Moral laws of the Bible

[screwtape]

Bite me. You're not immune to having incorrect statements corrected.

You're right, I'm not.  However, your post was not based in fact, but in specific parts of the PR book put together by the fan club.  And where factual information is concerned, you have demonstrated yourself to be... ill equipped. 

So, miles, be a good lad and piss off.

...I gotta know: What's the point of berating magicmiles for participating in The Shelter?

I don't think anyone has berated him for that.  I've berated him for being an empty-headed doofus.  I suggested he go post in The Shelter because there he can make whatever statements he wants and not have the same level of critical scrutiny.  That is what the Shelter is for.  Discussion.  This area is to put up or STFU.  He's not put up, so I invite him to STFU and stop cluttering up the thread with his stupid. 

But point taken.  I do not want The Shelter to be stigmatized, so I will phrase my insults more carefully in the future.

[velkyn]

Here is what the fine folks at Yale have to say on the subject:

Primary sources provide first-hand testimony or direct evidence concerning a topic under investigation. They are created by witnesses or recorders who experienced the events or conditions being documented. Often these sources are created at the time when the events or conditions are occurring, but primary sources can also include autobiographies, memoirs, and oral histories recorded later.

Why yes, it does Jane. See autobiographies about and written by the author, memoirs and oral histories by eyewitnesses.  None of which you have.  So, evidence that your bible is any of these? We’re waiting. 

and love those “scholarly” sources.  Let’s look at one: Feeding the five thousand : studies in the Judaic background  No evidence presented at all, just references to the bible and other myths. 

The Jesus of the Bible / Stephen M. Miller.  So, just how is this “scholarly” Jane? You claimed that I might have only read “popular” books.  A color coded reference, an easy to read journalistic style as Amazon says? Wow a journalist and went to a seminary.  Jane, where is all of his expertise in ANE history and languages that you are so certain one needs to “truly” understand the bible?

Jesus and the gospel : tradition, Scripture, and canon / William R. Farmer  By Fortress press, always known for its unbiased content   Farmer a professor at a Christian university.

Who Scott McCormick Jr. is at all who knows. 

Finding the historical Jesus : rules of evidence / Bernard Brandon Scott, editor 
Polebridge press, the press of the Westar Institute home of the Jesus Seminar.  This is the only one that gets close to a scholarly scource. Yep, the “historical jesus” once again, which has no evidence supporting the jesus you claim existed, Jane.  Without that evidence, you are worshipping a purely mortal rabbi that may have been one of the many messiah claimants at the time.  This is what the Jesus seminar concluded

“The seminar's reconstruction of the historical Jesus portrays him as an itinerant Hellenistic Jewish sage and faith healer who preached a gospel of liberation from injustice in startling parables and aphorisms.” According to the seminar, Jesus was a mortal man born of two human parents, who did not perform nature miracles nor die as a substitute for sinners nor rise bodily from the dead.[3][4][5] Sightings of a risen Jesus were nothing more than the visionary experiences of some of his disciples rather than physical encounters.[3][4][5]

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_Seminar  Let me guess, these people really don’t know what they are talking about either? 

I note again that you try to qualify those works you accept, now we have you claiming that only “serious” works are admissible, aka those that Jane likes and that agree with her.  where are those articles from your “stupifying dull” journals.  You’ve claimed them, so show them, not make excuses for the books you’ve cited above.

Albright is not taken seriously anymore. Archaeology has been a constant source of supporting evidence for what the Bible says. But I have come to realize that God and 40 of his angels descending upon the forum correcting your misunderstandings would be met with derision. You all are wedded to what you want to believe and I am content to leave you to it.

  Evidence, Jane. Where is the archaeology that has been a “constant source of supporting evidence”.  I know archaeology well, so I’m sure you can point me to the reports.  You’ve also resorted to yet another common Christian lie, that atheists would refuse to believe anythign that shows that they are wrong.  You are wrong again, Jane. Your claim is a lie and is simply an excuse for your failure so far.  Has God 40 angels handy?  I’d settle for a burning bush that didn’t consume the shrubbery.  I’ve prayed when losing my faith and got nothing.  I watch theists of all stripes come here and offer the same arguments about “their” gods, and they all use the same ones, “look at my holy book” (well, look at the parts they want looked at) “look at the universe”, “listen to my personal anecdote”, “look at my my secondary, tertiary, quadrenary, etc sources”.  They don’t believe each other’s claims so why should anyone believe theirs?

