

Oh, for fuck's...

Maelstrom already had it, in that I didn't mention readers, but there's also this: whether the bible is a literal account of history or not, it was still written to be read by someone, whether that someone is a worhsiper or a preacher; the bible is a tool like any other. It's much easier to speak on something pre-prepared, after all.

Another fun little consequence of your thinking; your god commissioned his holy word, knowing that the majority of the people in the era in which it would be created, the crucible of its spread as a moral truth throughout the world, that the messengers of this one true word of god would be unable to read it. Right? Because the bible was written in a time of majority illiteracy and, according to you, the only thing that matters are the number of people capable of reading it?

And all this, this wonderful exposure of your idiocy, skips over the part where you missed my point entirely from the beginning; whatever we might think about the things in the bible, you do agree with me that it was written, right? The bible is made of words, correct? Because that seems to be the thing you're disagreeing with me on; I was critiquing the bible's logical and literary merit, and your response was "pfft, people couldn't read back then!"

What the fuck are you even talking about?

[Drich]

Could you forgive someone who raped you? What if they had raped you 3 times a day for 10 years? What if they raped 3 times a day for 30 years? What if they are still raping you, and will continue to do so for the rest of your life? Now what if the whole planet decided to do that? Now what if every man woman and child who ever lived or ever will live did that every day their whole lives? Could you just forgive everyone each time they did that for as long as they lived?

When you compare apples to apples...

So, comparing apples to apples is that sin causes god to feel raped?

In our soceity Rape is a henious crime. In God's ecconomy ALL SIN have the same value. Meaning no matter how we trivialize Sin/Grade it, God sees it as being as bad if not worse than what we see as our soceities greatest sins. So to ask God for forgivness of sin is tantimount to asking for forgiveness for our understanding of what a great sin is. I used rape because that is about as bad as you can get and live to tell the tale. It is also one that harbors great resentment and anger by the victim towards the agressor.

[Esquilax]

So, comparing apples to apples is that sin causes god to feel raped?

In our soceity Rape is a henious crime. In God's ecconomy ALL SIN have the same value. Meaning no matter how we trivialize Sin/Grade it, God sees it as being as bad if not worse than what we see as our soceities greatest sins. So to ask God for forgivness of sin is tantimount to asking for forgiveness for our understanding of what a great sin is. I used rape because that is about as bad as you can get and live to tell the tale. It is also one that harbors great resentment and anger by the victim towards the agressor.

In the bible, rape is more of a breach of ettiquette than a crime. I think there's a fine involved, and then you get to keep your victim, like some kind of carnival prize. Now, why would your god put that in his inerrant word?

[Faith No More]

In our soceity Rape is a henious crime. In God's ecconomy ALL SIN have the same value. Meaning no matter how we trivialize Sin/Grade it, God sees it as being as bad if not worse than what we see as our soceities greatest sins. So to ask God for forgivness of sin is tantimount to asking for forgiveness for our understanding of what a great sin is. I used rape because that is about as bad as you can get and live to tell the tale. It is also one that harbors great resentment and anger by the victim towards the agressor.

That's too bad, because the thought of Yaweh feeling raped every time a hormonal teenager had lustful thoughts was actually quite appealing.

Sadism begets sadism.

[Drich]

Oh, for fuck's...

indeed.

Maelstrom already had it, in that I didn't mention readers, but there's also this: whether the bible is a literal account of history or not, it was still written to be read by someone, whether that someone is a worhsiper or a preacher;

Maelstrom and you are both lost.
The bible did not come around for till about 300 years after Christianity had already been established. The reason it was brough around was because there were too many different version of Christianity. We were making the same mistakes 300 years after the first church had already made them.
But, what you two seem oblivious to is that the church was, before the written story was.

the bible is a tool like any other. It's much easier to speak on something pre-prepared, after all.

So what did they do the 300 or so years before the bible was compiled?

Another fun little consequence of your thinking; your god commissioned his holy word, knowing that the majority of the people in the era in which it would be created, the crucible of its spread as a moral truth throughout the world, that the messengers of this one true word of god would be unable to read it. Right? Because the bible was written in a time of majority illiteracy and, according to you, the only thing that matters are the number of people capable of reading it?

EXACTLY!!! I can almost hear your hamster turning in the wheel.
That is why there was such a strong dependancy on the oral tradition for the first 300 years. You all point to the 300 year gap as some sort of comfirmation that the bible could not be reliable, or has been changed. when in fact the gap points the truth that because the people were illterate the church did not have any need to record events as we do now. That when the oral traditions were in place the written word was considered to be unreliable as anyone could write anything and no one could hold them to account, not to mention readings were also scrutinized as the oritor could be making things up.

And all this, this wonderful exposure of your idiocy,

skips over the part where you missed my point entirely from the beginning; whatever we might think about the things in the bible, you do agree with me that it was written, right?

The bible is made of words, correct? Because that seems to be the thing you're disagreeing with me on; I was critiquing the bible's logical and literary merit, and your response was "pfft, people couldn't read back then!"

