Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
May 19, 2010 at 12:03 pm (This post was last modified: May 19, 2010 at 12:04 pm by Watson.)
(May 19, 2010 at 8:00 am)Scented Nectar Wrote: I do mix you three up a bit. I'll try and remember that it is YOU who have never read the book you consider holy.
I never said I haven't read it. I just haven't finished the whole thing. At least it's better than what you did. You stared at the pages for hours and didn't ever read a single thing.
Quote:However, Tack seems to be a bible-reader-imposter. He has been shown that everything he thinks the bible says actually says something different.
You are ridiculous.
Quote: Neither of you have made even the slightest case in favour of the horror book. You have just made xtianity look even worse. Baby Jesus is now crying.
I'm almost 100% cetrain you're just being an idiot on purpose. You have been the ultimate hypocrite, accusing us of cherry-picking while simultaneously going through and picking apart our arguments, constructing new ones from them so you don't have to wrap your mind around any new counter-points. You are literally creating your own enemy and ignoring anything we say that doesn't fit your narrow-minded view of our beliefs. You have shown zero comprehension of what we are trying to get across to you, and it's a wonder you don't think you're on a fundamentalist Christian website, the way you reconstruct every argument presented to you into one. What the fuck.
May 20, 2010 at 5:12 am (This post was last modified: May 20, 2010 at 5:19 am by tackattack.)
To save time I'll bold what's relevant and comment in red and hide the stuff people probably don't care to read.
(May 19, 2010 at 7:24 am)Scented Nectar Wrote:
(May 19, 2010 at 2:53 am)tackattack Wrote: Good is of course relative, but I think all of it's good for a read, I've read worse. Do I need to quote all the exploits of Jesus/ disciples doing good deeds, healing, helping, filling the needs of the outcast and needy?
Sure, if these good acts cancel out the bad ones. They say Hitler treated dogs well, you know. Does that make everything else he did ok?Please list Jesus' bad deeds since you at least admit he had some good deeds and I'll respond, but only if you're genuinely intersted in hearing the response.
Quote:The court must not kill anybody on circumstantial evidence Ex. 23:7
It actually says "Keep thee far from a false matter; and the innocent and righteous slay thou not: for I will not justify the wicked." Where do you see anything about circumstantial evidence? Maybe you should stop listening to the preacher man and read the thing yourself. So far, that quote fully upholds killing people for bible 'crimes'.Is it really Gymanstics to say that you shouldn't kill the innocent? innocent in a court of law requires solid evidence
Quote:The court must not punish anybody who was forced to do a crime Deut. 22:26
It says nothing of the sort. It says "But unto the damsel thou shalt do nothing; there is in the damsel no sin worthy of death: for as when a man riseth against his neighbour, and slayeth him, even so is this matter:" They are referring to not punishing a woman for being a rape victim only if she is betrothed. If she is not, then she is still murdered by the godlovers. (YLT)25 “But if the man meets the engaged woman out in the country, and he rapes her, then only the man must die. 26 Do nothing to the young woman; she has committed no crime worthy of death. She is as innocent as a murder victim. 27 Since the man raped her out in the country, it must be assumed that she screamed, but there was no one to rescue her." That's all that is said, she shall not be put to death.. innocent as a murder victim.
Quote:Judge righteously Lev. 19:15
That completely upholds the immoral laws, since they are considered righteous and god-commanded. "Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment: thou shalt not respect the person of the poor, nor honor the person of the mighty: but in righteousness shalt thou judge thy neighbour."(YLT)15 “Do not twist justice in legal matters by favoring the poor or being partial to the rich and powerful. Always judge people fairly." No it doesn't it's talking about favoritism
Quote:The court must not execute through a majority of one; at least a majority of two is required Ex. 23:2
It actually says "Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil; neither shalt thou speak in a cause to decline after many to wrest judgment", the last part sounding like an order to not speak out against what the multitude have judged.(YLT)2 “You must not follow the crowd in doing wrong. When you are called to testify in a dispute, do not be swayed by the crowd to twist justice." Are we going by what it sounds like or what it says?
Quote:Lend to the poor and destitute Ex. 22:24
That one actually says "And my wrath shall wax hot, and I will kill you with the sword; and your wives shall be widows, and your children fatherless." Wow! Nice example of goodness. What lesson do we learn from this? Will the wrathfully killed person become meat lent to the poor as charity? WTF?mis quote it should have been verse 25.. my bad (YLT)25`If thou dost lend My poor people with thee money, thou art not to him as a usurer; thou dost not lay on him usury; "
Quote:Not to press them for payment if you know they don't have it Ex. 22:24
That is the same verse as above. Should I infer that after feeding the dead body to the poor, to tell them not to bother about paying you back someday?Should be vs. 26-27 "26 If you take your neighbor’s cloak as security for a loan, you must return it before sunset. 27 This coat may be the only blanket your neighbor has. How can a person sleep without it? If you do not return it and your neighbor cries out to me for help, then I will hear, for I am merciful."