You’ve claimed that we know a lot about the provenance and authorship of the gospels.  Evidence of this? We know some and all of it shows that your claims are bogus.  There is simply no evidence of the events claimed in them.  The Romans note nothing about this miracle performing messiah.  He supposedly had thousands of people just outside of Jerusalem gathered and the Romans didn’t notice a legion’s worth of people gathering in an occupied land? Ridiculous.  There are claims of his raisign the dead.  No one notice.  There are claims of the long dead walking the streets.  Not one noticed.  Etc, etc.   

Then you claim Paul was a contemporary of Jesus.  He never met Jesus except by a supposed “vision”.  He contradicts Jesus’s message.  Now I’m sure you don’t believe me but other Christians agree: http://www.voiceofjesus.org/paulvsjesus.html  Now I’m sure you’ll simply pull out the usual no true scotsman argument again.  You also claim that the letters of Paul are just administrative.  Hmm, then why have them in the bible if he isn’t preaching?  In that he does contradict what JC said in them, there is a problem for you.   

[Maggie the Opinionated]

Here is what the fine folks at Yale have to say on the subject:

Primary sources provide first-hand testimony or direct evidence concerning a topic under investigation. They are created by witnesses or recorders who experienced the events or conditions being documented. Often these sources are created at the time when the events or conditions are occurring, but primary sources can also include autobiographies, memoirs, and oral histories recorded later.

Why yes, it does Jane. See autobiographies about and written by the author, memoirs and oral histories by eyewitnesses.  None of which you have. 

Skipped over recorders, eh? Naughty, naughty, Velchen.

and love those “scholarly” sources.

They are not scholarly sources and I did not say they were. I explained very plainly my point in pulling a few of the 610 results I got out. More importantly, I was the one who informed you (you apparently didn't know) that the work of scholarship takes place in journals. Peer-reviewed, if you know what that means. 

(lots of spew of no value snipped)

Then you claim Paul was a contemporary of Jesus.  He never met Jesus except by a supposed “vision”.  He contradicts Jesus’s message.  Now I’m sure you don’t believe me but other Christians agree: http://www.voiceofjesus.org/paulvsjesus.html  Now I’m sure you’ll simply pull out the usual no true scotsman argument again.  You also claim that the letters of Paul are just administrative.  Hmm, then why have them in the bible if he isn’t preaching?  In that he does contradict what JC said in them, there is a problem for you.

Do you not know the meaning of the word contemporary? Let Dictionary.com help:

con·tem·po·rar·y
? ?[kuhn-tem-puh-rer-ee] Show IPA adjective, noun, plural con·tem·po·rar·ies.

adjective
1. existing, occurring, or living at the same time; belonging to the same time: Newton's discovery of the calculus was contemporary with that of Leibniz.

2. of about the same age or date: a Georgian table with a contemporary wig stand.

3.of the present time; modern: a lecture on the contemporary novel.

noun
4. a person belonging to the same time or period with another or others.

I bolded the most relevant for your convenience. Now let's deal with your next lie.

Where have I pulled out the no true scotsman, hmmm Velchen? Evidence dear, evidence. Wipe the spittle off your chin and point out where I have done any such thing. I also did not claim that Paul's letters were "administrative". I said, quite clearly, that they were pastoral. If you can find any scholar or educated  person who disagrees, feel free to post the evidence. (Do you know what pastoral means?)

[Maggie the Opinionated]

...

[velkyn]

Skipped over recorders, eh? Naughty, naughty, Velchen.

not at all, Jane.  You see where it says “they are created by witnesses or recorders who experienced events”? Not recorders of supposed events that they did not witness or attend.  Unless you have evidence that the authors of the gospels did this?  I’m waiting.

and love those “scholarly” sources.

They are not scholarly sources and I did not say they were. I explained very plainly my point in pulling a few of the 610 results I got out. More importantly, I was the one who informed you (you apparently didn't know) that the work of scholarship takes place in journals. Peer-reviewed, if you know what that means. [/quote]  No, you didn’t inform me of anything.  Jane, you do a lot of “but I didn’t say *exactly* that.” In the context of this thread, that’s exactly what you meant.

