Why the "There are so many interpretations of the Bible" claim is confused

[Ravenshire]

Seriously, GC, after how long you've been here, that you are still unable to see the flaws in this argument, is pretty disappointing. But pretty predictable.

There are none so ignorant as the willfully ignorant.

[Godscreated]

TheRocketSurgeon

God doesn't torture, He sentence's you to an eternal punishment you have chosen, you actually choose the punishment you will suffer by how you lived your life here. Just as a murder chooses his punishment by breaking the law to a certain degree, the judge sentences him to that choice. You break God's law and seek not forgiveness you without a doubt will serve the eternal punishment you chose and made for your self.  

Horse shit. There is no need for an eternal punishment. It would be just as simple to withhold an eternal reward, and just let me die like an animal if I have not elevated my soul to heaven-worthiness via "The Way" taught by Jesus of Nazareth, called the Annointed One (Messiah).

Wrong, there is a reason for eternal punishment. The first and simplest answer I would give is balance in justice, meaning that because there is an eternal reward there has to be an eternal punishment.
Second because God is eternal and a persons unforgiven sin is against Him, there has to be an eternal punishment, why, because the sin goes on and on forever it's never forgiven because a person even in hell will not seek it.
You speak of the way you believe salvation is earned and then you speak of Jesus teachings, they are two totally different things. You can't elevate your soul to worthiness, it's impossible in the teachings of Jesus, only Jesus Christ can elevate you into salvation and it comes by grace, grace unmerited love.
Third it's not your universe and/or creation it's God's and He has the authority through who He is to set the rules so to speak. If you are to deny Christ till your death I can understand why you would want to be left in the grave, however that's not your call nor choice, at death you give up all choice.

It is a LIE to claim that we "choose for ourselves" to commit the crime, because even your theology acknowledges that we are born into a "sin nature" and that we cannot help but to violate those laws. So we're not talking about a choice to sin or not sin, that would equate to a choice to break the law or not break the law in your example. It's a red herring.

Yes, I agree we are born into a sin nature, however one doesn't have to be a slave to it, you can choose not to commit as I said, murder, I haven't and most people haven't. Many of the worst sins (as man sees them) most people never commit. But as you said we have a sin nature and we will all fall to it at some time and there is a punishment for it as long as it remains unforgiven and that does not have to be, Christ gave us a ticket on the train to freedom from our sin, all we have to do is accept who He is what He did for us. I love to eat and will over eat and have till I've gained to much weight, I've chosen to now eat less going against what I want to do so I can lose weight to become healthier. Sin's no different, we have the nature but we do not have to choose to act upon it, but we do and the reason is in the third chapter of Genesis if you care to search for it. By the way there's no red herring. 

What you're talking about is a person who walks up to me out of the blue and says I and everyone else on earth owe him money, because we're on his turf and broke the rules of behavior required on his turf, and if I don't pay the money (which of course is in an amount I'll never be able to pay) or otherwise "choose to" become his loyal servant, he'll torture me.
That is a psychopathic monster.

Sure that would be a monster, but God as you are insinuating doesn't do that, God has given us a free ticket so to speak to not make the payment, His Son and our Savior has done that if we only accept who He is and what He did. So no one has an excuse for needing to be good enough (make the payment), because Christ himself will do it for us if we choose Him. Your above analogy is the OT kind, there is now no work for salvation.

In your example, God is not the Judge, he's the Legislature that makes the rules in the first place. Calling him the Judge is to pretend he is just obeying rules that he didn't create, which Are Just The Way It Is™, and he's helpless to do anything but enforce them as-written.

 

In my example and the way I've always seen God and know Him, He is, in truth both because of who He is. God didn't create the rules because God wasn't created, the law is set from who God is. As for some of the OT Jewish laws they were set for Israel as they were living at that time and other nations were living, in other words God works through humanity, some of those laws were set just for the nation of Israel because God was going to bring the Messiah to us through them. 

So you believe I'm not rational or honorable, you judge me without even getting to know me, you do so without a absolute standard, though you take Dawkins as absolute authority, a man without any absolute standards.
You call God a monster, why, because He wants you to live a purposeful life, one that He knows will make you joyful. You call Him this because you would rather live in sinfulness ie. rebel against Him. God offers you an eternal life, Dawkins offers you an eternal punishment, your choice, to follow a fallible man or an omniscient loving God.

I did not say that. I said that a rational and honorable person would not choose to worship such a monster.

I choose worship God, the one you call a monster and you know I do, so yes you must be calling me irrational and dishonorable.