Quote:Not to insult or harm anybody with words Lev. 25:17
Good thing it does not actually say that, since that would destroy all free speech, but let's see what it really says. "Ye shall not therefore oppress one another; but thou shalt fear thy God:for I am the LORD your God." Nothing indicating what would be oppressive, so it must be concluded that they mean anything against the god commands. The second part is a command to have an emotion, fear. Do you often love people you fear? I don't, but then again, I've never had Stockholm's Syndrome.There is part of that verse with some arbitrary fear thrown in, but you're implying that only opression of God's commands when we all feel obression is bad
Quote:Not to cheat a convert monetarily Ex. 22:20
Good thing it doesn't say that, since that would make it ok to cheat non-converts. So, what does it actually say? "He that sacrificeth unto any god, save unto the LORD only, he shall be utterly destroyed." Wow, again! It's even worse than cheating those who are of a different religion, the real quote says to destroy them.Should be Deteronomy 25:16 (NLT) "16 All who cheat with dishonest weights and measures are detestable to the Lord your God." ALthough I agree the exodus verse is about destruction of people with differing beliefs
Quote:Not to insult or harm a convert with words Ex. 22:20
More suppression of free speech (if it's critical of converts), or it would be if that were what it actually says. It says the same as the above one.miss paste again sorry- Leviticus 19:16 (YLT) "16`Thou dost not go slandering among thy people; thou dost not stand against the blood of thy neighbour; I [am] Jehovah. "
So, what's going on here? Are you a poe? Have I been fooled by my very first poe encounter? I feel honoured.
Quote:As you can see it does actually say the word homosexual..
The english translations from KJV on do until you get to the more very recent translation which try and get back to the original meaning.
Searching the KJV on the word homosexual turned up nothing. It does not appear there. That was supposed to read the NIV not KJV sorry. You're still denying it says the word... stop arguing the semantics. The Bible didn't originally say homosexual, it got put into the Bible and was popular for a long time. Now people are getting back to the meaning of the words and other version are becoming more popular, especially among Biblical hermeneutics.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:The consciousness though should be accountable for it's choices.
That's pretty sick that you would accept blame for stuff beyond the natural consequences of what happens during your life. There is no bad natural consequence for not feeling the love emotion about someone, yet your jealous egotistical god punishes people for not loving him.
I'm not following your rant. Could you please define "stuff beyond the natural consequences of what happens during your life" So I have some reference as to what you're talking about.
If you don't love god while alive, the worst natural consequence is nothing at all. However the religion-caused consequence that results from not having a god belief is ostracisation and possible execution depending on where you live. OK I follow now and agree so far.That's while alive. If your god were real, then on top of that would be the eternal punishment. You haven't explained why your god doesn't just let the people he doesn't want in heaven just die. Why does he make them suffer? Oh yeah, he admits that he is wrathful and jealous and all kinds of nice personality traits like that. You are a devil worshipper. I've never really conversed with one before, so this is interesting. Can you prove to me that your devildeity exists? You see, I don't believe in devils either.
Ok, I think I can see your points a lot better now. Ok here's what I have you either have a soul that exists and goes on after your body dies or not. If you don't then nothing happens exept possibly in that few minutes where your brain could slowly shut off distorting your reality. If your soul does extend past death then what happens to it? I suppose it could roam around here, but what happens at total entropy or the end of existence? A lot of relgions believe that there will be some sort of accountability for your material life. In Life I see indication that make me believe God exists which lead me to he conclusion that there could be an afterlife. Whether people suffer or not in that afterlife is a matter of speculation. It's not that God would chose to kill their soul, it either exists or doesn't. If it does and you're not prepared, you get what you get.
Quote:
Quote:All the laws you quoted are mosianic laws. Messianic Judaism is adherent to those laws verbatim, Christianity is adherent to them where they agree with the heart and societies laws. Where the different sects of Christianity differ is in their doctrine, some (I would say few) but not a majority adhere fundamentally and literally to every word in the Bible both New and Old testament. My God didn't make theese laws... man did. You're confusing Moses' law and the "royal law" of God. Moses added the "Laws of Moses" for transgressions of the people and were supposed to be temporary and Christ was supposed to replace them. Christ came and said. .no no keep those laws you need something when I'm dead and gone.. but don't be such hard asses and uses your brains silllies. Of course that wasn't a direct quote just a vicodin, nyquil, coffee translation, but I think you get the idea.
Wow, way to make stuff up. Isn't it about time you maybe read the fucking book?
Ok I'll even quote it in your favorite version-
Deut 31:24-26 (KJV) "24 After Moses finished writing in a book the words of this law from beginning to end, 25 he gave this command to the Levites who carried the ark of the covenant of the LORD : 26 "Take this Book of the Law and place it beside the ark of the covenant of the LORD your God. There it will remain as a witness against you. " Which is different than the laws in Exodus 20. I've read the book and it's quite redundant when you keep repeat baseless accusations. True, a lotof that previous post was quite mispasted. I feel I've corrected them all. The underlying point of all this "verse quote and did you read it" battle is you deny that the Bible has good points and are cherry picking out the bad from a completly incomplete and biased reading. I am attempting to show you that yes there is bad, but it's outweighed by the good, especially in the instruction dept. Whether you care to read it or not is of no consequence to me, don't quote it at all if you can't do it fairly and rationally though, it'll save us all a lot of post walls and wasted time not listening to each other.
"There ought to be a term that would designate those who actually follow the teachings of Jesus, since the word 'Christian' has been largely divorced from those teachings, and so polluted by fundamentalists that it has come to connote their polar opposite: intolerance, vindictive hatred, and bigotry." -- Philip Stater, Huffington Post
always working on cleaning my windows- me regarding Johari
(May 20, 2010 at 5:12 am)tackattack Wrote: To save time I'll bold what's relevant and comment in red
(May 19, 2010 at 7:24 am)Scented Nectar Wrote:
(May 19, 2010 at 2:53 am)tackattack Wrote: Good is of course relative, but I think all of it's good for a read, I've read worse. Do I need to quote all the exploits of Jesus/ disciples doing good deeds, healing, helping, filling the needs of the outcast and needy?
