Huggy, what I think you're not getting, here, is that you're citing from a book literally millennia old, from another culture, translated and copied into numerous languages and variations, selected from among diverse competing theological interpretations by a committee, and claiming to be about magic and magical beings. What you cite to us as "the law" has about as much bearing on reality as me quoting to you from the Bahagavad Gita or the Qur'an. All contain threats against "sinful behavior/mindsets", and all are hilarious, when viewed from the outside. You are not capable of viewing it from the outside, because you're inside one of them.
But we're not taking about law, in the human sense. We're talking about a single entity (according to the claims of the Zoroastrians... no, wait, which group was making this group of claims? Oh right, the Hebrews, followed by numerous descendant versions) who, according to this version:
1) Constructed the laws of the universe, including the requirements for how the bipedal, intelligent apes inhabiting one small desert corner of the third rock from one star out of trillions (that we can detect), should think and eat and dress and screw.
2) Constructed those laws in such a way that the penalty for failure to adhere to them is a penalty of eternal torment.
3) Offered "pardon" to those who worship said entity and accept that pardon thereby.
If I came into your neighborhood with a crew of heavily-armed men, gathered everyone in the central square, and told them at gunpoint that they were doing something I didn't like, so they could either tell me I'm the greatest and accept my pardon, or else I'd have to shoot them... what would you call me?
Your "God" has done exactly that, by allegedly being both lawmaker and judge, especially since I only have your word and the written words of long-dead barbarians to tell me that it's even a real thing.
That's why we compare you to groups like the Hindus, and their scriptures. I'd be willing to bet that if you read their scriptures, you'd find it hilarious to see what they consider sinful and don't, and would find their claims about magic to be equally hilarious. You just can't see that there's not a significant difference between the two... only details.
But we're not taking about law, in the human sense. We're talking about a single entity (according to the claims of the Zoroastrians... no, wait, which group was making this group of claims? Oh right, the Hebrews, followed by numerous descendant versions) who, according to this version:
1) Constructed the laws of the universe, including the requirements for how the bipedal, intelligent apes inhabiting one small desert corner of the third rock from one star out of trillions (that we can detect), should think and eat and dress and screw.
2) Constructed those laws in such a way that the penalty for failure to adhere to them is a penalty of eternal torment.
3) Offered "pardon" to those who worship said entity and accept that pardon thereby.
If I came into your neighborhood with a crew of heavily-armed men, gathered everyone in the central square, and told them at gunpoint that they were doing something I didn't like, so they could either tell me I'm the greatest and accept my pardon, or else I'd have to shoot them... what would you call me?
Your "God" has done exactly that, by allegedly being both lawmaker and judge, especially since I only have your word and the written words of long-dead barbarians to tell me that it's even a real thing.
That's why we compare you to groups like the Hindus, and their scriptures. I'd be willing to bet that if you read their scriptures, you'd find it hilarious to see what they consider sinful and don't, and would find their claims about magic to be equally hilarious. You just can't see that there's not a significant difference between the two... only details.
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.
