Feed on Posts or Comments 02 December 2016

Christianity &Islam &Judaism Thomas on 30 Dec 2012 12:19 am

Why don’t we end the debate and simply ask God to appear?

According to Christians, Muslims, Mormons and Jews, God exists. Approximately half of the human population on earth believes in God or Allah. According to believers, this God answers prayers, performs miracles, reads minds, has ongoing personal relationships with believers, etc.

So, if this God really exists, why don’t we simply ask him to appear to the world and show himself? All these believers simply pray or relate to him, and ask that he appears to everyone in an undeniable form.

Why can’t God do this? According to the Bible, God appeared all the time in the past. He even incarnated himself. So clearly there is nothing “wrong” or “impossible” about God appearing. God even appeared on command in the past, as described in the Bible in 1 Kings chapter 18:

[22] Then Elijah said to them, “I am the only one of the LORD’s prophets left, but Baal has four hundred and fifty prophets. [23] Get two bulls for us. Let them choose one for themselves, and let them cut it into pieces and put it on the wood but not set fire to it. I will prepare the other bull and put it on the wood but not set fire to it. [24] Then you call on the name of your god, and I will call on the name of the LORD. The god who answers by fire—he is God.”
Then all the people said, “What you say is good.”

[25] Elijah said to the prophets of Baal, “Choose one of the bulls and prepare it first, since there are so many of you. Call on the name of your god, but do not light the fire.” [26] So they took the bull given them and prepared it.

Then they called on the name of Baal from morning till noon. “O Baal, answer us!” they shouted. But there was no response; no one answered. And they danced around the altar they had made.

[27] At noon Elijah began to taunt them. “Shout louder!” he said. “Surely he is a god! Perhaps he is deep in thought, or busy, or traveling. Maybe he is sleeping and must be awakened.” [28] So they shouted louder and slashed themselves with swords and spears, as was their custom, until their blood flowed. [29] Midday passed, and they continued their frantic prophesying until the time for the evening sacrifice. But there was no response, no one answered, no one paid attention.

[30] Then Elijah said to all the people, “Come here to me.” They came to him, and he repaired the altar of the LORD, which was in ruins. [31] Elijah took twelve stones, one for each of the tribes descended from Jacob, to whom the word of the LORD had come, saying, “Your name shall be Israel.” [32] With the stones he built an altar in the name of the LORD, and he dug a trench around it large enough to hold two seahs [a] of seed. [33] He arranged the wood, cut the bull into pieces and laid it on the wood. Then he said to them, “Fill four large jars with water and pour it on the offering and on the wood.”

[34] “Do it again,” he said, and they did it again.

“Do it a third time,” he ordered, and they did it the third time. [35] The water ran down around the altar and even filled the trench.

[36] At the time of sacrifice, the prophet Elijah stepped forward and prayed: “O LORD, God of Abraham, Isaac and Israel, let it be known today that you are God in Israel and that I am your servant and have done all these things at your command. [37] Answer me, O LORD, answer me, so these people will know that you, O LORD, are God, and that you are turning their hearts back again.”

[38] Then the fire of the LORD fell and burned up the sacrifice, the wood, the stones and the soil, and also licked up the water in the trench.

[39] When all the people saw this, they fell prostrate and cried, “The LORD -he is God! The LORD -he is God!”

Why don’t we do the same thing today? Why wouldn’t God, if he is real, appear to the world? Then we could end all of this religious bickering and doubt once and for all.

If we read the New Testament of the Bible, Jesus makes it clear that he should appear to us if we ask him to. This video explains how in less than 5 minutes:

The fact that neither Jesus nor God appears demonstrates clearly that God is imaginary. Yet religious people refuse to accept this clear, unambiguous evidence. If you are religious, please use the comment area to explain why you cannot accept this evidence and continue to believe in your imaginary God.

468 Responses to “Why don’t we end the debate and simply ask God to appear?”

  1. on 30 Dec 2012 at 7:15 pm 1.Martin said …

    A recycling of one of the 50 proofs from the sister site. Let us analyze the logic again.

    1. We asked Jesus to appear
    2. He did not appear
    3. Therefore Jesus does not exist.

    Is this logic valid? No not to any rational individual. Would the atheist believe if Jesus did appear? Of course not. even when Jesus appeared and performed miracles many still did not believe.

    Just for arguments sake, let us say their claim is true. How would that disprove a God exists? It does not. Again, another logical fallacy.

  2. on 30 Dec 2012 at 8:58 pm 2.Lou (DFW) said …

    1.Martin/Mitch/ASS said …

    “1. We asked Jesus to appear
    2. He did not appear
    3. Therefore Jesus does not exist.

    Is this logic valid?”

    Another lie by ASS. Nowhere in that entry does that “logic” appear as he claims it does.

    The entry also stated “[E]xplain why you cannot accept this evidence and continue to believe in your imaginary God.”

    Notice that Martin/Mitch/ASS did not respond, just as he never responds to any comment that requires him to defend his delusion.

    “Just for arguments sake, let us say their claim is true. How would that disprove a God exists? It does not.”

    That’s right, it doesn’t. Because you are confused about what a logical fallacy is, you can’t see that your argument is one – a straw man.

  3. on 30 Dec 2012 at 10:42 pm 3.Anonymous said …

    Martin, we are *still* waiting for you to prove to us via logic that Jesus/God exists. We keep asking you and you continue to make excuses or go into hiding.

    Until you can prove the positive that a god exists, you are simply attempting to reverse the burden of proof. That’s the logical fallacy in evidence here. Your supposed deconstruction of strawman arguments is simply a diversion that you employ in order to hide the fact that you can’t make a valid logical argument in your favor.

    All you need do is advance this argument that proves that a god exists. Then we can examine how well you know the subject that you mistakenly judge people on, despite being sorely lacking in its execution yourself.

  4. on 30 Dec 2012 at 11:38 pm 4.alex said …

    right back at you. would a xtian believe if allah showed up?

  5. on 31 Dec 2012 at 3:45 am 5.The messenger said …

    Brother Thomas, God will appear to us in his Jesus form, at the end of this world. That is Jesus’s second coming.

    He will return with his army of heaven to battle against the forces of hell.

    The universe will be wiped clean of evil, and goodness will spead throughout all creation.

    God appears to us everyday, just not in his physical Jesus form. He gives us signs of what to do in our life and he causes things to happen to us that guide us on the path of goodness.

  6. on 31 Dec 2012 at 7:51 am 6.Anonymous said …

    1 Martin, you did not watch the video. That is not the logic the video uses at all. Try watching it.

    Also, why can’t we call on god to appear today as in 1 kings chapter 18? What is the difference?

  7. on 31 Dec 2012 at 12:32 pm 7.alex said …

    its the same shit like not going to the doctor. martin does not wanna find out about the real deal. la la la, my daughter is not having sex, my wife does not have breast cancer, my prostate is fine, blah, blah.

  8. on 31 Dec 2012 at 4:21 pm 8.Scourge said …

    1. Martin. Do not Christians believe that Jesus and God (and the Holy Spirit) are one and the same just like Hindus believe Vishnu has several manifestations? At any rate, if Jesus did not exist, then the Christian God would not exist since the theology has it so that there is necessity and sufficiency in the assertion.

    Are you some benighted Liberty U grad? Teach at Furman?

  9. on 31 Dec 2012 at 7:51 pm 9.The messenger said …

    on 31 Dec 2012 at 3:45 am 5.The messenger said …
    Brother Thomas, God will appear to us in his Jesus form, at the end of this world. That is Jesus’s second coming.
    He will return with his army of heaven to battle against the forces of hell.
    The universe will be wiped clean of evil, and goodness will spead throughout all creation.
    God appears to us everyday, just not in his physical Jesus form. He gives us signs of what to do in our life and he causes things to happen to us that guide us on the path of goodness.

  10. on 31 Dec 2012 at 8:05 pm 10.Asher said …

    Anonymous & Blogmaster here is your answer:

    Luke 16:31 “He said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.'”

    “Also, why can’t we call on god to appear today as in 1 kings chapter 18?”

    Anyone who has read I Kings 18 realizes God did not appear. He showed his power but did not appear. Today, like then, the hard-headed would only claim it was a trick.
    God has shown his power in creating the universe and atheists still do not believe. Why would any other demonstration change the hard-headed mind? Luke 16 still holds true.

  11. on 31 Dec 2012 at 8:07 pm 11.Asher said …

    “Teach at Furman?”

    Furman has not been a Baptist institution in quite a long time and requires qualifications I doubt seriously you could hope to meet.

  12. on 31 Dec 2012 at 8:31 pm 12.Lou(DFW) said …

    10.Asher said …

    “Furman has not been a Baptist institution in quite a long time…”

    Show us who claimed that it is.

  13. on 31 Dec 2012 at 8:42 pm 13.Lou(DFW) said …

    9.Asher said …

    “Anyone who has read I Kings 18 realizes God did not appear.”

    Genesis 17:1
    Now when Abram was ninety-nine years old, the Lord appeared to Abram…

    Genesis 18:1
    Now the Lord appeared to him by the oaks of Mamre, while he was sitting at the tent door in the heat of the day.

    Exodus 24:9–11
    9 Then Moses went up with Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel,
    10 and they saw the God of Israel; and under His feet there appeared to be a pavement of sapphire, as clear as the sky itself.
    11 Yet He did not stretch out His hand against the nobles of the sons of Israel; and they saw God, and they ate and drank.

    Etc., etc., etc.

    “God has shown his power in creating the universe and atheists still do not believe.”

    Except that you don’t have any evidence for that, liar.

  14. on 31 Dec 2012 at 8:54 pm 14.DPK said …

    Uh… My kid went to Furman. He actually got a very good education with no religious indoctrination. They actually have a secular humanist group on equal footing with other “religious” type groups, and he was never taught pseudo-science or other bullshit like Liberty.
    Just sayin….

  15. on 01 Jan 2013 at 1:08 am 15.Severin said …

    9 Asher
    “God has shown his power in creating the universe …”

    The whole universe? With sextilions os stars? Supernovas included? Neutron stars too? Black holes?

    I mean, there is nothing about creation of universe in the Bible.
    According to Bible, a god created earth (waters, animals, plants, man, woman, …, some 6000 year sago.
    Was it the same god who crated the rest of the universe, then, some 13.7 billion years after he finished THAT creation, he came to earth to make the man from dirt, and woman from his rib, to blow his saliva into man’s nose, to peep who is fucking with who, and to enjoy smelling burned meet?
    Yes, and to teach people how to beat their slaves so they don’t die.

    Same god?

  16. on 01 Jan 2013 at 1:50 am 16.The messenger said …

    15.Severin, The bible gives us the information that involves mankind.

    The knowledge of the univer outside of the earth is not necessary for humans to know.

    The only knowlage that mankind needs to obtain is that of morality.

    The knowlage of morality is contained within the bible.

  17. on 01 Jan 2013 at 3:27 am 17.The messenger said …

    15.Severin, God did not teach anyone how to beat slaves, you idiot.

    God has always opposed slavery. That is why he sent Moses to free the Hebrews from Egypt.

    He also sent many other people to free slaves and support freedom for all people; who are similar to Moses but are not mentioned in the bible.

    Here are some examples……..

    Harriet Tubman

    Abraham Lincoln

    Martin Luther King Jr.

  18. on 01 Jan 2013 at 4:40 am 18.Asher said …

    DPK,

    My wife graduated from Furman and maintained her strong Christian worldview. She graduated with honors and has been highly sucessful. Seems we both agree Scourge is full of dung.

  19. on 01 Jan 2013 at 4:44 am 19.Asher said …

    Lou

    Good to see you agree with me. Why do you think the blog.aster lies about Scripture?