Sure, if these good acts cancel out the bad ones. They say Hitler treated dogs well, you know. Does that make everything else he did ok?Please list Jesus' bad deeds since you at least admit he had some good deeds and I'll respond, but only if you're genuinely intersted in hearing the response.
Advocate child abuse and murder amongst many other cruelties.
Christians are always claiming, “he’s the lamb”, “our savior”, “the king of peace”, “the embodiment of love”, amongst the many other names they associate with a loving, merciful nature. Jesus a nice guy? Not in my book. Nor in any other person’s who is capable of compassion and rationality. Let’s examine who the hell the Jesus character really is. These verses will show not only is Jesus’ “loving” nature a joke but so are the Christians who worship him. Jesus’ real mission to come to earth:
Jesus says that he has come to destroy families by making family members hate each other. He has “come not to send peace, but a sword.” Matthew 10:34
Jesus says, “Don’t imagine that I came to bring peace on earth! No, rather a sword lf you love your father, mother, sister, brother, more than me, you are not worthy of being mine. “The real beauty of this verse is that Jesus demands people truly love him more then they love their own family. I ask you how can we love someone that we can not see or interact with? Love is an emotion pertaining to physical existence not to faithful ideologies, yet God threatens you with Death just because your love for your mother maybe stronger than your love for him. Matthew 10:34
Families will be torn apart because of Jesus. “Brother shall deliver up the brother to death, and the father the child: and the children shall rise up against their parents, and cause them to be put to death." Matthew 10:21
Jesus strongly approves of the law and the prophets. He hasn’t the slightest objection to the cruelties of the Old Testament. Matthew 5:17
Jesus advocates murder and death:
Jesus condemns entire cities to dreadful deaths and to the eternal torment of hell because they didn’t care for his preaching. Matthew 11:20
Jesus, whose clothes are dipped in blood, has a sharp sword sticking out of his mouth. Thus attired, he treads the winepress of the wrath of God. (The winepress is the actual press that humans shall be put into so that we may be ground up.) Revelations 19:13-15
The beast and the false prophet are cast alive into a lake of fire. The rest of us the unchosen will be killed with the sword of Jesus. “An all the fowls were filled with their flesh.” Revelations 19:20-21
Jesus says he is the only way to salvation yet he purposely disillusions us so that we will go to hell:
Jesus explains that the reason he speaks in parables is so that no one will understand him, “lest . . . they . . . should understand . . . and should be converted, and I should heal them.” Matthew 13:10-15
Jesus explains why he speaks in parables to confuse people so they will go to hell. Mark 4:11-12
Jesus advocates child abuse:
Jesus is criticized by the Pharisees for not washing his hands before eating. He defends himself by attacking them for not killing disobedient children according to the commandment: “He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.” Matthew 15:4-7
Abandon your wife and children for Jesus and he’ll give your a big reward. Jesus asks that his followers abandon their children to follow him. To leave your child is abuse, it’s called neglect, pure and simple. Matthew 19:29
Jesus criticizes the Jews for not killing their disobedient children according to Old Testament law. Mark 7:9
A few other things about Jesus:
Jesus says that those who have been less fortunate in this life will have it even worse in the life to come. Mark 4:25
Jesus sends the devils into 2000 pigs, causing them to jump off a cliff and be drowned in the sea. Clearly Jesus could have simply sent the devils out, yet he chose instead to place them into pigs and kill them. This is called animal abuse. Mark 5:12-13
Jesus kills a fig tree for not bearing figs, even though it was out of season. Jesus must not be as smart as Christians would have us believe, for he was retarded enough to do something this silly. You’d think the son of god (god incarnate) would know that trees don’t bear fruit in dry season. Mark 11:13
Luke 12:47 Jesus okays beating slaves.
Do any of the good things he did outweigh the bad things to the point where they cancel it out?
Quote:
Quote:The court must not kill anybody on circumstantial evidence Ex. 23:7
It actually says "Keep thee far from a false matter; and the innocent and righteous slay thou not: for I will not justify the wicked." Where do you see anything about circumstantial evidence? Maybe you should stop listening to the preacher man and read the thing yourself. So far, that quote fully upholds killing people for bible 'crimes'.Is it really Gymanstics to say that you shouldn't kill the innocent? innocent in a court of law requires solid evidence
Since the bible is thoroughly immoral in what it considers innocent, righteous and wicked, all it is saying is that that is still so. There is nothing about evidence being circumstantial or not, or about evidence at all in this verse.
Quote:
Quote:The court must not punish anybody who was forced to do a crime Deut. 22:26
It says nothing of the sort. It says "But unto the damsel thou shalt do nothing; there is in the damsel no sin worthy of death: for as when a man riseth against his neighbour, and slayeth him, even so is this matter:" They are referring to not punishing a woman for being a rape victim only if she is betrothed. If she is not, then she is still murdered by the godlovers. (YLT)25 “But if the man meets the engaged woman out in the country, and he rapes her, then only the man must die. 26 Do nothing to the young woman; she has committed no crime worthy of death. She is as innocent as a murder victim. 27 Since the man raped her out in the country, it must be assumed that she screamed, but there was no one to rescue her." That's all that is said, she shall not be put to death.. innocent as a murder victim.