Find me any scholarly work (really, any reasonably serious work) on the subject of Jesus's life and mission that does not begin and end with the New Testament and the Gospels. Can you do it? If not, what does that tell you about the sources of our information? Does it help explain why you get 610 book results just searching the catalog of the Library of Congress all of which take the New Testament as the starting point? You will find such books as:

You first ask for “any serious work on JC’s life and mission that fulfills your qualifications: begin and end with the NT. Then you cite the LOC’s findings as examples of those that do begin and end with the NT. Your referring to the LOC is an ignorant appeal to authority as has been pointed out, with your assumption that the LOC only has “scholarly” books and articles.

(lots of spew of no value snipped)

Lots of points that you are too afraid to address and still happily viewable. 

Do you not know the meaning of the word contemporary? Let Dictionary.com help:

I know what contemporary means, Jane.  Sicne you have no evidence that JC even existed it’s rather hard for Paul to be a contemporary of a figment of the imaginary.  If he had existed, then Paul was a contemporary. And he still never met Jesus except by vision. He contradicted JC’s message. 

I bolded the most relevant for your convenience. Now let's deal with your next lie.

Where have I pulled out the no true scotsman, hmmm Velchen? Evidence dear, evidence. Wipe the spittle off your chin and point out where I have done any such thing.

I said I am expecting you to do so. However, you repeatedly have indicated that anyone who doesn’t agree with you isn’t a Christian. Your claims about free will being the “right” answer have done that in spades as have your claims about knowing what “hell” really is and your claim that you know that the creations story is only allegorical.  All of which are things that not all Christians believe. But again, if you want evidence:

One really doesn't need a decoder ring to read the Bible intelligently and think about what one is reading. However, it is a mistake to suppose that you can pick up an ancient work of literature written over at least 1000 years in a couple of different languages and in different places and expect it to be as transparent as your daily newspaper. It isn't going to be. Not by a long shot.

Yes, thanks. But that is not the Catholic understanding of the matter.

The Bible is not a magic book. It was neither written by God, nor was it dictated by God. But more to the point, those of you who hold that opinion are expecting it to bear a weight that no book could ever bear. The interpretation of scripture and elucidating its meaning are the province of the Church, specifically the Magisterium, which is the teaching authority of the Church. There was no Bible for the first hundred or so years of the Church's existence. It was the first bishops and apostles who preached, taught and trained the next generation of teachers, preachers, and bishops. Even if there had been a Bible, before the invention of printing, who could have afforded one? Even with the invention of the printing press, books were fabulously expensive. Then there are issues of literacy, etc.  No, Jesus handed teaching authority to the Church. What happens when every one decides what the Bible means for himself? Well, for starters, 34000 plus denominations (supposedly) all claiming to understand it better than anyone else. There is no interpretation so utterly mad, that it can't find an audience. No, updating the Bible would do nothing to change that.

Need I go on? I do expect an apology for calling me a liar when you have nothing to support that.  I expect I will not get one.

It’s also nice to see you’ve ignored the contradictions. 

I also did not claim that Paul's letters were "administrative". I said, quite clearly, that they were pastoral. If you can find any scholar or educated  person who disagrees, feel free to post the evidence. (Do you know what pastoral means?)

Yes, pastoral, of or relating to spiritual care or guidance especially of a congregation, aka administrative, concerning the running of an organization aka churches. I find them the same, you may not.  You’ve made the claim, Jane that they are only pastoral, so why don’t you back it up?  Now, if this is the case, and I do expect you to back this up, does this mean that the answers to each church are only for that particular church or are they to be considered as advice to all, a way to preach to the masses? 

This “Paul” never uses one single instance of JC’s teachings to back up what he is telling them.  No mention of the parables, no mention of JC’s life as an example.  The churches that Paul wrote letters to are not close together and there is no reason they would know the details about JC.  Even if they did, as do many many Christians who sit in church,  that does not mean that they would not be told them again and again as Christians are now. 

[Maggie the Opinionated]

Where have I pulled out the no true scotsman, hmmm Velchen? Evidence dear, evidence. Wipe the spittle off your chin and point out where I have done any such thing.

I said I am expecting you to do so.

Another lie. It is easily refuted.

However, you repeatedly have indicated that anyone who doesn’t agree with you isn’t a Christian.

Of all your lies, this is the most baldfaced. I have done no such thing. You have absolutely no evidence to support this claim. Well guess what, if all I have to do is claim it for it to be so, I claim that I am a rich woman. I won't hold my breath waiting for the dollars to come rolling in.

Your claims about free will being the “right” answer have done that in spades as have your claims about knowing what “hell” really is and your claim that you know that the creations story is only allegorical.  All of which are things that not all Christians believe. But again, if you want evidence:...

