Reply With Quote
so, what is the core of my belief as you see it?
I have no idea what you're talking about, why don't you just say it, rather than spinning around abstractly...
Precisely? Why don't you tell me? You are the one decrying I cannot speak for you. So then set me straight. If I'm wrong then demonstrate why and don't just claim that I am too vague. That goes to the core of the wishy washy. If I'm so vague then how can you say I' wrong.
What I think is again you don't want to actually address the core of your belief so you waffle. Introspection is hard.
so, what is the core of my belief as you see it?
I have no idea what you're talking about, why don't you just say it, rather than spinning around abstractly...
you still haven't said what you think. you want me to say it for you, but unlike you, I'm not a mind reader.
that I disagree with you doesn't make me any kind of believer, believe it or not...
You believe in a dogmatic god. Are you you a christian or similar type or are you not? If you don't know that's fine but at that point it belies your position of surety. My point still strikes at one of your valences.
The reason why I think that is because you wouldn't be the first with the same passive aggressive response because I don't give the god delusion a pass.
Disagree with me on what? Making broad allusions and demonstrating very clearly how you are afraid to address the issue of what you believe head on doesn't make the case you want it to, wine.
AGAIN though... you always want to lump everyone together... I don't support Republicans in everything they do. And that's where my communication with you comes to an end. You're just toooooooooo mad at everyone and everything to have reasonable discourse. If you're as cool headed as you claim - your posts certainly never convey that at ude.
Seeing how reductio ad absurdum is your go to argument I find this take particularly amusing.
Going straight for the strawman and downhill from there.I don't have time to address all the rebuttals.... especially not on New Year's weekend.
but wow...!
("I am morally superior to the Christian God") Says the guy who unilaterally supports abortion and the selling of baby parts...
As for asking Abraham to sacrifice Isaac, I'm pretty sure GOD never intended for Abraham to kill him... wait, wait... that's exactly what scripture says.
Again, who cares what bible God's intention was? Did Abraham know that God was going to change his mind? Yes or no will do, based on your reading. I would not ask anyone, at any time, for any reason, to sacrifice their child to prove how much they love me.
What is your rough estimate as to the number of babies that would have drowned in a global flood? 10,000? 100,000? 10,000,000? Give me your best guess within an order of magnitude. I would drown exactly zero babies.
I would never order my followers to kill children and pile their bodies so I could see them. I would hope you would refuse such an order, making you morally superior to the God of the bible.He cried also in mine ears with a loud voice, saying, Cause them that have charge over the city to draw near, even every man with his destroying weapon in his hand.
2 And, behold, six men came from the way of the higher gate, which lieth toward the north, and every man a slaughter weapon in his hand; and one man among them was clothed with linen, with a writer's inkhorn by his side: and they went in, and stood beside the brasen altar.
3 And the glory of the God of Israel was gone up from the cherub, whereupon he was, to the threshold of the house. And he called to the man clothed with linen, which had the writer's inkhorn by his side;
4 And the Lord said unto him, Go through the midst of the city, through the midst of Jerusalem, and set a mark upon the foreheads of the men that sigh and that cry for all the abominations that be done in the midst thereof.
5 And to the others he said in mine hearing, Go ye after him through the city, and smite: let not your eye spare, neither have ye pity:
6 Slay utterly old and young, both maids, and little children, and women: but come not near any man upon whom is the mark; and begin at my sanctuary. Then they began at the ancient men which were before the house.
7 And he said unto them, Defile the house, and fill the courts with the slain: go ye forth. And they went forth, and slew in the city.
8 And it came to pass, while they were slaying them, and I was left, that I fell upon my face, and cried, and said, Ah Lord God! wilt thou destroy all the residue of Israel in thy pouring out of thy fury upon Jerusalem?
9 Then said he unto me, The iniquity of the house of Israel and Judah is exceeding great, and the land is full of blood, and the city full of perverseness: for they say, The Lord hath forsaken the earth, and the Lord seeth not.
10 And as for me also, mine eye shall not spare, neither will I have pity, but I will recompense their way upon their head.
