Growing Hostility Toward Christianity... from Evangelicals

[R.Abanes]

What's interesting to me here is how I keep seeing some rather odd presuppositions being used as a foundation for many of the statements being made. It seems that some skeptics are functioning on fundamental misunderstandings and misconceptions about:

1) God as an entity,
2) the Bible as an ancient piece of literature,
3) the nation of Israel,
4) ancient culture,
5) the way Christians believe God works within history,
6) how God deals with his people/followers, and
7) biblical interpretation (i.e., hermeneutics).

I find it most fascinating, however, the way skeptics seem to think that THEY are the ones who are so highly intellectual, balanced, fair, rational, reasonable, thoughtful, clear-headed, etc. etc. etc.

But the truth is that a good many skeptics, just like many religious Fundies, are motivated and blinded to more balanced perspectives (Buddhists would call it the Middle Path) by emotions, personal agendas, psych baggage, blind allegiance to preconceived ideas, lack of information, stubborn "faith," a straining-at-gnats tendency, and a don't-confuse-me-with-the-facts mindset. Just my observations so far.

Not all Skeptics, mind, you but certainly I am seeing a few good examples here. And like religious Fundies, you really can't hear yourselves at all. Again, that is terrifically fascinating to me. Perhaps I'll do a study some day.

RA

 

[Safe-Keeper]

Genocide is evil? I'm dying to hear you explain away all the atrocities, including genocides, which God ordered his Chosen People to carry out. As for the passage on castration, it doesn't sound like poetic language to me. Jesus is asked a very specific question on divorce, and He answers:

Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,'[a] 5and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'[b]? 6So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate. [...] Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery."
​

Then the discussion moves on to celibacy:

The disciples said to him, "If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry." Jesus replied, "Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. 12For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage[c]because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it."
​

If the part on cutting off your balls is poetic language, then is the first paragraph, too? Context, context, context.

 

[R.Abanes]

Genocide is evil? I'm dying to hear you explain away all the atrocities, including genocides, which God ordered his Chosen People to carry out.

Hint: A few things have changed between the 21st century and the way the world worked/functioned in 4000 b.c. (in case you haven't noticed). I suggest you read some history. That should be sufficient to give you an understanding of life in the Ancient Near East. But I'm sure the Old testament wars are a wonderful reason to deny God. So, feel free to not read anything.

Oh, and btw, are you agreeing genocide is evil? That it's wrong to kill? I am curious, for you, what makes you say it's wrong/evil? What is your standard of right/wrong? What if your standard conflicts with someone else's standard? Who is right? Numbers? Social agreement? Power (might makes right?). Just curious to understand your thoughts and the way you negotiate ethics/morality -- and what makes what you say any more right than what anyone else says.

R.A.

 

[Safe-Keeper]

I'm not a relativist. If genocide is wrong, it's wrong, regardless of the culture and feelings of the people doing it. Genital mutilation and breast ironing of young girls is wrong, even though the culture of the humans, including the girls themselves, performing these disgusting acts believe them to be right. I once read an interview with two girls who had immigrated to Norway, where they had had their lower parts... repaired, shall I say. The thing that stuck with me the most from the article was that they didn't question the tradition of gender mutilation until after they'd arrived in Norway and been subjected to our culture's views on such things.

Does this mean that mutilation of vaginas is perfectly OK in your book, RA? After all, they don't know any better and live in a different culture, so who are we to be ethnocentric and judge them? There might just be another genocide/civil war brewing in Africa right now - are we supposed to just sit there and watch and accept the mass killing of innocents as just another culture's view on the solving of ethnic differences? After all, in case you haven't noticed... a lot has happened in that region since peace reigned.

Your opposition to genocide - as long as it's not done by people you like or by people who think genocide is acceptable... does little to impress me.

But I'm sure the Old testament wars are a wonderful reason to deny God. So, feel free to not read anything.