Let's use the KJV since as far as I know, that is the oldest English version around these days:
Deut 22:13-29 is one big kill-non-virgins/rape-victims/consenting-lovers festival (especially if the raped ones don't scream due to a hand over their mouth). If a man tries to get his wife killed by slander, he will get vaguely chastised and fined. God, your god sucks in the personality department! Bigtime sexual hangups/confusions too.
13If any man take a wife, and go in unto her, and hate her,
14And give occasions of speech against her, and bring up an evil name upon her, and say, I took this woman, and when I came to her, I found her not a maid:
15Then shall the father of the damsel, and her mother, take and bring forth the tokens of the damsel's virginity unto the elders of the city in the gate:
16And the damsel's father shall say unto the elders, I gave my daughter unto this man to wife, and he hateth her;
17And, lo, he hath given occasions of speech against her, saying, I found not thy daughter a maid; and yet these are the tokens of my daughter's virginity. And they shall spread the cloth before the elders of the city.
18And the elders of that city shall take that man and chastise him;
19And they shall amerce him in an hundred shekels of silver, and give them unto the father of the damsel, because he hath brought up an evil name upon a virgin of Israel: and she shall be his wife; he may not put her away all his days.
20But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel:
21Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father's house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you.
22If a man be found lying with a woman married to an husband, then they shall both of them die, both the man that lay with the woman, and the woman: so shalt thou put away evil from Israel.
23If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her;
24Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour's wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you.
25But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die.
26But unto the damsel thou shalt do nothing; there is in the damsel no sin worthy of death: for as when a man riseth against his neighbour, and slayeth him, even so is this matter:
27For he found her in the field, and the betrothed damsel cried, and there was none to save her.
28If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;
29Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.
Quote:
Quote:Judge righteously Lev. 19:15
That completely upholds the immoral laws, since they are considered righteous and god-commanded. "Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment: thou shalt not respect the person of the poor, nor honor the person of the mighty: but in righteousness shalt thou judge thy neighbour."(YLT)15 “Do not twist justice in legal matters by favoring the poor or being partial to the rich and powerful. Always judge people fairly." No it doesn't it's talking about favoritism
It's not the wealth part that was presented to me, the righteous part was. I simply quoted the entire verse. Anyways, being cruel/immoral to everyone rather than just some people doesn't really make it all better, you know?
Quote:
Quote:The court must not execute through a majority of one; at least a majority of two is required Ex. 23:2
It actually says "Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil; neither shalt thou speak in a cause to decline after many to wrest judgment", the last part sounding like an order to not speak out against what the multitude have judged.(YLT)2 “You must not follow the crowd in doing wrong. When you are called to testify in a dispute, do not be swayed by the crowd to twist justice." Are we going by what it sounds like or what it says?
In other words, and I know you like other words, don't join any anti-cruelty crowds or speak out against god ordered cruelty to stop the (in)'justice'. I get it.
Quote:
Quote:Not to press them for payment if you know they don't have it Ex. 22:24
That is the same verse as above. Should I infer that after feeding the dead body to the poor, to tell them not to bother about paying you back someday?Should be vs. 26-27 "26 If you take your neighbor’s cloak as security for a loan, you must return it before sunset. 27 This coat may be the only blanket your neighbor has. How can a person sleep without it? If you do not return it and your neighbor cries out to me for help, then I will hear, for I am merciful."
What is the punishment for the meanness of taking someone's sleeping blanket as collateral for a loan? Nothing. God simply says he will hear the cry (and then brags about being gracious),
Quote:
Quote:Not to insult or harm anybody with words Lev. 25:17
Good thing it does not actually say that, since that would destroy all free speech, but let's see what it really says. "Ye shall not therefore oppress one another; but thou shalt fear thy God:for I am the LORD your God." Nothing indicating what would be oppressive, so it must be concluded that they mean anything against the god commands. The second part is a command to have an emotion, fear. Do you often love people you fear? I don't, but then again, I've never had Stockholm's Syndrome.There is part of that verse with some arbitrary fear thrown in, but you're implying that only opression of God's commands when we all feel obression is bad
I'm not implying anything. I meant exactly what I wrote. You bring up a good point though, making me wonder if there is any type of oppression that your god does not actively condone/order. Let's see, sexual oppression check, child abuse check, nationality oppression check, religious oppression check, am I leaving anything out? What nonbible oppression are you referring to?
Quote:Should be Deteronomy 25:16 (NLT) "16 All who cheat with dishonest weights and measures are detestable to the Lord your God." ALthough I agree the exodus verse is about destruction of people with differing beliefs
So I guess the nice law about not cheating with weights makes up for slaughter/genocide? I'm looking for examples of stuff in the bible so so so good, that the bad shit is insignificant in comparison. Can you provide that? Also, deut 25:16 is:
16For all that do such things, and all that do unrighteously, are an abomination unto the LORD thy God.
Quote:That was supposed to read the NIV not KJV sorry. You're still denying it says the word... stop arguing the semantics. The Bible didn't originally say homosexual, it got put into the Bible and was popular for a long time. Now people are getting back to the meaning of the words and other version are becoming more popular, especially among Biblical hermeneutics. [/color]
Why did you bring up new, recently written bibles that use the word homosexual as proof that it said so 2000 years ago? It didn't. Stick with the oldest of the English versions. That's what all the changed ones started out from (in this language, that is).
