RoderickSpode

-->

@BrotherDThomas

BrotherDThomas,

The role you're trying to play, the Westboro-esque/Children of the Corn-ish mid-western creepy minister character is slipping. The problem with you trying to continue the role is that you're compromising too much. You're going too far over the already over-the-top bible evils-contradictions-lies theme.

Your character requires a bit more balance. Your role requires offending both Christians, and non-Christians (or pagans) alike. Christians of course are supposed to be offended by you, and embarrassed about how our faith is being represented by a candidate for Carrie's father should they do another sequel. And pagans (a word you should be using a lot in keeping character) are supposed to be equally offended by seeing yet another religious nut-case.

Your friendship with Stephen is actually kind of neat, as it's nice to see you both getting along with someone. Unfortunately it's causing you to compromise your character.

Here you would have us believe that you're almost doing a sort of reverse KIng Agrippa.

In my case, it is truly hard in being a TRUE Christian that follows and accepts ALL of Jesus' inspired words within the Scriptures.

Is Stephen almost convincing you to become an atheist? Or is that giving him too much credit?

And your recent suggestion that (seeming) contradictions in the Bible reveal lying may not be the best method in perpetuating your role. How would you know if the words of Jesus were lies or not? If you acknowledge that, the lines in your script are rendered void.

"These biblically ignorant Bible fools refuse to accept the inconvenient fact that Jesus' true words supersede their Devil Speak! (“EVERY word of God is flawless; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him.“ (Proverbs 30:5)" - BrotherDThomas circa 2020

Created:

5 years ago

0

Posted in:

-->

@Stephen

Stephen, it's unclear as to your interpretation of the scriptures I gave you in light of the one's you continually post.

Exodus 8:15

When Pharaoh saw there was relief, however, he hardened his heart and would not listen to Moses and Aaron, just as the LORD had said.

Exodus 8:32

But this time also Pharaoh hardened his heart and would not let the people go.

Exodus 9:7

So Pharaoh sent officials, who saw that none of the livestock of the Israelites had died. But Pharaoh's heart was hardened, and he would not let the people go.

1 Samuel 6:6

Why harden your hearts as the Egyptians and Pharaoh hardened theirs? When He afflicted them, did they not send the people on their way as they departed?

At least I know where BDT is coming from. He interprets the combined texts as revelatory evidence that the Bible consists of lies. You haven't given your explanation.

(I hope it's not identical to BDT's).

Created:

5 years ago

0

Posted in:

-->

@BrotherDThomas

BDT!

I'm concerned about you. Why are you mingling with unrepentant pagan sinners?

2 Corinthians 6:14

Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness?

Deuteronomy 22:10

Do not plow with an ox and a donkey yoked together.

Ezra 9:2

Indeed, the Israelites have taken some of their daughters as wives for themselves and their sons, so that the holy seed has been mixed with the people of the land. And the leaders and officials have taken the lead in this unfaithfulness!"

Absolutely (and utterly) shameful.

Created:

5 years ago

0

Posted in:

-->

@Barney

You two should probably have a debate about Pharaoh's heart.

You had me scared for a moment. I thought you were going to say we should get an apartment together.

I don't see us having a formal debate. At this point I address some of his comments to hopefully give another person who might be reading it another view. But our conversations usually don't go very long after that as I sense I become more of a sounding board than someone he wants to engage in conversation with.

Created:

5 years ago

0

Posted in:

-->

@Stephen

And It didn't take too long to prove you to be absolutely correct Brother. The accusations of MY inability to understand "with a bent to constantly misinterpret scripture" wrong, came almost instantly. The, typical response from RoderickSpode, I suppose, has become the norm for those apologist who simply cannot get out of the corner they painted themselves in by adopting this vile ancient intolerant being - of which they have absolutely no understanding of - as their god.

First off, I don't think you have the inability to understand (do you have a quote of me saying that?).

I would say a refusal to understand.

Secondly, none of the Christians you've argued with (that I have seen) have been painted in a corner. Your method of discussion of scriptures is to aggravate the other party, to the point of the conversation being cut short because we don't want to get up in a "he said, she said" argument. That's usually when I cut out. And I think this happens with the other Christians you engage in conversation with. We get baffled by your obstinance. And then I think you misread our frustration, and walking away as us being cornered. What's frustrating for us seems to be therapeutic for you. You can go on and on in a "he said, she said" exchange.

But tell me, is it our God you claim is vile (as an existing person)? Or is this code for saying the author is vile?

Created:

5 years ago

0

Posted in:

-->

@Stephen

Again, you try to rewrite the scriptures. You attempt this every single time that your gods vile nature is exposed for what it actually is.