I don't decide whether or not an entity is real based on how good or evil he or she or it is.

 

[R.Abanes]

Safe: As for the passage on castration, it doesn't sound like poetic language to me.

RA: You can't be serious. I'm blinking here in dismay as I try to wrap my mind around the the apparent fact staring me in the face that someone actually believes Jesus of Nazareth is literally telling followers here to whack off their Kahoohoos! Are you that obsessed with needing to make the Bible appear as nutty as all that? I'll hate myself for this, but its so absurd I can't resist...

.... For some are eunuchs because they were born that way -- a true, natural eunuch

... others were made that way by men -- a false, unnatural, man-made eunuch

... and others have renounced marriage -- a metaphorical spiritual eunuch

Can you step at all away from hating God, religion, and the Bible so much that you can actually see a literary progression here? It is a reference back to the sexual union of man/woman in marriage, which is the hallmark of a marriage.

1. Some cannot because of birth defects
2. Some have been rendered unable to do so because of humanity's cruelty
3. Some choose not to in order to give them selves wholly to God.​

The issue is not castration. Goodness, man. Stop being so.....so....bizarre. This is a reference to celibacy, a widely known practice at the time by various groups of Essenes. This is a classic example of a "skeptic" not being a true skeptic at all. It is not being a skeptic to make these kinds of silly charges.

Safe: Poetic language? Not in my book.

RA: Then you've got a very, very, very poor book. Seriously, dude, that's just being silly.

RA

 

[R.Abanes]

I'm not a relativist.

I didn't say you were. I asked for your justifications for not being one.

If genocide is wrong, it's wrong, regardless of the culture and feelings of the people doing it.

We are talking about wars and how wars were conducted 6,000 years ago. What you see happening in the Old Testament is not genocide in the modern sense of the word.

Does this mean that mutilation of vaginas is perfectly OK in your book, RA?

And now you're mixing categories and I won't play that kind of game, especially not with that kind of an issue (although two points to you for shock effect). Do some reading on exactly why that kind of stuff goes on and the reasoning behind it -- which will also show why it's not okay in my book, nor would it be okay according to the Bible.

After all, they don't know any better and live in a different culture, so who are we to be ethnocentric and judge them?

Well, that's not even what I stated about the Old Testament wars, now is it? But a good strawman was slipped in there.

Your opposition to genocide - as long as it's not done by people you like or by people who think genocide is acceptable... does little to impress me.

Strawman #2. But predictable. As usual, a fight is all that some of you want (just like religious fundamentalists). I've found that people who like to fight when they're not Christians tend to still like to fight after they supposedly become a Christian. They just have a different excuse ("God") to not really listen, not think rationally, not walk a middle path, not actually deal with reality, not go beyond their tight little mental world that keeps them safe. Just an observation.

RA

P.S. And you answered not ONE of my questions about your ethics/morality: "Just curious to understand your thoughts and the way you negotiate ethics/morality -- and what makes what you say any more right than what anyone else says." I launched seven probes:

1. What makes you say it's wrong/evil?
2. What is your standard of right/wrong?
3. What if your standard conflicts with someone else's standard?
4. Who is right?
5. Numbers?
6. Social agreement?
7. Power (might makes right?).

 

[Safe-Keeper]

: You can't be serious. I'm blinking here in dismay as I try to wrap my mind around the the apparent fact staring me in the face

No need to be obnoxious.

that someone actually believes Jesus of Nazareth is literally telling followers here to whack off their Kahoohoos! Are you that obsessed with needing to make the Bible appear as nutty as all that?

This is the same guy who told his followers to... eat him (John).

'Your fathers ate manna in the desert and they are dead. I am the living bread. Anyone who eats this bread will live forever. And the bread that I shall give is my flesh.' Then the Jews started arguing amongst themselves, How can this man give us his flesh to eat? Jesus replied to them, 'In truth I tell you, if you do not eat the flesh of the Son of Man or drink his blood, you have no life in you.'​

Your argument seems to boil down to something like "if this is true, it makes Jesus look bad, so it's not true".