  20. on 01 Jan 2013 at 7:47 am 20.SisterChromatid said …

    Any deity that acts exactly like an imaginary deity is imaginary. Real things are distinguishable from imaginary things when scientifically tested.

    All real beings have mass and are made of cells. All imaginary beings are identical to god in every measurable way. Ergo the gods that people believe in are as imaginary as the ones they dismiss as myths. There is no evidence that any gods exist outside the human imagination.

  21. on 01 Jan 2013 at 1:32 pm 21.Lou(DFW) said …

    19.Asher said …

    “Lou
    Good to see you agree with me. Why do you think the blog.aster lies about Scripture?”

    He doesn’t lie about scripture. But more importantly, why do you? Do you actually think that you can change the nature of all your comments with yet another lie?

  22. on 01 Jan 2013 at 1:34 pm 22.Lou(DFW) said …

    18.Asher said …

    “She graduated with honors and has been highly sucessful.”

    LOL!

  23. on 01 Jan 2013 at 1:44 pm 23.Lou(DFW) said …

    18.Asher said …

    “Seems we both agree Scourge is full of dung.”

    Let’s assume that he agrees with you. So what?

    If he is “full of dung,” then how does that make you any different than him?

    Show us that you’re not “full of dung.” Where is your evidence for your imaginary god? Hint: neither you, your allegedly “highly sucessful” wife, DPK, his son, the blog-master, me, scripture, nor any other diversion that you introduce to the discussion are not part of your evidence.

    Go ahead, I’m waiting. Show us that you’re not “full of dung.” You can’t, can you? Well, at least your wife is “highly sucessful.”

  24. on 01 Jan 2013 at 1:49 pm 24.Lou (DFW) said …

    23.Lou(DFW) said …

    Correction: are part of your evidence.

  25. on 01 Jan 2013 at 1:54 pm 25.Am_Sci said …

    @17

    I suspect that Severin is referring to the numerous verses in Exodus that deal with the corporal punishment of slaves. Strictly speaking, however, you are correct– as far as I know the Bible doesn’t give instructions on “how” to beat slaves.

    But, you fail to see the deeper point; what room is there in contemporary society for a book filled with instructions on slave ownership? Some Christian’s will assert that the contents of much of Exodus, Leviticus, etc. no longer apply. However, even if they are correct, there are still two problems. Firstly, why leave text in a holy book that does not apply? Secondly, how can one worship a god who has ever condoned slavery? Whether god’s law has changed or not is no excuse.

    And, sure, some historical figures have managed to use their Christian faith in opposition to slavery. But, they only did so through selective use of the Bible’s teachings. It is far easier to use the Bible to argue for slavery. After all, the Bible reigned supreme for millenia in Europe and slavery opponents were few an far between until after the Enlightenment.

    In response to your comment before that– are you such a philistine that you don’t see any value in the wonder and beauty that our knowledge of the universe brings? And even if you are, do you not appreciate the utilitarian side of pursuits beyond earth? Think of our GPS, solar monitoring capabilities, near earth object warning systems, weather satellites, etc.

  26. on 01 Jan 2013 at 3:29 pm 26.DPK said …

    Asher:
    No, I do not think he is “full of dung” just perhaps mis informed about Furman as a being a religious idiot mill like Liberty. I do however, think you are “full of dung” for professing a version of reality for which you offer no evidence or even compelling argument. I also believe you are intellectually dishonest for using lies, logical fallacies, half truths, distractions, and for making claims and then disappearing when you are questioned or challenged about them. Just wanted to be clear about that.

    Messenger: re slavery in the bible… You once again demonstrate your complete ignorance of your own holy book and the tenants of your own faith. Have you ever actually read the bible, William? Not the illustrated children’s version….

  27. on 01 Jan 2013 at 4:17 pm 27.Lou said …

    “Any deity that acts exactly like an imaginary deity is imaginary. Real things are distinguishable from imaginary things when scientifically tested.”

    Chromatid we shall put this to the test. Prove Socrates existed, scientifically of course.

  28. on 01 Jan 2013 at 4:25 pm 28.Lou said …

    “what room is there in contemporary society for a book filled with instructions on slave ownership?

    He is right. Slavery was eradicated in society back in 1865.

  29. on 01 Jan 2013 at 5:01 pm 29.alex said …

    ok. socrates is fiction. I guess santa, elves, and god exist. is that your proof?

  30. on 01 Jan 2013 at 5:14 pm 30.Lou (DFW) said …

    27.Louser said …

    “Chromatid we shall put this to the test.”

    Let’s put you to the test: do you understand the difference between present and past tense?

    “Prove Socrates existed, scientifically of course.”

    Provide evidence that your imaginary god exists, NOT EXISTED. Or do you claim that he’s dead or never existed?

  31. on 01 Jan 2013 at 5:16 pm 31.Lou (DFW) said …

    28.Louser said …

    “He is right.”

    But, as usual, you’re wrong.

    “Slavery was eradicated in society back in 1865.”

    Slavery exists to this day.

  32. on 01 Jan 2013 at 5:20 pm 32.DPK said …

    True, and just as an aside, where exactly in the “absolute moral code” handed down by god in the bible… The one the theists her often refer to, but curiously never produce, where does it say “thou shat not own slaves”?

  33. on 01 Jan 2013 at 6:39 pm 33.The messenger said …

    25.Am_Sci., the Exodus verses that speak of punishment of slaves is metaphorical.

    The word slavery is used within Exodus as a metaphor for a employee or worker that is not treated with kindness and is not given the amount of respect and or pay that he has earned.

  34. on 01 Jan 2013 at 7:17 pm 34.The messenger said …

    25.Am_Sci, the main message of the bible is not contained within the book of Exodus. The main message of the bible is contained within all of the books that are within the bible.

    The main message of the bible is God loves all people.

  35. on 01 Jan 2013 at 7:29 pm 35.DPK said …

    Well Lou, I don’t see where SisterC claimed anywhere that Socrates existed, so why would you feel it incumbent on her to prove such a thing?
    You, on the other hand, have claimed “Slavery was eradicated in society back in 1865.” an outright lie. Now however, it IS incumbent on YOU to prove that claim, since you stated it as fact. Aren’t you the same one who accused the blogmaster of “lying” about scripture, when in fact the blogmaster actually just quoted scripture, chapter and verse, with citations? Only the truly deluded among us are able to claim that scripture quotations do not say what they do, in fact say, simply because we do not like it.

    While you are at it, you have also in the past claimed that the Christian god of the bible exists, so therefore, again, incumbent on you to prove it.
    Your tired rehash of your moronic “Socrates” strawman is so pathetic.

  36. on 01 Jan 2013 at 8:20 pm 36.DPK said …

    on 01 Jan 2013 at 6:39 pm 33.The messenger said …
    25.Am_Sci., the Exodus verses that speak of punishment of slaves is metaphorical.
    The word slavery is used within Exodus as a metaphor for a employee or worker that is not treated with kindness and is not given the amount of respect and or pay that he has earned.

    How do you know this? Why would god use “the punishment of slaves” as a metaphor for “employees” at a time when slavery was common? Why didn’t he just say, “owning slaves is immoral”? Instead, he chose to say that beating slaves to death was immoral. Indeed, he chose to say that if you beat your slave, but he doesn’t die, but just is bedridden for a few days, you should receive no punishment, because the slave is YOUR property? Why would he say that, if that is not what he meant, William?
    And, why do you get to decide what god “really meant” by his words in the bible? Why can’t your god speak for himself?

  37. on 01 Jan 2013 at 9:08 pm 37.The messenger said …

    25.Am_Sci, science is nothing compared to the knowledge that the bible provides. That knowledge is of morality.

    The knowledge of things outside of our planet is fascinating but it serves no purpose in perfecting mankind.

    The bible provides us with the greatest knowledge on Earth, a knowledge that will bring peace to the world forever; moral knowledge.

    Knowing about the universe does not help humans become kinder, or generous.

  38. on 01 Jan 2013 at 9:09 pm 38.The messenger said …

    36.DPK, go to a church. They will explain it to you.

  39. on 01 Jan 2013 at 10:23 pm 39.Lou said …

    “Slavery was eradicated in society back in 1865.” an outright lie.”

    I must say, DPK and antiLou are as slow as a turtle. Yeah, I know slavery still exists. Thus a need for instructions. Geez, thanks for coming guys.

    However, messenger is spot on regarding slavery in the Bible. The term slavery was more a title of unemployment but I can’t see DPK or antiLou capable of grasping a foreign culture.

  40. on 01 Jan 2013 at 11:12 pm 40.Lou (DFW) said …

    37.Louser said …

    “I must say, DPK and antiLou are as slow as a turtle.”

    Who cares what you “must say” to defend your stupid comments.

    “Yeah, I know slavery still exists. Thus a need for instructions.”

    Yes, we need “instructions” from you in order to determine when your comments are simply inaccurate or as result of your usual stupidity.

    Now, can you please drop the slavery diversion and get to it – where is your evidence for your imaginary god?

  41. on 01 Jan 2013 at 11:20 pm 41.The messenger said …

    Brother 39.Lou, thanks.

  42. on 01 Jan 2013 at 11:51 pm 42.DPK said …

    “The term slavery was more a title of unemployment but I can’t see DPK or antiLou capable of grasping a foreign culture.”

    And by “foreign culture” of course you mean, “completely fabricated rationalization.” Last I checked no concept of “employment” ever entailed one human owning another as property or being able to beat his property with impunity as long as the end result was not death. And if slaves were “employees”.. than why did god need to send Moses to “free” them. Loulou, you are a hoot. You and William should write your own bible since you both seem to be able to communicate what god really meant much better than god does! It should be a very entertaining read. I’d suggest a comic book format in order to best relate to your potential market. Don’t forget to include a disclaimer that any “facts” presented are subject to revision depending on circumstances and whether or not anyone catches on, or not.

  43. on 02 Jan 2013 at 4:19 am 43.The messenger said …

    Brother 42.DPK, the word (slavery) is used in the bible as a way of describing the sever mistreatment of the employees of that time period. If you went to Church you would understand that.

    And by foreign culture, I think that brother Lou means that the culture of Christianity is foreign to your culture of atheism.

    I hope that you understand this now Mrs. (DPK).

  44. on 02 Jan 2013 at 4:53 am 44.The messenger said …

    25.Am_Sci God allows slavery to occur because he wants us to stop it on our own.
    Just because because God is our father, does not mean that he will solve all of our problems. Bad thing occur because we are suppose to learn from them.

  45. on 02 Jan 2013 at 10:19 am 45.Lou (DFW) said …

    43.The messenger said …

    “[T]he word (slavery) is used in the bible as a way of describing the sever mistreatment of the employees of that time period. If you went to Church you would understand that.”

    Show us.

  46. on 02 Jan 2013 at 10:20 am 46.Lou (DFW) said …

    44.The messenger said …

    “Bad thing occur because we are suppose to learn from them.”

    Apparently, Satan and slavery in the bible is imaginary.

  47. on 02 Jan 2013 at 4:28 pm 47.The messenger said …

    46.Lou (DFW), have you been paying any attention to this debate?

    Apparently not.

    Sometimes the word slave is used metaphorically, and sometimes it is litteral like in the story of Moses.

    If you want to know which parts are litteral and which parts are metaphorical go to a Catholic Church.

  48. on 02 Jan 2013 at 4:34 pm 48.The messenger said …

    45.Lou (DFW), I would love to show you all of the passages in the bible that are litteral and all of the parts that are metaphorical, but unfortunately I don’t have the time to type up a comment that large.

  49. on 02 Jan 2013 at 4:48 pm 49.The messenger said …

    Brother Lou (dpk), If you want to know which parts are litteral and which parts are metaphorical go to a Catholic Church.

  50. on 02 Jan 2013 at 5:06 pm 50.DPK said …

    47.The messenger said …

    “46.Lou (DFW), have you been paying any attention to this debate?”