 I think that you have simply not given it a genuine enough level of thought to realize what a monster this being you worship really is, and that if you did, you would reject the entire concept as contrary to basic human decency and innate morality (except for sociopaths and psychopaths, of course).

Because I have chosen to worship Him now I'm a sociopath and psychopath, this has no more reason than I stated before. I have studied the Bible sincerely and deeply often one passage at a time, I have asked Him to explain things that seemed wrong to me, that is until He revealed why and for what purpose. 
You want to see Him in the light you portray Him because you want to live the self (hint for Genesis chapter three) instead of living for Him and like I've said it's your choice, IMO and because I know who God really is you're making a mistake, but it is your choice not mine, I've made mine for myself.
Let me say this man's decency and un-innate morality has changed over the last fifty years alone that it doen't resemble what man believed fifty years ago and this will continue until man becomes depraved as a society.

And I also didn't say I follow Dawkins. Why do you fundies always think we revere Dawkins like some sort of atheist deity? That's just fucking wwweeeiiirrrddd. I like a lot of what Dawkins has to say, and I'm grateful for the work he does, but that's also true of Tori Amos and Emma Watson! I certainly don't take any of them as authorities. You clearly don't understand how atheism works at all.

You have no farther to look than this forum, Dawkins is setup on a pedestal here so high if someone was to fall off that pedestal it would kill them. seriously go look at what has been said here about him if you truly want the answer to your question, if not the ignore, that's the usual way most atheist act around here. I agree what they do with him is wwweeeiiirrrddd! I'm the one who understand how atheism works, it's those here who claim to be atheist that parrot Dawkins and other atheist and never bring their own ideas nor feelings to the table. I've said this so many times over the last five years I've given up on anyone actually realizing what their doing.

And now you're just LYING about the reason I called God a monster, even though I have described it to you as specifically and in detail as one could possibly detail. I have clearly explained that I find your god-concept to be morally repugnant.

No I'm not lying, I'm trying to tell you what I see in all people who do not believe in Him, it's what I use to do, been there done that! Like I said earlier the answer is in Genesis chapter 3 and I have given you a hint, if you really want to know the answer go and find it, I'm not trying to play tricks on you or make a monster out of you, I'm trying to be truthful and sincere without upsetting you. You have never personally responded to me in detail why you believe God to be a monster. Yes you gave a couple of reasons all atheist parrot because they are not understood by atheist, but to give me your personal reasons in a reasonable and decent way, no.

I would no sooner follow it than a White Supremacist ideology, no matter how happy they claimed they wanted me to be by accepting their views.

It's quite obvious by observation alone White Supremacist ideologies are not desirable nor will they make someone happy, unless they have a real hate for others. So their claims hold no water for rational people.
God on the other hand promises to deliver us from any hatred we might harbor in our hearts for anyone person. Jesus said, if one has a problem with another, to go to them and clear up things before coming to the alter to honor Him. You can't honor Jesus with hate in your heart and He wants us to clear it up with His help so that He is honored even before we come to the alter. Why you say should I (you) honor Jesus, because He gave His all to give you freedom from the sin that condemns you to an eternal hell. 

They, and you, have views about the nature of humanity and about what constitutes moral action, that I find repugnant. Since I said it several times before and you apparently didn't grasp my meaning,

My moral nature that's from God is nothing like the White Supremacists, their's is hate mine is love, they developed their's contrary to God, God planted his in me and then explained to me what they are and how to use them.
I find White Supremacists repugnant because of their less than moral morals. I find my moral morals that come from God's love to be very satisfying and bring great joy to me. I know what repugnant means, what I'm not sure of is how much it's blinded you to God's truth. God finds your sin very repugnant, but not to the degree of hatred you show towards Him. God's willing to forgive you of what He sees repugnant in you if you'll ony accept who Jesus is and what He did for us.

This is no different than Dawkins. This president took advantage of his female slaves and fell in love with the godless French thinking. So I say again follow a fallible man or the God who wants you to spend an eternal life of great joy with Him, again your choice will give you either an eternal punishment you choice and the eternal torment you choose by your life without God and his forgiveness, or a joyful eternal life with God.

GC

Another word for "the godless French thinking" is The Enlightenment, which informed most of the Founding Fathers, which Jefferson being chief among them. And whether or not he "took advantage of" his slave Sally (most say they were in love but could not be together openly because of the racist culture of the time), his morals are irrelevant since I don't follow Jefferson as a moral guide, either.

