You mean Isaac? That was a test to Abraham, i dont believe that god would have let him follow through with the sacrifice even if he wanted to.
And this is another reason why Christianity is evil, and even if your god existed he'd be a feckless thug. How do you expect anyone to follow or believe in this trash?
It seems i have a little bit more faith in humanity than you do. And why would he be a reckless(i assume that was a typo because i havent heard of the word feckless) thug, you skipped a line of your reasoning.
Ah so that is what you are referring. I seem to remember that your poor understanding of the bible is where i said that you have taken a lot of things out of context. Which is true. Hence why i asked of you could choose one of those passages you are 100% sure that is against the family then i would back down.
My answer covers 2 or 3 of those quotes. And i have specifically addressed the issue of racism and about killing children.
Im going to give you the term for the technique you used to ignore the problem. It's called "thought-stopping clichés". It's when you are programmed into making a non-sequitur conclusion that blocks your thought and believe you are off the hook.
You want to know why Christian apologetics only work on Christians? It's because only Christians have the programming to get fooled by that technique.
I'll tell you what you did. What you did was to pick some problematic passages and then you tried to resolve them by putting them under a different light. You have a pattern in how you do this. You can try to cross-referencing them, which doesn't work since A) the other sources are unrelated B) you ignore context since you tried to resolve just one out of many passages.
You can then begin to discuss the interpretion itself, which is often an even greater failure. Whenever a passage is taken as methaphor or said to be taken symbolically, the entire work is ruined since everything can be a methaphor or symbolically. Interpreting symbols and methapors is based on the interpretor, not the text itself. Sometimes people try to get off the hook by translating a word differently, but that also rarely work since if a word is used in one place it's often used in other places with a different explanation attached to it (like Corwin's failed excuse for "servants" earlier in the thread).
When you so blatantly fail to solve the case, and manage to both ignore context and show that you do not understand the bible, you are merely insulting someones intellect by calling their work "poor understanding of the bible" and "quoted out of context" without even attempting to support your accusations. You do not have a "good understanding", you are trained to think in certain patterns and by doing so you aren't thinking critically.
So you would prefer rebellion resulting in hundreds of thousands killed? I believe that if you are indeed a slave you live your life to the best of your abilities within the confines of slavery and perhaps by being kind souls you can attain your freedom instead of constantly rebelling and getting yourself killed. Being a christian is about "loving others as yourself" and loving god. I believe in nonviolent means to solve racism and through the proper channels. And not through disobedience and rebellion. Similar to what William Wilberforce has done.
So, you accept the US ones without doubt, but if it's UK and Canada then you need numbers ?
Is it because you had an argument for the US rebellion but none for Canada or the UK ?
No, I'm speaking of Jephthah. He vows to your god to sacrifice the first thing that comes through his house's doors after engaging in yet another act of old testament genocide. His daughter comes out to greet him, so he (although he doesn't want to) sacrifices his daughter to fulfill his vow. No intervention or negative consequences for your god.
It seems i have a little bit more faith in humanity than you do. And why would he be a reckless(i assume that was a typo because i havent heard of the word feckless) thug, you skipped a line of your reasoning.
Feckless means "ineffective; incompetent; futile" or "having no sense of responsibility; indifferent; lazy.". Your god would be a feckless thug because it encourages genocide and asks its 'chosen people' to run around raping and pillaging their way through Canaan. It also tells people that being wise is a bad thing, and then it also has the audacity to say owning slaves is okay and not to oppose evil or defend yourself if need be. It's ludicrous and self-contradictory - yet another sign that the Bible is not the inerrant word of God and why even the Catholics aren't ignorant enough to preach that it is. Your version (because there are many) of Christianity is the guy who sits idly by while the woman is being raped across the street.
Sorry, but no - if this is how you define good, and if this is how you define "serving god", then sign me up for the League of Evil under the auspices of Satan (who didn't even exist in the Old Testament! Neither did hell! It took the loving Jesus Christ to condemn everyone to an eternity of hellfire unless they believed in the mass of plagiarism and crazyness that is the Bible). Edit: Should also mention it's not true as well as historically and scientifically inaccurate.
So, you accept the US ones without doubt, but if it's UK and Canada then you need numbers ?