    LOL… I must have missed the “debate”. When did that occur? All I’ve seen recently is Loulou lying and messenger displaying classic theist circular reasoning. Unless your idea of a debate is “uh-uh, uh-uh”. Or things like: “Slavery was eradicated in society back in 1865.”

    Thanks for the first hearty laugh of 2013

  51. on 02 Jan 2013 at 5:23 pm 51.Lou(DFW) said …

    47.The messenger, the consistent fraud said …

    “Sometimes the word slave is used metaphorically, and sometimes it is litteral like in the story of Moses.”

    Exactly as I thought. You can’t show us where “[T]he word (slavery) is used in the bible as a way of describing the sever mistreatment of the employees of that time period.”

    “If you want to know which parts are litteral and which parts are metaphorical go to a Catholic Church.”

    Because you don’t know, and you can’t substantiate your claim.

  52. on 02 Jan 2013 at 6:41 pm 52.DPK said …

    “If you want to know which parts are litteral and which parts are metaphorical go to a Catholic Church.”

    Bring your wallet.

  53. on 02 Jan 2013 at 7:18 pm 53.Lou(DFW) said …

    50.DPK said …

    “Bring your wallet.”

    Protect your young, male children, because “love,” in the catholic church, can metaphorically mean “molest.”

  54. on 02 Jan 2013 at 8:04 pm 54.Am_Sci said …

    @The messenger

    Clearly, you need to study your Bible more. Here are two excerpts from Exodus revealing that slavery means slavery:

    “…but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property.”

    “And if a man sells his daughter to be a female slave…”

    An employee is not property and cannot, by definition, be sold. If the Bible is so damned important, why don’t you actually read and study it?

  55. on 02 Jan 2013 at 8:08 pm 55.DPK said …

    That goes without saying.
    They are much more cautious about preying on children these days… not because of any morality, but because it has hurt them financially. And of course, not ALL priests are pedophiles, but they ARE all interested in your money! hahaha
    I’ll bet they’ve gotten poor messenger’s lunch money more than a few times.
    “and she’s buy-i-ing a stair-air-way… to heaven…”

  56. on 02 Jan 2013 at 8:10 pm 56.Anonymous said …

    I’m wondering how the little boys that were raped by priests, and have to endure life-long trauma as a result of those abuses of trust and power, would feel having messy tell them that their god allowed then to be raped so that we could learn from their experience?

    I also wonder how they would feel hearing that one of the symbols of that abuse of power and morals, is the defining word on Christian moral values?

    Fortunately, messy is a troll, and a bad one at that. The world world really be sad if real people adopted his manufacturer stance

  57. on 02 Jan 2013 at 8:11 pm 57.The messenger said …

    51.Lou(DFW), are you mentally damaged?

    The debate on what the word slave was used for in the bible has been going on since comment 15 you idiot.

  58. on 02 Jan 2013 at 8:32 pm 58.DPK said …

    “their god allowed then to be raped so that we could learn from their experience?”

    Actually, according to William, god actually CAUSED them to be raped, not simply allowed it. It is part of his plan that everything happens for a reason. Unless, of course, they were only metaphorically raped. You know, sometimes ass rape is literal, and sometimes it is metaphorical. If you want to know the difference, go to a catholic church and they will explain it to you.

    (I stand by my original contention however, that messenger is actually a person of somewhat diminished mental capacity. In that regard, I cut him a little slack, but do notice that the other members of the sock brigade always seem to distance themselves from his tiresome trolling. They want nothing to do with him either. haha… How crazy do you have to be that even the other crazy people think you’re nuts?)

  59. on 02 Jan 2013 at 8:48 pm 59.The messenger said …

    Here is the meaning of that bible verse.

    The first verse.

    “…but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property.”

    That verse does not mean a literal slave. It means that that if an employee is punished and he is still willing and able to keep his job the employer will not be punished.

    Here is a simpler version for all of you brain dead people like Mrs. DPK.

    That verse means that an employer is not allowed to punish his workers too severely, because if he does the employer will be punished for his insain cruelty.

    This is the second verse.

    “And if a man sells his daughter to be a female slave…”

    Here is the meaning of that verse. Durring that time period most marriages ere arranged by the father of the bride and the father of the groom. It did not mean that the bride’s father was literally selling his daughter, it ment that the daughterer was forced into that marriage.

  60. on 02 Jan 2013 at 8:51 pm 60.The messenger said …

    58.DPK, life is a hard test, but in the end mankind will overcome the evil within them and all of us will go to heaven.

  61. on 02 Jan 2013 at 8:56 pm 61.The messenger said …

    54.Am_Sci, I hope that you will read comment 61 so you will learn what those bible passages mean.

  62. on 02 Jan 2013 at 9:08 pm 62.The messenger said …

    on 02 Jan 2013 at 8:52 pm 61.The messenger said … Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    on 02 Jan 2013 at 8:48 pm 59.The messenger said … Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    Here is the meaning of that bible verse.
    The first verse.
    “…but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property.”
    That verse does not mean a literal slave. It means that that if an employee is punished and he is still willing and able to keep his job the employer will not be punished.
    Here is a simpler version for all of you brain dead people like Mrs. DPK.
    That verse means that an employer is not allowed to punish his workers too severely, because if he does the employer will be punished for his insain cruelty.
    This is the second verse.
    “And if a man sells his daughter to be a female slave…”
    Here is the meaning of that verse. Durring that time period most marriages were arranged by the father of the bride and the father of the groom. It did not mean that the bride’s father was literally selling his daughter, it ment that the daughterer was forced into that marriage.

  63. on 02 Jan 2013 at 9:21 pm 63.The messenger said …

    52.DPK, the Catholic Church does not charge money for attending Sunday mass.

    Mass is free.

    The Catholic Church is a non profit organization.

    They get money for charity and church supplies from donations.
    That is why the pass a dasket around at every mass. Donations are optional.

    True Catholics are not lustful of greedy.

    Mother Teresa is a good example of a true Catholic.

    She was kind, compassionate, peaceful person.
    All Catholics should be like her.

    http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mother_Teresa

  64. on 02 Jan 2013 at 11:38 pm 64.alex said …

    “..ass rape is literal, and sometimes it is metaphorical.”

    this is messenger’s game. perv priests get to do it over and over and over without consequences. the church doesn’t give a shit even as they champion the idiotic redemption cards that dipshits like messenger absolutely adore. why not? if you have designs on being the perv, the church/god says “go! don’t leave any single child’s behind!”

  65. on 03 Jan 2013 at 12:12 am 65.The messenger said …

    65.alex, the church is strictly against raped(literal or metaphorical.

    Are you smoking pot or something Mrs. Alex? Because your brain is obviously not functioning correctly.

  66. on 03 Jan 2013 at 12:13 am 66.The messenger said …

    65.alex, most Preists are not lustful in any way.

  67. on 03 Jan 2013 at 12:16 am 67.The messenger said …

    65.alex, if a priest did rape someone God would punish him.

  68. on 03 Jan 2013 at 1:26 am 68.alex said …

    “if a priest did rape someone God would punish him.”

    no, you dipshit, non-bible reading delusional xtian. Matthew 18:21,22.

    if god were to, you wanna be specific? no? you double talking ignorant fuckhead. with karma? more unoriginal stolen material from other older religions?

    mrs alex? a mysogynist crack? “i’m a nigger” is next? you’re pathetic.

  69. on 03 Jan 2013 at 1:44 am 69.Severin said …

    17 Messenger,
    “God has always opposed slavery.”

    However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the CHILDREN of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. YOU MAY TREAT THEM AS YOUR PROPERTY, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)

    Said who?

  70. on 03 Jan 2013 at 1:45 am 70.Lou(DFW) said …

    59.The messenger said …

    ‘The first verse.

    “…but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property.”

    That verse does not mean a literal slave.’

    Let’s get this straight – slave means employee, so according to messenger, property must also means employee!

  71. on 03 Jan 2013 at 1:48 am 71.Lou(DFW) said …

    57.The messenger said …

    “51.Lou(DFW), are you mentally damaged?
    The debate on what the word slave was used for in the bible has been going on since comment 15 you idiot.”

    Poor messenger, I wonder if he can understand what a non sequitur is?

    Regardless, mess, you never did show us where “[T]he word (slavery) is used in the bible as a way of describing the sever mistreatment of the employees of that time period.”

    Mess, you are nothing but a lying fraud – and I don’t mean that metaphorically.

  72. on 03 Jan 2013 at 2:10 am 72.Severin said …

    27 Lou
    “Prove Socrates existed, scientifically of course.”

    Fuck Socrates!
    No one on this blog ever claimed Socrates existed, so no one on this blog has obligation to prove anything about Socrates.

    Now, unless you changed your mind, we all know that you DID claim that god exists.

    Now, please, prove god existed, scientifically, of course.

  73. on 03 Jan 2013 at 2:14 am 73.Severin said …

    Messenger, you coward worm, you answer non-posed questions, but never questions that was actually posed to you.

    You told us that CHURCH, not god, establishes and cancels limbo.
    By saying it, you, in fact, told us that god is not necessary.
    Why would anyone need gods if churches make divine decisions?

    Are you still on that position, or maybe you changed your mind about this question?

  74. on 03 Jan 2013 at 2:49 am 74.Severin said …

    Lou, Messenger,
    You are free to babble anything you want about slave = employee, but god himself confutes you:
    he clearly says that slaves are PROPERTY of their masters.
    No employees were ever the PROPERTY of their employers.

    See Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT and several other verses.
    Even children are treated as PROPERTY of slave holders!

    How miserable and empty are your attempts to show your god in better light than he is showing himself!

  75. on 03 Jan 2013 at 2:55 am 75.Severin said …

    #62
    “That verse does not mean a literal slave”

    No, of course not!
    According to Leviticus 25:44-46,it means “human beings (men, women and children), who are PROPERTY of their master”

    In other words: employees!

  76. on 03 Jan 2013 at 3:05 am 76.Severin said …

    67 Messenger
    “65.alex, if a priest did rape someone God would punish him.”

    In one of your posts you told us opposite: EVERYONE can go to heaven if he/she “sincerely” repents.

    Hitler, for example?

    Oh, yes, I remember, you also said, if they go to heaven it does not mean they will not be punished.

    So, we can expect that god will tell Hitler to pray 100,000 (100,000,000?) “Our Father …”, then will he send him to paradise.

  77. on 03 Jan 2013 at 3:23 am 77.The messenger said …

    68.alex, Matthew 18 21-22 means that we must forgive others just like God does.

    That does not mean that thier sins will go unpunished.

    Just because a person is forgiven does not mean that they will not be punished. They will be punished and forgiven.

  78. on 03 Jan 2013 at 3:29 am 78.Truthlightlove said …

    Please state your definition of God and which God do you want to appear. Do you mean a person looking after mankind? Do you mean the autocratic monarch of some biblical religion? Do you mean an ineffable infinite reality of supreme value underling all things? Do you mean one who creates primal energy and then draws from it communities of persons who are capable of growth towards full consciousness, understanding, happiness and responsible creativity? Do you mean God as the empowering ideal and revelations of divine nature and purpose which occur in religious experience, the ground of being, the Prime Mover, who is in us as we are in God? Please clarify.

  79. on 03 Jan 2013 at 3:53 am 79.The messenger said …

    69.Severin, leviticus 25 44-46 states that you must never treat your family like a slave. We are all related because we are all Jesus’s children and we all come from Adam and Eve, so therefore we cannot treat anyone like a slave because of we are all a part of the same family.

    We can treat people like slaves if they are not related to us, but since we are all related to each other we cannot treat anyone like a slave.

  80. on 03 Jan 2013 at 3:55 am 80.The messenger said …

    70.Lou(DFW), sometimes the word property can mean the word employee.