You and all godless people call it enlightenment, those who know the truths of God call it darkness and blindness and many of the Founding Fathers did not agree with it. She was a slave, if you love someone you do not keep them in slavery.

You seem awfully enamored with the idea of follow-the-leader... an interesting psychological edge to your tendency to seek out (and define people by) "who is obedient to whom".  I'd be willing to bet you have some BDSM tendencies in your sexual desires... not that there's anything wrong with that, just that I'm seeing a pattern that's highly suggestive.

Ha, Ha, Ha, that's funny and far from the truth, I'm a natural leader. As for who obeys whom, it's simple, I understand to some degree what the spiritual battle means and want everyone to be on the winning side. 

No matter how many times you try to repackage the idea as a "free" choice, it can never be a free choice when I have already had the fault before I was born, and the choice is made over threat of torture. Your god is based on a concept developed when people still thought tyranny and slavery and genocide were a-okay... and you just haven't been able to massage the God 2.0 (aka Jesus) version enough to fully get rid of the fact that you worship a violent Blood God.

Blood thirsty, you're not serious right. If God were as you say "blood thirsty," then why did He allow His Son to shed His blood for a once and for all sacrifice, to put a stop to blood sacrifice. God even told the Israelites He hated their sacrifices, do you even know why?

So again, I'll make it as clear as I can. I follow no one but my own conscience and my strong sense of feeling for my fellow human beings. I reason each thing out for myself, though I like to listen to many ideas before I make up my mind, and remain willing to change my mind if I come across better information. I have a strong sense of what is moral and honorable behavior...

and your God-concept fails at it in every imaginable way.

You have a moral compass that's changing with time and situations, mine doesn't because they come from an unchanging God who is omniscient and proved to me absolutely right. I do not have to worry about what's right for tomorrow because it's the same as today, this my friend is justice.

If I am to be tortured for the "free choice", then it is not a free choice, it's an extortion attempt. And I will gladly suffer that psychopath's "consequences" rather than sell out all of my brain and all of my morals to subjugate myself to such a repugnant idea of a higher power. The fact that you feel the need to lie and misrepresent all that I think and believe, and to put spray paint all over the big pile of feces that is your unchangeable dogmatic concept of power-hierarchy, with required submissiveness and unquestioning obedience to Proper Authority (ha!) and a moral code that is the most disgusting thing this side of ISIS, while not being proof against the concept, definitely does not make me any more inclined to give up my honor and lower myself and surrender both my morals and my intellect for a book written by people who didn't know what genes were or that the sun could not stop in the sky because it does not travel across the sky.

In the future what will people call the way you see things because you didn't know what they discovered, idiot, false scientist, stupid jerks, unrealistic idiots, what? If they have your mentality and dislike for those of the past I'm sure those will be the names used all because you didn't know, this is your justice? Then have it, it will fair no better with the future than the way you're treating the people of the past. You are trying to equate the physical with the spiritual and that ain't going to ever work, God is interested in your spiritual life and destination to bad you're not.
You want be tortured and you're not being extorted, you are ranting from a self interest that leaves out your great potential to be of use to others, but I do not expect you to understand what I just stated because you lack the spiritual knowledge needed to do so. 
I'm not trying to upset you with the things I've said, wish I could believe that of you towards me but I'm finding that hard because you know how to use the atheist buttons in a more refined way, that changes nothing, it's still atheist tactics to unsettle Christians, you being skillful doesn't blind me to these things. I believe all in all we have some good conversation and my concern for your eternal life is meant as nothing short of good.

GC

[Bob Kelso]

"For instance, it's pretty clear, not just from the Bible, but from historical record, that there was a man named Jesus."

What?? I disagree

Very very disagree

Dude named Jesus did my hedges for years.

I believe they call it "manscaping". 

[robvalue]

Roadrunner: I think you miss the very real difference between science and theology. In science, falsifiable, testable hypotheses are put forward. They are rigorously tested and peer reviewed. It's the job of scientists to try and prove the hypothesis wrong, using evidence. They can categorically prove it wrong, because it is falsifiable. That means it contains very clear failure conditions. In most cases, the failure conditions represent almost the whole scope of where the evidence may point; the prediction is that the evidence will be exactly where it is said to be, out of all that available space. Anyone can disprove a scientific theory, as long as they understand it, and provide sufficient evidence. Only once a hypothesis has continued to be accurate in the face of all this testing is it promoted to being a theory. It then becomes the approved best model we currently have, until such time as a flaw is found in it.