None of that is evidence! It supports what I have said all along. I have not said that free will is the right answer. I have said that it is widely held but not by absolutely every Christian denomination. I have not said that the creation story is "only allegorical". I said that it is mythological but contains a moral truth. I haven't said a word about knowing what "hell really is" . You are listening to the voices in your head, woman. Get help.

Yes, pastoral, of or relating to spiritual care or guidance especially of a congregation, aka administrative, concerning the running of an organization aka churches. I find them the same, you may not.  You’ve made the claim, Jane that they are only pastoral, so why don’t you back it up?

Back what up? What? The letters speak for themselves. The development of doctrine in them was meant to answer specific questions that arose. His letters were circulated among all the congregations, since they all dealt with many of the same problems and those letters were held in high esteem. I doubt Paul ever supposed that his letters would become scripture. Once they did, of course, all the things of general applicability would be taught to those outside the first audience just as they were to the first audience. But how you think this means anything beyond the obvious, escapes me. It really does.

This “Paul” never uses one single instance of JC’s teachings to back up what he is telling them.  No mention of the parables, no mention of JC’s life as an example.  The churches that Paul wrote letters to are not close together and there is no reason they would know the details about JC.  Even if they did, as do many many Christians who sit in church,  that does not mean that they would not be told them again and again as Christians are now.

Your opinion of what he should have done is worthless. Deal with the reality of what he did.

You really are beyond the reach of reason. You will have to battle your own demons. I cannot help you and I am uninterested in trying. But I will give you one more piece of evidence that you aren't nearly as bright as you think you are: Velchen is not a misspelling of your name. If you really knew any German you would realize that -chen is a diminutive, normally used fondly. I, of course, am using it snarkily.

[velkyn]

Another lie. It is easily refuted.

I’m waiting. 
 

Of all your lies, this is the most baldfaced. I have done no such thing. You have absolutely no evidence to support this claim. Well guess what, if all I have to do is claim it for it to be so, I claim that I am a rich woman. I won't hold my breath waiting for the dollars to come rolling in.

Then explain the quotes I’ve used from your own posts.  Claiming I have no evidence when it’s right there is amusing. Reminds me of a lot of GOP candidates this year.

Your claims about free will being the “right” answer have done that in spades as have your claims about knowing what “hell” really is and your claim that you know that the creations story is only allegorical.  All of which are things that not all Christians believe. But again, if you want evidence:...

None of that is evidence! It supports what I have said all along. I have not said that free will is the right answer. I have said that it is widely held but not by absolutely every Christian denomination. I have not said that the creation story is "only allegorical". I said that it is mythological but contains a moral truth. I haven't said a word about knowing what "hell really is" . You are listening to the voices in your head, woman. Get help.

Jane, it’s amusing that you claim your posts aren’t evidence. Unfortunately for you, they are.  You have said that free will is the right answer, not that its widely held, but that this is what you believe and sicne you believe it, you must think it’s the right answer.  Or you believe things that are’t right?

That is the price of giving us freedom and letting us make moral choices. If we do not have free will, then we cannot be free. God could have created us robots who could only do what is right but we would not be free moral agents as we are now. This is an awesome responsibility and the reason not a single one of us will escape judgment.

this is from the “Contradiction begins in the first two chapters” thread #140.   
now here you say it isn’t, in the shelter:

“God is ultimately in control at all times. Not one of us draws breath apart from the will of God. Every good thing we have is a gift we did not deserve and that includes life itself.’

Which is it, Jane? 
An allegory can contain what some consider a moral truth, though it is up to them to show what they claim as a moral truth to be one.  You have claimed that we don’t get physical bodies in hell. That is certainly a claim that you know about hell.

Back what up? What? The letters speak for themselves. The development of doctrine in them was meant to answer specific questions that arose.

Ah, so you can’t back it up and take refuge attempting to avoid having to support your claim. They do not speak for themselves.  If they did, there would be no questions.

His letters were circulated among all the congregations, since they all dealt with many of the same problems and those letters were held in high esteem.

so they aren’t just “pastoral”.  I see. And no evidence that they were circulated when written. Just that they were compiled in this man-made book.

I doubt Paul ever supposed that his letters would become scripture. Once they did, of course, all the things of general applicability would be taught to those outside the first audience just as they were to the first audience. But how you think this means anything beyond the obvious, escapes me. It really does.

