the latest pile of dog

[Magyar]

feces from a theist. While sometimes I can be a bit hyperbolic it is rare that I actually want to cause harm to another. But today I truly feel like causing this piece of **** serious bodily harm.


On NPR this morning was a guy who wrote a book to his children explaining to them the reasons why god allows bad things like the murder of children to happen.

The book titled "the shack" written by William P. Young

It is thus titled because a little girl is kidnapped raped, tortured and then murdered in a small shack in the woods. Some time after the crime is discovered her father goes to the shack where upon entering he discovers that god, jesus and the holy ghost have created a wonderful garden - sort of a weekend getaway for the trinity - at this site
Ain't that just dandy?

Jebbus explains to the father that HE was with the little girl while she was being brutalized but just didn't want to intervene because you see the reason that bad things like this happen is because are you ready - direct quote

God has SO much RESPECT for his creation that he will allow men to do these kinds of destructive things to show us his love!

The unbelievably perverted and psycho logic of explaining that
child rapers, and murders are respected by god - and there isn't really anything new here if you've read the buybull - isn't what really turned my stomach though.

It was the blatant and complete disregard for the victims of these types of crimes who according to the author god apparently cares for NOT at ALL and are nothing more than incidental fodder for gods creations whom he respects!


Now, such "fiction" isn't new either, but this book is being pushed as an inspirational book to show jeebus's and gods love for us.

Apparently the book is on the best sellers list, which just gives me another reason why I generally despise my species.

[A Christian Sceptic]

Here it is.
http://www.amazon.com/Shack-William-P-Young/dp/0964729237

From your opening post I thought it was a children's book or something. Looks like a Mass Market Paperback exploring some tough issues.

[Silentknight]

If it was the author's intent to explore challenging topics, then he wouldn't have handwaved the issue by pretending to already know the answer. From a Christian point of view, don't you think it's a little presumptuous of him to be dictating what God thinks and why? From a secular point of view, what kind of horrific crimes could not be justified in the manner that he tried to explain this one away? What about the rights of the victim or the life of free choices she was deprived of? One could just as easily claim that God didn't "allow" the girl to escape, in order to prove how much he DESPISES his creation.

Also, I'd keep that author as far away from children as possible.

[Radrook]

Respected by God? You are right. It definitely is a pile of unadulterated smoldering festering maggot-crawling pile of steaming, rancid, stinking horse ****.

[Jeff Corey]

Don't hold back and keep it all bottled up inside!
Say what you really feel.

[Radrook]

Really feel about accusations against God which are false. Certainly!

[A Christian Sceptic]

If it was the author's intent to explore challenging topics, then he wouldn't have handwaved the issue by pretending to already know the answer.


?? It seems like it's a story about a guy who's daughters is murdered and his dealing of it and the questions it brings. Never read the book (and don't intend to) so have no idea if the author handwaves the issue.


From a Christian point of view, don't you think it's a little presumptuous of him to be dictating what God thinks and why?


Not anymore presumptuous then someone saying that's NOT how God would think and why. (In other words - most everyone has an opinion on what God would or wouldn't do and why).


From a secular point of view, what kind of horrific crimes could not be justified in the manner that he tried to explain this one away?


I don't have enough information on where in the book the author is justifying any crimes. Not sure how a religious argument for a crime would be secular either.

[A Christian Sceptic]

By the way - reading some of the reviews of the book it appears many Christians don't like that book because it makes God too accepting of all humans. <shrugs> Go figure.

[Brian-M]

Really feel about accusations against God which are false. Certainly!

How do tell the difference between true and false accusations against god?

[Radrook]

How do tell the difference between true and false accusations against god?

Familiarity with that particular God's personality. If you told me that Zeus was vehemently against rape and adultery I would reply that he is depicted as raping human women while he was married. So that would be false in reference to Zeus.

Or if you told me that that Mars or the Aztec gods were peace loving I'd have to consider that statement false.

In the same manner, if I am told that the biblical God respects rapists-I would have to say that is false because of my familiarity with how the biblical God is described.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Here it is.
http://www.amazon.com/Shack-William-P-Young/dp/0964729237

From your opening post I thought it was a children's book or something. Looks like a Mass Market Paperback exploring some tough issues.The only thing 'tough' about the issues is explaining why Christians cannot stop apologizing for the absurdity of the rationalization. Either there ain't a God (obvious) or he's despicable.

[Skeptic Ginger]

...
In the same manner, if I am told that the biblical God respects rapists-I would have to say that is false because of my familiarity with how the biblical God is described.Let's see. Your imaginary God has no respect for rapists. I can see that.

Then what, God blames the rapist for the horrendous affliction visited upon an innocent child? Or are you one of those apologists that just says there must be a reason for it which we are too feeble minded to understand?

[PixyMisa]

In the same manner, if I am told that the biblical God respects rapists-I would have to say that is false because of my familiarity with how the biblical God is described.
Is this the same Bible we're talking about? You know, the ones with rules for how long you can keep slaves, when you should sacrifice your children, and that if you're going to rape a woman you have to marry her afterwards?

[Jeff Corey]

Familiarity with that particular God's personality. If you told me that Zeus was vehemently against rape and adultery I would reply that he is depicted as raping human women while he was married. So that would be false in reference to Zeus.

Or if you told me that that Mars or the Aztec gods were peace loving I'd have to consider that statement false.

In the same manner, if I am told that the biblical God respects rapists-I would have to say that is false because of my familiarity with how the biblical God is described.
I am unable to ascertain the Tooth Fairy's position on the issue, which is unfortunate because it is just as relevant.

[A Christian Sceptic]

The only thing 'tough' about the issues is explaining why Christians cannot stop apologizing for the absurdity of the rationalization. Either there ain't a God (obvious) or he's despicable.

I guess we will have to disagree here - I think the murder and rape of a child is a "tough" issue to deal with - whether you believe in God or not. Still, believing in God after and during the tragedies is "tough" too. And as you are well aware - many people abandon their faith during those very times, but many come through it with a stronger, albeit changed, faith.

[bokonon]

God has SO much RESPECT for his creation that he will allow men to do these kinds of destructive things to show us his love!
Yeah, it's all nonsensical. I guess the same god has so much respect for his creation that he will allow the earthquakes which he (in his perfect wisdom) has made to topple buildings on those he loves, and create tsunamis to wash the tiny cherished babies from their cribs, the lightning which he created to spark wildfires to burn his much-beloved Bambis from their homes ... then wail like OJ that he did it because he "loved them too much."

Then you get guys like VenomFangX, in his latest "Why is there hell?" screed, arguing that condemning good people to an eternity of anguish is another example of his "perfect love," because his standards of morality are much higher than human standards. In fact they're so high that if you break the least of his commandments (by, say, getting angry), you're screwed. Just like the most petty gang leader, any petty infraction is punished by measures more extreme than a little child torture and rape.

The people who think this way are just little losers trying to convince themselves that they will be rewarded after they die, while those who rightly mocked them will pay a heavy price. The whole idea is so ridiculous that it's not even worth refuting.

[Wildy]

This sounds like a Christian is trying to change that stupid viewpoint that Christians seem to have.

If something good happens to you it's because of God.

If something bad happens it's your fault.

Only he fails miserably because it seems that God is far more evil then people suspected.

[sophia8]

A pretty good MST3King of the book:
God moves in utterly predictable ways (http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2008/jul/29/fiction1)

[Radrook]

This sounds like a Christian is trying to change that stupid viewpoint that Christians seem to have.

If something good happens to you it's because of God.

If something bad happens it's your fault.

Only he fails miserably because it seems that God is far more evil then people suspected.


From a theological standpoint, the real question is whether such beliefs are misunderstandings of scripture or even non-biblically derived additions. If indeed they are unjustifiable additions, then they constitute mere misguided human opinion and cannot legitimately be used to for biblical evaluation purposes.

It is a sincere, unbiased, skeptic's responsibility to determine this before passing judgement. Otherwise he is as gullible as any other unprincipled person.

[Radrook]

By the way - reading some of the reviews of the book it appears many Christians don't like that book because it makes God too accepting of all humans. <shrugs> Go figure.

From a Christian standpoint God doesn't view all humans in an equally benign way. That's because human behavior varies and some of that behavior is scrpturally described as offensive to him.

[joobz]

From a theological standpoint, the real question is whether such beliefs are misunderstandings of scripture or even non-biblically derived additions. If indeed they are unjustifiable additions, then they constitute mere misguided human opinion and cannot legitimately be used to for biblical evaluation purposes.

It is a sincere, unbiased, skeptic's responsibility to determine this before passing judgement. Otherwise he is as gullible as any other unprincipled person.
By this standpoint, one could also claim your interpretation of Zeus and astec religions is merely unjustified, missguided interpretations.

Familiarity with that particular God's personality. If you told me that Zeus was vehemently against rape and adultery I would reply that he is depicted as raping human women while he was married. So that would be false in reference to Zeus.

Or if you told me that that Mars or the Aztec gods were peace loving I'd have to consider that statement false.

In the same manner, if I am told that the biblical God respects rapists-I would have to say that is false because of my familiarity with how the biblical God is described.

[Skeptical Greg]

From a Christian standpoint God doesn't view all humans in an equally benign way. That's because human behavior varies and some of that behavior is scrpturally described as offensive to him.
What happened to being saved by grace ?
A dogma that certainly does not take past behavior into account..

Or, are you talking about some other version of Christianity ?

[joobz]

There is a lot of logical jumps that must be made to explain why a loving/caring god allows horrible things to be done to children. The worst of it comes in the form of child hood terminal illness.

I think it belittles the pain and horror inflicted on these kids to perform a post hoc rationalization to make god seem like the good guy in all of it. It's best to simply say, "I do not know why god allows these things. We must have faith that all will be best in the end...." Or something similar to that. I can respect the christians who chaulk it up to the Mysteries of god more than those who claim to know why/why not god does these things.

Of course, to me, the simplest explanation is that nature is what it is and god doesn't even enter into it. People do bad things, because there are bad people. It is our responsibility as humans to protect our children from these bad people. Morality comes from this responsibility and not from assuming there is some grand mystical plan for the horror.

[Radrook]

By this standpoint, one could also claim your interpretation of Zeus and astec religions is merely unjustified, missguided interpretations.

I don't accuse Zues of raping or being an adulterer. The writings of his worshippers describe him that way.



According to legend, Metis, the goddess of prudence, was the first love of Zeus. At first she tried in vain to escape his advances, but in the end succumbed to his endeavor, and from their union Athena was conceived. Gaia warned Zeus that Metis would bear a daughter, whose son would overthrow him. On hearing this Zeus swallowed Metis, the reason for this was to continue to carry the child through to the birth himself. Hera (his wife and sister) was outraged and very jealous of her husband's affair, ....


....Zeus had many offspring; his wife Hera bore him Ares, Hephaestus, Hebe and Eileithyia, but Zeus had numerous liaisons with both goddesses and mortals. He either raped them, or used devious means to seduce the unsuspecting maidens.

http://av.rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0geumHK6JFIuZQAIlNrCqMX;_ylu=X3oDMTBvdmM3bGl xBHBndANhdl93ZWJfcmVzdWx0BHNlYwNzcg--/SIG=120hg4ods/EXP=1217608266/**http%3a//www.pantheon.org/articles/z/zeus.html


bolding mine
================================================== ===========

Since they do-then how does one avoid reaching the conclusion that he raped and commited adultery when it is clearly stated that he did?

Care to explain?

[NobbyNobbs]

Familiarity with that particular God's personality. If you told me that Zeus was vehemently against rape and adultery I would reply that he is depicted as raping human women while he was married. So that would be false in reference to Zeus.

Or if you told me that that Mars or the Aztec gods were peace loving I'd have to consider that statement false.

In the same manner, if I am told that the biblical God respects rapists-I would have to say that is false because of my familiarity with how the biblical God is described.

So I suppose you would agree with me if I said the Judeo-Christian god is accepting of genocidal murder? There's plenty of biblical description to support that viewpoint.....

[Radrook]

What happened to being saved by grace ?
A dogma that certainly does not take past behavior into account..

God is described as always vieing sinful behavior either past or present as repugnant. It is described as an essential part of his personality. Thast he is willing to forgive based on the Ransom Sacrifice merely means that he can view such persons as blameless based on that Ransom Sacrifice. It does not mean that he respects unrepentant sinnerrs or condones the sin itself. There is no scriptural basis to say that he respects a rapist. Respect entails admiration and approval of behavior and a desire that all should behave the same way because it is commendable. So by definition and by knowing how God is described we can't make that statement and expect to convince.


Or, are you talking about some other version of Christianity ?

There is only one version. All differences are essentially misundersatanbdings of non-salvational specifics. Remnants of the predicted apostasy that set in after the death of the Apostles. Please note that on an official level, Catholicism and Protestantism consider each other Christian organizations despite their differences in matters apart from the salvational Ransom Sacrifice of Jesus. That's the identifying and unifying theme.

[Skeptical Greg]

You said:
From a Christian standpoint God doesn't view all humans in an equally benign way. That implies a problem with " saved by grace " ...

If God does not consider past behavior of those who accept Christ, then he is viewing them all in a benign way....

Particularly when good behavior doesn't trump bad behavior ...


Now it's time to just leave with the " we cannot understand the mind of god " shuffle ...

[bokonon]

The biblical accounts I've read don't indicate that Mary was given the opportunity to say "no" before god spilled his holy seed into her, so I'd say he's just as guilty of rape as Zeus. Even if he gave her the "roofies of righteousness" first and his manhood is so unimposing that she never felt a thing, it's date rape without the dinner of another man's wife. Oops, looks like the biblical god's an adulterer too. I guess his highly developed moral sense boils down to "do as I say, not as I do." The only thing that seems to distinguish him from Zeus is that he didn't take the form of a swan (that was Zeus, wasn't it?).

[joobz]

I don't accuse Zues of raping or being an adulterer. The writings of his worshippers describe him that way.



bolding mine
================================================== ===========

Since they do-then how does one avoid reaching the conclusion that he raped and commited adultery when it is clearly stated that he did?