With theology, the hypotheses about reality are never falsifiable or testable. They can never be proved wrong. There is no way for anyone to try them out, no matter how skilled or determined someone is. They can never be proved right either. They are impossible to assess. So there is no way for them ever to be promoted to anything other than a hypothesis and they remain speculation. There is no way to demonstrate anyone's hypothesis is any more or less valid than any others.

The reason theology is so careful as to keep all their hypotheses unfalsifiable is because as soon as they put their money where their mouth is and make a non-trivial testable claim, guess what happens? It's proved wrong almost immediately. The whole field of "study" is one massive argument from ignorance. It tells us nothing useful about reality, it makes no predictions, and it furthers no knowledge.

Scientific theory, on the whole, converges. This is because it deals with real, testable things that are not subject to opinion. Religious hypotheses vary wildly. They diverge in any number of directions. Not even people of the same sect of the same religion can agree. And for someone who doesn't simply accept some book or other as magically true, which is ridiculous, there is no evidence to assess. It all amounts to creating unnecessary extra assumptions about reality.

[Thumpalumpacus]

If I accept the stories that describe the genocide, slavery, and misogyny of that book, then I would be a monster for accepting it as it is written (most Christians have the decency to ignore parts that are so morally repugnant, like stoning our children for disobedience/disrespect to their parents, or murdering gays, or killing a woman who sleeps with a man who isn't her fiancee...

Quite frankly, when my son has disobeyed me, I've buried him up to the neck and then went out into the neighborhood soliciting the local folk to heave twenty- and thirty-pound stones onto his head until his breathing stops.

Seems fair to me. We've had to go to this length several times, and not once has he complained ... probably because he knows what that will get him.

[Thumpalumpacus]

This is GC ... pathetic is par for the course.

Don't be so silly.

Pathetic is an improvement.

I certainly stand corrected. Good lookin' out, brotha.

[robvalue]

Ah, you're soft. The bible clearly states™ you have to burn the body too and carry a quarter of his ash to each corner of the world. That'll learn him.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Unless,  of course, your God has a moral conscience and rewards sincere disbelief that is arrived at following a will to acquire knowledge and make as much of a maximally informed decision as is humanly possible about the truth of his existence (which Dawkins' writings happily encourage), and punishes those who blindly commit to faith on the basis of ill-advised intentions. If that's the case, it is you who might have cause for concern...

Dawkins teaches against the word of God and God, Dawkins teaches sincere disbelief, Dawkins is not your judge. God teaches faith through Christ, God teaches obedience through His word, God is judge of all and thus His Word is what we will be judged by, I hold to what God teaches so I have no concerns.

GC

Your god is an irrelevant figment of your fevered imagination.

Preach as you will, and stay inside the rules, you little twatwaffle.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I have often wondered whether, if there is a God, he's not completely pissed at the Christians for claiming to speak for him, and making him look like an ignorant, semi-competent, petulant, and tyrannical psychopath.

Any god so grandiose as to create the all of existence must surely scorn the petty triflings of the men who claim to follow him.

[TheRocketSurgeon]

This is intended as a continuation of the discussion between me and Godschild. 

It turned out to be a huge post...GIANT argument! Made hide tags... sorry for spam, if you got caught by initial giant post. It got away from me!

---

Wrong, there is a reason for eternal punishment. The first and simplest answer I would give is balance in justice, meaning that because there is an eternal reward there has to be an eternal punishment.
Second because God is eternal and a persons unforgiven sin is against Him, there has to be an eternal punishment, why, because the sin goes on and on forever it's never forgiven because a person even in hell will not seek it.
You speak of the way you believe salvation is earned and then you speak of Jesus teachings, they are two totally different things. You can't elevate your soul to worthiness, it's impossible in the teachings of Jesus, only Jesus Christ can elevate you into salvation and it comes by grace, grace unmerited love.
Third it's not your universe and/or creation it's God's and He has the authority through who He is to set the rules so to speak. If you are to deny Christ till your death I can understand why you would want to be left in the grave, however that's not your call nor choice, at death you give up all choice.

Yeah... I get what you think. I really did used to think like you. And then I woke up. I have not failed to grasp the concept of what you call  a "free gift", except it is not free. It's ludicrous to me that you cannot understand that if there is a threat accompanying a "free gift", then it's not free. You're just playing word-games by calling it "justice" and "a gift".

It is neither of those things. It is "obey me in life, or suffer in an afterlife". More accurately, it's "I am a priest and this is how I think our society should be. Um, because... Joe My Hired Thug says so. Not persuasive enough? Um.. okay, because... GOD says so!" In other words, the threats and rewards are placed after we die so they can't be falsified, but the conditions are placed in this  life, so they can have coercive social effect. It's a sick con-game.