Is it because you had an argument for the US rebellion but none for Canada or the UK ?
No, I'm speaking of Jephthah. He vows to your god to sacrifice the first thing that comes through his house's doors after engaging in yet another act of old testament genocide. His daughter comes out to greet him, so he (although he doesn't want to) sacrifices his daughter to fulfill his vow. No intervention or negative consequences for your god.
That was his negative consequence. God did not ask him to make that vow nor interfered when he made her a sacrifice. God doesnt interfere much with humanity.
Feckless means "ineffective; incompetent; futile" or "having no sense of responsibility; indifferent; lazy.". Your god would be a feckless thug because it encourages genocide and asks its 'chosen people' to run around raping and pillaging their way through Canaan. It also tells people that being wise is a bad thing, and then it also has the audacity to say owning slaves is okay and not to oppose evil or defend yourself if need be. It's ludicrous and self-contradictory - yet another sign that the Bible is not the inerrant word of God and why even the Catholics aren't ignorant enough to preach that it is. Your version (because there are many) of Christianity is the guy who sits idly by while the woman is being raped across the street.
Sorry, but no - if this is how you define good, and if this is how you define "serving god", then sign me up for the League of Evil under the auspices of Satan (who didn't even exist in the Old Testament! Neither did hell! It took the loving Jesus Christ to condemn everyone to an eternity of hellfire unless they believed in the mass of plagiarism and crazyness that is the Bible).
Im going to give you the term for the technique you used to ignore the problem. It's called "thought-stopping clichés". It's when you are programmed into making a non-sequitur conclusion that blocks your thought and believe you are off the hook.
You want to know why Christian apologetics only work on Christians? It's because only Christians have the programming to get fooled by that technique.
I'll tell you what you did. What you did was to pick some problematic passages and then you tried to resolve them by putting them under a different light. You have a pattern in how you do this. You can try to cross-referencing them, which doesn't work since A) the other sources are unrelated B) you ignore context since you tried to resolve just one out of many passages.
You can then begin to discuss the interpretion itself, which is often an even greater failure. Whenever a passage is taken as methaphor or said to be taken symbolically, the entire work is ruined since everything can be a methaphor or symbolically. Interpreting symbols and methapors is based on the interpretor, not the text itself. Sometimes people try to get off the hook by translating a word differently, but that also rarely work since if a word is used in one place it's often used in other places with a different explanation attached to it (like Corwin's failed excuse for "servants" earlier in the thread).
When you so blatantly fail to solve the case, and manage to both ignore context and show that you do not understand the bible, you are merely insulting someones intellect by calling their work "poor understanding of the bible" and "quoted out of context" without even attempting to support your accusations. You do not have a "good understanding", you are trained to think in certain patterns and by doing so you aren't thinking critically.
Damian, in the recent comments you have shown a certain theme.
True moral reasoning is doing what is right, regardless what you are told.
You are instead doing what you are told, no matter what is right.
Your comments are void of empathy, overlooking the most horrible deeds with indifference. It's like you either do not have any or do not allow it to interfer with what you are trained to do; protect certain symbols as well as the system that you have been taught to submit to.
In the trials after 2nd world war it was often the case that guards in concentration camps didn't take responsibility for their actions. They defend themselves by saying that they were just following orders. This inspired something known as the Milgram Experiment. The Milgram Experiment tested people to see how far they were willing to obey an authority without following their conscience. In the experiment 60% submitted to commit artificial murder.
Since the Milgram Experiment, many similar tests have been done and they all show a consistent difference between those who are trained to always strive to do what right and those who are trained to always strive to follow orders, follow their authority, being trained to protect symbols no matter what.
This is one reason why I find respecting Christianity without friction so dangerous.
That was his negative consequence. God did not ask him to make that vow nor interfered when he made her a sacrifice. God doesnt interfere much with humanity.
But you just said your god wouldn't let Abraham sacrifice his kid. And how do you know what your god thinks of things? Did he tell you over lunch yesterday?
No, it's perfectly acceptable in your bible. Your god tells people to do it. Of course, you also missed the point of what I said entirely, but I'm expecting that.
So Joseph had two daddies? I thought you Christians hated gay marriage!
2)
Matthew 28:1 In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre.