Really? You mean that your bible isn’t what it claims and god didn’t have any real idea what would be in the bible?  “16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.”?  Of course, since the bible is indeed a man-made thing with not one bit of it supported in reality and we have no idea what was meant by “Scripture” in the verse, I suppose he couldn’t know.  And more claims of how obvious things are but no evidence on how this is so.  Rather than explain, Jane, you just repeat vague claims about how obvious your particular interpretation is. By what magic decoder ring can you tell what the “things of general applicability” are?  Does every woman have to be quiet in church?  Not teach any male? Or was that only for that particular church?  Quite a problem for the RCC when they have women teaching male students. 

Your opinion of what he should have done is worthless. Deal with the reality of what he did.

No, Jane it is not worthless. I know that it is inconvenient to you though.  Show me that anything about JC is real, Jane.  But I do see that you can’t answer my questions.  Why did Paul fail so badly to use a perfect example in his letters?  I am dealing with the reality of what Paul supposedly did and his claims don’t add up.  I also see that have avoided addressing the fact that Paul contradicts Jesus. 

You really are beyond the reach of reason. You will have to battle your own demons. I cannot help you and I am uninterested in trying. But I will give you one more piece of evidence that you aren't nearly as bright as you think you are: Velchen is not a misspelling of your name. If you really knew any German you would realize that -chen is a diminutive, normally used fondly. I, of course, am using it snarkily.

I am not a child or someone you think fondly of. So it is an intentional misspelling, since my name isn’t German nor am I nor are you. I know that ‘chen is a diminutive often used fondly, you know, like liebchen as my father has called my mother.
 As for me being beyond the reason of reason, no Jane, I’m not.  You wish to claim that since I don’t accept your nonsense and hold you responsible for it.  Your newly found disinterest is the usual Christian who only wants to avoid that responsibility.   

have a good weekend. I'm off.

[magicmiles]

...I gotta know: What's the point of berating magicmiles for participating in The Shelter?

I'm not sure if this was addressed to Screwtape or me, but I'm not berating him for participating in the Shelter. I'm just berating him in general for his continued ditching of any thread where he's actually called on to respond to his words or claims. That's why he likes the idea of the Shelter so much, He doesn't actually have to justify anything there.

Any reasonable person who reviewed all my posts across all threads would see that I have addresseed pretty much all of the questions put to theists by skeptics. Some have been answered with "I just don't know' but many I have given a point of view.

The only reason I still post at WWGHA at all still is that I really like some of the members.

[Alzael]

Any reasonable person who reviewed all my posts across all threads would see that I have addresseed pretty much all of the questions put to theists by skeptics. Some have been answered with "I just don't know' but many I have given a point of view.

The only reason I still post at WWGHA at all still is that I really like some of the members.

Really? Should we go down the list of all of the threads you've abandoned in the middle? Because I don't think it will end well for you.

In fact I seem to recall specifically calling on you to return to a thread that you had abandoned in the middle when many people were still calling you out. You still ran away again after a while.

[magicmiles]

Really? Should we go down the list of all of the threads you've abandoned in the middle? Because I don't think it will end well for you.

In fact I seem to recall specifically calling on you to return to a thread that you had abandoned in the middle when many people were still calling you out. You still ran away again after a while.

if you really want.

What you call 'running away' I call coming to an impasse. if I stop participating in a thread it's because I feel I have addressed the questions and issues as best I can ( which obviously is never good enough to finally answer the WWGHA question so we can all pack up and leave )

Really, year after year you all just ask the same questions slightly re=phrased, and because different theists have diferent ways of answering most threads take off to a degree. But nothing really new is ever brought to the table, is it?

You and ST and a few others might think it somehow intellectually superior of you to discuss the same themes time after time, but I find it tiresome.

And I have recived many PM's of support and asking that I stick around.

[Graybeard]

What you call 'running away' I call coming to an impasse.

You should have mentioned that before. Without it, it does look like you have run out of answers and are relying on someone else accepting superstition.

Our many threads on more or less the same subjects is caused by the same claims being made by godbotherers.

Like teachers in school, we are bound to repeat the same answers and ask the same questions - how else would you have it?

[Alzael]

What you call 'running away' I call coming to an impasse.

I'm certain you call it all sorts of things.

[magicmiles]

What you call 'running away' I call coming to an impasse.

You should have mentioned that before. Without it, it does look like you have run out of answers and are relying on someone else accepting superstition.

ha ha. I have explained my participation more than once, and even admitted that the atheist arguments are more intellectually compelling.