 

[volatile]

Your argument seems to boil down to something like "if this is true, it makes Jesus look bad, so it's not true".

Aaah.... the founding philosophy of Anglicanism. Great, ain't it?

 

[R.Abanes]

This is the same guy who told his followers to... eat him (John).

Well, now you've just gone and showed me you're not serious at all -- either that, or you are serious and there's just no breaking through that kind of.....(I don't even know what word to use). Sorry, but it's true. First, Jesus says to whack off one's wang-wang, then he says to literally take a bit out of his arm. Uhm.....yeah. Okay, whatever, my friend.

peace,

RA

 

[bokonon]

You sound like a Mormon, to be honest, -- and I mean that in the nicest possible way.

Except the Mormon is actually trying to make a case for polygamy; I'm only making a case for inconsistent (or, at the least, flexible) standards.

2 Sam. 12:7-9 reads: "And Nathan said to David, Thou art the man. Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, I anointed thee king over Israel, and I delivered thee out of the hand of Saul; And I gave thee thy master's house, and thy master's wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things."

First, for David to have been given the "wives" of Saul would have been extremely difficult since we know: a) Saul had only one wife and one concubine (1 Sam. 14:50); and b) Abner appropriated Saul's concubine for himself (2 Sam. 3:7). So where are all of the wives? Answer: They don't exist. There is no documentation that indicates: a) Saul had all these so-called "wives"; or b) David took any wives from Saul.

And yet, we have the words of God himself (or is it Nathan?) saying not "wife" but "wives." If they don't exist, I'd expect an omniscient being to know that, and an inerrant being to tell it like it is.

Second, in the East it was the general custom for a king's successor to take everything possessed by that king. His country, his throne, his harem, his treasures -- his everything!

But we don't see "I gave you his houses" and we do see "I gave you his wives."

Enumerating such things in a formulaic way indicated a complete turnover of power and authority. It was customary to list all kinds of possessions even when such possessions might not have truly existed (e.g., "keeper of the cattle on a thousand hills," "holder of the moon and the stars," "master of your enemies chariots"). In other words, it's a kind of pronouncement. What we have here is God saying to David, basically, "What is your problem? I gave you everything there was to give. I gave you Saul's total kingdom. Nothing was held back from you, yet you still behave like this."

Okay, assuming the Almighty felt the need to "make his case" to David, I still see no reason to assume he'd be constrained by the "forumulaic way" that mere men might express themselves, to the point that he'd say something that simply wasn't true. Again, he says "the house of Israel and Judah" without adding the moon and the stars or even the pyramids of Egypt. What's the justification for considering "wives" to be formulaic hyperbole when nothing else in the statement seems to be anything but literal?

Third, even if only for the sake of discussion we were to say that God DID give to David some as yet unknown/undiscovered wives of Saul -- then such "wives" would merely constitute an aspect of Saul's kingdom that would have naturally had to go to David in that social/cultural era. This statement under those circumstances, again, would still be an example of God communicating a well-known Eastern tradition involving the transfer of kingly authority.

Once again, this assumes that the customs of men would supersede the will of God. He sent angels to spirit Lot's family out of harm's way before raining fire and destruction on Sodom and Gomorrah, so surely he could have arranged for Saul's (hypothetical) wives to slip away if he hadn't wanted David to have them.

So this remark by God, however you slice it, actually falls terribly short of any stamp of approval of polygamy (and is not a true contradiction: A = Non-A).

When God is complaining about how Solomon has fallen short of God's expectations, he doesn't complain about the NUMBER of Solomon's wives, he complains about the CULTURE of Solomon's wives.