Quote:Whether people suffer or not in that afterlife is a matter of speculation. It's not that God would chose to kill their soul, it either exists or doesn't. If it does and you're not prepared, you get what you get.[/color]
It's not speculation to a xtian. God punishes or rewards during the afterlife based on what you do in this one. It has nothing to do with whether there actually is some sort of afterlife.
Quote:I am attempting to show you that yes there is bad, but it's outweighed by the good, especially in the instruction dept.
May 22, 2010 at 5:33 am (This post was last modified: May 22, 2010 at 5:35 am by tackattack.)
I appreciate your patience in my responce, I had limited access yesterday.
(May 20, 2010 at 1:48 pm)Scented Nectar Wrote:
(May 20, 2010 at 5:12 am)tackattack Wrote: To save time I'll bold what's relevant and comment in red
(May 19, 2010 at 7:24 am)Scented Nectar Wrote:
(May 19, 2010 at 2:53 am)tackattack Wrote: Good is of course relative, but I think all of it's good for a read, I've read worse. Do I need to quote all the exploits of Jesus/ disciples doing good deeds, healing, helping, filling the needs of the outcast and needy?
Sure, if these good acts cancel out the bad ones. They say Hitler treated dogs well, you know. Does that make everything else he did ok?Please list Jesus' bad deeds since you at least admit he had some good deeds and I'll respond, but only if you're genuinely intersted in hearing the response.
Advocate child abuse and murder amongst many other cruelties.
Christians are always claiming, “he’s the lamb”, “our savior”, “the king of peace”, “the embodiment of love”, amongst the many other names they associate with a loving, merciful nature. Jesus a nice guy? Not in my book. Nor in any other person’s who is capable of compassion and rationality. Let’s examine who the hell the Jesus character really is. These verses will show not only is Jesus’ “loving” nature a joke but so are the Christians who worship him. Jesus’ real mission to come to earth:
Jesus says that he has come to destroy families by making family members hate each other. He has “come not to send peace, but a sword.” Matthew 10:34
Jesus says, “Don’t imagine that I came to bring peace on earth! No, rather a sword lf you love your father, mother, sister, brother, more than me, you are not worthy of being mine. “The real beauty of this verse is that Jesus demands people truly love him more then they love their own family. I ask you how can we love someone that we can not see or interact with? Love is an emotion pertaining to physical existence not to faithful ideologies, yet God threatens you with Death just because your love for your mother maybe stronger than your love for him. Matthew 10:34
Families will be torn apart because of Jesus. “Brother shall deliver up the brother to death, and the father the child: and the children shall rise up against their parents, and cause them to be put to death." Matthew 10:21
Jesus strongly approves of the law and the prophets. He hasn’t the slightest objection to the cruelties of the Old Testament. Matthew 5:17
Jesus advocates murder and death:
Jesus condemns entire cities to dreadful deaths and to the eternal torment of hell because they didn’t care for his preaching. Matthew 11:20
Jesus, whose clothes are dipped in blood, has a sharp sword sticking out of his mouth. Thus attired, he treads the winepress of the wrath of God. (The winepress is the actual press that humans shall be put into so that we may be ground up.) Revelations 19:13-15
The beast and the false prophet are cast alive into a lake of fire. The rest of us the unchosen will be killed with the sword of Jesus. “An all the fowls were filled with their flesh.” Revelations 19:20-21
Jesus says he is the only way to salvation yet he purposely disillusions us so that we will go to hell:
Jesus explains that the reason he speaks in parables is so that no one will understand him, “lest . . . they . . . should understand . . . and should be converted, and I should heal them.” Matthew 13:10-15
Jesus explains why he speaks in parables to confuse people so they will go to hell. Mark 4:11-12
Jesus advocates child abuse:
Jesus is criticized by the Pharisees for not washing his hands before eating. He defends himself by attacking them for not killing disobedient children according to the commandment: “He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.” Matthew 15:4-7
Abandon your wife and children for Jesus and he’ll give your a big reward. Jesus asks that his followers abandon their children to follow him. To leave your child is abuse, it’s called neglect, pure and simple. Matthew 19:29
Jesus criticizes the Jews for not killing their disobedient children according to Old Testament law. Mark 7:9
A few other things about Jesus:
Jesus says that those who have been less fortunate in this life will have it even worse in the life to come. Mark 4:25
Jesus sends the devils into 2000 pigs, causing them to jump off a cliff and be drowned in the sea. Clearly Jesus could have simply sent the devils out, yet he chose instead to place them into pigs and kill them. This is called animal abuse. Mark 5:12-13
Jesus kills a fig tree for not bearing figs, even though it was out of season. Jesus must not be as smart as Christians would have us believe, for he was retarded enough to do something this silly. You’d think the son of god (god incarnate) would know that trees don’t bear fruit in dry season. Mark 11:13
Luke 12:47 Jesus okays beating slaves.Do any of the good things he did outweigh the bad things to the point where they cancel it out?
Quote:
Quote:The court must not kill anybody on circumstantial evidence Ex. 23:7
It actually says "Keep thee far from a false matter; and the innocent and righteous slay thou not: for I will not justify the wicked." Where do you see anything about circumstantial evidence? Maybe you should stop listening to the preacher man and read the thing yourself. So far, that quote fully upholds killing people for bible 'crimes'.Is it really Gymanstics to say that you shouldn't kill the innocent? innocent in a court of law requires solid evidence
Since the bible is thoroughly immoral in what it considers innocent, righteous and wicked, all it is saying is that that is still so. There is nothing about evidence being circumstantial or not, or about evidence at all in this verse.