Our many threads on more or less the same subjects is caused by the same claims being made by godbotherers.

theists rarely start the threads on this site.

Like teachers in school, we are bound to repeat the same answers and ask the same questions - how else would you have it?

Oh, don't get me wrong, I like that the constant discussiosn goes on very much indeed. i just get weary of it and need a break when a certain point is reached.

[jaimehlers]

There have been times I've needed to take a break from the site in order to recharge.  I don't think it's unreasonable for other people to do so, although if it is to take a break from a rather rough topic, perhaps it would be best to just say that you're taking a break or that you don't know how to answer and want to think about it.

[Seppuku]

[edit]What I was responded to has been moved, so I will post it there.

Oh, don't get me wrong, I like that the constant discussiosn goes on very much indeed. i just get weary of it and need a break when a certain point is reached.

To be fair, I think that's fair enough. All I can say is engage as much as you can, offer as much as you can to the table just keeping in mind the forum's rules. If you're going to walk away I think it's usually good to just say that you're unable to offer more to the discussion, just be sure you account for your claims - you've struck me as being straight and honest, so maybe that doesn't even need to be said. It can get intense at times and it's good to have a breather. I think my last post in this thread was a few pages back. Just don't spend all your time in The Shelter, I suspect I will be looking to have proper sparring match with you one day. 

[12 Monkeys]

Really? Should we go down the list of all of the threads you've abandoned in the middle? Because I don't think it will end well for you.

In fact I seem to recall specifically calling on you to return to a thread that you had abandoned in the middle when many people were still calling you out. You still ran away again after a while.

if you really want.

What you call 'running away' I call coming to an impasse. if I stop participating in a thread it's because I feel I have addressed the questions and issues as best I can ( which obviously is never good enough to finally answer the WWGHA question so we can all pack up and leave )

Really, year after year you all just ask the same questions slightly re=phrased, and because different theists have diferent ways of answering most threads take off to a degree. But nothing really new is ever brought to the table, is it?

You and ST and a few others might think it somehow intellectually superior of you to discuss the same themes time after time, but I find it tiresome.

And I have recived many PM's of support and asking that I stick around.

If you could supply solid evidence of your Christian God it would end all tiresome debate PERIOD

[Quesi]

The only reason I still post at WWGHA at all still is that I really like some of the members.

Awww.  I think that there are quite a few of us here who like you too.

But I have a secret hope.  Do you want to hear it?

I hope that after you spend so much time in the company of some really nice and interesting folks, who, according to your interpretation of the scriptures, are destined to spend an eternity in hell, you will re-think some stuff. 

Maybe you will even ask yourself if a just god would allow all of us to be so cruelly punished for all of eternity.   

[jeremy0]

Jst, Jane, NATHAN, MagicMiles:

I will say this - looking back at my entire life, and how nearly everyone I ever met did at least something against me, even if it was going out of their way to do it - If I was your all-knowing god, and I reflected on the lives of similar people - why the hell would I even give you the opportunity to be in any sort of heaven that I might create?[1][2]

Now I think it's about time I repeated it - there ain't gonna be a pixie-fairy in the sky to give you all an opportunity to meet up with all your family and friends once more, where everything is absolutely perfected for you - that's called a fairy-tale.  It's never going to come true.  When you die - THAT'S IT.  You're done.  Nothing you will ever experience again.  You only have this one life - this one opportunity - to make right any of your wrongs, to fight for what you believe to be better off for people, to fight for the future of your children's children, and make this place a better earth than it has been in the past.  It's about time you all got your heads out of the clouds and realized that point I'm constantly trying to make - you will have no other chance at things...

1.

None of you are worthy of this opportunity.  You've proven your stupidity and ignorance time and time again, even with His own Son, if you want to put it that way.  Why should I, as your God, do this for you?  Because you're too stupid to do anything for yourselves.  Please, I can create better people if I wanted...

2.

Also, if I were the one who was to fight Satan's ass for you, I think at this point I just might say, 'you know what, fuck these fucking assholes - they deserve this punishment.  Satan - have at 'em'...  There's no reason why when people are constantly screwing my life, and I am constantly and furiously trying to save everyone else's asses because they are too stupid to recognize geniuses like Ben Stein, that I should ever raise a finger in your dumb-assed defense..