"the LORD had hardened Pharaoh's heart and he would not listen to Moses and Aaron, just as the LORD had said to Moses." Exodus 9:12

Your comment is similar to claiming that the English language translators of the KJV rewrote the Bible. Or that the writers of the NKJV, NASB, NIV rewrote the KJV. Is this what you believe? Maybe at least the latter scenario?

But the bible CLEARLY states that "God had hardened Pharaoh's heart"!! do you not see that , LOOK>>>>"the LORD had hardened Pharaoh's heart and he would not listen to Moses and Aaron, just as the LORD had said to Moses." Exodus 9:12

Your piss poor attempts at rewriting these scriptures every time the vile nature of your god ( who you also claim is Jesus) is exposed only serves to show how biblical uneducated you actually are. You must keep missing what it is the BIBLE ACTUALLY states LOOK>>>> "the LORD had hardened Pharaoh's heart and he would not listen to Moses and Aaron, just as the LORD had said to Moses." Exodus 9:12

Exodus 8:15

When Pharaoh saw there was relief, however, he hardened his heart and would not listen to Moses and Aaron, just as the LORD had said.

Exodus 8:32

But this time also Pharaoh hardened his heart and would not let the people go.

Exodus 9:7

So Pharaoh sent officials, who saw that none of the livestock of the Israelites had died. But Pharaoh's heart was hardened, and he would not let the people go.

1 Samuel 6:6

Why harden your hearts as the Egyptians and Pharaoh hardened theirs? When He afflicted them, did they not send the people on their way as they departed?

Look! Right in the Bible.

There is no other way to interpret what it is that the BIBLE actually states LOOK>>>> "the LORD had hardened Pharaoh's heart and he would not listen to Moses and Aaron, just as the LORD had said to Moses." Exodus 9:12

I'm anxiously awaiting your interpretation of the verses I just gave you.

Created:

5 years ago

0

Posted in:

-->

@Stephen

The Pharoah hardened his own heart. It was already hardened.

God didn't cast a spell on Pharaoh forcing him to harden his heart. God simply knew that by showing Pharaoh his faithfulness to the Israelites the effect would be him hardening his heart. It's very simple. Even for someone with a bent to constantly misinterpret scripture.

If someone says, I will make person A angry, we understand that the person is not implying he will tamper with the person's cerebrum, forcing them against their will to be angry. Or will hypnotize them. Or will sneak an angry mickey in their drink.

What they're saying is they predict that by saying something they think will be offensive to another, it will make that person angry. Of course being fallible, the person predicting this could be wrong. They're just supposing that an external communicated message will invoke anger.

Created:

5 years ago

0

Posted in:

Parallels

The irony of the "God is evil" franchise threads emanating from this forum, is that whatever the accusation of barbarity is, our society actually practices the same. I'll hit on two major ones.

Eternal Punishment.

There are different views on what this means, whether or not punishment is temporal, involves fire, endless black darkness, etc. Ethan made an interesting comment on it that I'd like to hear more of once he (hopefully) returns. But for now, we'll go with the common view that the after life extends eternally, either in the presence of God, or separated.

Our society understands justice. We understand that certain actions our society considers a threat to the well-being of others should be met with penalties that hopefully will deter the criminal from repeating the infraction again, and warn others against doing the same. So I don't think anyone should be too shocked to find the creator of the universe has a similar sense of justice. That infractions have consequences both in this dimension, and the next.

Should anyone deserve to be punished eternally?

Imagine if humans lived eternally on earth (And figured out a way to handle over-population). That the only way a human could die was by unnatural means (natural disaster, fatal accidents, murder, etc.). Other than that our bodies would just continue on. Our hearts would never stop beating.

What do you think the penalty for murder would be?

It might be relatively similar to how it is now, but probably more severe. If someone murders someone, they're not taking a life that was already physically dying.

They would have taken a life that would under normal circumstances, just continued on. Now that never-ending life has just come to an abrupt, and complete end, never to come back again. I think there would be less courtroom shenanigans, and far more scrutinizing to make sure the guilty are properly punished, and the innocent (falsely accused) set free. The obvious penalties would be execution, and quite possibly (eternal) life imprisonment. To some, the latter might be considered worse. The problem with temporary confinement in prison would be that no matter how long the sentence, once the incarcerated is set free, he has all of eternity to make up for time lost. To some, that might making killing someone they hate worth it. And as I stated, the idea behind punishment is not just aimed at the offender, but to everyone else as a hopeful preventative. So, is God at fault for implementing justice within His creation, seeing we do the same?

And.....it's not that much different in our temporal society. We still end the life of someone when implementing execution. And sentencing some people to life imprisonment, never to see civilian life again.