Care to explain?
Your only source said he "may" have raped. Most stories regarding Zeus' liasons were of willing partners. I'd say that the ones which claim rape are simply "misunderstandings of scripturemythos or even non-biblicallyunofficial derived additions".

Secondly, you've added now adultery to the mix, which wasn't a point being discussed. We were referring to the rape. In any regard, Was god married to Mary when he inpregnated her?

The point here is that you are applying strict interpretation of other faiths as proof against them, yet allow only your interpretation to be considered acceptable for the bible.

If we use your same method of analysis leveed against the Aztecs and greek mythology, we must also do the same for the bible. In which case, it becomes clear that god is rather indifferent toward the murder and slaughter of children. And that he will use the murder of children as punishment toward the parents.

[Radrook]

You said:
That implies a problem with " saved by grace " ...

Only if we ignore scriptures and fail to see how they complement one another and form a harmonious whole as a consequence.

If God does not consider past behavior of those who accept Christ, then he is viewing them all in a benign way....Particularly when good behavior doesn't trump bad behavior ...

Absolutely not! That is NOT a biblical concept. That is YOUR concept.


Now it's time to just leave with the " we cannot understand the mind of god " shuffle ...

A perfectly understandable conclusion in view of the defective methodology used and the correct methodology being ignored.

BTW
That conclusion would necessitates that we ignore all the scriptures which tell us otherwise. Are you familiar with the scriptures that tell us otherwise? Or are you choosing to simply ignore them by classifying them as contradictions to your preferred viewpoint?

[Radrook]

Your only source said he "may" have raped.

And the numerical number of sources would sway you? I don't think so, You would deftly find some other way to say that they are either irelevant-unconvincing, unrepresentative, biased, ad infinitum. That's why I don't waste my time.


Most stories regarding Zeus' liasons were of willing partners. I'd say that the ones which claim rape are simply "misunderstandings of scripturemythos or even non-biblicallyunofficial derived additions".

Oh. You mean the seductions after he abducts them. Well, OK! I guess those can absolve him of previously raping oothers.

Secondly, you've added now adultery to the mix, which wasn't a point being discussed. We were referring to the rape. In any regard, Was god married to Mary when he inpregnated her?

Sigh! Is in vitrio fertilization rape? Or the placing of a sperm with the consent of the mother rape. Are you familiar with what Mary said when told that she was to bear a child due to the operation of God's active force upon her? Or are you choosing to totally ignore her willingness to participate by saying it was an honor and a blessing? Better yet, have you read the account at all. The reason I ask is based on your description which shows a total lack of knowledge concerning Mary's willingness to do as God wished. Rest assured that if unwilling then she would NOT have been used.
So a prior reading of her heart was involved

The point here is that you are applying strict interpretation of other faiths as proof against them, yet allow only your interpretation to be considered acceptable for the bible.

No, you are quite free to believe as you choose. So I am neither attemping to allow nor disallow anything. However, that doesn't mean that I will acknowledge interpretations which are unjustified as being viable when they aren't. Nor will I place my mind on hold and purposefully choose not to see discrepancies and contradictions based on unfamiliarity with the subject. To expect such a mindless acquiescing mindset is to expect the unreasonable.


If we use your same method of analysis leveed against the Aztecs and greek mythology, we must also do the same for the bible. In which case, it becomes clear that god is rather indifferent toward the murder and slaughter of children. And that he will use the murder of children as punishment toward the parents.

Here is the Christian viewpoint:

It would be murder if those involved didn't deserve the death sentence However, from Adam forward all humans are born under a death sentence. That's why we grow old sicken and die. So from a Christian standpoint, God hasn't murdered anyone but merely executed the already condemned.

Now come the heckles, jeckles, and diatribes!

[joobz]

And the numerical number of sources would sway you? I don't think so, You would deftly find some other way to say that they are either irelevant-unconvincing, unrepresentative, biased, ad infinitum. That's why I don't waste my time.
I thank you for your attempts at explaining your position. I simply wish you would see the rather double standard approach you place on things. I simply wish to highlight the inconsistencies you present.




Oh. You mean the seductions after he abducts them. Well, OK! I guess those can absolve him of previously raping oothers.
You confuse rape with sexual encounters. Why is it rape if it is with willing partners? Also, I simply present the example of how you allow selective interpretation of your faith by deny other religions the same right. That's hypocritical.



Sigh! Is in vitrio fertilization rape? Or the placing of a sperm with the consent of the mother rape. Are you familiar with what Mary said when told that she was to bear a child due to the operation of God's active force upon her? Or are you choosing to totally ignore her willingness to participate by saying it was an honor and a blessing?
I'm saying she committed adultry. Rape isn't adultry. She is having another man's child out of wedlock. You tell me what that is.

Better yet, have you read the account at all. The reason I ask is based on your description which shows a total lack of knowledge concerning Mary's willingness to do as God wished. Rest assured that if unwilling then she would NOT have been used.[/qutoe]
I suggest you re-read my post. I never once said god raped Mary. I said they committed adultry. This is not the same thing. I find it interesting that you equate rape with adultry.

[quote=Radrook;3907234]
No, you are quite free to believe as you choose. So I am neither attemping to allow nor disallow anything. However, that doesn't mean that I will acknowledge interpretations which are unjustified as being viable when they aren't. Nor will I place my mind on hold and purposefully choose not to see discrepancies and contradictions based on unfamiliarity with the subject. To expect such a mindless acquiescing mindset is to expect the unreasonable. You scream that I am unfamilar with the source material, but it is clear that this isn't the case. If you wish for me to quote scripture, I'd be happy to. You are simply asserting you know the True (TM) interpretation of the bible, and that's simply nonsense. There isn't one and only one interpretation.



Here is the Christian viewpoint:

It would be murder if those involved didn't deserve the death sentence However, from Adam forward all humans are born under a death sentence. That's why we grow old sicken and die. So from a Christian standpoint, God hasn't murdered anyone but merely executed the already condemned.
So you are telling me that the first born children in Egypt, those infants in thier cribs, were justifiably killed because the pharoah would not let the jews free?

The mewling infants, whose only awareness of the world was the need for thier mother's milk and the love and care that their parents could bring. Those children that couldn't even speak for themselves, to be given an opportunity to know right from wrong, to know god. You are telling me that THOSE BABIES. Those little ones, who had no opportunity to repent for thier sins, were justifiably killed? That god was rightous and good in making an example of them?

Now come the heckles, jeckles, and diatribes!
No heckles or jeckles. Only sadness and fear at the callousness and evil that your god represents.

[Skeptical Greg]

Diogenes:
If God does not consider past behavior of those who accept Christ, then he is viewing them all in a benign way....Particularly when good behavior doesn't trump bad behavior ...

Radrook:
Absolutely not! That is NOT a biblical concept. That is YOUR concept.It is a Christian ( which you claim to be ) concept, so it is hardly mine ..

Point me to the literature of a main-stream Christian denomination, that proclaims good behavior will get you into heaven while bad behavior will keep you out...

If you are teaching something else, then right or wrong, you are obviously not speaking for many other Christians..

[joobz]

Diogenes:


Radrook:
It is a Christian ( which you claim to be ) concept, so it is hardly mine ..

Point me to the literature of a main-stream Christian denomination, that proclaims good behavior will get you into heaven while bad behavior will keep you out...

If you are teaching something else, then right or wrong, you are obviously not speaking for many other Christians..
In the strictest sense, good behavior will not get you into heaven. In this case, Radrook is right. You must live a good life and be good, but to get into heaven you must also accept christ as your savior and realize that only through him and his love that you can enter heaven.

Being good isn't enough. Indeed, being bad won't keep you out either. In truth, if you have a death bed conversion and truly accept christ as your savior and are fully repentant for the wrongs you've done, you can enter heaven.

[NobbyNobbs]

It would be murder if those involved didn't deserve the death sentence However, from Adam forward all humans are born under a death sentence. That's why we grow old sicken and die. So from a Christian standpoint, God hasn't murdered anyone but merely executed the already condemned.



Wow. Just wow.

So, by this reasoning, every man, woman and child on the planet, from the beginning right up to the present, is born under a death sentence, and that since executing the already condemned isn't a sin, it's ok for people to be murdered.

Are you suggesting that if I were to go out and murder people, I'd be doing God's will?

What a scary thought.

[Skeptical Greg]

In the strictest sense, good behavior will not get you into heaven. In this case, Radrook is right. You must live a good life and be good, but to get into heaven you must also accept christ as your savior and realize that only through him and his love that you can enter heaven.
" only' Is the key word here .. The good behavior becomes moot..


Being good isn't enough. Indeed, being bad won't keep you out either. In truth, if you have a death bed conversion and truly accept christ as your savior and are fully repentant for the wrongs you've done, you can enter heaven.Once again, the bad behavior is inconsequential if you accept Christ ..

Radrook is arguing that God does judge your behavior, and treats you accordingly..

This not a mainstream Christian concept, when it comes to salvation ..

[Radrook]

I thank you for your attempts at explaining your position. I simply wish you would see the rather double standard approach you place on things. I simply wish to highlight the inconsistencies you present.

Go ahead.

You confuse rape with sexual encounters. Why is it rape if it is with willing partners?

I never said that it's rape when both are willing. Of course I am aware of other factors bewside mutial consent that might tilt it into the rapoe category, But that's going beyond the thread.

Also, I simply present the example of how you allow selective interpretation of your faith by deny other religions the same right. That's hypocritical.

Not attempting to deny anyone of anything. Also, it would be hipocritical of me if indeed I were doing as you say I am.

I'm saying she committed adultry. Rape isn't adultry. She is having another man's child out of wedlock. You tell me what that is.

Fornication on her part if unmarried. Adultery on his if he is married.

I suggest you re-read my post. I never once said god raped Mary. I said they committed adultry. This is not the same thing. I find it interesting that you equate rape with adultry.

Sorry if IU misundersatood you. I do not equate rape with adultery. They aren't mutually exclusiuve though. A person can be guilty of both simultaneously.

You scream that I am unfamilar with the source material, but it is clear that this isn't the case. If you wish for me to quote scripture, I'd be happy to.

I am not screaming. Sorry if I gave you that impression. Not necessary to quote.


You are simply asserting you know the True (TM) interpretation of the bible,...

Amd what is it that you are a simply asserting to know?


That's simply nonsense. There isn't one and only one interpretation.

A very popular misguided view shared by many others.



So you are telling me that the first born children in Egypt, those infants in thier cribs, were justifiably killed because the pharoah would not let the jews free? The mewling infants, whose only awareness of the world was the need for thier mother's milk and the love and care that their parents could bring. Those children that couldn't even speak for themselves, to be given an opportunity to know right from wrong, to know god. You are telling me that THOSE BABIES. Those little ones, who had no opportunity to repent for thier sins, were justifiably killed? That god was rightous and good in making an example of them?

All I'm saying is it cannot be legally classified as murder. Which was your original accusation.

BTW

Biblically those children were merely temporarily put to sleep until the ressurection. Not that I expect that to change anyone's viewpoint. But just adding it for informational purposes.

[quote]No heckles or jeckles. Only sadness and fear at the callousness and evil that your god represents.

And you are entitled to your opinion.

[Silentknight]

It would be murder if those involved didn't deserve the death sentence However, from Adam forward all humans are born under a death sentence. That's why we grow old sicken and die. So from a Christian standpoint, God hasn't murdered anyone but merely executed the already condemned.
Way to let all the murderers, warmongers, and genocidal dictators who have ever claimed to be acting in the name of God off the hook. But I guess it's no surprise, coming from a belief that says that executions are no worse than suspended animation because of the promise of resurrection.

As for evidence or proof that things really work this way, like in real life, well that's probably asking for too much.
In the strictest sense, good behavior will not get you into heaven. In this case, Radrook is right. You must live a good life and be good, but to get into heaven you must also accept christ as your savior and realize that only through him and his love that you can enter heaven.

Being good isn't enough. Indeed, being bad won't keep you out either. In truth, if you have a death bed conversion and truly accept christ as your savior and are fully repentant for the wrongs you've done, you can enter heaven.

Yup. An atheist who lives a decent moral life will burn in hell, but a serial killer and rapist who repents on his death bed (y'know, as long as he REALLY means it) will get into heaven.

Is this the same Bible we're talking about? You know, the ones with rules for how long you can keep slaves, when you should sacrifice your children, and that if you're going to rape a woman you have to marry her afterwards?

Now, now, let's be fair. The bible says that if a woman is raped, she is the one who has to marry her rapist. After all, the woman is chattel and has no say in the matter. Also, when they talk about selling your daughter, they're talking about selling her as a female sex slave. The man is allowed to keep her as long as he remembers to fulfill the requirements: feed her, clothe her, and have sex with her.

[joobz]

I nevere said that it's rape when both are willing.Then I missinterpreted your statement. My apologies.



Not attempting to deny anyone of anything. Also, it would be hipocritical of me if indeed I were doing as you say I am.
Then you can not claim that Zeus was a rapist.



Fornication on her part if unmarried. Adultery on his if he is married.understood. So Mary fornicated with god.



Sorry if IU misundersatood you. I do not equate rape with adultery. They aren't mutually exclusiuve though. A person can be guilty of both simultaneously.agreed.



Amd what is it that you are a simply asserting to know?this doesn't follow logically with my statement. You have asserted to know the true bible interpretation. you have not demonstrated any proof that there is only one right view and that you happen to know it.



A very popular misguided view shared by many others.Same as above.




It wasn't murder.

All I'm saying is it cannot be legally classified as murder. Which was your original accusation.
Do you believe stating that it wasn't murder makes the act any better? Would you prefer the term infantide? Or are you saying that the slaughter of those children was acceptable and therefore not murder?

Do you not see how an outside observer could view such rationalizations as equivlent to the excuses given by muslim terrorist for thier execution of infidels?


And you are entitled to your opinion.
Likewise.