Quote:
Quote:The court must not punish anybody who was forced to do a crime Deut. 22:26
It says nothing of the sort. It says "But unto the damsel thou shalt do nothing; there is in the damsel no sin worthy of death: for as when a man riseth against his neighbour, and slayeth him, even so is this matter:" They are referring to not punishing a woman for being a rape victim only if she is betrothed. If she is not, then she is still murdered by the godlovers. (YLT)25 “But if the man meets the engaged woman out in the country, and he rapes her, then only the man must die. 26 Do nothing to the young woman; she has committed no crime worthy of death. She is as innocent as a murder victim. 27 Since the man raped her out in the country, it must be assumed that she screamed, but there was no one to rescue her." That's all that is said, she shall not be put to death.. innocent as a murder victim.
Let's use the KJV since as far as I know, that is the oldest English version around these days: Deut 22:13-29 is one big kill-non-virgins/rape-victims/consenting-lovers festival (especially if the raped ones don't scream due to a hand over their mouth). If a man tries to get his wife killed by slander, he will get vaguely chastised and fined. God, your god sucks in the personality department! Bigtime sexual hangups/confusions too.
13If any man take a wife, and go in unto her, and hate her,
14And give occasions of speech against her, and bring up an evil name upon her, and say, I took this woman, and when I came to her, I found her not a maid:
15Then shall the father of the damsel, and her mother, take and bring forth the tokens of the damsel's virginity unto the elders of the city in the gate:
16And the damsel's father shall say unto the elders, I gave my daughter unto this man to wife, and he hateth her;
17And, lo, he hath given occasions of speech against her, saying, I found not thy daughter a maid; and yet these are the tokens of my daughter's virginity. And they shall spread the cloth before the elders of the city.
18And the elders of that city shall take that man and chastise him;
19And they shall amerce him in an hundred shekels of silver, and give them unto the father of the damsel, because he hath brought up an evil name upon a virgin of Israel: and she shall be his wife; he may not put her away all his days.
20But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel:
21Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father's house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you.
22If a man be found lying with a woman married to an husband, then they shall both of them die, both the man that lay with the woman, and the woman: so shalt thou put away evil from Israel.
23If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her;
24Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour's wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you.
25But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die.
26But unto the damsel thou shalt do nothing; there is in the damsel no sin worthy of death: for as when a man riseth against his neighbour, and slayeth him, even so is this matter:
27For he found her in the field, and the betrothed damsel cried, and there was none to save her.
28If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;
29Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.
Quote:
Quote:Judge righteously Lev. 19:15
That completely upholds the immoral laws, since they are considered righteous and god-commanded. "Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment: thou shalt not respect the person of the poor, nor honor the person of the mighty: but in righteousness shalt thou judge thy neighbour."(YLT)15 “Do not twist justice in legal matters by favoring the poor or being partial to the rich and powerful. Always judge people fairly." No it doesn't it's talking about favoritism
It's not the wealth part that was presented to me, the righteous part was. I simply quoted the entire verse. Anyways, being cruel/immoral to everyone rather than just some people doesn't really make it all better, you know?
Quote:
Quote:The court must not execute through a majority of one; at least a majority of two is required Ex. 23:2
It actually says "Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil; neither shalt thou speak in a cause to decline after many to wrest judgment", the last part sounding like an order to not speak out against what the multitude have judged.(YLT)2 “You must not follow the crowd in doing wrong. When you are called to testify in a dispute, do not be swayed by the crowd to twist justice." Are we going by what it sounds like or what it says?
In other words, and I know you like other words, don't join any anti-cruelty crowds or speak out against god ordered cruelty to stop the (in)'justice'. I get it.
Quote:
Quote:Not to press them for payment if you know they don't have it Ex. 22:24
That is the same verse as above. Should I infer that after feeding the dead body to the poor, to tell them not to bother about paying you back someday?Should be vs. 26-27 "26 If you take your neighbor’s cloak as security for a loan, you must return it before sunset. 27 This coat may be the only blanket your neighbor has. How can a person sleep without it? If you do not return it and your neighbor cries out to me for help, then I will hear, for I am merciful."
What is the punishment for the meanness of taking someone's sleeping blanket as collateral for a loan? Nothing. God simply says he will hear the cry (and then brags about being gracious),
Quote:
Quote:Not to insult or harm anybody with words Lev. 25:17
Good thing it does not actually say that, since that would destroy all free speech, but let's see what it really says. "Ye shall not therefore oppress one another; but thou shalt fear thy God:for I am the LORD your God." Nothing indicating what would be oppressive, so it must be concluded that they mean anything against the god commands. The second part is a command to have an emotion, fear. Do you often love people you fear? I don't, but then again, I've never had Stockholm's Syndrome.There is part of that verse with some arbitrary fear thrown in, but you're implying that only opression of God's commands when we all feel obression is bad
I'm not implying anything. I meant exactly what I wrote. You bring up a good point though, making me wonder if there is any type of oppression that your god does not actively condone/order. Let's see, sexual oppression check, child abuse check, nationality oppression check, religious oppression check, am I leaving anything out? What nonbible oppression are you referring to?