Genocide/Infanticide

One of the common statements made in the various God is evil franchise threads is that God did something aweful for no reason at all (fill in the blank with accusation). And fauxlaw often points out that there was a reason. Which is true. No matter the allegation, there was always a reason. And a valid reason at that.

In every situation where God commanded the destruction of an entire nation as a for instance, there was plenty of warning ahead of time. We're talking in some cases centuries of warning. We're talking about nations that intended to wipe the Israelite nation off the face of the planet. If a nation has a nuclear bomb pointed right at us, leaving us with only 2 choices to either retaliate which unfortunately means killing women and children, or letting them kill all of us, what would be the better choice?

Created:

5 years ago

0

Posted in:

The Nonsense That is The Sermon On The Mount

-->

@Stephen

don't believe you. Tell me, what is the first line on page 115 of the Papyrus of Ani. I have a 1st edition of Budges Transliteration and Translation. So I suggest you read it again if you have read it at all. Or a little simple research should suffice these days. You do have a search engine don't you?

I don't care if you believe me or not. But for the record, I read it on-line a couple of years ago.

But the problem is that it's a bogus claim. If you could prove otherwise, it would have been the first thing you would have done this morning. Rather than boasting about a book you own, and instead of the usual diversionary tactics, provide a link proving your claim.

But.....you're not going to do it.

My prediction:

Your next comment will be another self-promo suggesting how much you know (while providing no evidence for the question at hand).

Created:

5 years ago

0

Posted in:

The Nonsense That is The Sermon On The Mount

-->

@Stephen

Good for you. The so called Lords Prayer is an Egyptian prayer. Parallels in the Lord's Prayer and The Coming Into Day can be found in the Egyptian Book of the Dead.

Interesting. I actually read the Egyptian Book Of The Dead. I don't recall that.

Can you provide a link please? Not a link to someone making the claim. But quotations from the book itself.

Created:

5 years ago

0

Posted in:

-->

@BrotherDThomas

RogerSpode,

MY STATEMENT TO YOU AGAIN 3RD TIME: "Now, are you going to tell me how I am allegedly in a corner of the topic at hand, or are you going to continue to runaway in a child like manner?"

By not responding in kind to my quote above, AGAIN #3, it is duly noted that you have accepted your inept limitations in discussing the Bible with the Brother D!

You are embarrassingly excused AGAIN.

I'd rather clarify.

You weren't really backed in a corner. You would only have been backed in a corner if you were sincerely providing valid scriptural interpretation. But because giving satirical interpretations is probably an act, you wouldn't really be backed in a corner. To say you were backed in a corner would really be like telling the guy wearing a Micky Mouse outfit at Disneyland to show his ID to prove it.

Created:

5 years ago

0

Posted in:

-->

@Marko

Now you’ve muddled up the concept of law with the notion of a historical account or story. You’ re essentially taking a back foot by suggesting that, ultimately, all these things can be reduced to ‘God’s laws anyway‘. But unfortunately, you don’t get to systematically reduce every story or historical account, derive a series of laws from them, and then make the claim that the story is pretty much the law and the law is the story.
A story can inform you of many more things like social and cultural norms, the character types, the narrative point of view, etc...information difficultly obtained by just laws and orders.
My entire argument was, whether correct or incorrect, this supposed ‘embarrassment’ you identified in Christians was more to do with the information gleaned from these stories and historical events and less to do with the nature of the laws themselves. That said, I never discounted a possibility of both actions taking place simultaneously.

Maybe if I said commands instead of laws there might have been less confusion. I understand that you wouldn't have any problem with Thou Shalt Not Steal, Kill, etc. Most allegations it would seem involve God giving a command, which is law.

Which is why I referenced the chapters and verses so they can speak for themselves, without the need for you to resort to red herring tactics. The reputation of ‘Mad Magazine’ and its equivalent has nothing to do with the argument, and does nothing to weaken my position.

And I admit, I was wrong. One of the verses you gave was not command related. It was Psalm 137:8-9 where you stated God wants you to be happy to dash babies against rocks. But it's not exceptional as far as being an example of a Mad Magazine version of scripture. You're interpreting the verse in parody format similar to what Mad Magazine does with movies. You're basically satirizing the scriptures. And it's not even in refusing to acknowledge Hebrew translations (a very common theme among a few here). In plain King's English you're making a false claim. The statement is made by a psalmist who is expressing their pain due to Babylonian

captivity, and seeing Israelite children dashed against rocks. It does not say anything about God wanting an Israelite to be happy about seeing a child dashed against a rock. In contemporary war, soldiers know civilians may, or probably will be killed on the enemy side. There's no military instruction, probably not anywhere in the world (I hope) that would command, or even encourage, being happy seeing anyone killed. And you've done this with rest of your scriptural references.