Mark 16:1 And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, had bought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint him.
John 20:1 The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre, and seeth the stone taken away from the sepulchre.
So when your god "divinely inspired" these guys to write about these events 80-100 years after the fact, he forgot to tell them the same story?
3)
Genesis 1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
Genesis 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
Genesis 2:18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
Genesis 2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.
So in Genesis Chapter 1, god created animals before man. In Genesis Chapter 2, god created animals AFTER man. I guess he was running a control experiment, somewhere?
4)
1st Kings 4:26 And Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen.
2nd Chronicles 9:25 And Solomon had four thousand stalls for horses and chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen; whom he bestowed in the chariot cities, and with the king at Jerusalem.
Isaiah 14:21 Prepare slaughter for his children for the iniquity of their fathers; that they do not rise, nor possess the land, nor fill the face of the world with cities.
Deuteronomy 24:16 The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin.
So kill the children for his sins but don't kill the children for his sins?
7)
Genesis 3:14 And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:
Isaiah 40:22 It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:
Matthew 4:8 Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them;
The earth is a sphere. You can't see all of it from one spot no matter how high you go. Even from mount everest! I guess satan and Jesus don't understand something any sailor in their day and age could!
9)
Numbers 12:3: "Now the man Moses was very meek, above all the men which were upon the fact of the earth."
Numbers 31:14, 17, 18: "And Moses was wroth...And Moses said unto them, "Have ye saved all the women alive? ... Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman, ... But all the women children ... keep alive for yourselves."
So the meekest man alive ordered his troops to kill all the men, women, and boys, but keep the girls alive to be raped and produce more little Israelites? I love humility! And wait, didn't you say something like "Rape is wrong in any context biblical or otherwise."? Oh, you did.
10)
Proverbs 4:7 Wisdom is the principal thing; therefore get wisdom: and with all thy getting get understanding.
Ecclesiastes 1:18 For in much wisdom is much grief: and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow.
1st Corinthians 1:19: "For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent."
So get wisdom to increase understanding, but it'll make you sad, just so Jesus can destroy it with a lightning bolt? Cool.
11)
Matthew 27:46,50: "And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, "Eli, eli, lama sabachthani?" that is to say, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" ...Jesus, when he cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost."
Luke 23:46: "And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, "Father, unto thy hands I commend my spirit:" and having said thus, he gave up the ghost."
John 19:30: "When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, "It is finished:" and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost."
So Jesus died three times? Or there were three guys named Jesus up on Golgotha at the same time?
12) The two different lineages of Jesus! This one is long, so here it is in spoilers!
Matthew 1:6-16:
6: And Jesse begat David the king; and David the king begat Solomon of her that had been the wife of Urias;
7: And Solomon begat Roboam; and Roboam begat Abia; and Abia begat Asa;
8: And Asa begat Josaphat; and Josaphat begat Joram; and Joram begat Ozias;
9: And Ozias begat Joatham; and Joatham begat Achaz; and Achaz begat Ezekias;
10: And Ezekias begat Manasses; and Manasses begat Amon; and Amon begat Josias;
11: And Josias begat Jechonias and his brethren, about the time they were carried away to Babylon:
12: And after they were brought to Babylon, Jechonias begat Salathiel; and Salathiel begat Zorobabel;
13: And Zorobabel begat Abiud; and Abiud begat Eliakim; and Eliakim begat Azor;
14: And Azor begat Sadoc; and Sadoc begat Achim; and Achim begat Eliud;
15: And Eliud begat Eleazar; and Eleazar begat Matthan; and Matthan begat Jacob;
16: And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.
23: And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,
24: Which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Janna, which was the son of Joseph,
25: Which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Amos, which was the son of Naum, which was the son of Esli, which was the son of Nagge,
26: Which was the son of Maath, which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Semei, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Juda,
27: Which was the son of Joanna, which was the son of Rhesa, which was the son of Zorobabel, which was the son of Salathiel, which was the son of Neri,
28: Which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Addi, which was the son of Cosam, which was the son of Elmodam, which was the son of Er,
29: Which was the son of Jose, which was the son of Eliezer, which was the son of Jorim, which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi,
30: Which was the son of Simeon, which was the son of Juda, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Jonan, which was the son of Eliakim,
31: Which was the son of Melea, which was the son of Menan, which was the son of Mattatha, which was the son of Nathan, which was the son of David,
This is Judas, by the way. So he both hanged himself alone and exploded in front of everyone? Cool trick!