Quote:Should be Deteronomy 25:16 (NLT) "16 All who cheat with dishonest weights and measures are detestable to the Lord your God." ALthough I agree the exodus verse is about destruction of people with differing beliefs
So I guess the nice law about not cheating with weights makes up for slaughter/genocide? I'm looking for examples of stuff in the bible so so so good, that the bad shit is insignificant in comparison. Can you provide that? Also, deut 25:16 is:
16For all that do such things, and all that do unrighteously, are an abomination unto the LORD thy God.
Quote:That was supposed to read the NIV not KJV sorry. You're still denying it says the word... stop arguing the semantics. The Bible didn't originally say homosexual, it got put into the Bible and was popular for a long time. Now people are getting back to the meaning of the words and other version are becoming more popular, especially among Biblical hermeneutics. [/color]
Why did you bring up new, recently written bibles that use the word homosexual as proof that it said so 2000 years ago? It didn't. Stick with the oldest of the English versions. That's what all the changed ones started out from (in this language, that is).
Quote:Whether people suffer or not in that afterlife is a matter of speculation. It's not that God would chose to kill their soul, it either exists or doesn't. If it does and you're not prepared, you get what you get.[/color]
It's not speculation to a xtian. God punishes or rewards during the afterlife based on what you do in this one. It has nothing to do with whether there actually is some sort of afterlife.
Quote:I am attempting to show you that yes there is bad, but it's outweighed by the good, especially in the instruction dept.
Ok, when are you going to do that?
Frankly I'm too tired tonight to go over every verse with a direct response. I will absolutley assume that all the verses quoted are exact and the version doesn't really matter usually (sometimes ver 34 in one version due to translation ends up at verse 36 in other versions). I will consent that completely at face value The Bible God is written as an egomaniacle tyrant. I consent that some of what Jesus says at face value can be seen as condoning, murder, child abuse, slavery, etc. I completely agre and can see the perspective that when looked at objectively and at face value there is little merit in the stories or historicity of the Bibe. I'm not going to say you're not reading it right, or that you need the Holy Spirit as a translator.
Everything when initially read I suppose is attempted to be read as unbiased as possible and at face value. However for theists I will attempt to explain a general perspective and point out some biases if that's ok. After you read something objectively you apply it subjectively from your perspective and then interpret the meaning, relate the stories, put yourself in the writer(s) shoes, etc. You can't do that, and take it seriously, without first believing in the plausibility of said events. A Christian (IMO)comes from the perspecive of "Because of expereience in my reality I believe in the plausibility of God" or "I have Faith in God's existence" or a mix of both. That being said when they read the Bible, they apply it subjectively. If this is done as unbiasedly as possible, meaning and perspective is gained that an atheist can't obtain. It would require absolute suspension on their stance on God's existence, or it can be seen as nothing but absolute fiction. If that's yoour stance you're entitles to it, but if I have any more questions like "Why does your Bible God hate women?" I'm just going to say that from my perspective he doesn't and leave it at that. As far as the historicity of the Bible, I'm definately no cholar in that respect, min and one of our authors on here have done tons of research on this. They're just analying parts of the Bible that are verifiable, butthe Bible is still written from multiple perspectives and I personally think it's too subjective to qualify as evidence that something happened. However enough corroborating accounts does lend to the crediblity of an event (hence my beliefs that Jesus existed).
First I'll quote then comment (I did read and I like the article you posted btw):
"I ask you how can we love someone that we can not see or interact with?"
1-This is presuming that you have nothing to interact with, which is the whole purpose behind the Holy Spirit.
"Love is an emotion pertaining to physical existence not to faithful ideologies..."
2-Love is either a subjective human emotion, or an act of self-sacrifice within physical existence that has implication on an after-life (thus ideology related), depending on your context. The author and you frequently juxtapose them.
"To leave your child is abuse..."
3-To abandon your child is abuse, is a parent who dies a child abuser? Is a mother who can't take care of a child and gives them to the grandparents a child abuser? Is a mother who leaves an abusive relationship, but ensure the child's necessities and well-being a child abuser? No of course not.
"Do any of the good things he did outweigh the bad things to the point where they cancel it out?"
4- Good does not outweigh bad. There is duality in humanity, both good and bad. They don't cancel out they balance out. Jesus, IMO is unbalanced due to the lack of bad. This is what leads to the Christian notion of Jsus' divinity.
"being cruel/immoral to everyone rather than just some people doesn't really make it all better, you know?"
5-Of course not. What you're calling cruelty, which Im trying very hard to explain, is not only self-imposed and unnecessary, not any more cuel than not ensuring everyone has a free ticket to disney land, when you're passing them out.
6-I'm detecting less outright attacks which is great. I still don't think you're attempting to see the other side of it, not that you need to. If you'd rather leave it at you Christians worship Satan we can leave it at that. I don't see the conversation progressing though until you're intellectually willing to attempt a different perspective.
"There ought to be a term that would designate those who actually follow the teachings of Jesus, since the word 'Christian' has been largely divorced from those teachings, and so polluted by fundamentalists that it has come to connote their polar opposite: intolerance, vindictive hatred, and bigotry." -- Philip Stater, Huffington Post
always working on cleaning my windows- me regarding Johari
(May 22, 2010 at 5:33 am)tackattack Wrote: I will consent that completely at face value The Bible God is written as an egomaniacle tyrant. I consent that some of what Jesus says at face value can be seen as condoning, murder, child abuse, slavery, etc. I completely agre and can see the perspective that when looked at objectively and at face value there is little merit in the stories or historicity of the Bibe. I'm not going to say you're not reading it right, or that you need the Holy Spirit as a translator.