  81. on 03 Jan 2013 at 4:00 am 81.The messenger said …

    Mrs. 71.Lou(DFW), I have shown you some verses were the word slave means the word servant in the bible.

    I already explained to you that I do not have enough time in my daily schedule to show you all of those verses at one time.

  82. on 03 Jan 2013 at 4:05 am 82.The messenger said …

    74.Severin, the word property means employee in some parts of the bible, and in other parts of the bible it means that the employee is suppose to follow the orders of his employer.

  83. on 03 Jan 2013 at 4:06 am 83.The messenger said …

    on 03 Jan 2013 at 4:05 am 81.The messenger said … Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    74.Severin, the word property means employee in some parts of the bible, and in other parts of the bible it means that the employee is suppose to follow the orders of his or her employer.

  84. on 03 Jan 2013 at 4:17 am 84.The messenger said …

    73.Severin, I never said that the Church or God cancels anything.

    The idea of limbo was used durring the time when the church was corrupt. Now that the church has been reformed back into it’s non-corrupted state, the idea of limbo was done away with. Now the Church teaches directly from the holy scripturs(the bible) and the idea of limbo is not in the bible so therefor it is not teached anymore in the Catholic Church.

  85. on 03 Jan 2013 at 4:22 am 85.The messenger said …

    76.Severin, No, hitler will be burning in hell for a while before he can even go to pugetory. And after he gets out of of purgatory he will finally be able to live in heaen, but I think that he is still in hell doing his time in the freezing pit aka hell.

  86. on 03 Jan 2013 at 5:36 am 86.Am_Sci said …

    @The messenger

    You are dead wrong about those Bible verses. More evidence:

    “You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance.” -Leviticus 25

    “If his master gave him a wife while he was a slave, and they had sons or daughters, then the man will be free in the seventh year, but his wife and children will still belong to his master.” -Exodus 21

    An employee cannot be inherited. An employee cannot be “freed.” Stop with your amateurish exegesis and admit that the Bible fully supports slavery as moral.

  87. on 03 Jan 2013 at 4:22 pm 87.DPK said …

    Messenger is dead wrong about many things. Some of the things he claims absolutely goes 100% against Catholic doctrine. Catholic doctrine says hell is eternal. No one gets out of hell. Catholic doctrine says you must believe in transubstantiation (messenger does not). In fact, Catholic doctrine says if you accept communion without believing in transubstantiation, you have committed a mortal sin. Poor messenger is destined for hell himself, it appears. He is not only deluded, he is a heretic in the eyes of the church.
    As far as limbo not being in the bible, yet it was taught as doctrine by the church in the past.. messenger, where does it mention purgatory in the bible? (hint.. it doesn’t). You really should read the book you come here to lecture about. It may actually surprise you what is, and is not, in there.

  88. on 03 Jan 2013 at 4:40 pm 88.Lou(DFW) said …

    80.The messenger said …

    “70.Lou(DFW), sometimes the word property can mean the word employee.”

    No, it can’t. An employee, by definition, cannot mean property.

  89. on 03 Jan 2013 at 4:43 pm 89.Severin said …

    79 Messenger
    “We can treat people like slaves if they are not related to us, but since we are all related to each other we cannot treat anyone like a slave.”

    Maybe you think so, which is nice, but your god obviously doesn’t.

    What words from Leviticus 25:44-46 are unclear to you:
    “However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the CHILDREN of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. YOU MAY TREAT THEM AS YOUR PROPERTY, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way.”

    God clearly says that people from “the foreigners who live among you” are NOT your relatives, and that you are free to buy them, hold them as slaves, sell tehm, purchase their children, and pass them to your children as permanent inheritance.
    Like sheep!

    God does not share your “global love”.
    The god you defend is god of hate.
    Why are you defending him?
    Are you blind, or just stupid?

  90. on 03 Jan 2013 at 4:45 pm 90.Lou(DFW) said …

    81.The messenger said …

    “Mrs. 71.Lou(DFW), I have shown you some verses were the word slave means the word servant in the bible.”

    No, what I asked you to do was show us where “[T]he word (slavery) is used in the bible as a way of describing the sever mistreatment of the employees of that time period.”

    Now you are so confused that you’re referring to servants.

    You’re nothing but a lying fraud who keeps digging himself into a deeper hole.

  91. on 03 Jan 2013 at 6:01 pm 91.Severin said …

    84 Messenger
    “The idea of limbo was used durring the time when the church was corrupt.”

    So, your church was corrupt once?
    Don’t you tell me!
    They lied to people to get money from them? They ussed to sell god for money (indulgentia, souvenirs, like bones of saints, parts of Jesus’ cross and robes, … etc?

    How do we know they changed?
    Who guarantees for them?
    Because you say so?
    Because they say so?

    Who was the guarantor for church at times when it was corrupt?
    Was god behind them then, or is he behind them now, WHAT is going on?
    Did they become good and incorrupt by themselves, or god intervened? How and when?

    Hmmmm …

  92. on 03 Jan 2013 at 6:44 pm 92.Anonymous said …

    An easy way for messenger to prove that he isn’t simply making this up as he goes along would be to provide citations for his comments. That doesn’t mean saying “go to church”, “ask the pope”, talk to “Joe”, it means providing a link to chapter and page of a reference to something either in print or a recognizable online authority that independently substantiates his comments

    The fact that he doesn’t, and can’t, really ought to make it obvious that he simply goes from one fabricated explanation to another.

    Is he mentally ill, or a troll? In the end, it really doesn’t matter. What is clear is that energy is being wasted on someone who isn’t representative of the intended audience and also isn’t contributing anything of value to the conversation. Conversely, he is helping to drown out what few honest comments are made by actual believers.

    So, messenger. It’s time for you to put up or shut up. Back up your comments with reference that can be checked by multiple people that don’t involve some silly escape clause of “go to x” or “ask y”. If he has real references it will be easy for him to provide them.

    If you answer this with diversions such as plain ignoring it, strawmen, questions, god told me, my pastor told me, a semantic argument, etc; actually in other way other than: “See page [x]” in the [online] publication/book/website then you are clearly just inventing nonsense and there is simply no point in bothering with you.

  93. on 03 Jan 2013 at 7:29 pm 93.DPK said …

    63.The messenger said …
    “The Catholic Church is a non profit organization.
    They get money for charity and church supplies from donations.”

    http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/vatican/vatican_billions.htm

  94. on 03 Jan 2013 at 10:51 pm 94.Todd said …

    God gave us free will and we are not to test God. You spend all this time in the Word and you forgot the scriptures that explain this in detail. Open your heart, you obviously have the knowledge. Now mix it with alot of Love, a dash of Faith, a pinch of Hope and there is the recipe for a spirit filled life with God.

    Respectfully Yours,

    The Believer

  95. on 03 Jan 2013 at 11:24 pm 95.alex said …

    “God gave us free will and we are not to test God.”

    free will and god’s plan are mutually exclusive, you dumb shit. exactly like a round square. get that double talk shit outta here. when you pray, you’re testing your bullshit god.

    why do you cry when someone dies? you’re testing?

  96. on 03 Jan 2013 at 11:34 pm 96.Asher said …

    Actually property does refer to an individual when they have willfully sold themselves as a slave as was customary in ancient culture

  97. on 03 Jan 2013 at 11:43 pm 97.The messenger said …

    86.Am_Sci, in that bible verse when it says that we may treat them like our property, it means that our employees must do what we command of them because we are thier employers.

    It does not mean that they are our property.

    PS. happy new year.

  98. on 04 Jan 2013 at 12:08 am 98.Severin said …

    96 Asher
    “Actually property does refer to an individual when they have willfully sold themselves as a slave as was customary in ancient culture”

    Who got the money?

  99. on 04 Jan 2013 at 12:13 am 99.The messenger said …

    86.Am_Sci, if the bible supports slavery then how do you explain the story of Moses.

  100. on 04 Jan 2013 at 12:16 am 100.The messenger said …

    87.DPK, you fail to understand Catholic doctrine.

  101. on 04 Jan 2013 at 12:17 am 101.The messenger said …

    93.DPK, I forgot to put in frundraises into my comment. Sorry.

  102. on 04 Jan 2013 at 12:22 am 102.Severin said …

    06 Asher
    “Actually property does refer to an individual when they have willfully sold themselves as a slave as was customary in ancient culture”

    Actually, you are desperately lying to somehow make your god a good guy.
    He is not!
    He never said anything about self-purchasing to become an “employee”.
    He clearly said to his favorite tribe:
    “… you may PURCHASE male or female SLAVES (not “servants”, not “employees”, not “assistents”…) from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also PURCHASE the CHILDREN of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. YOU MAY TREAT THEM AS YOUR PROPERTY, passing them on to your children as a PERMANENT INHERITANCE. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way.”

    Your god PROPAGUED and supported slavery. Period.

    Very miserable try!

  103. on 04 Jan 2013 at 1:33 am 103.The messenger said …

    91.Severin we know that they have changed because they no longer do things like that anymore.

  104. on 04 Jan 2013 at 1:35 am 104.The messenger said …

    88.Lou(DFW), yes they can when they are used as metaphores.

  105. on 04 Jan 2013 at 10:17 am 105.Severin said …

    #99
    “86.Am_Sci, if the bible supports slavery then how do you explain the story of Moses.”

    No one here is obligate to explain Bible stories, but if you insist, the story of Moses is already explained in the Bible.
    Your god DOES promote and support savery, but forbids Isrealities to take other Israelities as slaves. All non-Israelities are free to be purchased, sold, hold as slaves/property, passed to children as permanent inheritence, …

    What part of Leviticus 25:44 is unclear to you?

  106. on 04 Jan 2013 at 10:26 am 106.Severin said …

    Same as in Islam: Muslims were never allowed to hold other Muslims as slaves, but they were free to hold slaves of any other religion.

    All religions are equally biased.
    And equally rotten.

  107. on 04 Jan 2013 at 12:54 pm 107.Severin said …

    In what way does the story of Moses negate god’s being agreed with general idea of holding slaves? In which part of that story god says anything against slavery?
    Oh, yes, I see! Christian god was against Egyptians holding Hebrew slaves, but Hebrews were free to hold Egyptian, or any other slaves, but Hebrews.
    Egyptian gods had nothing against Egyptians holding any other slaves but Egyptians.

    Poor “employees”!

    Just an “excursion”:
    Omnipotent and all-knowing god was unable to distinguish Hebrews from Egyptians, unless Moses put marks on Hebrew’s doors!

    Veeeery comic! What an idiot god!

  108. on 04 Jan 2013 at 2:47 pm 108.fol de rol said …

    soo funny seeing the theists wriggling on the hook with this one :)

  109. on 04 Jan 2013 at 4:32 pm 109.MrQ said …

    But Severin, god has sent the messenger here to clear up the situation. The messenger will parse the stories and let us all know what is metaphor and what is meant for literal interpretation. You have the floor, mess, now keep digging, errr, I mean explaining “the word” to the uninitiated.

  110. on 04 Jan 2013 at 7:16 pm 110.DPK said …

    like most of the indefensible things about their crazy-ass belief systems, most of them are smart enough not to discuss the problem of slavery in the bible. Messenger doesn’t fit that description however.
    Personally, I don’t particularly enjoy seeing messenger squirm on the hook. He is obviously a mentally challenged person who has sincerely bought into the line of bullshit he has been fed. Nothing really funny about that. But, wading though his troll-shit droppings is tiresome, so I understand the need to point out his lies and contradictions.

  111. on 04 Jan 2013 at 9:01 pm 111.The messenger said …

    105.Severin, I already explained to you what that bible verse really ment.

    Why do you fail to understand.