I can grant that it may not be a true contradiction -- maybe the ideal is "one man/one woman" but other unions (one man/many women) are acceptable as well. Jesus suggests his "ideal" is no union at all -- no marriage, no children, no attachment to family (even the elsewhere-honored father and mother), no worldly possessions, just stay celibate and single, relinquish all you own, and follow him. To me, that doesn't imply condemnation of those who fall short of "the ideal".

Remember that humanity has "free will" -- that is a fundamental aspect of Christianity. And within a world where God allows "free will" to exist, he usually works within the framework of the world that has been created by humanity -- and within the world are behaviors that go against God's perfect will. That'd be sin.

Sorry, but "free will" discussions bore the hell out of me. I don't know how Saul had the "free will" not to be unanointed when David was anointed king over Israel, but I don't really want to argue the point. I believe men have free will because there's no God meddling in their decisions - hardening their hearts and what-not. That's another discussion, and I always avoid it, whether with theists or "material determinists" or whatever they call themselves.

To address your point, working within the framework of the world wouldn't prevent God from making his wishes known. He wasn't shy about saying don't eat shellfish, or don't wear mixed-fiber garments, straight out. Is there someplace in the Bible where he's equally plainspoken on the subject of polygamy? Clearly, most men, even in the time of David and Solomon, lacked the wealth to support multiple wives. The New Testament formula of "a man" and "a woman" could have been merely a general statement, applicable to most unions, but expressing no implicit disapproval of exceptions of one sort or another.

 

[R.Abanes]

bok: Except the Mormon is actually trying to make a case for polygamy; I'm only making a case for inconsistent (or, at the least, flexible) standards.

RA: Understood.



bok: And yet, we have the words of God himself (or is it Nathan?) saying not "wife" but "wives." If they don't exist, I'd expect an omniscient being to know that, and an inerrant being to tell it like it is.

RA: It's a kingly, regal, formulaic kind of pronouncement common in the ancient Near East. Please tell me I didn't write all that for you to just ignore it.

My goodness, you guys take the Bible more literally than the worst of the Fundamentalists!!! You might as well say the Bible literally teaches that mountains can talk and trees applaud god; "The mountains and the hills will break forth into shouts of joy before you, And all the trees of the field will clap their hands" (Isaiah 55:12).

C'mon, skeptics, you should be better than that.



bok: But we don't see "I gave you his houses" and we do see "I gave you his wives."

RA: The word "wives," as I thought I made clear, is a term indicative of harem -- an all-inclusive description of all that Saul would have owned.

And I did make provision, BTW, for God actually giving literal "wives" over to David. Please read again my third point, beginning: "Third, even if only for the sake of discussion we were to say that God ....."

But , of course, this is still not a sanction of polygamy, but rather, a following through with the Ancient Near East transfer of power. I'm not quite sure why this is so difficult for otherwise sharp minds to grasp.



bok: I still see no reason to assume he'd be constrained by the "forumulaic way" that mere men might express themselves, to the point that he'd say something that simply wasn't true.

RA: Why wouldn't God use human terms to express himself to......well......humans? The God of the Bible doesn't work in some cosmic vacuum with no referencing to human conceptions or patterns of thought.

If you're talking to a child who is familiar with a certain concept using various phrases or images, you as an adult are going to communicate to them in a language they understand. It's not that big a deal.

Moreover, as for God saying what was not true, again, please read again my third point, beginning: "Third, even if only for the sake of discussion we were to say that God ....."



bok: Once again, this assumes that the customs of men would supersede the will of God.

RA: No, what it assumes is that God works/acts within the framework of the world. Again, we are back to this kind of God that is being created by you and others to make a paradigm wherein that God cannot be plausible.



bok: He sent angels to spirit Lot's family out of harm's way before raining fire and destruction on Sodom and Gomorrah, so surely he could have arranged for Saul's (hypothetical) wives to slip away if he hadn't wanted David to have them.

RA: Oh, I see, so now you are telling God (assuming he exists) how he should or should not deal with certain people under varying conditions, in different locations, at diverse points of time, and whose purposes in the flow of human history are completely unique. Interesting. What are you basing that assertion on? You're own limited perspective of the sum total of knowledge that exists in the universe? Your omniscience?