[bokonon]

Are you suggesting that if I were to go out and murder people, I'd be doing God's will?
Only if he asks you to, according to the Bible. And he asked a lot of people to, but he also enjoys doing it himself (a lot!), so if you kill people without hearing voices the voice of god, that's bad. Even though you're not really capable of killing anybody, just temporarily stunning them until everybody's resurrected and divvied up for all eternity. Since there's nothing in the ten commandments saying "thou shalt not stun," maybe it's okay.

[Skeptical Greg]

I would not agree that he is entitled to his opinion .. ( Godwin's law ... must resist - must resist ..
Biblically those children were merely temporarily put to sleep until the ressurection.
If you really think this is somehow justified, then you are a fiend..
Something to keep in mind for all future dicussions..

[joobz]

Biblically those children were merely temporarily put to sleep until the ressurection. Not that I expect that to change anyone's viewpoint. But just adding it for informational purposes.

No. They were not just "put to sleep". they were killed. They will not be given a second chance at life on earth. They were prevented from experiencing the wonder of god's creation. This is not the same thing as "being put to sleep".

"Being put to sleep" is to "killing"
as
"drinking water" is to "drowning"

[Radrook]

Then I missinterpreted your statement. My apologies.


Happens no problem.


Then you can not claim that Zeus was a rapist.

Based on what I have read about him I am forced to.


understood. So Mary fornicated with god.

Fornication involves coitus between two unmarried human persons. First, there was no coitus between God and Mary. Why? Because God has no need to do such a thing in order to bring about a pregnancy. Even humans don't need to have coitus or commit fornication in order to produce a pregnancy. Since you are aware of this-why are you insisting otherwise?

Second, it was by means of holy spirit or God;s power
that she became pregnant. Again, since you are aware of this-why try to misrepresent?

Third, Mary is described as a virgin. Again, since you are aware of this why the misrepresentation?

this doesn't follow logically with my statement. You have asserted to know the true bible interpretation. you have not demonstrated any proof that there is only one right view and that you happen to know it.

You appear to be putting forth your own particular version which YOU seem to believe is the only true one. So how does your approach differ from mine?

Do you believe stating that it wasn't murder makes the act any better? Would you prefer the term infantide? Or are you saying that the slaughter of those children was acceptable and therefore not murder? of infidels?

Are you sure you are reading my posts before responding? I clearly said that the reason why it can't be classified as murder is because it involves the death of condemned criminals. We are all condemned criminals at conception due to inherited sin. That's a basic Christian doctrine upon which the redemption of mankind via the Redemptive Sacrifice is based. Are sufficiently familiar with that doctrine?

not see how an outside observer could view such rationalizations as equivalent to the excuses given by Muslim terrorist for their execution


Outside observers are very often not familiar with the details by virtue of being outside observers. Neither can judicial decision passed by the highest court in the universe be compared to the illegitimate terrorist decisions. On the one hand you have humans arbitrarily and illegally attempting to permanently terminate lives they are unable to restore. On the other we have the biblical source of all life deciding to TEMPORARILY suspend certain human lives until the restoration via resurrection time arrives. Surely you can see a difference here.

[Radrook]

No. They were not just "put to sleep". they were killed.

Denial of the ressurection is not a biblical teaching. In fact, it isd identified with apostate teachings. Are you aware of that?

They will not be given a second chance at life on earth.

Another non biblical idea!



They were prevented from experiencing the wonder of god's creation.

In that hell hole family environment of child sacrifice parental abuse via incest and other such Caananite niceties?

This is not the same thing as "being put to sleep".

"Being put to sleep" is to "killing"
as
"drinking water" is to "drowning"

Then you have a beef with the ASPCA which uses the term to refer to all the animals they kill.

[joobz]

Justifying your interpretation of Greek mythology you say
Based on what I have read about him I am forced to.

But then, in claiming my interpretation of Bibilical writings is wrong you say
Outside observers are very often not familiar with the details by virtue of being outside observers.

Can you not see the inconsistency?

Neither can judicial decision passed by the highest court in the universe be compared to the illegitimate terrorist decisions. On the one hand you have humans arbitrarily
and illegally attempting to permanently terminate lives they are unable to restore.
On the other we have the biblical source of all life deciding to TEMPORARILY suspend certain human lives until the restoration via ressurection time arrives. Surely you can see a difference here.
There is no difference from the view of the living, which is all we have to go on. Dead is dead. God has revoked children the opportunity to live in his creation as punishment to those children's parents. This is not justice. This is not honorable. This is not good. Indeed, it isn't even the children's parents who did wrong. Rather the pharoah. It would be like imprisoning the children of Worldcom employee's for Worldcom's criminal accounting practices. Not only is it illogical. It's patently amoral.

The bible also has examples of men enacting the will of god by slaughtering children. How do we know, then, that the hands of the Muslim terrorists are not guided by god? You have faith that you know the difference.

[joobz]

Denial of the ressurection is not a biblical teaching. In fact, it isd identified with apostate teachings. Are you aware of that?Not sure your point.



Another non biblical idea!Are you claiming that the bible supports reincarnation? I don't mean resurrection, I mean reincarnation.



In that hell hole family environment of child sacrifice parental abuse via incest and other such Caananite niceties?So you claim, however I see no reason to assume this as a universal truth. If we assume this to be true, than god is horrible for not killing all of thier children and not just the first born. or simply rendering those people infertile.



Then you have a beef with the ASPCA which uses the term to refer to all the animals they kill.
It's a euphemism to make it easy on children. Under no circumstances does the ASPCA believe they are actually sleeping.

[Radrook]

I would not agree that he is entitled to his opinion .. ( Godwin's law ... must resist - must resist ..

If you really think this is somehow justified, then you are a fiend..
Something to keep in mind for all future dicussions..

Do you consider Truman to have been a fiend?

[Radrook]

Not sure your point.

The Apostle Paul mentions that there were those opposing the teaching of resurrection and that a belief in such a teaching was actually an attack against Christianity because it denied the resurrection of Christ.

Are you claiming that the bible supports reincarnation? I don't mean resurrection, I mean reincarnation.

Well, the Bible doesn't use the word reincarnation, It uses the word resurrection. Actually, the word "reincarnation" brings in the of non-biblical concept of people caught in an endless cycle of rebirths until they can attain Nirvana via earning it with right behavior. So no, I am not claiming that the Bible teaches reincarnation although there are some who would debate that point.

So you claim, however I see no reason to assume this as a universal truth. If we assume this to be true,

First, I would prefer that you perceive my comments as explanations of the biblical viewpoint and not as claims or efforts at persuading you to believe as I do since explaining is all I am attempting to do.

Second: what universal truth do you claim I am proposing?

than god is horrible for not killing all of thier children and not just the first born. or simply rendering those people infertile.

We are granted the right to agree or disagree with the method he might choose. Or to wonder just why he chose that particular method.


It's a euphemism to make it easy on children. Under no circumstances does the ASPCA believe they are actually sleeping.

Does the ASPCA have a patent pending on that euphemism?

[Skeptical Greg]

Do you consider Truman to have been a fiend?
Do you have evidence that Truman murdered all the first born males of Japan after first making sure the Emperor had no real choice to give in to Truman's demands ?

If you have such evidence, then yes, I would say Truman was a fiend, and I would be a fiend if I condoned his actions..

P.S.

Radrook, I certainly admire your tenacity ..
I'm sure you often feel that you are kicking against the brambles, and it would be
best to dust off your shoes and move on down the road ..

I apologize for calling you a fiend .. I'm confident you are not one ..
It's just that the supposed actions of the god you are defending, are clearly those of a fiend, by any
standards imaginable.

[Radrook]

Justifying your interpretation of Greek mythology you say

A clear act of rape doesn't need interpretation. It's simply too plain to understand otherwise. The need of interpretation is reserved for events behaviors or concepts that are vague. I see nothing vague about someone forcing someone else to have sex.


But then, in claiming my interpretation of Biblical writings is wrong you say

That's because biblical context indicates it.


Can you not see the inconsistency?

Sorry-but no. Care to spell it out in more detail?

There is no difference from the view of the living, which is all we have to go on.

The Christian view is held by living Christians. Don't they count as being alive as well?

Dead is dead.

A view held by the living who disagree with the living who hold an opposing view.


God has revoked children the opportunity to live in his creation as punishment to those children's parents. This is not justice. This is not honorable. This is not good.

What's not good is ignoring the biblical concept that humans when conceived are already legally convicted to death.



Indeed, it isn't even the children's parents who did wrong. Rather the pharaoh.

The Bible focuses on the Pharaoh because it's his decisions which are biding in relation to national policy. That doesn't mean that those not mentioned were not supporting their king. Especially when the issue was their gods against the perceived Hebrew God. Actually, the only time in which the attitude of the Egyptian population is mentioned is when their Pharaoh gives in and they follow his lead by urging the Israelites to leave. Prior to that there is absolutely no indication of any protest against the pharaoh's policy except from the priests who prior to that had chosen to challenge the Israelite God by striving to imitate plagues on a limited scale. Something calculated to discredit the plagues and to encourage the population to keep their faith in the Egyptian gods.

It would be like imprisoning the children of Worldcom employee's for Worldcom's criminal accounting practices. Not only is it illogical. It's patently amoral.

Of course it seems immoral if we choose to persistently ignore that from a biblical standpoint, all of us are condemned to death due to having been conceived in sin sand really don't have any justifiable claim to life. So your premise of : "Sinful humans have an inherent right to life" is the problem..

If life is granted temporarily it is due to his mercy-not because we deserve it. That's a fundamental Christian tenet essential for understanding certain things that might be totally incomprehensible otherwise.

The bible also has examples of men enacting the will of god by slaughtering children.

Is it that men were involved or is it the concept that God told them to do it? Which irks you most? Or is it that some people decide to accept what you cannot and will not accept? Or is it all these combined?

How do we know, then, that the hands of the Muslim terrorists are not guided by god? You have faith that you know the difference.

You appear to want Christians to view things from a Muslim terrorist viewpoint and make concessions. Isn't that a bit unrealistic? Especially since you know that from a Christian standpoint non-Christian religions are considered to be wrong and that things done in the name of those religions are viewed as misguided.
__________________

[Radrook]

Do you have evidence that Truman murdered all the first born males of Japan after first making sure the Emperor had no real choice to give in to Truman's demands ?If you have such evidence, then yes, I would say Truman was a fiend, and I would be a fiend if I condoned his actions..

He never regreted having incinerated, maimed, and disfigured the children in Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Do you have a statement where he says he should not have done that?

There were children living in the Tokyo neighborhoods that were fiire-bombed. As there were in Dresden which was merely bombed to scare the Russians.



P.S.

Radrook, I certainly admire your tenacity ..I'm sure you often feel that you are kicking against the brambles, and it would be best to dust off your shoes and move on down the road ..

If I were trying to convince then I would feel that way. Hoewever, I am just trying to inform so that the reasons for these beliefs are better understood.

I apologize for calling you a fiend ....

Jesus himself was accused of being demonized. So I guess I'm in good company. : )

.. I'm confident you are not one ..

Thanx!

It's just that the supposed actions of the god you are defending, are clearly those of a fiend, by any standards imaginable.

My commentary is merely an attempt at explaining the biblical position on this matter in order to reduce unwarranted assumptions and false premises.

[joobz]

The Apostle Paul mentions that there were those opposing the teaching of resurrection and that a belief in such a teaching was actually an attack against Christianity because it denied the resurrection of Christ.
I understand resurrection as the bible describes it. It's the whole reviving of a dead body with it's soul. and depending on interpretations, those children will only be resurrected at Judgement. They will never be given a chance to experience life in god's creation pre-judgement, which is what I'm referring to. Afterall, that is the ONLY life we know to be real.



Well, the Bible doesn't use the word reincarnation, It uses the word resurrection. Actually, the word "reincarnation" brings in the of non-biblical concept of people caught in an endless cycle of rebirths until they can attain Nirvana via earning it with right behavior. So no, I am not claiming that the Bible teaches reincarnation although there are some who would debate that point.
there is no biblical reason to think souls have a second chance at the pre-judgement life on this world. As such, god denied children this right as a punishment to the pharaoh. That's completely insane.



First, I would prefer that you perceive my comments as explanations of the biblical viewpoint and not as claims or efforts at persuading you to believe as I do since explaining is all I am attempting to do.
I do not believe you are attempting to presuade me. I apologize for giving the concept. But I do not also believe you are presenting the biblical viewpoint.
You are, of course, presenting your interpretation of what the Biblical viewpoint is. I think you speak with good authority as to what that is, but it is far from the only proper interpretation. I am in no position and see no reason to take one interpretation (e.g., catholic vs pentecostal vs. protestant) over another.

Second: what universal truth do you claim I am proposing?You've leveed a series of accusations against cannaanites as to thier horrible practices. I'm not sure what they have to do with pharaoh, but I do believe the bible as being honest in regards to other's morality.





Does the ASPCA have a patent pending on that euphemism?Of course not, but you did not say put to sleep as a euphemism.

So you are telling me that the first born children in Egypt, those infants in thier cribs, were justifiably killed because the pharoah would not let the jews free?
Biblically those children were merely temporarily put to sleep until the ressurection. Not that I expect that to change anyone's viewpoint. But just adding it for informational purposes.
You used it as an alternative to the kids not being "killed"

[NobbyNobbs]

Only if he asks you to, according to the Bible. And he asked a lot of people to, but he also enjoys doing it himself (a lot!), so if you kill people without hearing voices the voice of god, that's bad. Even though you're not really capable of killing anybody, just temporarily stunning them until everybody's resurrected and divvied up for all eternity. Since there's nothing in the ten commandments saying "thou shalt not stun," maybe it's okay.

I'm choosing to believethis was written in sarcasm. I really, really hope I'm right.







Are you sure you are reading my posts before responding? I clearly said that the reason why it can't be classified as murder is because it involves the death of condemned criminals. We are all condemned criminals at conception due to inherited sin. That's a basic Christian doctrine upon which the redemption of mankind via the Redemptive Sacrifice is based. Are sufficiently familiar with that doctrine?

1. The killing of condemned criminals is not murder.
2. We are all condemned criminals, from birth.
3. Ergo, there is no such thing as murder.