[Alzael]

Jst, Jane, NATHAN, MagicMiles:

I will say this - looking back at my entire life, and how nearly everyone I ever met did at least something against me, even if it was going out of their way to do it - If I was your all-knowing god, and I reflected on the lives of similar people - why the hell would I even give you the opportunity to be in any sort of heaven that I might create?[1][2]

Now I think it's about time I repeated it - there ain't gonna be a pixie-fairy in the sky to give you all an opportunity to meet up with all your family and friends once more, where everything is absolutely perfected for you - that's called a fairy-tale.  It's never going to come true.  When you die - THAT'S IT.  You're done.  Nothing you will ever experience again.  You only have this one life - this one opportunity - to make right any of your wrongs, to fight for what you believe to be better off for people, to fight for the future of your children's children, and make this place a better earth than it has been in the past.  It's about time you all got your heads out of the clouds and realized that point I'm constantly trying to make - you will have no other chance at things...

1.

None of you are worthy of this opportunity.  You've proven your stupidity and ignorance time and time again, even with His own Son, if you want to put it that way.  Why should I, as your God, do this for you?  Because you're too stupid to do anything for yourselves.  Please, I can create better people if I wanted...

2.

Also, if I were the one who was to fight Satan's ass for you, I think at this point I just might say, 'you know what, fuck these fucking assholes - they deserve this punishment.  Satan - have at 'em'...  There's no reason why when people are constantly screwing my life, and I am constantly and furiously trying to save everyone else's asses because they are too stupid to recognize geniuses like Ben Stein, that I should ever raise a finger in your dumb-assed defense..

Luckily god is all loving towards his creations...........

Unless you're gay...........

Or an atheist.............

Or a Midianite............

Or a rape victim..........

Or a woman in general........

Or you know what, let's just admit that gods a dick.

[gonegolfing]

I'm busy, but thought I'd take a quick peek at how our Plain Jane was doing....

Not so good I see 

She's done with me, but that's ok...however it looks like she's entered the snark phase:..

PJ:

I, of course, am using it snarkily.

Not to worry Plain Jane--Velkyn's relentless logic and exposure of religious faults can do that to the best of theists. Hang in there PJ !! 

[Jstwebbrowsing]

You and ST and a few others might think it somehow intellectually superior

Yes this is the general feel I get from the forum, with few exceptions.  This is coupled with condescending attitude and snide remarks.  I would point out that it has never been the "intelluctually superior" that understood what the Bible says.  It was the simple people.  Most others are too prideful to consider a point of view from an "inferior intellect".  But this is who God has almost always chosen to reveal the truth through.

At any rate, I'm sure you guys are going to say I am lieing about the general "feel" of the forum.  But I don't really care.  How many of us does it take to tell you the same thing before you believe it?  Now there are exceptions, but not enough to change the "feel" of the forum.  Or at least not this area of the forum.  I think a few of you actually derive pleasure from angering an theist.  Whatever floats your boat. You will not get to me.  I already think I'm just barely higher than whale dung.  So have your best shot.  Just don't expect me to reply.

I would like to give a little encouragement to the theists.  Keep hold of your temper and keep hold of your tongue.  Anger will only help disprove your case.

[Jstwebbrowsing]

And help me do the same.   

[12 Monkeys]

You and ST and a few others might think it somehow intellectually superior

Yes this is the general feel I get from the forum, with few exceptions.  This is coupled with condescending attitude and snide remarks.  I would point out that it has never been the "intelluctually superior" that understood what the Bible says.  It was the simple people.  Most others are too prideful to consider a point of view from an "inferior intellect".  But this is who God has almost always chosen to reveal the truth through.

At any rate, I'm sure you guys are going to say I am lieing about the general "feel" of the forum.  But I don't really care.  How many of us does it take to tell you the same thing before you believe it?  Now there are exceptions, but not enough to change the "feel" of the forum.  Or at least not this area of the forum.  I think a few of you actually derive pleasure from angering an theist.  Whatever floats your boat. You will not get to me.  I already think I'm just barely higher than whale dung.  So have your best shot.  Just don't expect me to reply.

I would like to give a little encouragement to the theists.  Keep hold of your temper and keep hold of your tongue.  Anger will only help disprove your case.

And African people should be slaves,Indigenous people are worthless heathens,every other religion is wrong,I can understand the word of God because of my simple thought patterns........try pulling your head out of the cement you have buried it in and take a look at the scientific process that is all around you and stop looking at the world through the beer goggles of the 2000 year old sheep herder

[Jstwebbrowsing]

And African people should be slaves,Indigenous people are worthless heathens,every other religion is wrong,I can understand the word of God because of my simple thought patterns........try pulling your head out of the cement you have buried it in and take a look at the scientific process that is all around you and stop looking at the world through the beer goggles of the 2000 year old sheep herder

So let me get this straight.  You tell me what I believe and then you make fun of me for it?  Well if I believed what you believe I believe instead of believeing what I believe I believe then I'd make fun of me too.  But since I don't I don't know who should be made fun of.

[Jstwebbrowsing]

Oh and I wonder.  The ones that freed the slaves?  Were they athiests?  An athiest would have to decide if it was subjectively moral first.

[jeremy0]

I would like to give a little encouragement to the theists.  Keep hold of your temper and keep hold of your tongue.  Anger will only help disprove your case.

This should be advise to both parties, however, neither party can actually do this at all times..

[jeremy0]

Oh and I wonder.  The ones that freed the slaves?  Were they athiests?  An athiest would have to decide if it was subjectively moral first.

Was abraham lincoln an atheist?  Or was he a zombie?  You've made an irrelevant statement - atheists and theists alike were probably all involved in the freedom of slaves - worldwide.  It was called a 'moral revolution'.  I will point out - I feel more scared being an atheist around my cities, because the theists there carry guns and weapons and will kill people.  Regardless of when I was theist or non-theist, I never desired to do anything against anyone.  It was always people doing things to me to the point of 'I'm fucking pissed!'.  Then they got what they were inevitably getting at..

[Seppuku]

I think here's probably a good read, it basically tells you atheists are angry in a good amount of detail. It should give a really good clear-cut perspective of why Christians seem to get on atheists' tits. If you had the time to read and understand it all, then I'm sure you can appreciate our position.

http://gretachristina.typepad.com/greta_christinas_weblog/2007/10/atheists-and-an.html

I don't know you well enough to ascertain where you stand as a Christian on many issues, hence my neutrality towards you. But then after reading that, maybe you might understand how atheists feel seeing certain comments and claims made by Christians.

How about this comment?

Oh and I wonder.  The ones that freed the slaves?  Were they athiests?  An athiest would have to decide if it was subjectively moral first.

It's trying to come off as though Christians and their God have the moral superiority, but merely based off of a strawman on what atheists actually think and would do.

But if that was not a genuine argument and if that was just to lash out because of some people's comments, then maybe this:

You will not get to me.

isn't true

And this ought to be advice to take

I would like to give a little encouragement to the theists.  Keep hold of your temper and keep hold of your tongue.  Anger will only help disprove your case.

Which to be honest, to give credit to you is good advice. I wish people like Plain Jane would listen to you in that respect. I was going to give you a +1 for this, but then I saw your comment about atheism and slavery and was kind of unsure whether it was a genuine view or an attempt to make a snide remark.

Of course, I would have the advice apply to both sides of the argument, but obviously this forum respects people's freedom of speech, so people are welcome to take it or leave it (admittedly I did snap at PJ last night, but then given her behaviour I think it's understandable).

[12 Monkeys]

And African people should be slaves,Indigenous people are worthless heathens,every other religion is wrong,I can understand the word of God because of my simple thought patterns........try pulling your head out of the cement you have buried it in and take a look at the scientific process that is all around you and stop looking at the world through the beer goggles of the 2000 year old sheep herder

So let me get this straight.  You tell me what I believe and then you make fun of me for it?  Well if I believed what you believe I believe instead of believeing what I believe I believe then I'd make fun of me too.  But since I don't I don't know who should be made fun of.

well at least you still have a sense of humour.....I think......To believe in the Bible and the God who "inspired" it you do not have a choice in what to believe,you have to just accept the rules laid out for you without question.

You can't choose to abandon rules set out some 2000 years ago,even though you have as a Christian in these times. I am sure if there are Christians 500 years from now they will look upon your actions as barbaric,as you look upon the Christians of 500 years ago barbaric.  You could have fed the starving but failed to do so,maybe 500 years from now the Christians of the future will feed the world so there is no problem with starvation  They may have abandon your version of Christianity becauses it is barbaric,just as you have abandoned the Chritianity of 500 years ago as barbaric.

BTW abandoning the Christianity of 500 or 2000 years ago because it no longer is the socially acceptable norm can't be looked upon by God in a good way,can it? You no longer kill to keep the laws of your God,work the Sabbath and a myriad of other things God commands of you because it is no longer the socially acceptable norm,why?