The answer I've given is reasonable, given the view that God works within the world as it exists. Jesus even mentioned how, in the days of ancient Israel, God allowed divorce because of the hardness of mens hearts. He also made provisions in the law for slaves, knowing that men simply were going to do such a thing, and that within such a society, he would protect those slaves as much as possible by injecting provisions for them into the law.

Humanity always has been, and always will be, at odds with God's perfect moral code. He basically can: a) work out his plan within humanity; or b) completely destroy humanity (which he did once already). Take your choice.



bok: To address your point, working within the framework of the world wouldn't prevent God from making his wishes known.

RA: He already made it know. As for your other remarks about polygamy in general, what is interesting to me is how God -- no matter what subject we might be discussing -- is given the short end of the stick not only when he is NOT explicit enough for everyone, but also when he is more than explicit enough for all to know precisely what is being condemned (or commended).

The Bible is not 1 million words of end on end bullet points. It's a a historical narrative that communicates truths within the context and framework of humanity and world cultures.

R.A.

 

[Safe-Keeper]

Well, now you've just gone and showed me you're not serious at all -- either that, or you are serious and there's just no breaking through that kind of.....(I don't even know what word to use).

So all the Catholics who eat bread and wine in church and believe that said bread and wine turns into flesh and blood in their stomachs are either doing it just for kicks or they've got some kind of "I don't even know what word to use"?

First, Jesus says to whack off one's wang-wang, then he says to literally take a bit out of his arm.

Did you read the passage I quoted? Which part of "in truth I tell you" don't you get?

We are talking about wars and how wars were conducted 6,000 years ago. What you see happening in the Old Testament is not genocide in the modern sense of the word.

OK, so it's not about cultural differences. Then what is it? Some sort of appeal to common practice?

And now you're mixing categories

Nope. I believed you to be condoning the genocides carried out in Jewish mythology out of cultural reasons. I made an example of how it's wrong to reason that something is right just because it's accepted by a culture.

shock factor

"Shock factor" was not my intent. I could just as well have used forced marriage as an example. Same deal.

Strawman #2. But predictable.

Not at all a strawman. You didn't give a reason beyond "do some reading", which left me with no choice but pure guesswork. Hardly my fault.

P.S. And you answered not ONE of my questions about your ethics/morality

I'm not really sure why you ask. I stated genocide was evil, you stated genocide was evil. I don't understand why you suddenly start with the "who are you to say it's wrong" approach. But OK.

1. What makes you say it's wrong/evil?
​

Unnecessary killing is wrong because it 'steals' another human's right to live and experience the only life he is given on this Earth. If I rape someone, I ruin their life and cause them and their loved ones suffering. If I rob a bank, I steal money and traumatize the bank's employees. Human beings have emotions and physical and mental health, all of which can be damaged.

3. What if your standard conflicts with someone else's standard?
4. Who is right?
5. Numbers?
6. Social agreement?
7. Power (might makes right?).
​

Depends entirely on the scenario. If someone claims that homosexuality is wrong only because it makes God mad, I'll disagree and, if I feel the need to, discuss the subject with them.

I'm unsure why you listed social agreement or numerical superiority as examples, as I'm pretty sure you don't think those are my reasons for believing as I do.

 

[R.Abanes]

Safe,

You're not reading. You're not listening. You're not even asking real questions. You're like the religious Fundies I talk to -- except you have a different "God." I don't deal with them either. Sorry.

RA

 

[Safe-Keeper]

You're not reading. You're not listening. You're not even asking real questions.

I'm doing that and more.

I don't deal with them either. Sorry.

I can't make you answer me. Suit yourself.

My goodness, you guys take the Bible more literally than the worst of the Fundamentalists!!!