You have stated 1 and 2 quite clearly. 3 is simply the logical conclusion.



A clear act of rape doesn't need interpretation. It's simply too plain to understand otherwise. The need of interpretation is reserved for events behaviors or concepts that are vague. I see nothing vague about someone forcing someone else to have sex.

And I see nothing vague about mass killings.

[A Christian Sceptic]

1. The killing of condemned criminals is not murder.
2. We are all condemned criminals, from birth.
3. Ergo, there is no such thing as murder.

You have stated 1 and 2 quite clearly. 3 is simply the logical conclusion.


Wrong. It's not murder* when you have or been given the authority to deal out the punishment. If you as an individual went and killed a mass murderer after he's been condemned to death by the government before the government could follow through with the punishment you would not be doing capital punishment - you'd be committing murder.

It should read:

1. The killing of condemned criminals is not murder when done by those with the legal rights to carry out the punishment.


What needs to be determined is who and what is the authority. So - in RadRook's scenario - the only authority who can deal out the punishment would be God. Not you. Not anyone. And we see that it is happening - the punishment's already being enforced - it's called Death. So far no humans found a way to escape it.




*Note: I'm talking about legal definitions and distinctions of Murder vs. Capital Punishment. An argument can be made that all killing at anytime is murder - but that's neither here nor there for this thread.

[Foster Zygote]

When reading the apologetics of those who seek to justify the slaughter of innocent children by, or in the name of, their god I wonder if such people are really representative of the sort of evil that allows otherwise normal, law-abiding citizens to round up and exterminate members of some scapegoat group, or if they are just so indoctrinated and/or obstinate that they refuse to openly admit that the horrors described in ancient sacred writings are just that.

After all, if murdered children are just "put to sleep" until they are resurrected, then why should we mourn the death of any child? What's the difference if they are "put to sleep" by the god or servants of god murdering their parents or "put to sleep" by a serial child murderer?

[A Christian Sceptic]

When reading the apologetics of those who seek to justify the slaughter of innocent children by, or in the name of, their god I wonder if such people are really representative of the sort of evil that allows otherwise normal, law-abiding citizens to round up and exterminate members of some scapegoat group, or if they are just so indoctrinated and/or obstinate that they refuse to openly admit that the horrors described in ancient sacred writings are just that.


Hey FosterZygote - I'm not sure if you're talking in reference to the slaughters as described in the bible or in general when bad things happen to people and children.


After all, if murdered children are just "put to sleep" until they are resurrected, then why should we mourn the death of any child?


Uh ... you love them? Why do you think you wouldn't be sad - even if you believe you'll see them again someday? I get sad when I don't see loved ones for a long period of time or I'm saying good bye to them as they leave for a long journey - and that's while they are still alive.


What's the difference if they are "put to sleep" by the god or servants of god murdering their parents or "put to sleep" by a serial child murderer?

I'm not clear if you are considering sickness and accidents as the means god's "put's them to sleep" or something else.

If so - It seems to me that natural events causing death are alot different then humans murdering each other - their motivations on why they are murdering would be irrelevant to me. I wouldn't care why you murdered my loved one.

[joobz]

What needs to be determined is who and what is the authority. So - in RadRook's scenario - the only authority who can deal out the punishment would be God. Not you. Not anyone. And we see that it is happening - the punishment's already being enforced - it's called Death. So far no humans found a way to escape it.

But in the same scenario, god killed the kids as a punishment to the pharaoh. Under no similar system of justice do we allow the taking of one life as punishment to another.

Perhaps one could argue that god took away the kids in the same way as child protection services takes away children from bad parents. But even this wouldn't be an acceptable comparison, as it is clear that CPS does it to protect kids and not to punish parents. If god was to doing his action as a protection of the first born, why not protect all of the children?

The only explanation that can be offered which makes this ok is to say, "It's not wrong when god does it."

But then, the bible also has examples of god giving murdering/genocide rights to some people to enact his judgements by proxy. So, now we have
1.) It's not wrong when god does it.
2.) biblical examples of god doing killing.
3.) God giving this right to people.
Therefore, we are logically left with
4.) It's not wrong when these people kill for god by Proxy.

This is a formula ripe for excusing any genocide done and is functionally indestinguishable from the logic used by jihadists and muslim suicide bombers.

[rocketdodger]

Lol @ this thread.

The rape and murder of children is not "tough" to deal with for the majority of humans (those of us who are either too smart or too stupid to be sucked into ridiculous theist apologetics) -- it is simply unacceptable, and anyone who does it is either locked up for life or prompty put to death. We don't even have to think about it, it is so black and white.

[A Christian Sceptic]

But in the same scenario, god killed the kids as a punishment to the pharaoh.


Well - I was responding to NobbyNobb's Logic Response to RadRook's scenario that I quoted - which seemed to be about RadRook talking about all humans being born with Original Sin or being sinful with their relationship to God.


Under no similar system of justice do we allow the taking of one life as punishment to another.

Perhaps one could argue that god took away the kids in the same way as child protection services takes away children from bad parents. But even this wouldn't be an acceptable comparison, as it is clear that CPS does it to protect kids and not to punish parents. If god was to doing his action as a protection of the first born, why not protect all of the children?

The only explanation that can be offered which makes this ok is to say, "It's not wrong when god does it."

But then, the bible also has examples of god giving murdering/genocide rights to some people to enact his judgements by proxy. So, now we have
1.) It's not wrong when god does it.
2.) biblical examples of god doing killing.
3.) God giving this right to people.
Therefore, we are logically left with
4.) It's not wrong when these people kill for god by Proxy.

This is a formula ripe for excusing any genocide done and is functionally indestinguishable from the logic used by jihadists and muslim suicide bombers.

I'll be honest here Joobz - I wish more Christians would just say "I don't understand how any of that could be ok, but I trust that somehow from some perspective whatever happened didn't beak any of God's moral rules". I've had some conversations and read writings where Christians do try to justify atrocities recorded in the Old Testament and it's not convincing to me. And often appalling.

I lean more towards the "justification of their actions after the matter" theory. The Israelites did atrocities not any different then their peers and then justified it by envoking God.

[rocketdodger]

Actually, I quite like the idea -- God follows the prime directive!

A corollary of such a theory is that we should act as if God does not exist, even if we think he does, because he want's us to be independent. So I can see why Christians aren't down with such a story...

[A Christian Sceptic]

Lol @ this thread.

The rape and murder of children is not "tough" to deal with for the majority of humans (those of us who are either too smart or too stupid to be sucked into ridiculous theist apologetics) -- it is simply unacceptable, and anyone who does it is either locked up for life or prompty put to death. We don't even have to think about it, it is so black and white.

Uh, the "tough to deal with" isn't in reference to whether to punish the murderer. It's in reference to emotionally and spiritually dealing with the murder and rape of your child.

[Silentknight]

Lol @ this thread.

The rape and murder of children is not "tough" to deal with for the majority of humans (those of us who are either too smart or too stupid to be sucked into ridiculous theist apologetics) -- it is simply unacceptable, and anyone who does it is either locked up for life or prompty put to death. We don't even have to think about it, it is so black and white.

Uh, the "tough to deal with" isn't in reference to whether to punish the murderer. It's in reference to emotionally and spiritually dealing with the murder and rape of your child.

Nobody is denying that. However it's another thing entirely to handwave the issue, especially as Radrook has argued, by claiming that children who are horribly murdered have simply been put to sleep, on the basis that resurrection is a fact of life, because the bible says so. He then went on to equivocate the term even further by saying that's what they call the euthanasia of animals. Therefore he has presented this horribly twisted view of morality that trivializes life and brushes off the tragedy of death, on the premise that resurrection is real because the bible says so. Never mind the fact that he has yet to prove this is the way things work in real life.

On a related note, remind me never to hire a Jehovah's Witness as a babysitter. Otherwise something like this might happen.
http://www.vgcats.com/comics/?strip_id=249
I'll be honest here Joobz - I wish more Christians would just say "I don't understand how any of that could be ok, but I trust that somehow from some perspective whatever happened didn't beak any of God's moral rules". I've had some conversations and read writings where Christians do try to justify atrocities recorded in the Old Testament and it's not convincing to me. And often appalling.

I lean more towards the "justification of their actions after the matter" theory. The Israelites did atrocities not any different then their peers and then justified it by envoking God.
Could you elaborate on your position? What do you believe about God's moral rules, and what do you think about the atrocities the Israelites committed? I'm not trying to be confrontational here, as I would like to continue the original conversation (and I wish this discussion hadn't gone into the whole "murdered people are just sleeping" psychotic ramblings).

[Radrook]

I understand resurrection as the bible describes it. It's the whole reviving of a dead body with it's soul. And depending on interpretations, those children will only be resurrected at Judgment. They will never be given a chance to experience life in god's creation pre-judgement, which is what I'm referring to. After all, that is the ONLY life we know to be real. There is no biblical reason to think souls have a second chance at the pre-judgement life on this world. As such, god denied children this right as a punishment to the pharaoh. That's completely insane.


From a Christian standpoint there nothing pleasant or desirable in experiencing life in this satanically controlled world. In fact, this life isn't considered the real one because it is a life ofd imperfection sickness and ultimately death. The real life is the life God intended humans to have from the outset where physical perfection of mind and body and no condemnation to death is present.


I do not believe you are attempting to persuade me. I apologize for giving the concept. But I do not also believe you are presenting the biblical viewpoint.
You are, of course, presenting your interpretation of what the Biblical viewpoint is. I think you speak with good authority as to what that is, but it is far from the only proper interpretation.

It's a common misconception that the Bible is a book allowing thousands of equally valid interpretations. Actually, there are basic guidelines which prevent that from being so and drastically limit the number of interpretations which might seem to approximate validity.


1. Interpretations, for example that generate a host of internal contradictions by ignoring cultural, historical and textual context are unacceptable.

2. Ones which assume biblical dishonesty

3. Ones placing Godless science above scriptural statements.

4. Ones maligning God's personality

5. Ones derived from pagan religions.

6. Ones treating the NT and OT as unrelated

7. Ones denying its inspiration

8. Ones ignoring essential relevant scriptures

9. Ones attempting to condone unrepentant sin.


Such guidelines when strictly applied restricts acceptability and answewrs the ubiquitous objection of "Who is to say?" with "The guidlines say!" As to who makes the guidelines. the Bible content itself clearly sets the guidleines.

BTW

Many unacceptable interpretations can easily be traced to non-Christian pagan practices gradually incorporated into the apostate Church to ease the influx of pagan "converts" and bring about the religious Roman Empire unity that Constantine was demanding. In short, everything which the professed Christians did and taught after the death of the Apostles should not be readily accepted as biblical in view of the their motives in proposing the ideas and the origin of their wild ideas. Skepticism demands such an approach and when it is applied provides evidence that the popular idea of "Millions-of-interpretations-are-all-OK" as being unwarranted.


I am in no position and see no reason to take one interpretation (e.g., catholic vs Pentecostal vs. Protestant) over another.

I'm sure you don't.

You've levied a series of accusations against Cannaanites as to their horrible practices.

The accusations are levied by the Bible itself in the book of Dueteronomy and are given as an explanation and a warning. An explanation as to why those people were being driven out of that land and a warning that the Israelites also would be if they practiced those things.

I'm not sure what they have to do with pharaoh, but I do believe the bible as being honest in regards to other's morality.

I might have mistaken reference to one for reference to the other. Thanks for pointing that out. In any case, the principles involved are the same.


Of course not, but you did not say put to sleep as a euphemism.
You used it as an alternative to the kids not being "killed"

Sorry that I wasn't clear. I used it in the biblical sense of cessation of consciousness as happens in deep sleep followed by an eventual awakening. Actually, the Apostles also misunderstood the term the same way when Jesus applied it to his friend Lazarus who had just died. Later they realized he had been speaking about Lazarus's death. But even prior to Jesus the scriptures continually compare death with sleep, The reason is that the resurrection provides an awakening. So referring to it as sleep carries that strong biblical connotation.

[Radrook]

Originally Posted by joobz
But in the same scenario, God killed the kids as a punishment to the pharaoh.

What are you counting on for reader believability-biblical ignorance?

So now the Pharaoh was the only person in Egypt who opposed the liberation of Israelites from bondage. All other Egyptians were cheering the Israelites on? How do you reach that kind of conclusion? Or are your now starting to make things up as you go along?


Under no similar system of justice do we allow the taking of one life as punishment to another.

False premise since you are assuming an unknown unstated factor.
If indeed God were to follow your logic, then he would have killed only the children in order to punish the parents. So you are obviously attempting to totally misrepresent what occurred.

Perhaps one could argue that God took away the kids in the same way as child protection services takes away children from bad parents.

I never proposed that. But it is a good point, Thanx.

But even this wouldn't be an acceptable comparison, as it is clear that CPS does it to protect kids and not to punish parents.

They aren't mutually exclusive.

If God was to doing his action as a protection of the first born, why not protect all of the children?

These children were in his way due to parental decision of resisting his will. You know, just like the Tokyo children were in your military's way and you approved of incinerating them? In fact, maybe even celebrated all night after their incineration.

The only explanation that can be offered which makes this OK is to say, "It's not wrong when God does it."

The only explanation YOU will allow in order to be able to continue your false accusations is that one.

But then, the bible also has examples of God giving murdering/genocide rights to some people to enact his judgements by proxy.

The intentions were not genocidal. I think we went over this on another thread and it lead nowhere because of your refusal to think.


So, now we have
1.) It's not wrong when God does it.
2.) biblical examples of God doing killing.
3.) God giving this right to people.

1. It's not wrong if it isn't wrong.

2. God has the right to pass the death sentence.

3. God has a right to delegate

Therefore, we are logically left with

There is absolutely nothing logical about your conclusions. You are beginning to sound like Lou Dobbs!


4.) It's not wrong when these people kill for God by Proxy.

Is it wrong when soldiers assigned to kill for you and the president by proxy?

This is a formula ripe for excusing any genocide done and is functionally indistinguishable from the logic used by jihadists and Muslim suicide bombers.