  112. on 04 Jan 2013 at 9:02 pm 112.The messenger said …

    106.Severin, Islam is corrupt.

  113. on 04 Jan 2013 at 9:25 pm 113.Doug said …

    “Actually property does refer to an individual when they have willfully sold themselves as a slave as was customary in ancient culture”

    Atheist do not have the ability to think past slavery as that which occurred in the southern US (and even the North in some locals). Slavery in Hebrews times was a means of commerce or selling yourself as a servant for money or to pay a debt. It was perfectly legal and willful by the one selling the services. Therefore, guidelines were needed for the Hebrew people.

    Until an atheist can show me in Scripture that God supports the type of slavery which occurred in the Southern US, they nave no case.

    No need to check back because they will not find it. Checkmate!

  114. on 04 Jan 2013 at 9:33 pm 114.Severin said …

    110 DPK
    “Nothing really funny about that.”

    No, and I don’t laugh.
    I even don’t really debate with Messenger.
    I only always have in mind that someone walking on the edge might read all that shit, and fall.

    Maybe I can help someone in keeping balance.

  115. on 04 Jan 2013 at 9:45 pm 115.Severin said …

    #111
    “Checkmate!”

    http://www.google.rs/#hl=sr&gs_rn=1&gs_ri=serp&pq=kolarac%20koncerti&cp=24&gs_id=2u&xhr=t&q=slavery+in+hebrews+times&pf=p&tbo=d&sclient=psy-ab&oq=slavery+in+hebrews+times&gs_l=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&fp=cf0f34f5d255fdf0&bpcl=40096503&biw=1280&bih=933

    “The main source of non-Jewish slaves were prisoners of war.[5] Jewish slaves, in contrast to non-Jewish slaves, became slaves either because of extreme poverty (in which case they could sell themselves to a Jewish owner) or because of inability to pay a debt.[4]”
    “In biblical times, non-Jewish slaves were drawn primarily from the neighboring Canaanite nations,[8] and the Jewish Bible provided religious justification for the enslavement of these neighbors: …”
    “Most slaves owned by Jews were non-Jewish, …”
    “Most slaves owned by Jews were non-Jewish, and scholars are not certain what percentage of slaves were Jewish: one scholar says that Jews rarely owned Jewish slaves after the Maccabean era, although it is certain that Jews owned Jewish slaves during the time of the Babylonian exile.[4] Another scholar suggests that Jews continued to own Jewish slaves through the Middle Ages, but that the Biblical rules were ignored, and Jewish slaves were treated the same as non-Jews.[15]”

  116. on 04 Jan 2013 at 9:46 pm 116.Severin said …

    Sorry, I gave wrong source:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judaism_and_slavery

  117. on 04 Jan 2013 at 10:26 pm 117.Severin said …

    So, yes, maybe SOME slaves were enslaved because they couldn’t pay thir debts (which did not make them “less slaves”), but majority of slaves were not Hebrews. They were prisoniers of war or they were just bought on the slave markets like cuttle.
    #111

    Yes, your god DID support slavery, exactly the same type of it as it was in Americas, which he personally and clearly declared in multiple Bible verses.
    God himself told us that children of slaves become slaves, didn’t he?
    Three characteristic make lavery being slavery:
    – Slaves are PROPERTY of the slave holder
    – Slaves are inherited as all property was inherited
    – Children of slaves were also slaves

    All three charateristic are listed in god’s laws.

    Your god was a highly immoral bastard. He supported slavery, and you can not deny it by falsifying the Bible.

  118. on 04 Jan 2013 at 10:38 pm 118.Severin said …

    http://www.bible.gen.nz/amos/themes/slavery.htm

    “Hebrew debt-slaves were to serve for a 6 year term only (Ex 21:2; Dt 15:12; but cf. Jer 34:14ff.) and freed slaves were to receive gifts (Dt 15:14). Slaves were also to be freed in the Jubilee Year (Lev 25:13, 40) though this passage refers to particular circumstances.”

    How touching!

    Yet, your god does NOT speak about debt-slaves, who had to be freed after six years and get gifts.
    He is talking about slaves who are permanent property of slave holders. He is talking abut INHERITING slaves, and about slave children who continue being slaves only because they had “luck” to have slave parents.

    Very sad!

    More sad is that you are serving such a bastard and are trying to justify his immorality.

  119. on 04 Jan 2013 at 10:49 pm 119.Severin said …

    http://www.answers.com/topic/slavery-and-the-slave-trade#ixzz2H38xGAoV

    Gale Encyclopedia of the Early Modern World:
    Slavery and the Slave Trade

    “Most forms of slavery share the following characteristics: (1) slaves are obliged to live their lives in perpetual service to their master, an obligation that only the master (or the state) can dissolve; (2) slaves are under the complete power of their masters, although the state or community may impose certain restrictions upon the master’s treatment of the slave; (3) slaves are property, which may be sold or passed along as an inheritance at the master’s discretion; and (4) the condition of slavery is transmitted from parent to child.

    Just to avoid missunderstanding: Isn’t it exactly what our god says in the Bible?

    Why are you trying to lie?

  120. on 04 Jan 2013 at 11:26 pm 120.DDoes the Bible condone slavery?oug said …

    The Bible does not specifically condemn the practice of slavery. It gives instructions on how slaves should be treated (Deuteronomy 15:12-15; Ephesians 6:9; Colossians 4:1), but does not outlaw slavery altogether. Many see this as the Bible condoning all forms of slavery. What many fail to understand is that slavery in biblical times was very different from the slavery that was practiced in the past few centuries in many parts of the world. The slavery in the Bible was not based exclusively on race. People were not enslaved because of their nationality or the color of their skin. In Bible times, slavery was more a matter of social status. People sold themselves as slaves when they could not pay their debts or provide for their families. In New Testament times, sometimes doctors, lawyers, and even politicians were slaves of someone else. Some people actually chose to be slaves so as to have all their needs provided for by their masters.

    The slavery of the past few centuries was often based exclusively on skin color. In the United States, many black people were considered slaves because of their nationality; many slave owners truly believed black people to be inferior human beings. The Bible most definitely does condemn race-based slavery. Consider the slavery the Hebrews experienced when they were in Egypt. The Hebrews were slaves, not by choice, but because they were Hebrews (Exodus 13:14). The plagues God poured out on Egypt demonstrate how God feels about racial slavery (Exodus 7-11). So, yes, the Bible does condemn some forms of slavery. At the same time, the Bible does seem to allow for other forms. The key issue is that the slavery the Bible allowed for in no way resembled the racial slavery that plagued our world in the past few centuries.

    In addition, both the Old and New Testaments condemn the practice of “man-stealing” which is what happened in Africa in the 19th century. Africans were rounded up by slave-hunters, who sold them to slave-traders, who brought them to the New World to work on plantations and farms. This practice is abhorrent to God. In fact, the penalty for such a crime in the Mosaic Law was death: “Anyone who kidnaps another and either sells him or still has him when he is caught must be put to death” (Exodus 21:16). Similarly, in the New Testament, slave-traders are listed among those who are “ungodly and sinful” and are in the same category as those who kill their fathers or mothers, murderers, adulterers and perverts, and liars and perjurers (1 Timothy 1:8-10).

    Another crucial point is that the purpose of the Bible is to point the way to salvation, not to reform society. The Bible often approaches issues from the inside out. If a person experiences the love, mercy, and grace of God by receiving His salvation, God will reform his soul, changing the way he thinks and acts. A person who has experienced God’s gift of salvation and freedom from the slavery of sin, as God reforms his soul, will realize that enslaving another human being is wrong. A person who has truly experienced God’s grace will in turn be gracious towards others. That would be the Bible’s prescription for ending slavery.

  121. on 04 Jan 2013 at 11:58 pm 121.Severin said …

    Leviticus 25:44-46
    “However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the CHILDREN of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. YOU MAY TREAT THEM AS YOUR PROPERTY, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way.”

    ” If his master gave him a wife while he was a slave, and they had sons or daughters, then the man will be free in the seventh year, but his wife and children will still belong to his master.”

  122. on 05 Jan 2013 at 12:31 am 122.Severin said …

    So, dear #120, you may babble whatever you please, but your immoral god said what he said, and you can’t eat his words. They are, black on white, in the Bible, and are very simple to understand, no mediators or interpretors necessary to make them more clear.

    Your god DID support slavery, the most immoral institution of human race.
    He wrote detailed instructions about problems of property, children slaves, inheriting of slaves as someone’s “permanent property”, but he never wrote a single word about immorality of that shameful institution.
    No suggestion to stop slavery. No compassion for slaves and their children.
    Only care for slave holders (… If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own PROPERTY. (Exodus 21:20-21)).

    If he ever existed as described in the Bible, your god was a highly immoral creature, that can’t be a morality model to anyone.

  123. on 05 Jan 2013 at 12:54 am 123.Am_Sci said …

    @120

    Our point is that the Bible is not a reliable moral guide. It is through humanistic values, not divine mandate, that many of us have come to see slavery as morally unacceptable. The authors of the Bible were human beings who could not see beyond the mores of their day– few of us can. But, if you posit that these authors were divinely inspired, you have a major problem; you have to believe that the being you hold as the ultimate moral authority permitted slavery. It follows, then, that either God is immoral, slavery is moral, or you are wrong about the Bible.

  124. on 05 Jan 2013 at 1:00 am 124.alex said …

    the bible is bullshit, period. that’s why you have morons picking and choosing. talking snake? 64 generations from adam to jesus? obsession with foreskins? 500,000 killed in a single battle? noah & the flood? the bullshit keeps on and on…

    go fuck yourself, messenger.

  125. on 05 Jan 2013 at 2:06 am 125.Anonymous said …

    Doug, it is considered unethical to use other people’s work without attribution. Some might even consider it immoral.

    The takeaway here is that, even though it vastly diminishes your post, you should provide citations for where you stole your words from.

    Now, do you have an unbiased source you wish to quote? Probably not. Either way, it doesn’t change the fact that the bible isn’t a moral guide and you don’t have any proof for the existence of the imaginary friend you probably call a god.

  126. on 05 Jan 2013 at 2:22 am 126.The messenger said …

    Well said brother 113.Doug.

  127. on 05 Jan 2013 at 2:25 am 127.The messenger said …

    Doug, these Athiests have no idea what they are talking about.

    Keep up the good work brother.

  128. on 05 Jan 2013 at 2:32 am 128.The messenger said …

    124.Alex, their where no talking snakes in the bible.

    The word snake is a metaphore for a sneaky, deceiving, evil person.

  129. on 05 Jan 2013 at 2:35 am 129.The messenger said …

    124.alex, no one knows how many generations were between Jesus and Adam.

    Do not spead lies Mrs. Alex.

  130. on 05 Jan 2013 at 3:02 am 130.A said …

    “Our point is that the Bible is not a reliable moral guide. It is through humanistic values, not divine mandate, that many of us have come to see slavery as morally unacceptable.”

    LOL! A more idiotic comment has yet to be made here. The Bible is unreliable declared by an atheist. How has that atheist morality worked out the last 100 years? Gulags?, Stalin? Lenin? Pol Pot? here is a name David Waters? When asked here to declare how morality is determined they have not once provided a methodology.

    Why is it morally unacceptable? Because Ami Sci has declared it to be so? What happens if he decides to go Stalin on us? Does that change the morality? How many of us want to rely on self declared ethicist like Ami Sci and Dawkins to declare what is moral?

    No, I’ll go back to our DI and find my rights and morality in our creator.

    Anonymous,

    Find a hole and pull the dirt over the top. It is only immoral if Doug takes credit for the work. The title of the article is right in the name. You are such a child. If you cannot respond to the ideas feel free not to type. It’s OK.

    Adjö

  131. on 05 Jan 2013 at 3:44 am 131.Anonymous said …

    Poor, A, we keep busting his sock-puppets (you blew it here again) and calling him on his plagiarism. All he has left is name-calling.