You know what happens at death? God is no longer hidden, according to your story. There's finally real proof. So what this concept is really saying is, "We have the One True Religion™, and all the others are false! Accept the OTR and reject the others, OR ELSE! If you don't accept our faith without proof--after all, we have none to offer you--then it will be too late when you finally get proof!"  Again, you can justify that with word-games all day, but in the end it's the biggest trolly of horse hockey pucks in the history of mankind. And it's blatantly obvious to anyone who pays attention and looks with honesty. You see it plain as day when you look at Imams in Saudi Arabia, convincing their masses to be Muslim OR ELSE... but you won't look with true honesty at your own equivalence.

Yes, I agree we are born into a sin nature, however one doesn't have to be a slave to it, you can choose not to commit as I said, murder, I haven't and most people haven't. Many of the worst sins (as man sees them) most people never commit. But as you said we have a sin nature and we will all fall to it at some time and there is a punishment for it as long as it remains unforgiven and that does not have to be, Christ gave us a ticket on the train to freedom from our sin, all we have to do is accept who He is what He did for us. I love to eat and will over eat and have till I've gained to much weight, I've chosen to now eat less going against what I want to do so I can lose weight to become healthier. Sin's no different, we have the nature but we do not have to choose to act upon it, but we do and the reason is in the third chapter of Genesis if you care to search for it. By the way there's no red herring. 

Awwwwww.... that's adorable!  You think there was a real garden, with a magical tree that had a real fruit which, when eaten, one's "eyes were opened", after a talking serpent (coulditbe coulditbe coulditbe....Saaaaa-tan?) convinced a frail-minded woman to do it, and she convinced her vag-whipped or mentally vacuous (perhaps because he hadn't yet "opened his eyes" by eating Knowledge Fruit?) husband to do the same?

You're trying to have the best of both worlds, rhetorically, by claiming we are born with sin-stain already on us from Adam/Eve, requiring salvation... but then claiming, no, it's a constant act we must avoid doing at all times.

No one has ever given me a satisfactory answer for why  we must "just accept the gift" of blood-sacrifice on our behalf. The closest I've seen is C.S. Lewis' fictional concept of "The Deep Magic", in the death of Aslan.

You keep saying "all I have to do is accept", except that's a bald-faced lie, isn't it? There's a host of other "accessories" that accompany this "free gift" of salvation, mainly to do with obeying the rules written down by priests in the name of God, called sins by believers and bullshit by everyone else.

Sure that would be a monster, but God as you are insinuating doesn't do that, God has given us a free ticket so to speak to not make the payment, His Son and our Savior has done that if we only accept who He is and what He did. So no one has an excuse for needing to be good enough (make the payment), because Christ himself will do it for us if we choose Him. Your above analogy is the OT kind, there is now no work for salvation.

Yeah, you should stop using the word free. Seriously, man. You can say it thirty more times, and it will still be a lie.

FREE means that it has no strings or conditions attached. FREE means I can take or leave it. FREE means that it is given without precondition or repercussion.

EXTORTION is when you tell me I have a debt I otherwise don't know about, that a really powerful guy says I owe him, because he says so, and if I don't follow a set of preconditions necessary, that powerful guy is going to torture me for not accepting the preconditions for "payment of the debt I owe him". That's a dogdamned Mafia shakedown!

Even if I grant your premise that it was somehow magically necessary for an innocent god-man to be murdered in my place for something a distant ancestor of mine did, permanently corrupting the human species, it is only a free gift if it works regardless of whether I submit to the authority of the deity who otherwise will murder me. Christ's blood could have paid for all, period. Instead, we get a bizarre Mafia con-game.

In my example and the way I've always seen God and know Him, He is, in truth both because of who He is. God didn't create the rules because God wasn't created, the law is set from who God is. As for some of the OT Jewish laws they were set for Israel as they were living at that time and other nations were living, in other words God works through humanity, some of those laws were set just for the nation of Israel because God was going to bring the Messiah to us through them. 

Well that was very nice of the Israelites to realize that they were The Chosen People, through whom their Messiah would come to free Israel, and thereby free all mankind.

While it's refreshing to see you explain God's limitations regarding the laws of the universe (sin is more powerful than God? He just can't help what the rules of sin are? Wow.), it should be child's play for you to extrapolate from that why I find this being you worship more than a little bit ludicrous, and obviously a human creation that falls far short of any worthiness for praise/worship/submission.