That's because you arbitrarily insist on equating jihadists and suicide bombers with God and refuse to refute or even consider the differences which have a direct bearing on the legitimacy issue and which I repeatedly bring to your attention to no avail.

[joobz]

I'll be honest here Joobz - I wish more Christians would just say "I don't understand how any of that could be ok, but I trust that somehow from some perspective whatever happened didn't beak any of God's moral rules". I've had some conversations and read writings where Christians do try to justify atrocities recorded in the Old Testament and it's not convincing to me. And often appalling.

I lean more towards the "justification of their actions after the matter" theory. The Israelites did atrocities not any different then their peers and then justified it by envoking God.
That's a position I can respect. It's honest.

[joobz]

From a Christian standpoint there nothing pleasant or desirable in experiencing life in this satanically controlled world. In fact, this life isn't considered the real one because it is a life ofd imperfection sickness and ultimately death. The real life is the life God intended humans to have from the outset where physical perfection of mind and body and no condemnation to death is present.this is truly a bizarre argument. Not the first time i've heard it, but definitely bizarre. Why would the loving god send you to this horrible place? Why should we bother striving to stay alive, make things better? Have children and torture them with this horror show?

This has to be one of the most anti-life arguments I've ever heard. ANd I know it is NOT the norm in christian views, which negates the entirety of the rest of your post where you attempt to claim ultimate authority in biblical/christian interpretation.


The accusations are levied by the Bible itself in the book of Dueteronomy and are given as an explanation and a warning. An explanation as to why those people were being driven out of that land and a warning that the Israelites also would be if they practiced those things. I apologize for mistating my point. The bible (the christian text), whcih says that all other religions are wrong claims the cannannite's religion made them practice evil things. This is hardly an unbiased report. It would be like learning about Bears Fans from listening to Green Bay Packer's Fans. Or Learning about Blacks from the Klu klux Clan.



I might have mistaken reference to one for reference to the other. Thanks for pointing that out. In any case, the principles involved are the same.
So, the eqyptians were killing thier children and committing insest/rape?




Sorry that I wasn't clear. I used it in the biblical sense of cessation of consciousness as happens in deep sleep followed by an eventual awakening. Actually, the Apostles also misunderstood the term the same way when Jesus applied it to his friend Lazarus who had just died. Later they realized he had been speaking about Lazarus's death. But even prior to Jesus the scriptures continually compare death with sleep, The reason is that the resurrection provides an awakening. So referring to it as sleep carries that strong biblical connotation.
Didn't heaven's gate say they were merely going to sleep or was the Jim Jones?

To claim it's only sleep, then why not allow murder? Why not "put to sleep" everyone on earth and speed along the time til Jesus/god resurrects us?

[joobz]

What are you counting on for reader believability-biblical ignorance?I do not understand this point.

So now the Pharaoh was the only person in Egypt who opposed the liberation of Israelites from bondage. All other Egyptians were cheering the Israelites on? How do you reach that kind of conclusion? Or are your now starting to make things up as you go along?Leaving the "making things up as you go along" alone for its irony...OK, let's pretend it was the parents as well. Do you now think it acceptable to kill thier kids?



False premise since you are assuming an unknown unstated factor.
If indeed God were to follow your logic, then he would have killed only the children in order to punish the parents. So you are obviously attempting to totally misrepresent what occurred.
OK, under no system of justice do we allow the killing of children as a means of obtaining what we want. (Letting the jews free).



I never proposed that. But it is a good point, Thanx.



They aren't mutually exclusive.The bible never says the children were killed to protect them. You are "making that part up as you go".



These children were in his way due to parental decision of resisting his will. You know, just like the Tokyo children were in your military's way and you approved of incinerating them? In fact, maybe even celebrated all night after their incineration.good analogy for this situation.
It wasn't "good" that we did that. It wasn't "good" that the bombs were dropped. America did not know the horror it would cause. The suffering and pain it would bring. But it was needed to bring an end to the war.
Now, at no time, though, do I think that
1.) america is omnipotent
2.) america is omniscient
3.) america is pure love.

AS any other nation, it is a complex mix of good and bad. I think it is more good than bad, but the bad is there. We did the horror because we couldn't know of another way that would end things. We weren't all powerful, so we had to use the most powerful thing we could think of.
And we aren't pure love.

I would excuse the actions god did in the bible wit pharaoh if he too was as equally flawed as america. That would then make sense. But that's not the claim made for god. That's the entire point behind the logical inconsistency that exists with the bible and with god.

The only explanation YOU will allow in order to be able to continue your false accusations is that one.
SO then why is it ok for god to kill kids but not you?


The intentions were not genocidal. I think we went over this on another thread and it lead nowhere because of your refusal to think.
a personal attack doesn't help your argument nor does it weaken the strength of my argument.


1. It's not wrong if it isn't wrong.

2. God has the right to pass the death sentence.

3. God has a right to delegate
the only difference between your premises and mine is that you are saying the targeting and killing children isn't wrong.



There is absolutely nothing logical about your conclusions. You are beginning to sound like Lou Dobbs!
Simple assertion. You have failed to find a whole in my argument and have therefore resulted to your second personal attack. This is a transparent sign that your argument is weak.


Is it wrong when soldiers assigned to kill for you and the president by proxy?if the soldiers were assigned to kill and target children to win a war, then yes. THAT IS WRONG.



That's because you arbitrarily insist on equating jihadists and suicide bombers with God and refuse to refute or even consider the differences which have a direct bearing on the legitimacy issue and which I repeatedly bring to your attention to no avail.
There is nothing arbitrary in my comparison. I've spelled it out quite clearly. You claim to the legitimacy of your religion, but so does jihadists. Since neither have proof to which one is the right one, we are left with making the comparison.

[Kopji]

With only reading the various reviews, sounds kinda creepy. It being #9 on the Bestseller list recommends a look though, there are a lot of people reading this.

With horrific tragedy you often do not have "Sadness" you feel nothing.

Does a child rapist-murderer have a choice in the matter of their behavior? Or are they acting due to some physiological reason beyond their control. What is God respecting by not acting?

[bokonon]

OK, under no system of justice do we allow the killing of children as a means of obtaining what we want.

It wasn't "good" that the bombs were dropped. But it was needed to bring an end to the war.
Now, at no time, though, do I think that
1.) america is omnipotent
2.) america is omniscient
3.) america is pure love.


Good point. If god is all-powerful, and he wants the Jews out from under Pharoah's thumb, what's to stop him from simply making that happen? "Beam me to the promised land, Scotty!" Why is it necessary to send plagues and kill babies unless... unless... well, unless, being omniscient, he just ENJOYS watching that sort of thing. Likes seeing the expression on the parents' faces as their innocent infant suffers and dies before their eyes.

It's nothing but gangster justice.

What? They ate a piece of fruit I told them not to eat?

"I want him DEAD! I want his family DEAD! I want his house BURNED TO THE GROUND..."

But it's okay, because they'll be raised up to be in heaven some day. Will they eat stuff they're not supposed to eat in heaven? Of course not! They'll be transformed into people with free will who just don't do that sort of thing. They'll live forever, and never lust after their hot neighbors instead of the person they've been sleeping with for 5 billion trillion years. But they could! But they won't want to! Not like now. Now, we're being punished, because people we never met, and over whose actions we had no control whatsoever (but god did!) ate something they were told not to eat.

I can see taking the stories as metaphorical, as most Jews and Christians do, as myths which were invented to make a point or teach a lesson. But believing them as literal truth, to the point that you and your friends are sitting around the piano telling Billy Mumy "It's good that you killed those babies. Yes, sir, that's a real good thing..."

Pure unadulterated stupidity.

[Radrook]

this is truly a bizarre argument. Not the first time I've heard it, but definitely bizarre.

It sounds bizarre because you are misunderstanding it as usual.


Why would the loving god send you to this horrible place?

I'm not quite sure what you mean by "send".


Why should we bother striving to stay alive, make things better? Have children and torture them with this horror show?

Because life is precious and people prefer to live since this is the only life they know.


This has to be one of the most anti-life arguments I've ever heard. And I know it is NOT the norm in Christian views, which negates the entirety of the rest of your post where you attempt to claim ultimate authority in biblical/Christian interpretation.

I don't really care what the norm is or isn't. The norm for hundreds of years was to rip out tongues and eyes in the name of Christ. So please spare the illogical follow the norm bit.

I apologize for misstating my point. The bible (the Christian text), which says that all other religions are wrong claims the cannannite's religion made them practice evil things. This is hardly an unbiased report. It would be like learning about Bears Fans from listening to Green Bay Packer's Fans. Or Learning about Blacks from the Klu klux Clan.

So now you are condemning God for taking children's lives and applauding the Caananites for doing the same via human sacrifice. If indeed you see no justification in condemning the Caananite religion with its ceremonial human baby sacrifices in which the child was hurled into a flaming caldron alive, and forced or taught to have sex with his parents and animals. Then I guess we don't have a common moral ground to communicate on. My opinion is that you don't research your subjects and defend them regardless just for the sake of being contrary. Otherwise you would not be contradicting yourself so blatantly



So, the Egyptians were killing their children and committing insest/rape?

There you go again!


Didn't heaven's gate say they were merely going to sleep or was the Jim Jones?

You are arguing against your own ideas. You don't see that-do you? Neither do those who
mindlessly choose join in with you in the annoying droning I suppose?

To claim it's only sleep, then why not allow murder? Why not "put to sleep" everyone on earth and speed along the time til Jesus/god resurrects us?

Of course that's the inane conclusion you reach based on YOUR own arguments which you then proceed to criticize. Talk about weird-now that's WEIRD!

[Silentknight]

It sounds bizarre because you are misunderstanding it as usual.
It's a pretty childish and stupid argument, so it's not hard to understand. Christian philosophers, in an attempt to reconcile the idea of a benevolent God with the suffering and evil they saw in the world, posited the idea that a better world awaits us after death. They took it a step further and said that this world, a fallen creation corrupted by sin, is only a means to get us to that end. Likewise, they claim God had intended for humans to live forever in the paradise of Eden, but it was Satan and human free will that ruined his perfect plans for us...

Nevermind that Satan is God's creation, servant, and divine prosecutor who must operate within God's constraints. Nevermind that this is not how the Jews, from whom the scripture originates, interpret or intended for the story of Eden to be interpreted. Nevermind that the conclusions that God is fallible or that his master plan was flawed necessarily follow from your premise.

Because life is precious and people prefer to live since this is the only life they know.
Yes, life is so precious that murder is love, executions are suspended animation, and death is no worse than being asleep. :rolleyes:

When life is treated with the regard that such a belief proscribes, that God can arbitrarily take away the life he gave and he promises to give it back eventually, one can justify any type of atrocity or tragedy. How is it even moral to think this way?
I don't really care what the norm is or isn't. The norm for hundreds of years was to rip out tongues and eyes in the name of Christ. So please spare the illogical follow the norm bit.
This doesn't help your argument at all. The modern norm is actually far less psychotic or violent than the ideas you've posited. There are Christians out there who go so far as to (gasp) be skeptical of biblical literalism and medieval theodicy, rather than pretending they know all the answers and precisely what God wills.
So now you are condemning God for taking children's lives and applauding the Caananites for doing the same via human sacrifice. If indeed you see no justification in condemning the Caananite religion with its ceremonial human baby sacrifices in which the child was hurled into a flaming caldron alive, and forced or taught to have sex with his parents and animals. Then I guess we don't have a common moral ground to communicate on. My opinion is that you don't research your subjects and defend them regardless just for the sake of being contrary. Otherwise you would not be contradicting yourself so blatantly
There's a fallacy called two wrongs make a right (http://www.fallacyfiles.org/twowrong.html). Nobody is claiming the Canaanites were saints. It should come as no surprise that both sides committed their share of atrocities, as is typical of ancient tribal wars, and it's patently ridiculous to excuse the Israelites for acting just as bad as the Canaanites did.

Also, the point, which you missed entirely, had to do with how the winners of any given conflict will demonize the opposition, making them seem sub-human and therefore deserving of slaughter. This is a common occurrence in armed conflict and continues in the wars going on today. Why would the Israelites have been any different?
You are arguing against your own ideas. You don't see that-do you? Neither do those who
mindlessly choose join in with you in the annoying droning I suppose?
Read your own posts before complaining about self-contradictory arguments or annoying droning.
Of course that's the inane conclusion you reach based on YOUR own arguments which you then proceed to criticize. Talk about weird-now that's WEIRD!
No, that's one of the possible conclusions that follow if you take the premises that death is like sleeping, killing someone isn't immoral, and that a better world awaits us in heaven compared to this horrible existence. You would probably reject the last premise if you don't believe in a soul that survives death. If that's the case though, then it raises questions of just how this alleged resurrection is supposed to work. Where does God save people's data, their memories and consciousness? How does he put their bodies back together?

I mean, suppose you die and the worms eat your body, then some homeless guy uses one of those worms as fishbait, and then eats the fish. When the resurrection rolls around, would a chunk of that homeless guy go flying out of him so God can rebuild your body?

[joobz]

It sounds bizarre because you are misunderstanding it as usual.
You say this life on earth is a horrible experience that one must tollerate in oder to be given the chance to see the better life after we die. I understand you perfectly and it's bizarre.




I'm not quite sure what you mean by "send".Why does god create us and put us through "experiencing life in this satanically controlled world" which has nothing pleasant.


Because life is precious and people prefer to live since this is the only life they know.
Life on this horrible, satanically controlled world which, by your own admission is not the "real life" and has nothing pleasant or desirable in it.
This is the life you are calling precious?




I don't really care what the norm is or isn't. The norm for hundreds of years was to rip out tongues and eyes in the name of Christ. So please spare the illogical follow the norm bit.
Nothing illogical about it. I am simply allowing christians to define what christianity is.


