(October 4, 2015 at 9:36 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote:
(October 4, 2015 at 12:24 pm)Cecelia Wrote: And the bible most definitely makes women out to be property, and non-virgin women out to be worthless (A woman who is not a virgin on her wedding night is to be stoned). And Yahweh's nature is most definitely psychotic. His nature is to kill. People are acting up? Time to flood the earth. David took a census? the blood of 70,000 men will be all that satisfies him. Harden Pharaoh's heart so he won't let Moses's people go, and then when he doesn't let Moses's people go he takes all the first borns of Egypt. All of this is considered "Righteous" by his nature. He had bears kill 42 youths for them making fun of a prophet's bald head. He killed Lot's wife just for looking back.
I can understand how if all you went by was a list on some anti-Christian site, how you may come to that conclusion. And I admit that there are that some are difficult if someone doesn't understand God's position, and that it is by his mercy, that judgement is withheld. Also, because I have read the Bible, I know that many on these lists are taken out of context, and see much poisoning the well tactics being used also, and some which simply show poor reading skills by the author.
Frankly I loose interest when the story is distorted towards a purpose. If you read the Bible, you will see some of the things you have described (although perhaps not as described). You will also see much patience in mercy. You will see opportunities to change, and the consequences of the failure to heed that warning. I feel that you are missing much of the story, and only seeing what you wish to see.
I don't need to go by a list on some 'anti-christian' website. These are things that are ACTUALLY in the Bible. I'm assuming you've actually read it.
Yahweh floods the world, and kills every animal, every man woman and child save for two of each 'kind', and eight people. How is that out of context? He killed all of them in the story. Did he, or did he not?
After David took a census, Yahweh gave him choices of how he would punish his people. David refused to choose, so Yahweh decides to go with the plague, and kills 70,000 people and even then he's not even really satisfied. Yahweh was a big fan of blood sacrifices. Even in the new testament, Jesus is a blood sacrifice.
Did he not take all the first borns of Egypt? Did he not harden Pharaoh's heart? These things are actually in the bible. If you've read it, you found them there.
Did he not turn Lot's wife into a pillar of salt for merely looking back? Did he not have bears kill 42 youths because they made fun of one of his prophets?
You see mercy and patience because that's what you have been trained to see. You choose to look past the fact that he killed 50,000 people who looked at the ark. Does this sound like a just punishment to you? If so then you might just be a psychopath too.
If these things weren't in the bible, then you might have a point. But they are. They're very clearly in there. Whatever mercy and patience he supposedly has is negated by the fact that he did these things too.
"But Jesus!"
You mean when he sacrificed himself to himself so he could forgive mankind? Why couldn't he forgive them without a sacrifice? Why did he need a sacrifice at all? If he's god, then surely he can forgive people without a sacrifice of any kind. Yet we do not see that. Not when David took the Census. And not when Jesus sacrificed himself either. Yahweh reads as a child having a temper tantrum when things do not go his way.
Also I don't think you understand what poisoning the well is.
Poisoning the well is when you present unfavorable information about an opponent in order to discredit their argument. Poisoning the well is not when you bring up unfavorable information on a subject. That would kill the purpose of any debate.
If John and Dave are debating, and John presents unfavorable information about Dave to the audience (relevant or not) then it is poisoning the well.
If John and Dave are debating, and John presents unfavorable information about the subject to the audience, then it is not poisoning the well.
I