So you believe I'm not rational or honorable, you judge me without even getting to know me, you do so without a absolute standard, though you take Dawkins as absolute authority, a man without any absolute standards.
You call God a monster, why, because He wants you to live a purposeful life, one that He knows will make you joyful. You call Him this because you would rather live in sinfulness ie. rebel against Him. God offers you an eternal life, Dawkins offers you an eternal punishment, your choice, to follow a fallible man or an omniscient loving God.

I did not say that. I said that a rational and honorable person would not choose to worship such a monster.

I choose worship God, the one you call a monster and you know I do, so yes you must be calling me irrational and dishonorable.

If you truly recognize that the things God commanded in the Old Testament (and I agree that Jesus accepted the OT as valid law, still), like genocide and slavery, and yet continue to think that it is not just humans using a God-concept to justify their own prejudices and greed by giving it divine cover, but actually are  the properties of your deity, then yes, I suppose I am calling you irrational and dishonorable. I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt and suggest that you simply had not truly considered the implications of a being that behaves the way the petty, petulant, vengeful, murderous psychopath in the OT does.

 I think that you have simply not given it a genuine enough level of thought to realize what a monster this being you worship really is, and that if you did, you would reject the entire concept as contrary to basic human decency and innate morality (except for sociopaths and psychopaths, of course).

Because I have chosen to worship Him now I'm a sociopath and psychopath, this has no more reason than I stated before. I have studied the Bible sincerely and deeply often one passage at a time, I have asked Him to explain things that seemed wrong to me, that is until He revealed why and for what purpose. 
You want to see Him in the light you portray Him because you want to live the self (hint for Genesis chapter three) instead of living for Him and like I've said it's your choice, IMO and because I know who God really is you're making a mistake, but it is your choice not mine, I've made mine for myself.
Let me say this man's decency and un-innate morality has changed over the last fifty years alone that it doen't resemble what man believed fifty years ago and this will continue until man becomes depraved as a society.

Not what it says. Read again. Humans have innate morality, except for psychopaths and sociopaths.

As for "fifty years ago", mankind's morality has improved remarkably, in that period of time. We've granted rights to racial minorities, women, prisoners, and other groups that were simply ignored or openly trampled, before. The fact that you see these advances as "depraved" is a big part of the reason I consider myself more moral than the system you promote, than the God you worship.

You have no farther to look than this forum, Dawkins is setup on a pedestal here so high if someone was to fall off that pedestal it would kill them. seriously go look at what has been said here about him if you truly want the answer to your question, if not the ignore, that's the usual way most atheist act around here. I agree what they do with him is wwweeeiiirrrddd! I'm the one who understand how atheism works, it's those here who claim to be atheist that parrot Dawkins and other atheist and never bring their own ideas nor feelings to the table. I've said this so many times over the last five years I've given up on anyone actually realizing what their doing.

You don't look very well, or very clearly, then. I don't think I've ever seen Dawkins mentioned in anything like a worshipful or inerrantist context. Most of us think he has some great ideas, some terrible ideas, and a lot of ideas that are worth thinking about. But in the idea, the thinking process and decision to accept or reject the ideas of others, even "The Holy Prophet Dawkins, Peace Be Upon Him", are our own. (That prophet reference was sarcasm, in case it's not obvious in print-form.)

I mean, seriously, I've been an open atheist for 17 years, and an active science-studying (including reading Dawkins' The Selfish Gene  very early-on) agnostic for 22 years. Are you really  trying to sit there and tell me that you know better than I do how people in this community view Dawkins?

To be honest, I found much of what The God Delusion  argued to be poor counter-apologetics, and thought that Dawkins should stick to science, though much of what was in there was indeed thought-provoking. When/if I do encounter an atheist who is simply parroting the arguments, especially erroneous ones, of any known writer, I'll encourage them to consider their errors and formulate better arguments on their own, even if I never wind up agreeing with their conclusions. What I can't understand is why it's so important for Christians to imagine Dawkins as some kind of atheist messiah, when we see him in no such light-- though many of us do admire him, as we admired Carl Sagan and Isaac Asimov and Robert Ingersoll, and so on.

You have never personally responded to me in detail why you believe God to be a monster.