So now you are condemning God for taking children's lives and applauding the Caananites for doing the same via human sacrifice. If indeed you see no justification in condemning the Caananite religion with its ceremonial human baby sacrifices in which the child was hurled into a flaming caldron alive, and forced or taught to have sex with his parents and animals. Then I guess we don't have a common moral ground to communicate on. My opinion is that you don't research your subjects and defend them regardless just for the sake of being contrary. Otherwise you would not be contradicting yourself so blatantly

This does not at all follow from my argument at all.
what sources do you have for such practices? I am not convinced that the caananites did such things. You said that you know of their practices from the bible. But I have no reason to trust that as an unbiased source on such a thing.

And even if they did(which has not been established here), I do not understand why killing kids excuses their killing kids.


There you go again!
You missunderstand my point. We were talking about god killing the first born in egypt as a punishment to pharoah for not letting the jews free.

You replied by saying, "Well, the cannanites killed kids, so god was taking them away from that torture."
I mention that we are talking about egypt, and you admit the error.
SO I am asking, Did the egyptians under pharoah practice child sacrifice like the caananites? If not, then what other rationalization do you offer for excusing god in his slaughter of the innocent?



You are arguing against your own ideas. You don't see that-do you? Neither do those who
mindlessly choose join in with you in the annoying droning I suppose?You claim that I'm arguing against myself (and claim that others are as blinded as me), but that isn't an argument. It's merely a type of personal attack attempt to claim the fault is in me and not in my argument.

Please explain why I'm self-contradicting myself? Where is the contradiction?

I am saying that when you say
dying = going to sleep
is the same as when
Heaven's gate or Jim Jones says
dying = going to sleep

In other words, dead is dead.

Of course that's the inane conclusion you reach based on YOUR own arguments which you then proceed to criticize. Talk about weird-now that's WEIRD!
You again are merely lobbing insults and derision, but haven't addressed the substance of my argument.

IF this world is so horrible and undesirable and not the real life, why endure it? Why allow other people to endure it? Speed people to the wonderful afterlife and do them a favor.

[Mister Agenda]

Snip

Fornication on her part if unmarried. Adultery on his if he is married.

Snip


Wouldn't it be the other way around since she was married and, AFAIK, He wasn't? Adultery on her part, fornication on His.

[Foster Zygote]

Why does god create us and put us through "experiencing life in this satanically controlled world" which has nothing pleasant.

And why, assuming this world displeases him, did he allow it to all go wrong? Either God is all powerful and all knowing and causes suffering deliberately, or he is powerless to stop it.

[Silentknight]

I am saying that when you say
dying = going to sleep
is the same as when
Heaven's gate or Jim Jones says
dying = going to sleep

In other words, dead is dead.

Or to put it another way, given this fairly simple concept of which Radrook's arguments demonstrate a severe lack of understanding thus far--

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/cit_shirou.jpg

[joobz]

It sounds bizarre because you are misunderstanding it as usual.

...

You are arguing against your own ideas. You don't see that-do you? Neither do those who
mindlessly choose join in with you in the annoying droning I suppose?


Of course that's the inane conclusion you reach based on YOUR own arguments which you then proceed to criticize. Talk about weird-now that's WEIRD!

I was considering the fact that you have made multiple claims of my poor logic and inability to understand your argument. Well, this may very well be the truth. I am not so arrogant to pretend that I'm falliable, nor do I pretend to have exclusive access to the truth.

So, I invite you to please make me understand why my logic is so horrible wrong. I invite anyone else on the forum to explain what my error is.


I do not beleive I'm wrong. But I am willing to admit error when I am demonstrated to be wrong.

[JoeEllison]

Don't hold back and keep it all bottled up inside!
Say what you really feel.

Forum rules don't allow me to say what I really feel about this. :cool:

[JoeEllison]

Does a child rapist-murderer have a choice in the matter of their behavior? Or are they acting due to some physiological reason beyond their control. What is God respecting by not acting?
Apparently "God" respect the free will of a child rapist/murderer more than it respects the idea that children shouldn't be raped and murdered. That's the level of "morality" you get from the Bible... no morality at all, in other words. People who see the Bible as a source of morality, and think that their deity is all loving and wonderful are stupid, lying to themselves, and/or extremely delusional.

[Radrook]

Wouldn't it be the other way around since she was married and, AFAIK, He wasn't? Adultery on her part, fornication on His.

Yep!

BTW

Wasn't it Shakespear who wrote the poem entitled "The Rape of Lucrese"? where Zeus changes himself into a swan and carries out the rape while still in that form?

[Radrook]

I was considering the fact that you have made multiple claims of my poor logic and inability to understand your argument. Well, this may very well be the truth.

It's obviously true since I keep telling you that you are while you keep ignoring me in order to continue your misrepresentations.


I am not so arrogant to pretend that I'm falliable,
No arrogance is involved in a pretension to fallibility.


....nor do I pretend to have exclusive access to the truth.

Another straw man since I never claimed that I have EXCLUSIVE access to truth.


So, I invite you to please make me understand why my logic is so horrible wrong.

That's an impossibility since you are obviousaly dead-set on your particular way of viewing things which constitutes ignoring any data that you find unpalatable and and endless attempts at strawman arguments.


I invite anyone else on the forum to explain what my error is.

And a host of godless heckler's and jecklers will gladly descend on the thread join in with enthisiastic but mindless accolades.

[X]

Yep!

BTW

Wasn't it Shakespear who wrote the poem entitled "The Rape of Lucrese"? where Zeus changes himself into a swan and carries out the rape while still in that form?



Zeus had many "affairs" with mortal women.
And one with a boy. (Hey, ancient Greece was pederastic. It's looks odd now, but didn't then.)

The one where he changed into a swan was the rape of Leda, and the child of that encounter was Helen of Troy.

The Rape of Lucrece (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rape_of_Lucrece) is a different story.

[Radrook]

;3913723']Zeus had many "affairs" with mortal women.
And one with a boy. (Hey, ancient Greece was pederastic. It's looks odd now, but didn't then.)

The one where he changed into a swan was the rape of Leda, and the child of that encounter was Helen of Troy.

The Rape of Lucrece (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rape_of_Lucrece) is a different story.

Thanks a for reminding me of the distinction.

[X]

No problem.

I'm just glad my Greek and Roman mythology course wasn't a total waste of time.

[SezMe]

It's a common misconception that the Bible is a book allowing thousands of equally valid interpretations.
[delurk]
It is this kind of nonsensical statement that makes biblical literalists look so inordinately dumb.

The bible allows for thousands of equally valid interpretations. That is an observable fact. It can be independently confirmed and repeated observations lead to a duplication of that fact.

So when Radrook calls that fact a misconception, one can only conclude that he is not grounded in reality. I reach my personal conclusion that discussing the bible, morality, religion, etc. with a biblical literalist is a total waste of time.
[relurk]

[JoeEllison]

And a host of godless heckler's and jecklers will gladly descend on the thread join in with enthisiastic but mindless accolades.
You babble endlessly against the "godless", yet you never have anything rational to say against the position that your religion is superstitious nonsense. I wonder if you'll ever move beyond the babbling?

[Radrook]

[delurk]
It is this kind of nonsensical statement that makes biblical literalists look so inordinately [b]dumb....snip!

Ummm? A cantankerous irate heckler of the name-a-calling ilk? Well a, welcome to ma ignore list and a go and drink yo milk!

[JoeEllison]

Ummm? A cantankerous irate heckler of the name-a-calling ilk? Well a, welcome to ma ignore list and a go and drink yo milk!

You've got nothing on-topic to add? Really? How about you address people's positions, instead of only calling people names?

[devnull]

Ummm? A cantankerous irate heckler of the name-a-calling ilk? Well a, welcome to ma ignore list and a go and drink yo milk!

Well done - nicely ducked.

[Radrook]

Well done - nicely ducked.

I don't believe in exposing myself to insults. It's time wasting and actually, totally unnecessary. Neither do I believe in engaging people in endless struggles and putting forth fruitless efforts at having my plainly-written English understood because the person repeatedly claims incomprehension and poroceeds to make up his own arguments, attributes them to me and attacks them. That's when the person begins coming accross as a pest and eventually disqualifies himself from being on my personal computer screen. So it's simply an evasion of meaningless clutter. Nothng more.

[Radrook]

;3913744']No problem.

I'm just glad my Greek and Roman mythology course wasn't a total waste of time.

I took a course on general mythology fifteen years ago as an elective. But things tend to fade with time if one doesn't refresh the memory on a regular basis.

[JoeEllison]

I don't believe in exposing myself to insults. It's time wasting and actually, totally unnecessary. Neither do I believe in engaging people in endless struggles and putting forth fruitless efforts at having my plainly-written English understood because the person repeatedly claims incomprehension and poroceeds to make up his own arguments, attributes them to me and attacks them. That's when the person begins coming accross as a pest and eventually disqualifies himself from being on my personal computer screen. So it's simply an evasion of meaningless clutter. Nothng more.

You don't seem inclined to expose yourself to logical points of view or valid criticisms of your mythology either. It may be fruitless to engage with you if you are unwilling to consider other views, but the fault lies with you. Apparently, people who aren't willing to accept your incorrect assertions and pathetically illogical worldview are "meaningless clutter"... but that's really your loss, isn't it?

After all, you've managed to completely avoid the fact that your worldview celebrates the rape and murder of children, and you've dodged even addressing that fact, let alone trying to rationalize the sociopathic religious viewpoint you hold.

[joobz]

It's obviously true since I keep telling you that you are while you keep ignoring me in order to continue your misrepresentations.
What may be true is me being wrong. But what also may be true is your being wrong. ALl you have done in the past couple posts is to simply say You're wrong, without giving reasons for making that statement.


No arrogance is involved in a pretension to fallibility.

Another straw man since I never claimed that I have EXCLUSIVE access to truth.I wasn't refering to you in that statement. I was highlighting the fact that I do not believe myself being 100% correct.

However, in this thread, you have held that only your interpretation of the bible is the correct one.

That's an impossibility since you are obviousaly dead-set on your particular way of viewing things which constitutes ignoring any data that you find unpalatable and and endless attempts at strawman arguments.
1.)There is no proof that I have ignored any data
2.)I am far from dead set on thinking one way. (there is evidence of that in this forum)
3.)I have yet to offer a single strawman in this discussion.

There are 3 demonstrable facts that you have claimed, all of which are wrong.





And a host of godless heckler's and jecklers will gladly descend on the thread join in with enthisiastic but mindless accolades.
So you use insults against those who may agree with my argument as a means of strengthening your position.

Again, Radrook, if you had a better more defendable argument, you wouldn't need to resort to these types of attacks.


ETA:
To sumarize my argument
1.) Stories of Zeus misconduct exists
1a.) Adultry and jelousy...
2.) Stories of the Biblical god's misconduct exists
2a.) child murder, jelously...

Logical and consistant conclusions include
3.) If 1a is proof that belief in Zeus wrong and or bad, then 2a is proof that belief in god is wrong or bad.
4.) If 2a isn't proof that belief in god is wrong and/or bad, then 1a isn't proof that belief in Zeus is wrong or bad.

[bokonon]

What is a "jeckler"? Is it one who jeckles?

If so, what does it mean to jeckle? Does it mean "to point out the complete lack of evidence in support of a position"? Because that would make sense...

[Civilized Worm]

A cantankerous irate heckler of the name-a-calling ilk?


Where is that guy that wanted to know what irony is?

[Silentknight]

Ummm? A cantankerous irate heckler of the name-a-calling ilk? Well a, welcome to ma ignore list and a go and drink yo milk!

In other words, you're admitting your position is indefensible in the face of logical refutal and criticism, and can only be backed up by means of ad hominem attacks and petulant schoolyard namecalling. No wait, that's giving your position too much credit, because it assumes a grasp of the difference between attacking the argument and making a personal attack.

Speaking of which, there's another very simple aspect of reality that you have dismissed on the basis of your twisted beliefs. I'll try to explain it in plain simple English, which you have professed a fondness for, so you can't blame me for trying.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_2190348960d10b157a.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=13296)
(Tried to post it earlier but the link broke on me.)

[A Christian Sceptic]

Could you elaborate on your position?


I'll try.


What do you believe about God's moral rules,


Which ones?


and what do you think about the atrocities the Israelites committed?


Terrible. (Just like, well, all atrocities.)
I don't believe it's required to believe anything about them in order to follow Jesus though. I also don't believe it's required to know everything before following Him either. Although - once you start reading the Old Testament you'll come across them and then probably (hopefully) start asking questions. I'm still studying and learning.

[volatile]

For those of you who might not know, Radrook is a Jehovah's Witness. FYI.

[Smackety]

oh ouch - talk about a miserable way to live. I am sorry for you Radrook.

[Silentknight]

Terrible. (Just like, well, all atrocities.)
I don't believe it's required to believe anything about them in order to follow Jesus though. I also don't believe it's required to know everything before following Him either. Although - once you start reading the Old Testament you'll come across them and then probably (hopefully) start asking questions. I'm still studying and learning.
Thanks for your response. It's good to know that there are some Christians who have enough sense to ask questions without jumping to conclusions. My own view is that the God of the bible represents human nature, which is capable of accomplishing a lot of good, but also committing great evil. The bible as a work of literature is a story depicting all sides of humanity. It's human nature to want to blame or attribute your deeds to the will of God, as many people who have marched off to war in his name have done, and I don't see any reason why the ancient Hebrews would have been any different.

When I look at the teachings of Jesus I see a stark contrast with the deeds committed in the Old Testament, but I would argue that it makes sense if you regard him as a visionary reformer. This would explain why people were so impressed that they exalted him in their stories and writings. I see the miracles attributed to him as interpretive metaphors, not literal events, which were meant to emphasize the importance of his moral teachings.
For those of you who might not know, Radrook is a Jehovah's Witness. FYI.
Yeah, I know. I also know he has me (and half of JREF) on ignore, so my responses to him are intended for other people to read, and hopefully get a laugh out of. JaWas might look cute from a distance, but they smell if you get too close.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/2190348966705d5f85.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=13303)

[Foster Zygote]

Yeah, I know. I also know he has me (and half of JREF) on ignore...

He may or may not have you on 'ignore'. He likes to announce that he's placing people on 'ignore', usually because they ask questions or bring up points that he can't deal with, but I'm not sure that he actually uses the 'ignore' function, at least not in all cases. He likes to be histrionic and feign indignation in an attempt to distract attention, even his own attention, from the fact that he has no rational response/has been caught in a bald faced lie etc.