So while the scriptures may speak for themselves, we still need the research to properly understand them. Think of Sam Kinnisson. In his stand-up routine, he would take an actual phrase right out of the Bible that in contemporary terminology would be a sexual innuendo. So while one can say "It says it right there in the Bible", it can't be used anymore than in a joke in a comedy routine.

Ok. Now you’re making things much harder for Christians. What exactly is the method of choice Christians use to assess whether a verse is attributable to God or not? Is it the method..... ‘whenever a verse says something like ....’and God said’...., or is it the systematic cherry picking process, whereby a verse, if it matches well with their current view of morality and social norms, is directly attributable to God, and

the verses that don’t fit this narrative are conveniently forgotten or omitted?
Of course I agree with you that in these particular instances, man set out to commit a terrible deed and merely used God as a scapegoat for their actions.
But without a reliable method to discriminate between the God parts vs the Man parts, it would be easy to make the claim that all parts are the mere product of Man, including laws and commandments. However, Christians largely defend these laws by postulating that these are directly handed by God to man, regardless of how archaic they might be.
So I’m sorry, until you clearly outline that method, but you can’t just cherrypick your flavour of the week without compromising the other parts of the book.

Let's just take the verse you gave about dashing children against rocks.

Psalm 137:8-9 New International Version (NIV)

8 Daughter Babylon, doomed to destruction,

happy is the one who repays you

according to what you have done to us.

9 Happy is the one who seizes your infants

and dashes them against the rocks.

Who's conveying this message?

I’ve equally responded to your posts before only to, shortly thereafter, see ad hominem galore. Not the hallmark of good debate and sportsmanship.
Maybe your ad hominem is due to the fact that I only signed up on this excellent forum a couple days ago, and only have a few posts to my name (Namely, Marko, because Marco is my real name but all too common),

Ah! My mistake then. I honestly thought you were someone else. I didn't realize that you just recently signed up. However, apparently we couldn't have had any conversations before since that's the case. At least not here. Maybe you are jumping to conclusions concerning my ad hominems galore?

while you have, let’s see, a whopping 572 (0 debates). Touche

Would this be ad hominem retribution/touche for conversations we apparently never had?

Created:

5 years ago

0

Posted in:

Maybe so, but I think it has less to do with Biblical laws (whether they are embarrassed by them or not) and more to do with the inherent nature of the God described in the bible, especially the Old Testament.
In Hosea 13:4, 9, 16, God destroys the pregnant woman and foetuses of those that do not worship him. In Isaiah 13:9–16, Babies are slaughtered and wives raped. In Judges 18:1–28 god approves the massacre of a peaceful people so one of his tribes could have a place to live. In Judges 11:30–39, a daughter is burned as an acceptable sacrifice to God. In Psalm 137:8–9, God wants you to be happy to dash babies against rocks, and the list goes on and on.......
The depiction of God’s character in the Old Testament is sufficient enough to accuse him of tyrannical behaviour, without having to consider his laws and orders.

These all pretty much have to do with God's laws anyway.

But these are just the usual verses spun into a Mad Magazine version of scripture. Verses with quotes that are attributed to God, but made by someone else, assuming God overlooks man's weaknesses and condoning illegal activity, that God commanded the

massacre of innocent people, etc.

On a first hand, and for reasons beyond my knowledge, you fail to identify the dynamics at play in your own topic, and then simply brush off my points by using off handed remarks verging on the ad hominem.
My post isn’t worth responding to if you really have nothing to respond to it with.

I've responded to your posts before only to shortly thereafter see a line through your user name, thus ending the conversation.

Created:

5 years ago

0

Posted in:

-->

@zedvictor4

It depends entirely upon what one does with it.

Metaphorically speaking:

If one throws it upon the fire it will be warming and comforting for a while.

But if one hits oneself about the head with it, it soon becomes very uncomfortable.

Another analogy.

Driving along the free-way, and some maniac zooms by at 110 miles an hour, and you see the red lights of a hp zooming after him. Comforting feeling.

Driving along the free-way after a few drinks at a party, and you see the red lights of an hp behind you. Uncomfortable feeling.

Created:

5 years ago

0

Posted in:

-->

@zedvictor4

Would it be logical to question why any primitive, no matter far we go back would create a god concept?

What purpose would it serve to create a god that is displeased with actions they deemed pleasurable?

Have you ever pondered the existence of god/a creator?

Created:

5 years ago

0

Posted in:

YOUR INSIDIOUS INQUIRING QUOTE: " Where do you think he will spend eternity if he remains an atheist?"

As if you didn't know the answer to your question, how insidious can you get?! My godly time is valuable, understand? In any event, Stephen is an ATHEIST, which defines the fact that he does not accept our serial killer Jesus the Christ. Therefore, the following passage is applicable to him spending eternity in the burning sulfur lakes of fire upon his demise.