    Yeah, like anyone would be upset by someone who has to post under multiple IDs just to pretend that there is someone that agrees with him.

    Now that you are back, you still owe us your credentials and the reference where we can read about the scientific law of cause and effect that you claimed exists.

    And of course, your proof that your imaginary friend is anything other than a delusion – as in mental illness.

    For someone who claims to be involved in science, an Astrophysicist no less, you seem to know remarkably little about science and how to cite references.

  132. on 05 Jan 2013 at 4:54 am 132.The messenger said …

    124.alex, there is no obsession with foreskin.

    King Saul told David that he could become his son in law if he killed 100 Philistine solders in battle. King Saul claimed that he wanted revenge upon the philistines, but Saul’s true plan was to have David die in battle. But David and his troops succeeded in battle because God protected them. Saul told David that he had to bring the foreskins of 100 philistine solders as proof of his success in battle.

  133. on 05 Jan 2013 at 4:55 am 133.The messenger said …

    on 05 Jan 2013 at 4:54 am 132.The messenger said … Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    124.alex, there is no obsession with foreskin.
    King Saul told David that he could become his son in law if he killed 100 Philistine solders in battle. King Saul claimed that he wanted revenge upon the philistines, but Saul’s true plan was to have David die in battle. But David and his troops succeeded in battle because God protected them. Saul told David that he had to bring the foreskins of 100 philistine solders as proof of his success in battle, and he did.

  134. on 05 Jan 2013 at 5:30 am 134.The messenger said …

    124.alex,just out of curiosity, why do you cuss so much?

    Cussing does not make you look smarter, stronger, or cooler that anyone else. In fact it actually makes you look weak. You lack the will to stop cussing.

    I pray that you change.

  135. on 05 Jan 2013 at 8:31 am 135.Severin said …

    A
    went out from his mouse hole to tech us about how morality comes from Bible, but he never ever listed the verses from the Bible which he personally takes as moral rules in his own life.
    He never did it, and he never will, a liar and a fraud, who thinks that his word means anything to anyone.

    Yes, A, we did explain where morality comes from for about 10 times.
    As everything connected with life on earth (not only human beings, but life “en general”), morality is the product of evolution, a tool of survival, and it started billions of years ago, when some primitive animal first “learned” how to recognize another primitive animal of same species, to avoid to eat it.
    How is it that (with very little exceptions) animals do not eat their own youngs even when they starve and die of hunger, but will immediatelly eat a near by passing rabbit?
    Isn’t it a sort of “morality”? Distinguishing “bad” from “good”?

    We also asked you many times how can it be that many human societies survived for thousands of years without even hearing for Christianity and Bible?
    Where did Aborigines (Indians, Oceanian people, …) learn about morality? Without moral rules that were “built in” their genes, they would have dissapeared from earth, but they survived for some 40,000 years without Bible and Christianity.

    You never answered it, and you never will, because everything you could say would instantly distroy the idea of Bible being the source of morality.

  136. on 05 Jan 2013 at 1:54 pm 136.The messenger said …

    135.Severin, mortal rules are not built into anyone’s genes.

    Morality is taught to us later in life, not by our genes but by Jesus.

  137. on 05 Jan 2013 at 1:55 pm 137.The messenger said …

    on 05 Jan 2013 at 1:54 pm 136.The messenger said … Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    135.Severin, moral rules are not built into anyone’s genes.
    Morality is taught to us later in life, not by our genes but by Jesus.

  138. on 05 Jan 2013 at 2:29 pm 138.Burebista said …

    Severin

    Where do you get this idea that survival = morality? If survival = morality then killing, cannibalism and stealing are all good. They make the strong stronger.

    If morality is a product of evolution then prove it. I have seen some very weak attempts at this connection but hardly convincing. Compassion and charity are NOT products of evolution but rather defy evolution. But, if you can prove it with facts I could change my mind,

  139. on 05 Jan 2013 at 3:31 pm 139.alex said …

    “If morality is a product of evolution then prove it.”

    who dat say? you making up shit yet again.

    man lived thousands of years without your biblical morality bullshit. oh, i fergit, you idiots believe in the 10,000 year old earth.

    “Compassion and charity”

    xtians have a monopoly on this? i would treat everyone on this blog exactly the same regardless of race, sexual orientation and political/religious affiliation. can you say the same thing motherfucker? when you see a transexual, what are you thinking?

    you’re a fucking delusional, hypocrite.

  140. on 05 Jan 2013 at 4:07 pm 140.The messenger said …

    on 05 Jan 2013 at 5:30 am 134.The messenger said …
    124.alex,just out of curiosity, why do you cuss so much?
    Cussing does not make you look smarter, stronger, or cooler that anyone else. In fact it actually makes you look weak. You lack the will to stop cussing.
    I pray that you change.

  141. on 05 Jan 2013 at 4:11 pm 141.The messenger said …

    139.alex, the bible does not state how old the world is.

    Do not spead lies.

  142. on 05 Jan 2013 at 4:15 pm 142.The messenger said …

    139.alex said… Who dat say?

    Alex, use proper grammar.

    Stop using slang terms, it makes you look even more stupid than you already are.

  143. on 05 Jan 2013 at 7:41 pm 143.Lou (DFW) said …

    130.ASS lied …

    “No, I’ll go back to our DI and find my rights and morality in our creator.”

    No, you won’t because you’re a liar and fraud. But I’ll give you a chance to prove that you’re not. Show us the moral code that you claim to get from your “creator.”

    Oh, never mind. You were asked many times to do that, but you never did. Apparently dishonesty and deceit are part of your “creator’s” moral code.

  144. on 05 Jan 2013 at 7:42 pm 144.Lou (DFW) said …

    142.The messenger said …

    “Alex, use proper grammar.”

    LOL! Pot, meet kettle.

  145. on 05 Jan 2013 at 7:45 pm 145.Lou (DFW) said …

    138.Burp belched …

    “But, if you can prove it with facts I could change my mind,”

    Since when are facts required for you to accept anything? After all, you believe that an imaginary god exists.

  146. on 05 Jan 2013 at 7:48 pm 146.Lou (DFW) said …

    141.The messenger said …

    “139.alex, the bible does not state how old the world is.”

    He didn’t claim that it did. But, just for the record, what do think is the Earth’s age and why?

  147. on 05 Jan 2013 at 7:59 pm 147.Lou (DFW) said …

    138.Burp belched …

    “If survival = morality then killing, cannibalism and stealing are all good. They make the strong stronger.”

    He didn’t claim that survival = morality. As part of your lies, you intentionally distorted what he wrote.

    Second, this blog isn’t here to discuss morality except how it relates to god and religion. You can’t show how it relates to god because you don’t have any evidence for god.

  148. on 05 Jan 2013 at 8:32 pm 148.Severin said …

    136 Burebista
    “But, if you can prove it with facts I could change my mind,”

    1. It is the fact that no carnivores eat their own youngas even if they starve and are dying of hunger. They are never tempted to eat a juicy peace of proteins hopping among their legs, even if they die of hunger, and will rather really die, than eat their own youngs.
    They obiously intuitively “know” that eating of your own youngs could lead to extermination of your species. They are, somehow, able to distinguish “bad” from “good”.
    Isn’t distinguishing bad from good the essencial definition of morality?
    What ELSE could be the “moral code”, but ability to distinguish good from bad?
    So, we can say that animals HAVE their moral code, maybe primitive, but the one that is doing the job. One that saves their species from dying out.
    How did they learn that?
    That “moral code” was slowly “deposited” into their genes through hundreds and hundreds millions of years of evolution.
    That is not a proof, but is a good explanation.
    What is yours?
    Do you have any? Or, will you again just criticize and negate, without giving your own opinion?
    I think you will.
    That is your style.

    2. I know no human society in which murder, rape, stealing, was dominant way of living. There is no human society in which such things were publically tollerated. Even in most primitive societies existed laws (not always in written form) that clearly determined what is allowed to do and what is not, and in no society right to kill, rape, steal, ever depended on the free will of an individual. Societies, all of them, had their mechanisms to distinguish bad from good, and, typically, they not only survived, but progressed (well, dependign very much on natural conditions, but, at least, most of them did not regress, see: Aborigines, Oceanian people, …).
    They all, obviously, HAD THEIR MORAL CODE.

    If most of them never heard for Bible, Jesus, Christianity, HOW did they get their moral codes?

    I say: the ame way as animals did: through evolution.
    Now I kindly expect elaborated opposite opinion from you.

    Which will never come.

  149. on 05 Jan 2013 at 8:49 pm 149.Severin said …

    Correction+:
    They obviously HAD THEIR MORAL CODES that made them survive.
    If they did not have such moral codes, which, b.t.w., were not much different from each other (I mean: EACH human society had practically the SAME moral rules: do not kill, do not steal, do not rape, …!), they would not avoid their own destruction in endless orgies of mutual robbing and killing.
    Yes, their moral codes were their tool of survival.

    In case of opposite opinion please elaborate. I do NOT need proofs, only logical explanations of a counter-opinion.

  150. on 05 Jan 2013 at 8:55 pm 150.Severin said …

    147 Lou (DFW)
    “He didn’t claim that survival = morality.”

    No, I did not, thank you.
    My first impuls was to call him a liar, but I forgot it.

    Never mind, he knows he is.

  151. on 05 Jan 2013 at 9:10 pm 151.Severin said …

    “Moral code” is obviously very, very relative matter.

    “Good” is always something that is good for me and my species (nation, tribe, herd, …), and bad is always something that endangers me and my species (nation, …).

    Your god follows the logic of evolution (because not god, but men wrote the Bible): it is good to have slaves from naighbor tribes, but it is bad to enslave people from your own tribe.

    Evolution in action!

    After a few thousand years, much sooner than expected, evolution broke the limits of tribes and nations, and, unlike some time ago, we are today trying to understand that the whole human race is “one tribe” and are trying to do something to survive as human society, not as nations, tribes, …, because:
    1. We are ALL exposed to same dangers: lack of resources, pollution,
    2. Not a single nation is able to solve global problems without cooperating with each other

    So, if we don’t extermine each other before that happens, we will eventually put our moral codes to still higher level.

    I said: WE, not god.

  152. on 05 Jan 2013 at 9:27 pm 152.Severin said …

    138 Burebista
    “… killing, cannibalism and stealing are all good.”

    Yes, in controlled extent!

    At least your very Bible proves that:

    Kill their children (to disable them to strenghten and to endanger our existence)
    Rob their propery (no explanation necessary)
    Enslave them (to work for us without payment)
    Destroy their towns (to take them the base for progression)

    Etc, etc, I now see that the Bible is, actually, a handbook of evolution.

  153. on 06 Jan 2013 at 12:17 am 153.Burebista said …

    “They obiously (sic) intuitively “know” that eating of your own youngs (sic) could lead to extermination of your species.”

    And this is proof of what Severin? Did you ask them if they “know” this would lead to their extinction? Numerous species do eat their young. Are they attempting to bring about extinction Severin?

    My explanation? My explanation of what? Why they don’t eat their young? I don’t know but I would never buy an explanation of carnivorous sitting around have a discussion in philosophy. Look into instincts Severin.

    “I know no human society in which murder, rape, stealing, was dominant way of living.”

    Do you consider these to be immoral acts? If so why? You need to visit some Argentinian prisons. Just one example among many.

  154. on 06 Jan 2013 at 12:22 am 154.Burebista said …

    “Good” is always something that is good for me and my species (nation, tribe, herd, …), and bad is always something that endangers me and my species (nation, …).

    I like how you defined what is good by using the word “good”. That works very well.

    So stealing from other tribes is good and operating cars is bad. Is that how it works Severin?

  155. on 06 Jan 2013 at 12:24 am 155.Burebista said …

    “So, if we don’t extermine each other before that happens, we will eventually put our moral codes to still higher level.”

    I don’t know what a “extermine” is, regardless yes the morality of man has improved SO much in the last 50 years. You are a nut who is completely out of touch Severin.

  156. on 06 Jan 2013 at 9:05 am 156.Severin said …

    153 Burebista
    “And this is proof of what Severin?”

    It was expected! You are unable to say anything without twisting someone’s words (lying)!
    Where did I wrote it was a proof? I said that was NOT proof, but is, at least, a SOME explanation, that fits reality: carnivores eat rabbits, but do NOT eat their own youngs, and I made an effoort to give MY explanation for that.
    You don’t have any (“i don’t know”), but you KNOW there is a god, for which you, again have nor explanations neither proofs.

    Pretty miserable!

    “Look at the instincts”?
    I DID, but, unlike you, I went a step further, and gave an acceptable explanation about where those instincts could have come from.
    You dont know?
    What DO you know?
    I don’t like debating with someone who “dont’ know” and has no opinion of his own, about anything. You obviously have none, but are only parroting “god exists and morality comes from god”, without ANYTHING to support it.

    If many (all!) societies that have never heard about Christianity, lived for thousand of years (and still live!) having EXACTLY the same moral rules (laws) as Christian societies had (which is absolute truth: murdering, raping, robbing, stealing, …, were forbidden in all human societies ever, on the PERSONAL level), then Christianity and Christian god have NOTHING to do with morality. Period. It must have come from some other source, otherwise all non-christian societies would have dissapeared.

    Don’t you ask me questions, I DID explain my opinion logically, without pretending it to be any proof.
    You refute it by YOUR explanation, not by posing additional questions and telling us that you “don’t know”.
    One who gives acceptable explanation that fits facts, wins the debate against one who “dos not know”, but persists claiming his “blah, blah” (god exists and is responsible for morality).

    IF you give me your opinion AND an explanation to support it, I might reconsider my own. Your leis, your mocking, your posing additional questions, and your “I don’t know” will not do the job.

  157. on 06 Jan 2013 at 9:23 am 157.Severin said …

    156 Burebista
    “Do you consider these to be immoral acts?”

    I do, but your god doesn’t (according to rules of evolution that were valid at THAT time):
    Anyone who is captured will be run through with a sword. Their little children will be dashed to death right before their eyes. Their homes will be sacked and their wives raped by the attacking hordes. For I will stir up the Medes against Babylon, and no amount of silver or gold will buy them off. The attacking armies will shoot down the young people with arrows. They will have no mercy on helpless babies and will show no compassion for the children. (Isaiah 13:15-18 NLT)

    MY morality evolved to higher level.
    Not thanks to any god, but thanks to some time that passed from THEN to TODAY.

    Unfortunately, evolution is not a straight line. Not everyone evolved to same extent.

  158. on 06 Jan 2013 at 9:30 am 158.Severin said …

    155 Burebista
    “I don’t know what a “extermine” is, regardless yes the morality of man has improved SO much in the last 50 years.”

    “Extermine” = exterminate, and you know it well.

    I am VERY glad to see that you admit how morality, in general, is going improved.

    Bible and “god’s words” did NOT change, yet morality did!

    It speaks for itself!
    I already gave MY explanation for the phenomenon: evolution in action.
    Now I kindly expect YOURS.

    I mean, SAY SOMETHING, man, don’t you say only “I don’t know”!
    What are you doing here if you know nothing?

  159. on 06 Jan 2013 at 9:35 am 159.Severin said …

    Of course, if you don’t give any explanation, but persist on your not knowing anything, and not explaining anything, could it be that I was right?

  160. on 06 Jan 2013 at 9:53 am 160.Severin said …

    155 Burebista
    “…, regardless yes the morality of man has improved SO much in the last 50 years.”

    I mean, YOU just told us how Bible is, obviously, NOT the sorce of morality.

    If morality changes while Bible remains unchanged, it MUST be that morality has some other source.

    Thank you for supporting my thesis!

  161. on 06 Jan 2013 at 9:59 am 161.Severin said …

    Burebista,

    And, you have just destroyed the “eternal” theist’s thesis of “absolute morality”.

    YOU told us morality is NOT absolute, it CHANGES, and I totally agree.

    Thanks again!

  162. on 06 Jan 2013 at 3:40 pm 162.Severin said …

    Burebista
    ” I don’t know (!!!) but I would never buy an explanation of carnivorous sitting around have a discussion in philosophy.”

    No one ever saw Amazone Indians sitting around and discussing phylosophy.
    Yet, they (intuitively) know (or, to be more precise: “know”) how to distiguish what is wrong from what is right, and their “wrong” and their “right” do not differ a bit from “wrong” and “right” defined in Bible, which is: (see #152).
    I doubt they could explain it in a “phylosophical manner”, but they KNOW it, same as a lioness “knows” that she must not eat her young, but can’t explain it.

  163. on 06 Jan 2013 at 3:40 pm 163.Lou (DFW) said …

    155.Burp ranted …

    “You are a nut who is completely out of touch Severin.”

    LOL! Says the religious nut who can’t provide the absolute moral code allegedly supplied by his imaginary god. Yeah, HE’S out of touch, not YOU!

    Burp, your diversionary rants about morality are irrelevant to the ABSOLUTE FACT that you can’t provide any evidence for your imaginary god. In fact, your rants are evidence that there is no such code. Or if there is, then your morality doesn’t adhere to it.

  164. on 06 Jan 2013 at 3:43 pm 164.Severin said …

    Sorry: neither … nor.

  165. on 06 Jan 2013 at 3:46 pm 165.Lou (DFW) said …

    154.Burp said …

    ‘I like how you defined what is good by using the word “good”.’

    Who cares what you like?

    He didn’t define “good.” He placed its meaning in the context in which he meant for it to be used. In other words, there is no absolute good. Burp, like all of your other sock-puppets, you’re a moron, regardless of the context.

  166. on 06 Jan 2013 at 4:02 pm 166.Lou (DFW) said …

    153.Burp said …

    “They obiously (sic) intuitively “know” that eating of your own youngs (sic) could lead to extermination of your species.”

    Burp, your incorrect usage of sic is a weak attack on someone whose native language isn’t English.

    FYI – sic should be enclosed by brackets, not parentheses, when used within a quotation.

  167. on 06 Jan 2013 at 4:48 pm 167.Burebista said …

    Could you be right Severin? Sure I suppose as much as 12/21/12 doomsday prophets could have been right. You don’t seem to have a grasp of instinct vs morality. You also lack understanding when one comments or observes the moral decay of culture. You somehow see this as a win for your view? You need to get a better grasp on ethics and morality.

  168. on 06 Jan 2013 at 6:27 pm 168.Lou (DFW) said …

    167.Burp said …

    “You don’t seem to have a grasp of instinct vs morality.”

    You don’t seem to have a grasp of intelligence “vs” faith – creating a virtue from not thinking.

  169. on 06 Jan 2013 at 7:02 pm 169.Severin said …

    # 167
    “Could you be right Severin? Sure I suppose as much as 12/21/12 doomsday prophets could have been right.”

    Is that all you have to say?
    Pretty miserable.
    Oh, I forgot: you never know anything!

    No, I am not happy with me being right. I would prefer to hear your opinion about the subject of debate.
    But, I expected such a denouement, and it, unfortunatelly, happened: the man with no opinion of his own, who, according to his multiple admission, knows nothing (“I don’t know”), is criticizing someone else’s opinion!

    If it wasn’t sad, you could call it comic.

  170. on 06 Jan 2013 at 7:31 pm 170.Burebista said …

    Severin you made the ridiculous claim not me. Now you strike out in anger when I will not embrace your delusion? If you have the faith to believe such a fairytale feel free. Really, you should do some study on the instincts in animals. You are a little slow picking up the hints here.

  171. on 06 Jan 2013 at 7:32 pm 171.Burebista said …

    What is a denoucement?

  172. on 06 Jan 2013 at 8:50 pm 172.Lou (DFW) said …

    170.Burebista said …

    Prove this, prove that, because I can’t prove that my imaginary god is real or that it issued an absolute moral code.

    Believe in your “farytale [sic](,then) feel free (to do so)” because I have my own fairy tale about an imaginary god in which I believe.

    “Really, you should do some study on the instincts in animals.”

    Who is “Really,” and what kind of study do you suggest that “Really” should perform?

  173. on 06 Jan 2013 at 8:54 pm 173.Lou (DFW) said …

    Correction : “fairytale”

  174. on 06 Jan 2013 at 8:59 pm 174.Lou (DFW) said …

    171.Burebista said …

    “What is a denoucement?”

    Why do you continue to comment about his simple spelling mistakes when you can’t compose a simple, grammatically correct sentence when English is your native language?

  175. on 06 Jan 2013 at 11:00 pm 175.Severin said …

    174 Luo (DFW)
    “Why do you continue to comment about his simple spelling mistakes…”

    Which did not make this time! Pls. see #169 and tell me where did I write “denoucement”.

    Soemthing is always necessary to turn somebody’s attention from someone’s stupidity.

  176. on 06 Jan 2013 at 11:18 pm 176.Severin said …

    Anyone who says my claim is ridiculous, should elaborate THAT claim, to give me opportunity to correct mine, on basis of some arguments, or at least some explanation.
    People who admit they know nothing and have no opinion of their own about anything, but are ready only to patronize other people with their qulaifications told from who knows what hight, such as “you are wrong”, are not qualified to say anything about opinions of other people.

    “You are wrongt” is neither an argument nor an explanation.

    It is bullshit.

  177. on 07 Jan 2013 at 1:10 am 177.Lou (DFW) said …

    175.Severin said …

    ‘Which did not make this time! Pls. see #169 and tell me where did I write “denoucement”.’

    You didn’t. But you wrote denouement, which is a word, but doesn’t seem correct in the context of your comment. Burp must, in his desperation to attack ANYTHING an atheist writes about his delusional position, must attack in knee-jerk fashion anything that you write.

    That’s why I wrote that he doesn’t have a “grasp of intelligence “vs” faith.” Our nut sock-puppet Burp knows that there is no evidence for his imaginary god, nor any that supports his claim for a non-existent moral code. So, all he can do is attack those who don’t accept his nonsense or fill-in the void of evidence with his own perverted agenda(s). It doesn’t require any intelligence, simply the faith with which he was brain-washed.

  178. on 07 Jan 2013 at 2:38 am 178.Wouldubelieveit said …

    Why don’t we end the debate and simply ask God to appear? That’s a good question. Would a angel do the trick for you? This what I’ll do for you. You ask God to show you an angel. One of his cause there are two kinds of angels good and evil. So we most definitely want a good angel not a evil one. So I will agree you will and when you see this angel will you except Jesus as your savor?

  179. on 07 Jan 2013 at 3:14 am 179.Burebista said …

    “Anyone who says my claim is ridiculous, should elaborate THAT claim, to give me opportunity to correct mine, on basis of some arguments, or at least some explanation.”

    It is very simple Severin. You make up stories about animals eating or not eating their young and attempt to make this your staple for animals have a moral aptitude. It is ridiculous because you provide zero evidence. Asking me what I believe does not validate your absurd claims.

    It could be your poor grasp of the English language and words like “denouement”, defining “Good” with good that are your problem. I don’t know but I do know that you have provided zero evidence, only stories.

  180. on 07 Jan 2013 at 3:17 am 180.Burebista said …

    “patronize other people with their qulaifications told from who knows what hight, such as “you are wrong””

    Try slowing down and thinking before typing. Your communication could improve immensely. You can do better. Where did I claim you are wrong? I claim you have not backed up stories with evidence. Now you resort to distortions, pity and deflection.

  181. on 07 Jan 2013 at 3:38 am 181.Anonymous said …

    Burp’s problem is that he has to keep asking questions otherwise he may have to answer questions not just for us, but for himself.

    What is he or any of his imaginary supporters, going to do when he has to explain how his all-powerful god that supposedly created the universe, gets clobbered by bronze ago warriors in Iron Chariots?

    What’s the sock-puppet going to do when called upon to explain how a god so omnipotent that he can answer prayers to find car keys, can never manage to do anything beyond what his believers currently can do without his help? And he certainly can’t heal amputees.

    Without his questions what’s he going to do to explain how he can claim that something can’t come from nothing except when it’s in relation to his imaginary god. Then it’s just obvious that it can. But only when he wants it to.

    Absent diversion how can he explain his aversion to chemical processes yielding life whilst clinging to the delusion that a magic man breathing onto some dust is so obviously the right answer, especially if it isn’t supported by reality or evidence.

    Absolutely he’s going to keep inventing new identities all to keep that cognitive dissonance in bay lest he turn up at a school with a rifle and start shooting, as do his fellow Christians.

    Fortunately, he’s not in the clergy so his neighbors at least don’t need to worry about their children being raped by a priest. Although his blatant anger might make them concerned about other forms of abuse.

  182. on 07 Jan 2013 at 3:54 am 182.alex said …

    “Would a angel do the trick for you?”

    ok, uhhm, sure. now, back at you. if the prophet muhammad showed up and said he, not christ is the one, would it do the trick for you? i be not, because you’re so fucking brainwashed.

  183. on 07 Jan 2013 at 3:56 am 183.alex said …

    “Try slowing down and thinking before typing.”

    you self righteous motherfucker. some of us here are not native english speakers. try typing in another language, you asshole.

  184. on 07 Jan 2013 at 4:05 am 184.Lou(DFW) said …

    179.Burp said …

    “It could be your poor grasp of the English language …”

    It could be that you lack of intelligence is your problem.

    “…and words like “denouement”, defining “Good” with good that are your problem.”

    Repeating yourself doesn’t reinforce your already weak position, but rather reinforces the perception that you are a mentally challenged theist.

    “I don’t know but I do know that you have provided zero evidence, only stories.”

    LOL! Which is it – you don’t know or you do know?

    Moron…

  185. on 07 Jan 2013 at 4:09 am 185.Lou(DFW) said …

    180.Burp said …

    “Try slowing down and thinking before typing. Your communication could improve immensely.”

    Says the guy who wrote “I don’t know but I do know…”

    “I do know” that you’re a moron. And I don’t have to provide any evidence for that claim because you have done that for me.

  186. on 07 Jan 2013 at 6:36 am 186.Severin said …

    Burebista,
    Actually, you’ve done enough for the beginning: you told us that morality of man improved a lot in last 50 years.
    I can imagine it was not easy for you to comprehend the consequences of your claim, but, by saying it spontaniously, you did a good job: you destroyed the theist’s (and your own) favoured “theory” of existence of absolute morality, and the Bible being the source of it.
    By doing that claim, you did a good job for yourself, too!
    The new idea you’ve promoted will free your mind for more new ideas.
    Maybe you will finally start to think, and maybe your predominant answers, in next years, will not be “I don’t know”.

    Which is good for you, and I am glad for you.

  187. on 07 Jan 2013 at 1:02 pm 187.Burebista said …

    “you told us that morality of man improved a lot in last 50 years.”

    I did? I don’t think so Severin which is why this idea of morality evolution has no legs. You did provided a much better job with the typing but it seems you abandoned your theory. A wise move since it has no legs.

    Anonymous I have been on this blog at least five years. Move on sir.

  188. on 07 Jan 2013 at 2:38 pm 188.Lou(DFW) said …

    187.Burp said …

    “You did provided [sic] a much better job with the typing…”

    LOL! Yes, he did. When will you? Burp, you can’t compose a grammatically correct sentence, so what gives you the right to criticize his “typing” when English isn’t his native language?

    “Anonymous I have been on this blog at least five years.”

    So what? How is that relevant?

    During those five years you never, ever provide any evidence for your imaginary god nor provide an alleged moral code. Where is it, fraud?

    “Move on sir.”

    Yes, Burp, it’s definitely time for you to “move on.” Come back when you find some evidence that supports your delusion.

  189. on 07 Jan 2013 at 5:37 pm 189.Anonymous said …

    Ok, burp, you’ve been here at least 5 years posting under a variety of different names, whilst trying to derail the conversation with your stalling and personal attacks. You seem oddly proud of your record of childish behavior.

    Lou is correct, seeing as you’ve yet to come up with a cogent argument to support your delusion, why not move on and face reality. Your god is imaginary. But you know that, that’s why you behave as you do.

    Many theists have never questioned their beliefs. You’ve spent they last five years, using your figure, desperately looking for ever smaller places in the sand to hide your head. Yours is a position of complete intellectual abandonment.

  190. on 07 Jan 2013 at 6:33 pm 190.Burebista said …

    Anonymous,

    More diversions and changing of the subject? If you want to join in a discussion do so. Just do it honestly. How about starting with a real name rather than this anonymous business. When you have done that I will be glad to let you join in. Besides, considering my childishness you certainly wouldn”t desire to lower yourself.

    Now, move on sir.

  191. on 07 Jan 2013 at 7:11 pm 191.Lou(DFW) said …

    190.Burp said …

    “More diversions and changing of the subject?”

    OK, Burp, the subject is:

    The fact that neither Jesus nor God appears demonstrates clearly that God is imaginary. Yet religious people refuse to accept this clear, unambiguous evidence. If you are religious, please use the comment area to explain why you cannot accept this evidence and continue to believe in your imaginary God.

    “If you want to join in a discussion do so. Just do it honestly.”

    Go ahead, join the discussion about the subject. But, you won’t because you can’t be honest.

    So, move on, fraud.

  192. on 07 Jan 2013 at 7:27 pm 192.DPK said …

    155.Burebista said …
    I don’t know what a “extermine” is, regardless yes the morality of man has improved SO much in the last 50 years.

    187.Burebista said …
    “you told us that morality of man improved a lot in last 50 years.”
    I did? I don’t think so Severin which is why this idea of morality evolution has no legs.

    180.Burebista said …
    Try slowing down and thinking before typing. Your communication could improve immensely. You can do better.

    Would almost be funny if it wasn’t so tragic.

    Now here is the clear fact that your sanctimonious word games cannot hide. You have not presented one shred of evidence to cause anyone to accept your idea that an absolute moral code exists, that it was given to us by a transcendent being, that such a transcendent being exists, or that that being is in fact, the christian god of the bible. Until you can provide justification and evidence for those assertions, all your 5 years worth of attempting to divert attention and your topic derailing trolling are just a fart in the wind: unpleasant, but of little consequence. Seriously, you have been called out on this so many times, yet you persist like a Jehovah’s witness hopped up on Red Bull.
    Ding Dong Burpy… nobody’s interested in your bullshit word games.

  193. on 07 Jan 2013 at 9:15 pm 193.Severin said …

    187 Burebista
    “you told us that morality of man improved a lot in last 50 years.”

    “I did? I don’t think so Severin …”

    Before I say anything, I kindly ask people whose native language is English, to judge this sentence of Mr. Burebista, which he wrote in his #155 post, and I c/p it here (but you also can see the original up there):
    “I don’t know what a “extermine” is, regardless yes the morality of man has improved SO much in the last 50 years.”

    Did he, or didn’t he say that morality of man improved a lot in last 50 years?

    If he did not, I will apologize.

    Or, maybe it was some sort of “context” that only Burebista recognizes?!

  194. on 07 Jan 2013 at 9:40 pm 194.Severin said …

    I, with my very poor English, would have put two more commas in that text:
    “I don’t know what a “extermine” is, regardless, yes, the morality of man has improved SO much in the last 50 years.”
    Or maybe this way:
    “I don’t know what a “extermine” is, regardless: yes, the morality of man has improved SO much in the last 50 years.”

    Does the lack of those commas play a role in understanding of this text?
    Does the presence or lack of commas changes the meaning of text?

  195. on 07 Jan 2013 at 9:57 pm 195.Lou(DFW) said …

    193.Severin said …

    “Did he, or didn’t he say that morality of man improved a lot in last 50 years?

    If he did not, I will apologize.

    Or, maybe it was some sort of “context” that only Burebista recognizes?!”

    It’s possible that he was being sarcastic, but it’s irrelevant. Why are you arguing with him about morality? Morality is irrelevant to god and religion unless somebody can show that there is an absolute morality that comes from some god that hasn’t been shown to exist. So far, nobody here has done that, so there’s nothing to debate. It’s not necessary to discuss here on this blog from where morality originates. It no more relevant to god and religion than is to how to bake a cake.

  196. on 07 Jan 2013 at 11:13 pm 196.Severin said …

    Thank you.

    For sarcasm, one needs some sense of humor, which Burebista never showed. He is dark, rather than humorous.
    I don’t think he would, even if he could, use sarcasm for such a claim, risking to be missundestood.

    He clearly said what he said, and is now trying to get out from his own shit.

    But I will not continue feeding the troll.

  197. on 07 Jan 2013 at 11:58 pm 197.Lou(DFW) said …

    196.Severin said …

    “I don’t think he would, even if he could, use sarcasm for such a claim, risking to be missundestood.”

    He obviously does not have any concern about being misunderstood. As a matter of fact, it makes it easier for him to “muddy the water,” thus causing more confusion about and diversion from the fact that there is no such absolute moral code.

    As 181.Anonymous said …

    “Burp’s problem is that he has to keep asking questions otherwise he may have to answer questions not just for us, but for himself.”

    He never answers direct questions, he only asks them in order to avoid the truth.

    He’s nothing but a fraud.

  198. on 08 Jan 2013 at 1:38 am 198.Burebista said …

    “If he did not, I will apologize.”

    I do apologize Sevein that you have such a tough time with English. My sentence was a form of sarcasm which is why the word so was capitalized as in “SO”. Maybe I could have added a few Os?

    But let us stop with the diversions Severin. I simply asked you about a claim and suddenly you get nasty and defensive and start with your troll references. Do you still stand by this claim made by you?

    As everything connected with life on earth (not only human beings, but life “en general”), morality is the product of evolution, a tool of survival, and it started billions of years ago, when some primitive animal first “learned” how to recognize another primitive animal of same species, to avoid to eat it.

    Why is “en general” and “learned” in quotes? What proof have you uncovered from the fossil record that would prove this claim?

  199. on 08 Jan 2013 at 1:45 am 199.alex said …

    burb, you dumbfuck. to shut your mouth, let’s agree that every single atheist in here is full of shit. is this your god proof?

    follow if you can. let’s agree that every single santa claus nonbeliever in here is full of shit. is this your santa proof?

    get the fuck out of here with your diversion.

  200. on 08 Jan 2013 at 2:15 am 200.A said …

    Bur,

    As Thelma-lou would gladly admit, atheists don’t know anything. Please, Never Ever upset the atheists by asking questions! I think we need a sign. This really pisses them off because they want to ask all the questions and defend nothing. Severin should have known better than to act like he knows something. I like the monkey morality though. I can see them sitting in a tree with pipes discussing markets, currency exchange rates and the moral landscape.

    This is their methodology that fits well with their cowardice and dishonesty.

    Let’s see, God doesn’t appear so he doesn’t exist? Hmm, quarks never appeared when I was a kid, they must not exist either. But wait, they did exist, we just couldn’t see them. Hmmm, maybe, eh nah that is too thought provoking for an atheist who know nothing. Columbus has not appeared other than in books therefore he must not have existed either!

Trackback This Post | Subscribe to the comments through RSS Feed

Leave a Reply