Then what are we debating here? It all boils down to 'when god says yes, he really means no', if the real and opposite meaning are all hidden from face value. Everything I argue refers to what the biblebook actually says, not what some of it's followers pretend it to really mean.
Quote:"I ask you how can we love someone that we can not see or interact with?"
1-This is presuming that you have nothing to interact with, which is the whole purpose behind the Holy Spirit.
Your holy spirit is an emotion. It's the imaginary friend who gives you love and appreciates the love you give him. Obviously a pleasant feeling emotion, probably somewhat addictive, but nothing real about it, other than it being an emotion/concept.
Quote:"Do any of the good things he did outweigh the bad things to the point where they cancel it out?"
4- Good does not outweigh bad. There is duality in humanity, both good and bad. They don't cancel out they balance out. Jesus, IMO is unbalanced due to the lack of bad. This is what leads to the Christian notion of Jsus' divinity.
In a guide book inspired by your can-only-do-good god, there should be no bad at all. When is he going to fill in all those gaps he left? All those bad thing gaps that you think are simply a state of being without god?
Quote:"being cruel/immoral to everyone rather than just some people doesn't really make it all better, you know?"
5-Of course not. What you're calling cruelty, which Im trying very hard to explain, is not only self-imposed and unnecessary, not any more cuel than not ensuring everyone has a free ticket to disney land, when you're passing them out.
We weren't talking about a trip to Disney Land. We were talking about an trip to flee hideous laws that kill people for noncrimes. We are talking about a trip to save their lives. Why would any god want to ensure that not everyone has a free ticket to this?
Quote:I still don't think you're attempting to see the other side of it, not that you need to. If you'd rather leave it at you Christians worship Satan we can leave it at that. I don't see the conversation progressing though until you're intellectually willing to attempt a different perspective.
You mean that you want me to become a believer through self-deception (faith, it's often called). Are you here in hopes of sharing the good word of god to us unfortunate nonbelievers? Why doesn't your god just let us know about him himself? I'm getting the idea he has some communication issues.
Which of course, makes me think of one of my favourite youtubes about people trying to 'save' other people.
You obviously don't get it SN, I'm not here to make you a believer, just attempting to share my side of it and see yours. We're not debating anything here I agreed with your face value literal definition of the scriptures. You can read an entire dictionary though and not find any meaning in it. You choose not to take context into account, yet are complaining that you don't understand. You obviously are more up for debate than listening. You can define faith any way you like, you seem to accept only the interpretations of words that coincide with your biases. You and the writer above claim how can you believe in something you can't interact with. We're saying you can't know if something exists unless you've interacted with it. If you feel every theist is a delusional, irrational unicorn believer than fine by me. If you want to believe the holy spirit is just an emotional state, fine by me. I really wish you wouldn't speak to things you have no context or belief in though. That along with your continued baseless assumptions on my motives and your failure to attempt to see the other side of the issue makes you seem closed-minded and ignorant. I think we'll just have to call this one failing to see eye to eye.
"There ought to be a term that would designate those who actually follow the teachings of Jesus, since the word 'Christian' has been largely divorced from those teachings, and so polluted by fundamentalists that it has come to connote their polar opposite: intolerance, vindictive hatred, and bigotry." -- Philip Stater, Huffington Post
always working on cleaning my windows- me regarding Johari
(May 4, 2010 at 1:16 am)Rwandrall Wrote: My family is VERY catholic, to the point where they invite a priest to lunch at least once a week. They do not know im an atheist so i try to suffer through that. However last week an interaction caught my attention.
The priest was talking about a Romanian homeless guy who still came to his Church every week, apparently not for shelter but for belief. He did not even beg for money there. But the priest said he was troubling the rest of the people (smell, mostly) and ended up getting him thrown out by the police, and they were laughing about it with all the ever-present immigration jokes...
Isnt the Church the ONE place on Earth where this guy should not be persecuted, judged by what he looks like and should be helped ? To me this was not much, but it was enough to know that hypocrisy is the key word in Christianity. It disgusted me.
So now you're going to use this case of one selfish priest to dismiss Christianity as hypocritical? Nevermind that there are millions of Christian missions throughout the world that help people. Just next month, a group of Christians I know are traveling to Africa with their church to work on expanding an orphanage, and build a playground for children.
Just because Christians do charitable things does not mean that Christianity isn't rife with hypocrisy, so your point is moot. Besides, while the individuals involved may be doing it to help others, the church has the underlying goal of proselytizing to the poor heathens. Altruism it is not.
(May 22, 2010 at 10:29 am)Paul the Human Wrote: Just because Christians do charitable things does not mean that Christianity isn't rife with hypocrisy, so your point is moot. Besides, while the individuals involved may be doing it to help others, the Catholic church has the underlying goal of proselytizing to the poor heathens. Altruism it is not.
addition by me
"There ought to be a term that would designate those who actually follow the teachings of Jesus, since the word 'Christian' has been largely divorced from those teachings, and so polluted by fundamentalists that it has come to connote their polar opposite: intolerance, vindictive hatred, and bigotry." -- Philip Stater, Huffington Post
always working on cleaning my windows- me regarding Johari
I agree that the Catholic church is probably the one most actively involved in proselytizing disguised as international charity, but there are plenty of Protestant/Baptist churches that do so, as well.