11 And, behold, the man clothed with linen, which had the inkhorn by his side, reported the matter, saying, I have done as thou hast commanded me.
Again, pretty easy case to make.
Last edited by RandomGuy; 01-04-2016 at 06:01 PM.
Did those friends of yours ever ever allow the white image of jesus to be shown to those Mexicans? I dont see why it wouldnt seeing it has been shown to Mexicans and black for over 500 years. Millions of Mexicans killed and forced to become todays Catholic/christians. When you mourn for all the millions of my ancestors, then maybe i will pause for your friends. I hope they kicked those lying friends of yours around like futbols. Why wont you ing lying disgusting christians admit you ing changed the biblical description of the most high for racist greed? Jesus was a so called black man yet these fake christians turn a blind eye to white cesare borgia the devil. Why not just be honest you assholes?
But dead baby parts!
You have to torture logic to shoehorn the idea of a loving God into the bible.
Given:
A: Killing babies is evil.
B: Abortion involves killing babies.
Therefore, Abortion is evil.
A: Killing babies is evil.
B: Hacking babies with swords kills babies.
Therefore, hacking babies with swords is evil.
The standard apologist line on this always involves some sort of "but", and a form of Special Pleading, usually half-hearted "they get to join their maker and live happily ever after for eternity, so it isn't that bad..."
If you really want to see mental gymnastics, ask about Exodus 4:18-31...
The LORD tried to kill Moses, but the magic foreskin stopped him? WTF?3 And I say unto thee, Let my son go, that he may serve me: and if thou refuse to let him go, behold, I will slay thy son, even thy firstborn.
24 And it came to pass by the way in the inn, that the Lord met him, and sought to kill him.
25 Then Zipporah took a sharp stone, and cut off the foreskin of her son, and cast it at his feet, and said, Surely a bloody husband art thou to me.
26 So he let him go: then she said, A bloody husband thou art, because of the cir cision.
27 And the Lord said to Aaron, Go into the wilderness to meet Moses. And he went, and met him in the mount of God, and kissed him.
(edit)
Link to why Special Pleading is a poor way to construct a compelling argument (due to being fatally flawed):
http://www.nizkor.org/features/falla...-pleading.html
Last edited by RandomGuy; 01-04-2016 at 06:21 PM.
I'm with you. My recent pet peeve are people that want to use a figurative interpretation of books full of declarations like Leviticus, Deuteronomy, Exodus, and most of what Paul wrote in the New Testament. Psalms, Songs of Soloman, the parables, or the narrative tales of the gospels and old testament sure but the Bible having those books of declarations is just as bad as any Hadith. Jesus was a peaceful revolutionary against such directives by all accounts.You have to torture logic to shoehorn the idea of a loving God into the bible.
Given:
A: Killing babies is evil.
B: Abortion involves killing babies.
Therefore, Abortion is evil.
A: Killing babies is evil.
B: Hacking babies with swords kills babies.
Therefore, hacking babies with swords is evil.
The standard apologist line on this always involves some sort of "but", and a form of Special Pleading, usually half-hearted "they get to join their maker and live happily ever after for eternity, so it isn't that bad..."
If you really want to see mental gymnastics, ask about Exodus 4:18-31...
The LORD tried to kill Moses, but the magic foreskin stopped him? WTF?
(edit)
Link to why Special Pleading is a poor way to construct a compelling argument (due to being fatally flawed):
http://www.nizkor.org/features/falla...-pleading.html
Ultimately if we want to get past theocratic behavior we need to let go of the delusion of the dogmatic God as a species.
You have to torture logic to shoehorn the idea of a loving God into the bible.
Given:
A: Killing babies is evil.
B: Abortion involves killing babies.
Therefore, Abortion is evil.
A: Killing babies is evil.
B: Hacking babies with swords kills babies.
Therefore, hacking babies with swords is evil.
The standard apologist line on this always involves some sort of "but", and a form of Special Pleading, usually half-hearted "they get to join their maker and live happily ever after for eternity, so it isn't that bad..."
If you really want to see mental gymnastics, ask about Exodus 4:18-31...
