RE: Why the "There are so many interpretations of the Bible" claim is confused
October 8, 2015 at 1:32 am
(October 8, 2015 at 12:51 am)Godschild Wrote:(October 7, 2015 at 10:12 pm)TheRocketSurgeon Wrote: 7. Dawkins has neither committed genocide nor commanded people to commit genocide.
I say "if' for your benefit, if we as Christians are correct in what we believe then Dawkins is calling millions to an eternal punishment, a punishment far worse than wiping out mankind. Dawkins teaches people in the way of their punishment. If we're right then Dawkins is your enemy.
GC
As I pointed out in the other thread, to which you replied, a God which punishes nonbelievers with eternal torture is not one whom a rational and honorable person would choose to worship. If your God is what you claim, then he is a monster and I thank Dawkins for his work in showing what a monstrous claim is being made by the Christian sects. Thankfully, it is clear that your imaginary friend is imaginary, since his values dovetail so amazingly with the desires/culture/prejudices/ignorances of the priests of one particular Bronze Age desert tribal sheepherder-warrior people.
I prefer to think of it in terms of Thomas Jefferson's admonishment to his nephew Peter Carr in 1787:
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear."
A Christian told me: if you were saved you cant lose your salvation. you're sealed with the Holy Ghost
I replied: Can I refuse? Because I find the entire concept of vicarious blood sacrifice atonement to be morally abhorrent, the concept of holding flawed creatures permanently accountable for social misbehaviors and thought crimes to be morally abhorrent, and the concept of calling something "free" when it comes with the strings of subjugation and obedience perhaps the most morally abhorrent of all... and that's without even going into the history of justifying genocide, slavery, rape, misogyny, religious intolerance, and suppression of free speech which has been attributed by your own scriptures to your deity. I want a refund. I would burn happily rather than serve the monster you profess to love.
I replied: Can I refuse? Because I find the entire concept of vicarious blood sacrifice atonement to be morally abhorrent, the concept of holding flawed creatures permanently accountable for social misbehaviors and thought crimes to be morally abhorrent, and the concept of calling something "free" when it comes with the strings of subjugation and obedience perhaps the most morally abhorrent of all... and that's without even going into the history of justifying genocide, slavery, rape, misogyny, religious intolerance, and suppression of free speech which has been attributed by your own scriptures to your deity. I want a refund. I would burn happily rather than serve the monster you profess to love.