“But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable, as for murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death.” (Revelation 21:8)

The funny part is he's going to be so glad you said this.

It was wise to tell dad he's the greatest before telling him you dented his car.

Created:

5 years ago

0

Posted in:

-->

@Marko

I don't know if it would be worth responding. How long do you expect your account to last?

Created:

5 years ago

0

Posted in:

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/what-does-solitary-confinement-do-to-your-mind/

-->

@n8nrgmi

every criminal deserves social time and recreation time. if they are too violent, maybe they can watch TV instead of socilize. as time goes on, they should get more freedoms if they behave.

And if they never behave?

are you trying to justify physical torture for eternity or not? it sure looks like u r. but u appear to be trying to rationalize it. u appear to be emotionally stunted, as are most
christians who try to rationalize a literal bible.

I would say I'm not trying to justify, or rationalize it any more than you are trying to justify our legal system. I don't think you could possibly be serious about the TV thing. That makes as much sense as sitting a child next to a TV as a replacement for human contact. So I'm assuming you're making light of the severity of isolation to corner me into the eternal torture justification.

Like I said, eternal spiritual torture is very disturbing. And so is lifetime imprisonment in a physical confinement, and physical placement among violent people with little to no protection. It's actually disturbing that there would be a need for it.

I'm not sure if you really understand that solitary confinement is torture. It may not sound like it to someone in a bad marriage, or one with a horrible roommate.

What are the effects on prisoners?
In short, not much better. Stuart Grassian, a board-certified psychiatrist and a former faculty member at Harvard Medical School, has interviewed hundreds of prisoners in solitary confinement. In one study, he found that roughly a third of solitary inmates were “actively psychotic and/or acutely suicidal.” Grassian has since concluded that solitary can cause a specific psychiatric syndrome, characterized by hallucinations; panic attacks; overt paranoia; diminished impulse control; hypersensitivity to external stimuli; and difficulties with thinking, concentration and memory. Some inmates lose the ability to maintain a state of alertness, while others develop crippling obsessions.

You can't come down on fundamentalists, unless maybe they enjoy the idea of eternal punishment, and just ignore relatively equivalent sentencing we practice on earth.

Created:

5 years ago

0

Posted in:

even the worst of criminals do not deserve to be tortured. isolated, yes.

Being isolated is a horrible torture. It can drive someone into agonizing insanity. There isn't any way around it. To some, that might even be worse than physical torture. Do have any idea how torturous isolation is for long periods of time? People commit suicide from sheer loneliness alone in civilian life. You can't downplay isolation.

according to the way fundamentalists talk, God allows satan to torture people for eternity. or, God sentences them to a fire pit. are you seriously trying to justify God allowing that?

Are you justifying a court system allowing an 18 year old to be sent to a place where he will most likely be sexually abused indefinitely?

Created:

5 years ago

0

Posted in:

-->

@n8nrgmi

no a life in solitary confinement is too cruel. if people lived forever, putting them in an empty small cell would be too cruel too. i can see isolating people, but give show them some humanity.

What would you suggest they do with someone like Hannibal Lecter? Or anyone who would try to kill anyone who comes near them?

are you really trying to justify physically torturing people for eternity?

What do you mean by physically torturing people? There's a difference between a judicial system torturing someone by sentencing them to life in prison where the convict's person is removed from the courts presence; and directly torturing them by placing them in an iron maiden. In other words, do you think God is taking part in the torturing?

Created:

5 years ago

0

Posted in:

-->

@n8nrgmi

no one deserves to be tortured for eternity. that's sadistic. yet that's what the most straight forward view is from the bible.

Do you think a 20 year old who will live a normal lifespan doesn't deserve, under absolutely any circumstances, to be sentenced to life imprisonment in solitary confinement? Keeping in mind of course how mentally tormenting that is. So, 60, maybe 70 years in complete isolation.

Created:

5 years ago

0

Posted in:

-->

@BrotherDThomas

I'm sorry Brother D. Was I ignoring you?

I want to commend you for the compassion you've shown Stephen.

Where do you think he will spend eternity if he remains an atheist?

Created:

5 years ago

0

Posted in:

-->

@n8nrgmi

if you take the bible at face value, i dont know how a sane person wouldn't be uncomfortable by the bible. it looks like God tortures people in fire for eternity if they aren't good enough or christian. isnt this disturbing? yes, to any sane person. God relentlessly killing children and relatively innocent people in the old testament. ie noah's flood, the spirit that killed the first born if you didn't smear blood etc.

only brainwashed people can find these things not troublesome.

and yes i'm a christian, but no where near being a fundamentalist.

Eternal punishment is disturbing, which is why one should avoid that circumstance. Hell is separation from God. So the torture would actually involve a situation where the individual is subject to it's conditions.