Probably because we, unlike you believers, don't have to follow the damn thing and thus don't have to write off the rules we can't abide by without breaking the law or our morality. Christians, who feel themselves bound by the Holy Book, need to disregard passages they don't like as metaphoric, poetic or obsolete due to Sermon on a Mount. We non-Christians don't have this problem.

Peggy or some other Bible scholar can probably elaborate on the various rules in the Bible and how they aren't too different from the rules of the people of the time and the other contemporary religions of the area.

I'll hate myself for this, but its so absurd I can't resist...

.... For some are eunuchs because they were born that way -- a true, natural eunuch

... others were made that way by men -- a false, unnatural, man-made eunuch

... and others have renounced marriage -- a metaphorical spiritual eunuch

Can you step at all away from hating God, religion, and the Bible so much that you can actually see a literary progression here? It is a reference back to the sexual union of man/woman in marriage, which is the hallmark of a marriage.

1. Some cannot because of birth defects
2. Some have been rendered unable to do so because of humanity's cruelty
3. Some choose not to in order to give them selves wholly to God.​

The issue is not castration.

How do you know that? "It's obvious!" is not a valid answer.

 

[bokonon]

He also made provisions in the law for slaves, knowing that men simply were going to do such a thing, and that within such a society, he would protect those slaves as much as possible by injecting provisions for them into the law.

Once again, I have to ask -- WHERE is slavery explicitly condemned? In today's society such condemnation goes without saying. Why, in a society where slavery was widely practiced, would a self-appointed moral compass which has time to set the record straight on shellfish and blends not be able to spare a word or two to condemn something that actually results in human suffering? Not just make slaves comfortable within the framework of their servitude, but actually let the slaveholders know, in no uncertain terms, that their fellow human beings really should be given the right to shape their own lives.

Instead, we get things like Leviticus 25:44-46

Both thy bondmen and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall you ye buy bondmen and bondmaids.

Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession.

And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour.

This isn't "treat your chattel well," it's laying out who you can buy and how long you (or your descendants) can keep them.

It makes perfect sense to me that men, shaped by the accepted practices of the culture in which they'd spent their entire lives, wouldn't think it was necessary or even desirable to condemn slavery.

It seems less sensible that the cornerstone of morality for the next 50 centuries wouldn't say "buying and selling people is wrong" at least once. Especially when that same cornerstone purportedly says "Shaving your unibrow is wrong" (Deuteronomy 14:1).

Humanity always has been, and always will be, at odds with God's perfect moral code. He basically can: a) work out his plan within humanity; or b) completely destroy humanity (which he did once already). Take your choice.

How is "humanity at odds" even relevant? Man's imperfect traffic code is written down, not because legislators expect perfection, but so that "what is expected" is spelled out for everybody. Why is God's perfect moral code something that has to be inferred when it comes to polygamy and slavery, but explicit with regard to diet and facial hair?

bok: To address your point, working within the framework of the world wouldn't prevent God from making his wishes known.

RA: He already made it known.

I asked where, and got "Ephesians". I want to know where it says "polygamy is wrong" as clearly as it says "clipping the corners of your beard is wrong."

As for your other remarks about polygamy in general, what is interesting to me is how God -- no matter what subject we might be discussing -- is given the short end of the stick not only when he is NOT explicit enough for everyone, but also when he is more than explicit enough for all to know precisely what is being condemned (or commended).

Just so there's no misunderstanding, my position is that the Bible and all other holy books are written by men, which is the reason they often endorse (whether implicitly, explicitly, or by omission) the de facto standards of the culture in which they are written.

For the purpose of this discussion, I'm entertaining the idea that the Bible was written by an all-powerful all-knowing creator of the universe. I pose the question, why would such a being bother to enjoin unibrow shaving explicitly, but never take a firm position opposing polygamy or slavery? If the Bible is his holy word to all of mankind for all time, what does the desire to micromanage personal appearance while tolerating and perhaps even endorsing slavery and polygamy say about his fitness as a moral standard bearer?

