Poor uneducated unintelligent aheists

[tackattack]

---

Irrespective of our disagreement on the terms.. my point is that faith by definition does not require any analysis and in my experience when analysis is attempted the goal is to rectify and/or justify one's belief.. It is a circular endeavor.. or an inductive analysis before deductive investigation...

In other words how many of the churches which you are familiar ask questions along the lines of why should the theophanies of distant tribal/desert dwellers loom heavily over my moral sensibilities.. This removes romantic and biased notions of their chosen status.. divine favor status etc.. or to seriously evaluate whether Jesus was a real person.. for instance.. Unless they are seeking ammunition to combat a disbeliever.. I have not known such thinking (similar that is..) to be prevalent among any religious group as a natural course of inquiry..

Tack..

My point was not that inductive reasoning is illogical or circular.. However, my apologies re. inserting deduction and inductive analysis.. because I see that the terms can be misconstrued here.. I'm used to dealing with deductive investigations of proven premises.. and inductive investigation to teach... However, when dealing with a religious person, I have to keep in mind that the premises themselves are often unproven and the religious mind is apt to utilize red herrings as to not deal with this so I do not wish to throw the conversation into a debate on the validity of the approaches as you and I come from vastly different environments and their use is interpreted differently..

My point however was stated multiple times.. If you would like to continue exploring it.. that would be cool.. otherwise.. if you keep ignoring it I'm not sure why it would be necessary to respond to me.. as that is what I'm concerned with..

Analyzing beliefs with the conscious/subconscious goal to justify the beliefs.. How "faith" inherently does not allow one to challenge one's beliefs but so far because of the aforementioned.. and how the process of investigation itself becomes confused with rigorous analysis..

BTW: How do you hide extensive posts?

---

Please see the BB Code Guide for use of the hide tags. Also note that you can't have a hide button nested within a hidden field.
As you can see by the emphasizing of your words you can see where there's a little double standard. Perhaps we should just start fresh and you could state your point and I could rebut it or agree with it.

[quote='popeyespappy' pid='138216' dateline='1305672797']

---

Your right. In this case “kill your children” and “you shall not kill” are not contradictory. However this is only because the word kill in “you shall not kill” is a mistranslation. The word kill should instead be the word murder. Murder is the unlawful taking of life. Killing is not necessarily unlawful therefore it does not have to be murder. You can kill someone without murdering them but cannot murder someone without killing them.

I often hear the argument of killing versus murder from Christians when discussing an order from God to kill. An example of this is the sacking of Jericho. The argument is that the order from God to the Israelites to kill all the inhabitants of Jericho including men, women, old and young the killing was lawful. The reasoning being that any command from God is lawful therefore the killing was not murder.

According to the Old Testament you should kill your rebellious children. The commandment “You shall not murder” does not apply in this instance because any order from God is lawful therefore not murder which is by definition an unlawful act. The New Testament explicitly reaffirms that a parent should kill their insolent children. Despite these instructions you have managed to cherry pick the “you shall not kill” passage out of the Bible in order to justify not killing rebellious and insolent children. In doing so you have chosen a more modern morality over that of the ancient savages that recorded your holy books. For this I applaud you.

---

How exactly is it cherry picking to look at all of the passages as a whole rather than taking one or two verses out of context. I think my example is still valid and has yet to be addressed. I'll enumerate it clearly here.
Example of cherry picking, literal interpretation with no reading comprehansion (What I feel you both are doing):
1)Did you say "you should kill your rebellious children" in your previous post?
2)Was it your intent to ask me to kill my children?