What the fuck are you even talking about?

Do you need me to explain further?

[Godscreated]

The same, I've yet to find any nonbeliever who was truly interested in learning,

Not agreeing with you is not the same thing as being unwilling to learn.

I agree, however when someone continually runs down what is being said without evidence shows ignorance, and ignorance breeds one's unwillingness to learn.

most have the purpose of goating out of Christians things they want to ridicule our beliefs.

I submit to you that the way to stop bein ridiculed is to stop saying ridiculous things.

I submit to you that you can not recognize sensible statements, so stop ridiculing until you can.

I know evolution is true because the science books tell me it is.

Like this, for instance. Because, you know what? I don't have to just take the words of a biology textbook at face value, in order to know the truth. I can look up countless peer reviewed studies, I can watch the process occur via video and pictures over many generations, I can even see the bones of dead creatures charting an evolutionary lineage. I can look at the similarities in the genome, and best of all, I can replicate the process if I wanted, using bacterial cultures or hell, even some breeding dogs if I wanted to. There's a whole assload of cross confirmatory data.

You don't get to pretend that the process of science is on the same level as your excuse that "my book says the truth because I believe it, because it tells me it says the truth." And you know this stuff; you'd have to, if you've been on here more than a few weeks. None of us here are terribly shy about posting proof of evolution; I can only conclude that you were being dishonest there.

When you can show me that you can breed a dog to be something other than a dog I'll believe in evolution. No one has ever demonstrated that one species can become another, like atheist say only seeing is believing. no atheist can bring proof there's none.

[Esquilax]

I agree, however when someone continually runs down what is being said without evidence shows ignorance, and ignorance breeds one's unwillingness to learn.

Well, you know, as the hallowed saying goes: that which is asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence. If you want us to start supplying evidence (though we already do, but hey) then you'll need to provide some to support your initial claims. The irony here runs deep.

I submit to you that you can not recognize sensible statements, so stop ridiculing until you can.

Sensible statements about magical men in the sky, and genocide that isn't genocide, stuff like that?

When you can show me that you can breed a dog to be something other than a dog I'll believe in evolution. No one has ever demonstrated that one species can become another, like atheist say only seeing is believing. no atheist can bring proof there's none.

Oh man, I swear; ever since coming here I end up posting the same few links every few weeks. It's like you guys never learn.

First of all, a little biology lesson; evolution would not permit a dog becoming something other than a dog. The nonexistence of this isn't an argument against evolution; if we did see a dog breeding something other than a dog, that would break evolutionary theory entirely. You're ass-backwards from the first objection.

Now, what does evolution actually propose? Well, a gradual change; dogs becoming slightly different dogs due to genetic diversity, generation by generation, until eventually... a new species. Incidentally, you probably could have done better than picking dogs, because dogs are selectively bred, evolved wolves. And different dog breeds? That's proof of evolution. That's legit all evolution proposes.

Meanwhile: Here's a list of creatures transitioning from one species to another. Here's some silver foxes that have been selectively bred into a new kind of fox. Here's an explanation of ring species, a live action example of the genetic drift that prompts evolution. And here is a list of the evolutionary process in observable, demonstrable action.

Now, see how I provided evidence there? The same evidence you accused us all of not providing in your post? And notice how you didn't extend the same courtesy with regards to your objections to evolution, even to the extent that you don't even know what evolution is?

Really puts it into perspective, doesn't it?

---

Maelstrom and you are both lost.
The bible did not come around for till about 300 years after Christianity had already been established. The reason it was brough around was because there were too many different version of Christianity. We were making the same mistakes 300 years after the first church had already made them.
But, what you two seem oblivious to is that the church was, before the written story was.

Okay... and you understand that I'm an atheist, yes? I don't, you know, believe that the magical claims in the bible are real? They're all just stories? And so critiquing them on a literary level, as I was, is entirely justified no matter how those stories are conceived?

So what did they do the 300 or so years before the bible was compiled?

I don't care; none of this is germane to my initial point.

EXACTLY!!! I can almost hear your hamster turning in the wheel.
That is why there was such a strong dependancy on the oral tradition for the first 300 years. You all point to the 300 year gap as some sort of comfirmation that the bible could not be reliable, or has been changed. when in fact the gap points the truth that because the people were illterate the church did not have any need to record events as we do now. That when the oral traditions were in place the written word was considered to be unreliable as anyone could write anything and no one could hold them to account, not to mention readings were also scrutinized as the oritor could be making things up.

Oh, so you do understand the reasoning behind why we think the bible is an unreliable source of information. You just don't care; you'd rather practice the monumental cognitive dissonance it would take to believe that regurgitated oral stories transcribed by possible liars in an age of majority illiteracy are somehow filled with truth.

Do you need me to explain further?

Yeah: you got anything relevant to say? Or are you going to keep proclaiming victory over arguments I haven't even made?