Our legal system uses eternal punishment as well. We don't call it eternal punishment because we know prison convicts won't live forever. We call it life imprisonment. Theoretically, if someone is sentenced to life imprisonment, as long as they live, as long as the prison housing them remains, they have an eternal sentence. And they're vulnerable to whatever harsh conditions inside the prison. Do you have any idea how tormenting isolation is?

As far as killing children, what would you suggest in this hypothetical?

Guernsey Island rebels against Great Britain. They've acquired a bomb that could blow the UK out of existence, and pointed right at

London.

Great Britain has the means to react faster in avoiding the devastation. So they have 2 choices. The first is to drop a bomb on Guernsey Island which unfortunately will kill everyone, including women and children. The second option is to avoid killing innocent people, and allow Guernsey Island to bomb them instead.

Which would you choose?

Created:

5 years ago

0

Posted in:

-->

@zedvictor4

A primitive what?

As ever there has always been clever folk and less clever folk.

Imagining a god in ones own image is pretty basic stuff....Especially if a clever clogs tells you what you should be imagining.

Though back in biblical times, I think you will find that civilisations were getting somewhat beyond primitive.

Actually, living solely for survival would be the most basic instinct without thought of where anything originated from, or what causes catastrophes. In the animal kingdom, physical needs are the only concern. And the further we go back in time, from a natural evolutionist standpoint, humans would be closer to the animal kingdom in thought. What reason should I have to assume an early human would have a tendency to wonder what god is causing his sex drive?

Created:

5 years ago

0

Posted in:

-->

@Stephen

Because there is more for Christians to feel "unconfortable" about in the Bible than just " biblical laws" that you seem to be addressing as some great uncomfortable concern for Christians.. I have shown my points above, but you must have missed them.

from my post #12 above

"The vile, indiscriminate and murderous actions of your "loving god". This is not to mention all of the double standards and contradictions shown in THE BIBLE. There's also the ambiguous half stories and the secrecy and lies. <<<< These are what I believe should make Christians uncomfortable when highlighted.

It may be hard to believe, but when I started this thread, I wasn't thinking about Stephen's top 10 scriptures on what allegedly makes Christians uncomfortable.

Because your only concern about THE BIBLE is to do with the laws laid down by god and you have failed to address the bible as whole. You title does ask

"Is>>>> the Bible<<<<< uncomfortable for Christians"? <<<<<<<<<<< Did you miss that? That is YOUR title, not mine. It says " is THE BIBLE" ?

Why do you think I have to list everything you think makes Christians uncomfortable?

For the record, I actually do like to start out on these types of atheist concerns with examples that might be considered less dramatic. Like the whole slavery issue. The topic will usually start with an overall allegation that the Bible condones slavery. Then it's commonly pointed out by a defender of the faith that the 7 year stretch

for an Israelite slave (translates to servant) is actually voluntary servitude, and is generally a preferable circumstance rather than imprisonment. The offender of the faith will often immediately jump to "Ok, but what about foreign slaves, women slaves, beating slaves, etc....". My response to that is, back up. Let's address the Israelite first before jumping ahead.

You seem to like to drown a topic by going all over the map with multiple allegations. If they're copied and pasted from a website, then we don't really know your

understanding of each item listed.

So yes the bible is or should be uncomfortable for Christians and for the reasons I have pointed out to you above. And I have shown why Christians should not only feel uncomfortable with THE BIBLE but should also be down right embarrassed by it! Example :

"Blessed is he who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks".Psalm 137:9.

That vile verse above - one of hundreds - embarrasses me as a human being never mind if I was a member of any religious ideology. But Christians wouldn't think twice about adding to their own embarrassment by trying to defend this barbarity. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< that is something else they should feel uncomfortable about.

That's in the book of Psalms. That's not a quotation from God. The book of Psalms are songs where people are expressing their human emotions. What you're reading is a psalm from someone who would have been a captive during the Babylonian exile, who probably witnessed Israelite children dashed against rocks. The bible is full of quotations from individuals that are not from God.

You're going to say something like "apologists always reinterpret the words of the bible to avoid embarrassment".

Feel free to copy and paste that to save time in your response.

What more do you want? I addressed and answered your question and gave my reasons why. I don't need to address what you say or think about god and his
laws. I have addressed "THE BIBLE" and why it should be "uncomfortable for Christians".

Well your not going to take control of this thread. You can cap and bold print all you want. I'm not playing by your rules.

I specifically provided one example, that actually is considered a major evil allegation against God by atheist drama queens. Whether it's in your personal top 10 is not my concern. So, feel free to start there so we don't run all over the map.

Do you have a problem with the text concerning the man gathering stones? If so, why?