God commands the murder of nonbelievers (Deuteronomy 13:7-19, Deuteronomy 17:2-5, Exodus 22:19), adulterers (Leviticus 20:10), slutty daughters (Leviticus 21:9 and Deuteronomy 22:20-21), heretics (Deuteronomy 13:1-5, Deuteronomy 18:20-22, Zechariah 13:3), blasphemers (Leviticus 24:10-16), apostates (Ezekiel 9:1-7), and everyone in the National Football League (Exodus 31:12-15). He specifically endorses inheritable, permanent-property racial-based slavery (Leviticus 25:44-46) and extreme violence to support slavery (Exodus 21:20-21), as well as sexual slavery of rape victims once they become damaged goods (Deuteronomy 22:28-29). During their genocidal rampage against their fellow Semites in the region, God approves of or even commands the murder of males, and sexual slavery of females, in entire cities and nations across the region (Numbers 31:7-18, Deuteronomy 20:10-14, Judges 5:28-31, Zechariah 14:1-2, et cetera) ...

I almost listed more genocide, but realized it would take up most of my morning to even start to list the places where The LORD commands the people of Israel (directly, mostly, but sometimes via the God-appointed priests/kings/judges) to slaughter their neighbors for various kinds of "wickedness", which mainly seems to constitute being on the piece of land the Israelites thought was theirs. There's no need to go on listing all the other reasons, like the misogyny, homophobia, anti-free-speech, and other positions are absolutely against every concept of basic human decency and morality that I consider sacred. You cannot just excuse them as "well that's just the culture of the time", because you are the one trying to assert the position that God makes commandments which are necessary for people and nations to follow, lest the be "sinful",  meaning God can command them not to do things that are plainly obvious as immoral, today, like slavery.

An example of such a passage might be: "O people of Israel, as you were slaves whom I freed from the land of Egypt, thou shalt posess no slaves among thy people, nor compel involuntary service of any kind, nor tolerate the presence of slavery anywhere in the land which I have given for you, for its practice is an abomination in my sight. Thus saith the LORD." - Surgeononomy 10:15.

I would no sooner follow it than a White Supremacist ideology, no matter how happy they claimed they wanted me to be by accepting their views.

It's quite obvious by observation alone White Supremacist ideologies are not desirable nor will they make someone happy, unless they have a real hate for others. So their claims hold no water for rational people.
God on the other hand promises to deliver us from any hatred we might harbor in our hearts for anyone person. Jesus said, if one has a problem with another, to go to them and clear up things before coming to the alter to honor Him. You can't honor Jesus with hate in your heart and He wants us to clear it up with His help so that He is honored even before we come to the alter. Why you say should I (you) honor Jesus, because He gave His all to give you freedom from the sin that condemns you to an eternal hell. 

That's hilarious. You just wrote all White Supremacists off as irrational because you don't agree with their ideologies. And yet, I know from personal experience in dealing with them for almost a decade, they all have a long and detailed list of their reasons for believing as they do, no less consistent and no less complex than your own philosophies. Indeed, one of their favorite expressions is that they don't hate, they just think the races should be separate and that they are fighting for the purity of the white race. They consider themselves just as rational as you do. Of course, I think both groups are just as nuts as you think the other one is.

It's also funny because you talk about being "freed from hate" (as the Supremacists do), and yet all I hear from either group is a torrent of hatred. When I became an atheist, one of the most freeing elements was that I discovered I had no reason to hate and judge any person of a good-hearted nature... no more hating "sinners" or wondering who did and didn't qualify for various classifications, none of that. You people talk about love, but I accept people as they are, as long as they are not seeking to harm their fellow human beings (against the will of the others), and that is real love for your fellow man.

My moral nature that's from God is nothing like the White Supremacists, their's is hate mine is love, they developed their's contrary to God, God planted his in me and then explained to me what they are and how to use them.
I find White Supremacists repugnant because of their less than moral morals. I find my moral morals that come from God's love to be very satisfying and bring great joy to me. I know what repugnant means, what I'm not sure of is how much it's blinded you to God's truth. God finds your sin very repugnant, but not to the degree of hatred you show towards Him. God's willing to forgive you of what He sees repugnant in you if you'll ony accept who Jesus is and what He did for us.

You clearly have never met actual White Supremacists in person. I happen to agree with your analysis of their position, but what you don't realize is I can't really tell an effective difference in their reasoning/beliefs and yours, except that they consider race-mixing to be a sin (they agree with most everything else that you call "sin", and many if not most of them are Christians, too).

You and all godless people call it enlightenment, those who know the truths of God call it darkness and blindness and many of the Founding Fathers did not agree with it. She was a slave, if you love someone you do not keep them in slavery.

You seem awfully enamored with the idea of follow-the-leader... an interesting psychological edge to your tendency to seek out (and define people by) "who is obedient to whom".

Ha, Ha, Ha, that's funny and far from the truth, I'm a natural leader. As for who obeys whom, it's simple, I understand to some degree what the spiritual battle means and want everyone to be on the winning side.

Don't you get it? You just confirmed exactly what I was saying!

You have a moral compass that's changing with time and situations, mine doesn't because they come from an unchanging God who is omniscient and proved to me absolutely right. I do not have to worry about what's right for tomorrow because it's the same as today, this my friend is justice.

I like how you think this is an insult to me. Improving our morality is a good thing, not something I should be ashamed of!

I find your "unchanging Justice" to be the least just concept humans have ever concocted. By every measurable standard, our morality has improved since the times of Moses and David and Jesus. And to the degree our society has improved, pretty much everyone but you would agree that we're better off now than we were when it was okay to own slaves, or when it was okay to suppress and segregate black people, when you could beat your wife for disobeying you, when rape victims could be "put on trial" for their sexual habits when they tried to bring their rapist to justice, and a list that could fill a book! (And has.) The idea that we hit upon a concept of righteousness in the year _____ and should never deviate from it is the stuff of theocracy... lunacy.

If I am to be tortured for the "free choice", then it is not a free choice, it's an extortion attempt. And I will gladly suffer that psychopath's "consequences" rather than sell out all of my brain and all of my morals to subjugate myself to such a repugnant idea of a higher power. The fact that you feel the need to lie and misrepresent all that I think and believe, and to put spray paint all over the big pile of feces that is your unchangeable dogmatic concept of power-hierarchy, with required submissiveness and unquestioning obedience to Proper Authority (ha!) and a moral code that is the most disgusting thing this side of ISIS, while not being proof against the concept, definitely does not make me any more inclined to give up my honor and lower myself and surrender both my morals and my intellect for a book written by people who didn't know what genes were or that the sun could not stop in the sky because it does not travel across the sky.

In the future what will people call the way you see things because you didn't know what they discovered, idiot, false scientist, stupid jerks, unrealistic idiots, what? If they have your mentality and dislike for those of the past I'm sure those will be the names used all because you didn't know, this is your justice? Then have it, it will fair no better with the future than the way you're treating the people of the past. You are trying to equate the physical with the spiritual and that ain't going to ever work, God is interested in your spiritual life and destination to bad you're not.
You want be tortured and you're not being extorted, you are ranting from a self interest that leaves out your great potential to be of use to others, but I do not expect you to understand what I just stated because you lack the spiritual knowledge needed to do so. 
I'm not trying to upset you with the things I've said, wish I could believe that of you towards me but I'm finding that hard because you know how to use the atheist buttons in a more refined way, that changes nothing, it's still atheist tactics to unsettle Christians, you being skillful doesn't blind me to these things. I believe all in all we have some good conversation and my concern for your eternal life is meant as nothing short of good.

GC

Probably. I have little doubt that there are things we will discover in the future that will make some of our ideas today seem quaint. But I don't think we're entirely wrong, either. That's the whole point of trying to constantly figure out the truth, or to recognize where we have fallen short in our conception of justice, equality, and decency, and repair those ideas. People of the future will not fault those who tried to make the world better, and who nevertheless failed to get it all right... they will fault people like you, who stuck to their guns even in the face of the suffering a wrongheaded idea causes.

I don't "equate the physical and the spiritual". Quite the opposite. The physical is real. The spiritual is crap you make up, or rather swallow up, since others come up with most of those concepts for you to believe.

I don't lack the "spiritual knowledge" (I also used to use that term on nonbelievers... except we preferred the term "lacks the spiritual discernment"), I simply don't agree with you. I have learned quite a few things since the days when I thought as you do.

Annnnnnnnd we're back to the "self-interest" argument. What part of all my protestations on behalf of others who are not like me (my primary complaint against religion usually being that it suppresses groups who are not like them!), and trying to extend a concept of human value that doesn't require conformity, strikes you as "self-interest"? I know the psychological defense-mechanism that causes you to misstate why I do and think the things I do, since it protects you from having to wonder if I might actually be right. As long as you can call me angry, or self-interested, or just another religion, etc, then you don't have to face the consequences of potentially concluding that I may have in fact been totally reasonable and thus might have a valid position.

Since your religion teaches that your faith-tradition is the only possible reasonable position, it causes cognitive dissonance in your brain, and you must stretch for ways to protect yourself from it. It's okay. I forgive you.

---