The LORD tried to kill Moses, but the magic foreskin stopped him? WTF?
(edit)
Link to why Special Pleading is a poor way to construct a compelling argument (due to being fatally flawed):
http://www.nizkor.org/features/falla...-pleading.html
Speaking of foreskin...
Have the jew rabbis or whatever figured out an alternative to sucking on baby boy to cleanse the open wound from cir cision ?
I swear you religious honkeys come from the damn devil lol only the religious ones tho tbh
Given 55 million abortions have taken place since Roe vs. Wade. Your position has a much lower "high ground" position than you wish to have and hence any argument of your "superior morality" is moot.
Specifically Abraham knew that GOD could resurrect Isaac. That was his faith. This much is written.
Last edited by Phenomanul; 01-04-2016 at 07:41 PM.
Really?
Because boutons has not been able to grasp a simple argument?
Which is (and listen in because all of you have the same problem in failing to grasp the obvious):
I have a moral perspective which is largely derived from the faith I practice and the tenets of said belief system. When I vote (a cons utionally protected right), I vote with the influence of said perspective. I don't disconnect the two.
boutons and (fill in the blank [everyone else here]) has a moral perspective which is largely derived by his[their] own belief system (in this case atheism or agnosticism). When he votes (his cons utionally protected right), he votes with the influence of said perspective.
boutons, nevertheless, voices his extreme displeasure at the fact that I would have the audacity to lean my voting based on my beliefs - WHEN HE DOESN'T REALIZE HE'S DOING THE EXACT SAME THING when voting on his end.
SO AGAIN I ASK;
What gives you all the right to curtail my right to vote which ever way I want...? THIS IS A DEMOCRACY. You win some, you lose some... not everything aligns itself with your world perspective. You all don't seem to get that.
It can all be reduced to this simple thing which I will then jump up and down and wave my hands at a lot! BOUTOX THE OPPRESSOR!
I translate most of the OT in terms of former Egyptian slaves and the slavemaster dynamic that we know existed in Ptolemaic Egypt from which they escaped. The slavemasters were also the priests and the ones who could write. Marking the stalls of slaves for various purposes would have been common and the notion of passover has a much more sinister air. Passover from sacrifice to the Ptolemaic gods would have been a very cathartic experience. Fear of death will do that to you.
I think the priest class simply transplanted the ideals and social controls. You can find much of the flood and creation nonsense in the Ptolemaic scrolls that have been recovered from all over Egypt. Moses being trained by the pharoahs but not really one of them would have been very convenient lie for an escaping priest. Ideas of race and other were almost complete back then as opposed to the enlightenment of today. It puts the story of Abraham and Isaac in a much different light when its not God but instead a priest speaking on the behalf of God in the story. It also makes sense. STring him out and then ultimately relent, oh God is merciful! It also speaks to a priest that feared reprisal and couldn't follow through. Pharoah wasn't there any more.
When Christianity is termed a slave's religion, I mean it literally.
I think you're simplifying & demonizing the message behind God's dictation to Abraham. Whether this is due to ignorance or intentionally leaving out information, I don't know.
He basically gave him a choice: God, through which the Jewish people and humanity, or his son. It wasn't only a test of his loyalty to God. It was the ultimate test of selflessness. Abraham was chosen by God because he had the selflessness to give up what he loved most dearly, his child, for an even greater, and the only greater, cause: all of God's children (humanity).
I am oppressing him no more than he claims by my volition to vote according to my own world perspective.
Thanks for finally catching up.
The facetious smugness on this board is so rampant it rubs off... I would normally not have discussions in this manner.
No one is suggesting you should not be able to vote according to your own world perspective. We simply require anybody elected to office to respect the separation of church and state.
Was Avante involved?
Does simplifying the parable of Abraham and Isaac distort my characterization somehow to the point where it was inaccurate?
What was Abraham asked to do? In your words.
So, making a child believe you are going to kill them is not harmful to the child?
This is a simple yes or no, that you should be able to answer if you are being honest.
There are currently 3 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 3 guests)
Posting Permissions