The bible is contradictory. I could also bring out how it says god stopped the sun in the sky (which implies the sun revolves around the earth). Even if you take it to mean that he stopped the earth's rotation, that would kill us all. Either way, you're talking about magic. And magic is not science.
Your comments are void of empathy, overlooking the most horrible deeds with indifference. It's like you either do not have any or do not allow it to interfer with what you are trained to do; protect certain symbols as well as the system that you have been taught to submit to.
But i do have empathy for people who suffer. But i believe living a good life void of angst, bitterness and trying to be the nicest person you could be is the best way to live.
Not only is it proved, there's also scientific work that explains how religion can hijack cognitive functions so that the individual preserve himself ignorant. You are following predictable patterns.
But i do have empathy for people who suffer. But i believe living a good life void of angst, bitterness and trying to be the nicest person you could be is the best way to live.
You have shown indifference to suffering continuously throughout this thread. When you strive to protect symbols (such as a book or a cultural framework) rather than justice and morality itself you show no empathy. By being ignorant in general over human lives, human needs, humanity etc, giving up that information yet again in favor for certain symbols (books, religion) you can also not begin to distinguish what's nice and how to build a good life.
But you just said your god wouldn't let Abraham sacrifice his kid. And how do you know what your god thinks of things? Did he tell you over lunch yesterday?
No, it's perfectly acceptable in your bible. Your god tells people to do it. Of course, you also missed the point of what I said entirely, but I'm expecting that.
People are Christian because they are (willfully) ignorant of reality, and yes, I can prove it:
1) So Joseph had two daddies? I thought you Christians hated gay marriage!
2) So when your god "divinely inspired" these guys to write about these events 80-100 years after the fact, he forgot to tell them the same story?
3) So in Genesis Chapter 1, god created animals before man. In Genesis Chapter 2, god created animals AFTER man. I guess he was running a control experiment, somewhere?
4) Which is it? Are there two Solomons?
5) Rabbits don't chew cud.
6) So kill the children for his sins but don't kill the children for his sins?
7)
Snails don't eat dirt.
8) The earth is a sphere. You can't see all of it from one spot no matter how high you go. Even from mount everest! I guess satan and Jesus don't understand something any sailor in their day and age could!
9) So the meekest man alive ordered his troops to kill all the men, women, and boys, but keep the girls alive to be raped and produce more little Israelites? I love humility! And wait, didn't you say something like "Rape is wrong in any context biblical or otherwise."? Oh, you did.
10)So get wisdom to increase understanding, but it'll make you sad, just so Jesus can destroy it with a lightning bolt? Cool.
11) So Jesus died three times? Or there were three guys named Jesus up on Golgotha at the same time?
12) The two different lineages of Jesus! This one is long, so here it is in spoilers!
Matthew 1:6-16:
Luke 3:23-31
13) This is Judas, by the way. So he both hanged himself alone and exploded in front of everyone? Cool trick!
The bible is contradictory. I could also bring out how it says god stopped the sun in the sky (which implies the sun revolves around the earth). Even if you take it to mean that he stopped the earth's rotation, that would kill us all. Either way, you're talking about magic. And magic is not science.
You wanted some proof, so I gave it to you; and in an area you are supposed to be conversant in. Take as much time as you want, but any one of those instantly defeats your argument of the Bible being infallible.
You have shown indifference to suffering continuously throughout this thread. When you strive to protect symbols (such as a book or a cultural framework) rather than justice and morality itself you show no empathy. By being ignorant in general over human lives, human needs, humanity etc, giving up that information yet again in favor for certain symbols (books, religion) you can also not begin to distinguish what's nice and how to build a good life.
You need to explain that a little better. I have read a little bit of the bible trying to understand to the best of my ability to make sense of it, i dont defend it with arguments contrary to my understanding of the bible.
You wanted some proof, so I gave it to you; and in an area you are supposed to be conversant in. Take as much time as you want, but any one of those instantly defeats your argument of the Bible being infallible.
