(October 10, 2015 at 9:40 am)sinnerdaniel94 Wrote:(October 10, 2015 at 9:33 am)TheRocketSurgeon Wrote: Fuck, man, how dense can you be?
We cannot hate God, since no gods are real. We don't hate Jehovah any more than you hate Ganesha or Shiva or Thor.
On the other hand, we can be astounded at how barbaric and brutal your descriptions of this fictional character (around whom you have chosen to center your life and ideologies) are.
If you told me you worshiped Darth Vader, I'd question why you followed a guy who liked to Force-choke people who disagreed with him.
And you would reply "Why do you hate Vader?" And I would stare at you like your brain came out of your nose.
We shouldn't believe our history books. We should look at what each book has to say, compare it to other books (and primary literature, if we see discrepancies between the versions told in the history books), and form an idea of what history really is based on how strong the case is of each thing we in society think we know about history. The same is true of any books.
And if a person told me they had read only one history book, and then decided that was the only history book worth reading, I'd stare at them like their brains came out of their nose.
oh ok so you could care less about what I have to say about my beliefs. I understand now.
The bible is 66 books put together btw, not just one.
Stop making up shit I didn't say.
If I "could care less about what [you] have to say", then I wouldn't respond to it at all.
I just think your views are idiotic.
And regardless of whether the Bible is made up of numerous documents, it's still just one source-book, one outlook of information. And indeed, it not only disagrees internally but disagrees with a huge number of other historians and archaeologists, not to mention containing some really awful and blatantly incorrect science (Genesis 30, the story of Jacob with Laban's Flocks, remains my favorite example). No matter how "comprehensive" a particular tome may be, it is still one source, and only a complete fool would consider the views taken from it valid on that basis alone.
The Cambridge Ancient History is ninteen books, each much larger than the Bible, and immaculately researched, yet I would consider you a fool if that's the only source of your ideas about history.
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.