Created:

5 years ago

0

Posted in:

-->

@zedvictor4

And of course, as no one at the time really knew why such things happened, it would have been the norm to blame it all on a god.

Wouldn't that be a bit progressive for a primitive?

Created:

5 years ago

0

Posted in:

-->

@Stephen

I have read the above three times now looking for the words - actions of . Look at your title again.

Why were you looking for the words actions of? Why would I have to look at my title again?

You for some reason have concentrated only on gods laws in the bible and pointed to only this as to what you believe may make some Christians uncomfortable.

Not once have you mentioned that the bible makes Christians uncomfortable because of the vile, indiscriminate and murderous actions of your "loving god". This is not to mention all of the double standards and contradictions shown in THE BIBLE. There's also the ambiguous half stories and the secrecy and lies. <<<< These are what I believe should make Christians uncomfortable when highlighted.

All of the above are problematic not to mention embarrassing for Christians, and when these prickly sticky awkward points are raised and highlighted , as I often do , I can see how uncomfortable Christians become. this is not to mention how dismissive of the facts they are, even biblical ones.

I find it quite strange that you have only concentrated on one tiny aspect of THE BIBLE and not mentioned any its dire faults that are most definitely an uncomfortable embarrassment to Christians.

One thing at a time is the best way to approach it. Rather than link some list from the evilbible.com site, why not address the example I gave? Was that not a good enough example? If you think the example I gave is not an example of evil, then I suppose I can move on to another.

I'm assuming you're referring to the man gathering sticks on the Sabbath. Is that correct?

Created:

5 years ago

0

Posted in:

-->

@Alec

There are a lot of questions that could play factors as to whether or not the ark carrying animals for 40 days/night is plausible. Like their measurements possibly being different than ours, how many animals could be reduced in relation to what is meant by kinds (like were zebras included as well as horses?), how the numbers of animals could be reduced when eliminating one's that could survive a flood, the age of the animals, etc.

There seems to be a lot of info on line suggesting the plausibility of Noah's ark. I think it's worthwhile to check them out. They may not all be accurate, but some of them might be. And I think Ethan gave a link to a website stating that some scientists concluded that a world wide flood may have happened.

I think it's good though that you seem to look beyond the trap that I think many fall into by assuming it's a fairy tale. I think the common visual we're given are from bible story books for kids where I small boat is shown with animal heads poking out from the top including giraffes with necks longer than the boat.

The first step is to understand that transporting animals on a boat is a common thing. And that animals will disperse from captivity to an ideal location with an environment that suits their needs and preferences.

From there, the logistics have got to be so complex, so many factors, I don't think it's wise to write it off as a fairy tale.

Created:

5 years ago

0

Posted in:

-->

@Melcharaz

Culture had little to no impact in scripture.

I don't agree with that. But, it may depend on what you mean, so I leave that open.

For instance, when Saul's kingdom was taken over by David, God, as spoken through Nathan the prophet was given Saul's wives. This was a cultural practice for that time period's culture. Of course that didn't change God's law against polygamy. Just that as becoming the new king, all property was handed over to him. The knee-jerk reaction from bible skeptics would be that God condoned polygamy, and would have turned His face away from any sexual activity involving David and Saul's former wives. The same applies with concubines which were a product of that era's culture. David always had the option to conduct his governmental kingdom within God's laws pertaining to monogamy and sexual purity, even though the cultural practice of the day was to have sexual relations with multiple women under the king's umbrella.

In today's American and western culture this wouldn't apply. If a president was impeached, the new president would inherit the impeached president's room in the white house, but not his wife.

So I don't think it's fair to say culture had no, or even little impact.

Created:

5 years ago

0

Posted in:

-->

@Melcharaz

No. I dont infer my own understanding when reading it. Only time it becomes uncomfortable is in application to myself. Like giving up selfish habits and obeying God, lest what happened to those who rebelled should happen to me.

That's pretty much what I was getting at, particularly for myself.

Created:

5 years ago

0

Posted in:

-->

@Dr.Franklin

I think for the most part you're correct. I noted a disagreement, but it's more a pending one. Not even that really, as it's not even under scrutiny.

Created:

5 years ago

0

Posted in:

-->

@EtrnlVw

Great points as always!

I might have some disagreements, but it's kind of hard to tell because everything you're saying makes sense logistically in terms of time-period, culture, the harsh society, not having separation of church and state, etc. And....I don't look for disagreements with you.

Where I might disagree though, to avoid coming across as a yes man to everything a Christian says on this forum, is your statement:

and that not everything within in it is relevant to us now

But even there, it really may depend on what you mean.