[Radrook]

There are millions of Christians who have no difficulty whatsoever in accepting both the OT and the NT as equally inspired of God. In fact, Jesus' himself spoke of the Law of Moses which included all the laws and punishments as binding upon Israel during his three-year ministry. Later, the rest of the NT supports Jesus in this matter referring to the OT writings including the Pentateuch as inspired of God.


So we either say Jesus and the NT are right or that Jesus and the NT are wrong.
We really can't have it both ways despite our self-proclaimed sincerity. In fact, if indeed we can't abide by his clear teachings and that of the NT-then it's far more honest to establish our own religion. At least that would be more consistent and honest than claiming to respect him while presumptuously contradicting his teachings and claiming to be his follower.

BTW

For those who are about to say that that Jesus and the NT do not treat the OT and the Law of Moses as inspired-please consider that such a claim imediately identifies and
exposes you as scripturally illiterate and unfit to be holding a discussion on the subject.

[joobz]

There are millions of Christians who have no difficulty whatsoever in accepting both the OT and the NT as equally inspired of God. In fact, Jesus' himself spoke of the Law of Moses which included all the laws and punishments as binding upon Israel during his three-year ministry. Later, the rest of the NT supports Jesus in this matter referring to the OT writings including the Pentateuch as inspired of God.

So we either say Jesus and the NT are right or that Jesus and the NT are wrong.
We really can't have it both ways despite our self-proclaimed sincerity. In fact, if indeed we can't abide by his clear teachings and that of the NT-then it's far more honest to establish our own religion. At least that would be more consistent and honest than claiming to respect him while presumptuously contradicting his teachings and claiming to be his follower.

BTW

For those who are about to say that that Jesus and the NT do not treat the OT and the Law of Moses as inspired-please consider that such a claim imediately identifies and
exposes you as scripturally illiterate and unfit to be holding a discussion on the subject.

you are arguing a point no one has made.


To sumarize my argument
1.) Stories of Zeus misconduct exists
1a.) Adultry and jelousy...
2.) Stories of the Biblical god's misconduct exists
2a.) child murder, jelously...

Logical and consistant conclusions include
3.) If 1a is proof that belief in Zeus wrong and or bad, then 2a is proof that belief in god is wrong or bad.
4.) If 2a isn't proof that belief in god is wrong and/or bad, then 1a isn't proof that belief in Zeus is wrong or bad.

[Radrook]

This is hilarious. It's like someone claiming to know how to play chess, not knowing how the pieces move, and arguing vehemently to be taken seriously as a chess player, and insisting that the pieces should be moved his way instead. It just doesn't work that way. At least not in this universe it doesn't.

[joobz]

This is hilarious. It's like someone claiming to know how to play chess, not knowing how the pieces move, and arguing vehemently to be taken seriously as a chess player, and insisting that the pieces should be moved his way instead. It just doesn't work that way. At least not in this universe it doesn't.
As for games like chess, rules are aribitrary and not expected to be relatable to other games (e.g., checkers, poker, canasta, tiddly winks).

If you are claiming that biblical interpretation, like chess, is merely a game, then you are correct. I do not know the rules you play by and find thier arbitrary nature unimpressive and boring.

However, if you wish to claim that your biblical interpretation is well grounded in logic and reason, then you are beholden to the well established rules of logic. As such, my previous argument stands and requires a logical counter to be dissmissed. Derision and condescension are no substitutes for a rational argument.

[Silentknight]

There are millions of Christians who have no difficulty whatsoever in accepting both the OT and the NT as equally inspired of God. In fact, Jesus' himself spoke of the Law of Moses which included all the laws and punishments as binding upon Israel during his three-year ministry. Later, the rest of the NT supports Jesus in this matter referring to the OT writings including the Pentateuch as inspired of God.
Nice circular logic and appeal to popularity. But it fails to prove anything.
So we either say Jesus and the NT are right or that Jesus and the NT are wrong.
We really can't have it both ways despite our self-proclaimed sincerity. In fact, if indeed we can't abide by his clear teachings and that of the NT-then it's far more honest to establish our own religion. At least that would be more consistent and honest than claiming to respect him while presumptuously contradicting his teachings and claiming to be his follower.
Nice false dichotomy. But it fails to prove anything.
BTW

For those who are about to say that that Jesus and the NT do not treat the OT and the Law of Moses as inspired-please consider that such a claim imediately identifies and
exposes you as scripturally illiterate and unfit to be holding a discussion on the subject.
Nice ad hominem attack. But it fails to prove anything.
This is hilarious. It's like someone claiming to know how to play chess, not knowing how the pieces move, and arguing vehemently to be taken seriously as a chess player, and insisting that the pieces should be moved his way instead. It just doesn't work that way. At least not in this universe it doesn't.

Funny you should say that, because debating with bible literalists who demand nothing short of complete and utter agreement with their views is rather like trying to play chess with a pigeon. It knocks over the pieces, craps on the board, and then flies back to its flock to declare victory.

[Brian-M]

Radrook,

Could you clarify your position on why you think it's OK for god to kill people, including children and babies?

Do you believe mortality itself is the punishment for original sin? In which case, god's killing people before the end of their natural life-span would be analogous to a prison warden visiting a death-row prisoner a month before the scheduled execution and strangling him to death with his own hands.

Or do you base your opinions on the many versions of the bible (such as the King Jame's) in which God's word's clearly indicate that the punishment from eating the fruit was death the same day, but sent them into exile instead? In which case god's killing people before the end of their natural life span is analogous to the prison warden letting a prisoner from death-row go free on his day of execution, and then showing up 20 years later to kill the former prisoner's children on the grounds that they should never have been born.

Or is there a different view-point I haven't thought of?

ETA

So it's not the idea of god's approval of the killing of the girl in the book mentioned in the OP that offends you, but the idea that god would approve of her rape?

[fuelair]

feces from a theist. While sometimes I can be a bit hyperbolic it is rare that I actually want to cause harm to another. But today I truly feel like causing this piece of **** serious bodily harm.


On NPR this morning was a guy who wrote a book to his children explaining to them the reasons why god allows bad things like the murder of children to happen.

The book titled "the shack" written by William P. Young

It is thus titled because a little girl is kidnapped raped, tortured and then murdered in a small shack in the woods. Some time after the crime is discovered her father goes to the shack where upon entering he discovers that god, jesus and the holy ghost have created a wonderful garden - sort of a weekend getaway for the trinity - at this site
Ain't that just dandy?

Jebbus explains to the father that HE was with the little girl while she was being brutalized but just didn't want to intervene because you see the reason that bad things like this happen is because are you ready - direct quote

God has SO much RESPECT for his creation that he will allow men to do these kinds of destructive things to show us his love!

The unbelievably perverted and psycho logic of explaining that
child rapers, and murders are respected by god - and there isn't really anything new here if you've read the buybull - isn't what really turned my stomach though.

It was the blatant and complete disregard for the victims of these types of crimes who according to the author god apparently cares for NOT at ALL and are nothing more than incidental fodder for gods creations whom he respects!


Now, such "fiction" isn't new either, but this book is being pushed as an inspirational book to show jeebus's and gods love for us.

Apparently the book is on the best sellers list, which just gives me another reason why I generally despise my species.As long as they get to see what happens if the right persons find the perps (or that creep Jeebus character)before the police.

[fuelair]

Radrook,

Could you clarify your position on why you think it's OK for god to kill people, including children and babies?

Do you believe mortality itself is the punishment for original sin? In which case, god's killing people before the end of their natural life-span would be analogous to a prison warden visiting a death-row prisoner a month before the scheduled execution and strangling him to death with his own hands.

Or do you base your opinions on the many versions of the bible (such as the King Jame's) in which God's word's clearly indicate that the punishment from eating the fruit was death the same day, but sent them into exile instead? In which case god's killing people before the end of their natural life span is analogous to the prison warden letting a prisoner from death-row go free on his day of execution, and then showing up 20 years later to kill the former prisoner's children on the grounds that they should never have been born.

Or is there a different view-point I haven't thought of?

ETA

So it's not the idea of god's approval of the killing of the girl in the book mentioned in the OP that offends you, but the idea that god would approve of her rape?The kind of thing that R. seems to have such a need to believe is what makes me glad that if that dog is the best they can do I am so happy it does not exist. And, as I say often and truthfully - and if it did I would have to hunt it down and do my best to kill it.

[westprog]

No. They were not just "put to sleep". they were killed. They will not be given a second chance at life on earth. They were prevented from experiencing the wonder of god's creation. This is not the same thing as "being put to sleep".

"Being put to sleep" is to "killing"
as
"drinking water" is to "drowning"

So God is evil because he killed those children because when they die they die forever because God doesn't exist?

I can't imagine why more Christians aren't here debating this interesting point.

[joobz]

So God is evil because he killed those children because when they die they die forever because God doesn't exist?Perhaps you can explain why your characterization of my argument of my argument is not a pure strawman.


I can't imagine why more Christians aren't here debating this interesting point.
the post you quoted was my attempt at following Radrook's
Put to sleep vs. dying argument.

[Radrook]

The previous objections to well-known Bible basics or Christian common-ground is similar to gathering misunderstandings from hundreds of misunderstanders of a well-known rule of chess and based on thise claim that chess is open to any interpretation. Then proceeding to endlessly ask: "Ummm how do we know? After all, ummm, just look how many ways it can be understood!" whenever an accurate explanation is provided. Or like attempting to teach literacy to an illiterate individual who persisterntly and stubbornly insists on defending illiteracy by proclaing that grammatical rules are totally a personal matter. That's why such conversations or discussions or invitations to debate aren't worth the time.

BTW


One way to recognize scriptural illiteracy

First, a sincere scripturally but misguided illiterate individual will assume that there are no agreed-upon rules restricting what can and cannot be proposed as biblical doctrine.

Second:
A sincere scripturally illiterate person will ignore context, be it historical, immediate textual, or the more extensive textual biblical one which are all essential to accurate understanding.

Third

Based on the above they will then feel qualified to challenge anything or everything
put for as biblically accurate.

All well and good except for the fact that their modus operandi is seriously flawed.

1. First There are agreed-upon rules which prohibit all and any interpretation on crucial Christian doctrine.

2. SecondContext is essential to understanding and must never be ignored if we are to avoid error.

3. Third Persons unfamiliar with those requirements are NOT qualified to propose ANYTHING on biblical doctrine much less to be requesting to discuss or debate such matters on those flawed grounds.

Indeed, what these individuals do qualify for is biblical instruction in order to dispel such erroneous ideas and eventually qualify themselves for intelligent biblical discussion and avoid adopting untenable easily-refutable positions based on a profound ignorance. Until then, however, it should not be at all surprising if those who are familiar with the biblical literacy requirements and who have invested valuable time in acquiring a solid understanding of basic biblical exegesis should choose to avoid fruitless discussions where there is no common ground.


Tactics of the godless

Thread-deviation attempts via straw man in order to bring in irrelevancies.

Unjustifiable self-proclaimed expertise.

Last resort chortling, and heckling,

Mutual admiration commentary

Irrelevant personality-type insults

Irrelevant group-type insults

Immediate thread-deviation objections to responses to their thread-deviating insults.

Presentation of scientific credentials and logic as proof of atheistic ideas while:

Ignoring scientists credentials of those who believe or consider ID feasible.

Ignoring scientific credentials of those who believe in God

Ignoring common logic if it threatens godless beliefs

Blatant self-contradictions in logic in support of atheistic ideas

Appeals to bandwagon fallacy

Use of Equivocation

Feigning incomprehension to justify crass misrepresentations via misstatements of opposing view.

[joobz]

The previous objections to well-known Bible basics or Christian common-ground is
similar to gathering misunderstandings from hundreds of misunderstanders of a well-known rule of chess and based on thise claim that chess is open to any interpretation.[snip]
So you are claiming that biblical interpretation is based upon a set of concrete, yet arbitrary, rules like chess or any other game?



First, a sincere scripturally but misguided illiterate individual will assume that there are no agreed-upon rules restricting what can and cannot be proposed as biblical doctrine. Because something is "agreed-upon" doesn't make it correct.
Obviously, catholic faith has agreed-upon interpretations of the bible. You disagree with them. Who am I to believe has the "true" interperation?

For instance, why do catholics allow blood transfusions but Jehovah witnesses do not?



Second:
A sincere scripturally illiterate person will ignore context, be it historical, immediate textual, or the more extensive textual biblical one which are all essential to accurate understanding.
Well, perhaps you can give an example where someone in this thread would have done such a thing?



Third

Based on the above they will then feel qualified to challenge anything or everything
put for as biblically accurate.

you assert to have the true interpretation. You assert that someone has ignored context and then you assert to know that someone's level of qualification. This is hardly a convincing argument.



All well and good except for the fact that their modus operandi is seriously flawed.

1. First There are agreed-upon rules which prohibit all and any interpretation on crucial Christian doctrine.
Agree-upon by whom? I see no consensus what so ever regarding the proper interpretations in the bible. The number of contradictory denominations of christianity, all claiming to have the "true" interpretation makes it clear that this your point 1 is simply false.


2. SecondContext is essential to understanding and must never be ignored if we are to avoid error.
I fully agree. Context is everything and I am perfectly willing to admit error if I am shown to be wrong contextually. Yet, you have failed to do so and indeed have interjected out of context arguments in rebutal to my arguments (e.g., discussing Caananite practices when regarding the egyptian plauges)

As such, please note that your issue of context, which I agree with, is a sword that cuts both ways.


3. Third[/b ] Persons unfamiliar with those requirements are NOT qualified to propose ANYTHING on biblical doctrine much less to be requesting to discuss or debate such matters on those flawed grounds.
Well, points 1 and 2 are acceptable premises. Your point three is a conclusion drawn from these premises and not a premise in itself.

I disagree with your conclusion as your premises are flawed.


Indeed, what these individuals do qualify for is biblical instruction in order to dispel such erroneous ideas and eventually qualify them to discuss the Bible intelligently and not [B]from an untenable easily refuted or worthy of being ignored position of profound ignorance.
There is much arrogance in this statement. If my arguments are so easily refuted, why have you failed to do so?

I've invited you, quite politely, to show me where my argument is wrong.

Until then, however, it should not be at all surprising if those who are familiar with the biblical literacy requirements and who have invested valuable time in acquiring a solid understanding of basic biblical exegesis avoid to engage such individuals in fruitless discussions where there is no common ground and in which the uninformed self-proclaimed experts will gather in droves in order to mutually congratulate one another on their savvy while chortling and pointing a mocking finger at those who are truly knowledgeable in the matter under discussion. Such manifestations, IMHO-are better placed in the ignore sector, [Phantom Zone?] where such celebrations and mutual stroking can take place without cluttering up the screen with unwanted irrelevancies.
Those are a lot of words to demean myself and others for simply not thinking the same as you.

You have said that my argument is one from ignorance and is easily refutable.

So, here it is again.
To sumarize my argument
1.) Stories of Zeus misconduct exists
1a.) these stories include adultry, jelousy...
2.) Stories of the Biblical god's misconduct exists
2a.) these stories include child killing, jelously...

Logical and consistant conclusions that can be drawn from these premises include
3.) If 1a is proof that belief in Zeus wrong and or bad, then 2a is proof that belief in god is wrong or bad.
4.) If 2a isn't proof that belief in god is wrong and/or bad, then 1a isn't proof that belief in Zeus is wrong or bad.

[JoeEllison]

Radrook, wouldn't it be simpler and ultimately more intellectually satisfying for you to address the points that people make, instead of creating elaborately constructed, richly detailed, but seriously flawed reasons why you people certain people shouldn't be allowed to make those points?

[Cainkane1]

I once asked a hasidic jew about the holocost and he said God didn't intervene because humans had free will. Christian ministers have told me that justice will be given out measure for measure and that children automatically have a place in Heaven when they die. Mormons put murderers in hell even if they repent and they can only get out of hell if they are executed in a blood atonement. Karma punishes people both in this life and in a bad reincarnation in the next life. Anything is better than saying God respects rapists and murderers of little girls more than he respects the child.

[Civilized Worm]

Ignoring scientists credentials of those who believe or consider ID feasible.


What they believe or consider feasible is irrelevent, what we ask for is evidence.

[joobz]

Tactics of the godless

Thread-deviation attempts via straw man in order to bring in irrelevancies.
As you had done when referencing the caannanites when we were discussing Pharaoh and the egyptians.


Unjustifiable self-proclaimed expertise.
As you have resorted to in dealing with the Bible.

Last resort chortling, and heckling, As you have resorted to, instead of actually addressing the arguments made.

Mutual admiration commentary
amen to that brother. Oh wait....:rolleyes:

Irrelevant personality-type insultsLike when you called a poster a "cantankerous irate heckler"

Irrelevant group-type insults

Like when you called people who might disagree with you "heckler's and jecklers"

Immediate thread-deviation objections to responses to their thread-deviating insults.Like this post that you have made?

Presentation of scientific credentials and logic as proof of atheistic ideas while:credentials only work to show familiarity, evidence is still needed. And it doesn't matter who makes a LOGICAL argument, as long as it is logical.

Ignoring scientists credentials of those who believe or consider ID feasible.As before, credentials don't support the argument. Evidence does.

Ignoring scientific credentials of those who believe in GodI would also ignore scientific credentials of those who like Jazz. It's really not relevant. If they claimed they had evidence for god, then, I'd like to see the evidence and their argument.

Ignoring common logic if it threatens godless beliefsAs you have done by avoiding my argument?

Blatant self-contradictions in logic in support of atheistic ideasIf they are blatant, why are you unable to show the self-contradictions?

Appeals to bandwagon fallacyLike you did when you claimed there are "well agreed upon" rules to interpret the bible.
Use of EquivocationAs you did when you confused canaanite and Egyptian?

Feigning incomprehension to justify crass misrepresentations via misstatements of opposing view.Like you have done in this entire argument?


Are you sure you have the correct title
"Tactics of the godless"

It really seems more like
"Tactics of Projection"

[Foster Zygote]

There are agreed-upon rules which prohibit all and any interpretation on crucial Christian doctrine.
Agreed upon by whom? The people who just happen to agree with you? There are numerous conflicting interpretations of the Bible, each made by people who insist that they are using the correct rules of interpretation.

Persons unfamiliar with those requirements are NOT qualified to propose ANYTHING on biblical doctrine much less to be requesting to discuss or debate such matters on those flawed grounds.
This is a cop-out. By this logic you are NOT qualified to propose ANYTHING regarding the veracity of Scientology.

Indeed, what these individuals do qualify for is biblical instruction in order to dispel such erroneous ideas and eventually qualify themselves for intelligent biblical discussion and avoid adopting untenable easily-refutable positions based on a profound ignorance. Until then, however, it should not be at all surprising if those who are familiar with the biblical literacy requirements and who have invested valuable time in acquiring a solid understanding of basic biblical exegesis should choose to avoid fruitless discussions where there is no common ground.
Just for fun, I suggest everyone read the above, replacing the word "Biblical" with "Communist". Radrook is basically saying that anyone who does not agree with his interpretation of the Bible is, for this reason alone, unqualified to interpret the Bible.


Ignoring scientists credentials of those who believe or consider ID feasible.
Incorrect. You simply expect everyone to give extra weight to the credentials of scientists who promote ID, while giving less weight to the credentials of the far greater number who don't.

Ignoring scientific credentials of those who believe in God
Incorrect. There are many fine scientists who are highly respected in their fields and also hold theistic beliefs. You seem to be imagining a false dichotomy in which only the "atheistic evolutionists" are opposed to ID and all the theistic scientists are supporters of ID.

Ignoring common logic if it threatens godless beliefs
Please provide a single example of common logic that provides evidence of the existence of any god.

Blatant self-contradictions in logic in support of atheistic ideas
Name one of these contradictions.

Appeals to bandwagon fallacy
So when you claim that a long list of famous scientists reject the theory of evolution by natural selection, that's perfectly acceptable, but when others point out strong scientific consensus to you, it's just argumentum ad populum.


While we're at it, I'd like to point out a tactic that did not appear on your above list but that you yourself have used in the attempted support of your position:

Lie.

We both know the incident I'm referring to. If you deny that you lied or attempt to justify it by claiming that you were simply mistaken then I will post a link directly to the lie itself.

[Brian-M]

Tactics of the godless

Thread-deviation attempts via straw man in order to bring in irrelevancies.

Unjustifiable self-proclaimed expertise.

Last resort chortling, and heckling,

Mutual admiration commentary

Irrelevant personality-type insults

Irrelevant group-type insults

Immediate thread-deviation objections to responses to their thread-deviating insults.

Presentation of scientific credentials and logic as proof of atheistic ideas while:

Ignoring scientists credentials of those who believe or consider ID feasible.

Ignoring scientific credentials of those who believe in God

Ignoring common logic if it threatens godless beliefs

Blatant self-contradictions in logic in support of atheistic ideas

Appeals to bandwagon fallacy

Use of Equivocation

Feigning incomprehension to justify crass misrepresentations via misstatements of opposing view.

Hey, snap!


Tactics of the godly

Thread-deviation attempts via straw man in order to bring in irrelevancies.

Unjustifiable self-proclaimed expertise.

Last resort chortling, and heckling,

Mutual admiration commentary

Irrelevant personality-type insults

Irrelevant group-type insults

Immediate thread-deviation objections to responses to their thread-deviating insults.

Presentation of scientific credentials and logic as proof of theistic ideas while:

Ignoring scientists credentials of those who don't believe or don't consider ID feasible.

Ignoring scientific credentials of those who don't believe in God

Ignoring common logic if it threatens godly beliefs

Blatant self-contradictions in logic in support of theistic ideas

Appeals to bandwagon fallacy

Use of Equivocation

Feigning incomprehension to justify crass misrepresentations via misstatements of opposing view.


That was fun. Can we play again?
And what exactly does this have to do with the topic?

[Silentknight]

The previous objections to well-known Bible basics or Christian common-ground is similar to gathering misunderstandings from hundreds of misunderstanders of a well-known rule of chess and based on thise claim that chess is open to any interpretation. (snip) blah, blah, blah...
You could have saved yourself a lot of trouble if you'd simply stated your opinions clearly in the first place:
ME RIGHT! YOU WRONG! YOU CRAZY!
There, I translated for you.
1. First There are agreed-upon rules which prohibit all and any interpretation on crucial Christian doctrine.
"Crucial Christian doctrine"? Well, then I'd better go find out what that is, since obviously I don't know. Maybe I should ask the Catholics, since they seem to have the best fashion sense. Then again, maybe the Orthodox Christians were right, and they had some pretty significant points of contention, so I should ask them instead just to be safe. But what about the Protestants and their own grievances with the Church? I used to attend a Lutheran private school, so maybe there was a point to it all. Oh, but then that raises the question of which of the 33,000 some odd sects has exactly the right answers I'm looking for. Come to think of it, I wouldn't want to neglect the Mormons, given how fast they're growing. Or maybe I should just ask the Jehovah's Witnesses the next time they show up, because we all know how polite, friendly, articulate, and rational THEY can be.

I know, I think I'll just say to hell with it all, and think for myself instead. It's what everyone else does, even if they don't like to admit it. :D

[volatile]

SK - for info, Radrook is a Jehovah's Witness. If you know anything about that particular cult (and specifically if you understand a key part of their doctrinal teaching is that the Watchtower Organisation are the only current Christian denomination behaving as the Early Christians did), you'll see where this dogmatic assertion of Truth comes from.

[joobz]

SK - for info, Radrook is a Jehovah's Witness. If you know anything about that particular cult (and specifically if you understand a key part of their doctrinal teaching is that the Watchtower Organisation are the only current Christian denomination behaving as the Early Christians did), you'll see where this dogmatic assertion of Truth comes from.
Interesting. It definitely makes clear the inconsistencies that Radrook presents. A claim that biblical interpretation is obvious but requires instruction to see it.

from wiki's JW page
Interpretation of scripture and codification of doctrines is considered the responsibility of the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governing_Body_of_Jehovah%27s_Witnesses)

[Silentknight]

SK - for info, Radrook is a Jehovah's Witness. If you know anything about that particular cult (and specifically if you understand a key part of their doctrinal teaching is that the Watchtower Organisation are the only current Christian denomination behaving as the Early Christians did), you'll see where this dogmatic assertion of Truth comes from.

I've heard of that before. But that doesn't help his case one bit, given how he frequently claims to be speaking on behalf of all of Christianity. His recent posts have implied that Christianity is one big happy family, always agreeing, and all sharing the same core convictions. I'm simply pointing out that nothing could be further from the truth.

I do find it a bit strange that he's reluctant to attack or spew venom in the faces of other monotheists, given that there are certainly key doctrines that they disagree on, and are bound to disagree on. I also find it strange that he would willingly seek to provoke heated exchanges on matters that would offend him so deeply when people challenge, disagree with, or dismiss his beliefs. He posts this [bovine digestive waste] knowing full well that skeptics, nonbelievers, and atheists will see it, and how they are likely to react. Why act so surprised or offended then? If he doesn't want to be told to shove his beliefs, then why knock on the doors of nonbelievers?

I'm sorry, but this fits the definition of a troll to a "t". This is not an insult, this is a description based on evidence. It's no different from Sunni Man, a western born and educated convert to Islam (or so he claims) deliberately posting hateful homophobic arguments and Holocaust denial. He knows how objectionable it would come across, and he knows this isn't going to be the most receptive audience to that kind of bigotry. He might really be a Muslim, and Radrook might really be a JW, but that doesn't change the nature of what they said. They would have been vile and disgusting things to say, no matter if they came from a Christian, a Muslim, an atheist, a Buddhist, or a Hindu. Someone might believe, as part of their religion, that it's moral to lobotomize people to keep them from committing crimes, but that's no reason not to call them out on their stupidity.

This brings us back to where we started. I know he has me on ignore, and I don't care. I responded because I have just as much a right to point out the ridiculousness of his statements as he does to state them, and it's more for the sake of the wider forum audience, not someone who isn't going to see it regardless. In the spirit of the "E" in the foundation's name*, there is at least one good thing that can come out of exchanges with trolls.






* Which of course stands for Entertainment. I thought everyone knew that. ;)

[joobz]

I've heard of that before. But that doesn't help his case one bit, given how he frequently claims to be speaking on behalf of all of Christianity. His recent posts have implied that Christianity is one big happy family, always agreeing, and all sharing the same core convictions. I'm simply pointing out that nothing could be further from the truth.
I wouldn't say this. His posts where he called catholics false christians since they at one time "pulled tongues out". (an allusion to the inquisition I believe.)

[Silentknight]

I wouldn't say this. His posts where he called catholics false christians since they at one time "pulled tongues out". (an allusion to the inquisition I believe.)

I think I remember that. But then in the very next breath he'll claim that skeptics are mocking the cherished beliefs of "millions of Christians." When he's on the defensive, he acts like he's the representative of all 2 billion Christians on Earth, guarding them against the dangerous cooties and rational thinking of evil skeptics. Also, as I said, I've never noticed him squirting the contents of his (proverbial) gall bladder in the faces of any other monotheists, the way he does with nonbelievers. He frequently launches personal attacks against 'godless heathens' but rarely if ever against fellow Christians.

[joobz]

I think I remember that. But then in the very next breath he'll claim that skeptics are mocking the cherished beliefs of "millions of Christians." When he's on the defensive, he acts like he's the representative of all 2 billion Christians on Earth, guarding them against the dangerous cooties and rational thinking of evil skeptics. Also, as I said, I've never noticed him squirting the contents of his (proverbial) gall bladder in the faces of any other monotheists, the way he does with nonbelievers. He frequently launches personal attacks against 'godless heathens' but rarely if ever against fellow Christians.
for the most part true. Although, he did start this thread with viatrol against the author of the book.