 

[Safe-Keeper]

He also made provisions in the law for slaves, knowing that men simply were going to do such a thing, and that within such a society, he would protect those slaves as much as possible by injecting provisions for them into the law.

Various Bible verses on slavery: All those who are under the yoke of slavery must have unqualified respect for their masters, so that the name of God and our teaching is not brought into disrepute. Slaves must be obedient to their masters in everything, and do what is wanted without argument. And there must be no pilfering. They must show complete honesty at all times so that they are a credit in every way to the teaching of God our Saviour.

Slaves, you should obey your masters respectfully, not only those who are kind and reasonable but also those who are difficult to please.

Even if you have a chance of freedom, you should prefer to make full use of your condition as a slave.

http://www.thebricktestament.com/epistles_of_paul/instructions_for_slaves/1tm06_01.html

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I see you can't address the specifics I posted, RA. That would be another of those means of avoiding actually supporting your conclusions.

 

[R.Abanes]

I see you can't address the specifics I posted, RA. That would be another of those means of avoiding actually supporting your conclusions.

Oh my gosh, you actually did it. You actually followed the script I posted in Post #31.

(Now, you're supposed to accuse me of really having no answer at all, which to your mind proves the Bible has contradictions and you are totally justified in still denying God while maintaining that all Christians are exactly the same -- that's usually the script, but feel free to vary from it and actually go to a bookstore and pick a few of those books to read).​

That's outrageously amusing.

I truly did not think it could happen. Wowsers.

Have a grrrrrreat Day, SkepticGirl....

R.A.

 

[R.Abanes]

And now the problem with all of your questions is: You're not really interested in the answers.

And you are going out of your way to be offensive and insulting, rather than stepping back for a moment from your hate (and arrogance, tbh). I mean really, an image like this (SLAVES) is disgusting -- and so are you for posting it, and so is the person who created it.

Your purpose is to mock, degrade, demean, and wound -- not seek understanding of a faith, culture, context, God, the Bible, history, or truth. You have your closed-minded understanding of what Christianity is and what the Bible says (yeah, Jesus really said to whack off your KaChacas, riiight, sure, whatever you say). And so, I wish you all the best.

I've already given enough information and answers for anyone to put 2 and 2 together who desires to actualy think for a moment, and use their brains rather than resorting to knee-jerk emotional responses filled with bitterness, hate, anger, and malice toward anything/anyone who has any faith in a God.

I wonder why none of you take the time or trouble to do a little research on what Christians do in the world to make the world a better place -- instead of trying to find a verse in the Bible that you can use to say Jesu said to eat him. Pathetic. Anyone want to go feed the poor with me in L.A. or go to Mexico to build an orphanage? Where is the Richard Dawkins Home for Unwed Mothers? (Yeah, that's what I thought). Does someone have the address of the Skeptic Hospital of orange Country? ( I thought not). Maybe this thanksgiving, I'll go work the Skeptic Food Bank and homeless shelter (oh wait, nevermind). Just out of curiosity, can I have a list of the Atheist-Skeptic organizations who sent teams to New Orleans to help Hurricane Katrina victims? (email the list to me).

In The X-Files they say, "The truth is out there." Indeed, and those who want it will find it. What is sad is that skeptics, more often than not, don't want it, and what is so offensive is the masquerade that is played in order to make it appear as if they do want it. Sad. So, terribly sad.

R.A

 

[bokonon]

And now the problem with all of your questions is: You're not really interested in the answers.

And you are going out of your way to be offensive and insulting, rather than stepping back for a moment from your hate (and arrogance, tbh).

No, the problem is that you don't really have answers.

And I took pains to refrain from being offensive and insulting. I don't hate you. I'm sure not arrogant with respect to you; I haven't written, much less published, ANY books.

The good that I do is not done in hope of any eternal reward. Feeding the poor is noble; so is teaching them the truth.