As an example, there was that man put to death in Numbers 15:32-36 for gathering sticks on the Sabbath Day. Which could easily have been a candidate for the God Is Evil franchise threads of this forum. It's not significant today in terms of practice, because as you've indicated, we'd be imprisoned if we tried to carry that out. But, today we do have something similar in the form of Capitol Punishment. The Israelites at that time were at war. And for the Israelites, military and civilian life was more communal than it is now where civilian and military life are kept separate. So today,

the penalty for, say, going AWOL for a soldier would be different than that of an employee of a company. The penalty for a soldier would be much harsher. The employee wouldn't go to jail for not showing up for work. They may get fired at worst. Someone being put to death for gathering sticks on any day seems incredibly harsh. But if a soldier runs from battle, he would be executed. And it could be argued that at least the soldier wasn't really defiant, but overcome by uncontrollable fear. The person who gathered sticks was given warning, and it was probably unnecessary to do so. So since there was no heavy burden to carry in not gathering sticks, the person was evidently defiant. And that would have posed a threat in terms of war time allegiance with a nation that was prone at times to mingle with the enemy. And that's something considered relevant today, although maybe not as much as say during WWII where citizens were warned to be careful what they said to strangers.

So while I would agree that that particular text may not be relevant today in terms of practice, like putting someone to death for working on a Sunday (I'd be put to death for one thing), there is some significance to it even today. I believe that every allegation of evil that atheists commonly use from OT laws, we actually practice today, one way or the other.

Created:

5 years ago

0

Posted in:

Of course I can only speak for myself. But to be honest, it can be. But not in the way some people think.

I think most of the suggestions of the God of the Bible being a tyrant revolves around laws. And since there are numerous laws presented in the Bible, it would stand for reason that many people would take this view since man-made laws produce conflict all of the time.

The misconception would be an assumption that Christians are uncomfortable with biblical laws (or whatever else) due to embarrassment. This however is not the case. For instance, even if I agree with every American law in principle, it doesn't mean I won't face a certain amount of discomfort. For instance, I want to make a U-Turn at a stop light, but the sign reads "No U-Turn", so I have to drive further down the road until I can make a U-Turn, or make a left turn into the shopping center to make a turn around in there. I know I have enough room to make the U-Turn, but unless I break that law, I'm going to lose time. So due to that law, I'm faced with an uncomfortable, or certainly inconvenient situation. But.....I'm not embarrassed by the law. I trust that there's a good reason for not allowing U-Turns at that stop light, and know that it's not placed there to aggravate me.

Created:

5 years ago

0

Posted in:

-->

@Stephen

Yes . I have found you do quite a lot of "lol"- ing once you have been shown just how incredibly bible ignorant you actually are. Is you're "lol-ing" out of sheer embarrassment. It looks like it is to me. Now you have chosen that well worn path that ALL Christian apologists here take and have decided to rudely and ignorantly create a false argument on someone else's thread and turned everything personal. <<<<<<<<<<<< this does not win arguments Roderick!!

Your own scriptures have PROVEN you to be completely wrong. And all your attempts to rewrite biblical verses and redefine the words therein will not change that fact. So you keep lol - ling like school girl and I will simply enjoy watching you stutter and stumble over every single awkward, embarrassing and ambiguous biblical chapter and verse that I highlight .

You've had at least 4 members here, including myself, who posted precise, unemotional responses to your inquiries. I think you assume eventual silent treatment as stuttering and stumbling, when it's just being dumbfounded by someone in denial. Nothing is personal. It's just that when someone refuses to acknowledge something so simple as Hebrew and Greek translation, and the contexts of evil, all one can do is throw their arms in the air. But, as they say, the squeaky wheel gets the grease, so you still get responses. Although I think at this point it's an act of generosity. A concordance can be found in any major book chain, not to mention finding it on line by the way. But, I know that doesn't mean anything to the on-line disciple of evilbible.com

By the way, our very first conversation was a result of you commenting on a post I made, which of course included an indirect reference to Christians being ignorant. And I responded quite kindly really. Would you like me to direct you to that post?

No that'll be you. He isn't in any corner and it would take more than you to put the Brother on the ropes where bible matters are concerned. Your problem is, is that he knows these scriptures inside out and is honest about them and you don't and aren't.

I wasn't actually referring to myself, but I'll let the gag run it's course.

I don't think anyone's initial intention was to see you trapped in a corner, but it really doesn't matter. It does no good to trap a heavy drinker in a corner if that's where the bar is located.

Created:

5 years ago

0

Posted in:

A Different Angle

-->

@EtrnlVw

I've never been to a Church in my life that discriminates nor would I support that in any way, sorry Willy. Perhaps try a different Church?

It's actually quite astonishing how many people believe that every church is a mirror of the one they went to. Even an atheist talk show host I heard recently.

Created:

5 years ago

0

Posted in: