ThoughtsAloud ◄Dave► said:
...for an at least semi-rational mind, to reconcile conflating the angry, jealous, petulant, vengeful, wrathful, spiteful, bloodthirsty, and downright evil god of the Old Testament... ◄Dave►
Dave, let's take a look at a few of the words of the "evil" God of the Old Testament! And tell me what makes him so evil.
Let's go right into the heart of Old Testament darkness - the book of LEVITICUS! (Makes you shudder just hearing it doesn't it)!?
Here's some of what it says:
“When you harvest your crops, do not harvest the grain along the edges of your fields, and do not pick up what the harvesters drop. It is the same with your grape crop—do not strip every last bunch of grapes from the vines, and do not pick up the grapes that fall to the ground. Leave them for the poor and the foreigners who live among you, for I, the LORD, am your God.
“Do not steal.
“Do not cheat one another.
“Do not lie.
“Do not use my name to swear a falsehood and so profane the name of your God. I am the LORD.
“Do not cheat or rob anyone.
“Always pay your hired workers promptly.
“Show your fear of God by treating the deaf with respect and by not taking advantage of the blind. I am the LORD.
“Always judge your neighbors fairly, neither favoring the poor nor showing deference to the rich.
“Do not spread slanderous gossip among your people.*
“Do not try to get ahead at the cost of your neighbor's life, for I am the LORD.
“Do not nurse hatred in your heart for any of your relatives.
“Confront your neighbors directly so you will not be held guilty for their crimes.
“Never seek revenge or bear a grudge against anyone, but love your neighbor as yourself. I am the LORD.
Does that sound like an evil irrational, bloodthirsty God?
ThoughtsAloud ◄Dave► said:
Mark, I have lost track of how many times I have asked you not to refer to me as an 'atheist.' Once again, I prefer the terms 'skeptic,' 'godless,' or 'heathen.' Although technically the term atheist simply means 'one without a god,' in modern usage in America, it has come to denote a sinister ACLU-type activist culture warrior, who thinks he knows for certain that there are no gods, and is actively engaged in promoting the use of government to prevent public displays of piety. Although certainly skeptical, I have ho such certainty, and damn sure have no interest in denying anyone their right to practice their religion anyway they choose, as long as they don't pester me with it, or try to use government to regulate my lifestyle to conform to their dogma. ◄Dave►
I apologize that you take offense. However, if someone who is "pro-choice" enters into a discussion with me, I would refer to them as an "abortionist." My reasoning is that those who are "pro-choice" are only arguing for ONE choice- the choice to murder humans in the womb - all other "choices" being already legal, the "pro-choicer" is only fighting for the one choice that is being challenged legally - abortion - hence, an "abortionist."
For the same line of reasoning, someone who refers to himself as a "Skeptic" as opposed to an "atheist" is only playing word games, because the Skeptic denies the existence of God in the same manner that the atheist does. To be sure, today's "Skeptic" has the advantage of building on the shoulders of previous atheists' arguments and having an arsenal of debate tactics at their advantage. But when you strip away the veneer of their "skepticism" all that remains is a rejection of God - and a specific defiance of Christianity in particular.
I attribute this as the main reason that I have never found an atheist who is willing to stand his ground and debate his views without fear. They all, including you, shy away from the difficult accusations and criticisms, specifically their underlying hatred of all things Christian. Doug made special note of it in his replies. It's there in your posts, but when challenged, you refuse to engage.
I read much of what you write, and it is clear that you have stellar reasoning powers.
In any case, I believe that people choose what they believe in based upon two main factors:
I find that you and Eric are both in the latter group. Because of that, I would challenge you based upon reason.
Jonathan Cousar said:
That's right Oscar, read the whole thing... and tell us what's irrational.
All of it. It's not only Irrational, bloodthirsty, but also sickening.
Poor old Moses had a rough row to hoe, going between all those sinners and the man it sky, that called himself "lord" just to be kicked out of the promise land for saying "we".
Of course those that believe in "burnt offering" sacrifices, and killing those that doesn't those that doesn't do it just right, might find Lev. ..........refreshing
Oscar Booth said:
"All of it. It's not only Irrational, bloodthirsty, but also sickening.
Poor old Moses had a rough row to hoe, going between all those sinners and the man it sky, that called himself "lord" just to be kicked out of the promise land for saying "we". "///
Agreed, Oscar. Just imagine finding the odor of burning flesh to be a pleasing aroma. And, what about all of the wanton slaughter, rape, and slavery of non-combatants this God ordered Moses to conduct, in the process of clearing the 'Promised Land' of its current occupants, and carefully dividing the pillage? One of our most important Founders of this so-called 'Christian Nation,' without whose pamphlet "Common Sense" there probably would not have been a Revolutionary War, put it best:
“Whenever we read the obscene stories, the voluptuous debaucheries, the cruel and torturous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness, with which more than half the Bible is filled, it would be more consistent that we called it the word of a demon, than the Word of God. It is a history of wickedness, that has served to corrupt and brutalize mankind; and, for my own part, I sincerely detest it, as I detest everything that is cruel.” -Thomas Paine in "The Age of Reason"
I concur with him too. ◄Dave►
Paine died in June 1809, and to drive home the point of his tarnished image, the New York Citizen printed the following line in Paine's obituary: "He had lived long, did some good and much harm." Just because someone can write, doesnt mean that they can write knowledgeably on any subject. There is no evidence that Paine was schooled in the subject? In fact, the quote that you posted is a clear indication that he did not have a working knowledge of the subject matter. If I recall correctly, Age of Reason was, primarily, a book critical of organized religion. So, it appears that the book was written by a dynamic writer, which was critical of religion and the Bible. But, who's writer has no standing.
Robert Watson said:
"So, it appears that the book was written by a dynamic writer, which was critical of religion and the Bible. But, who's writer has no standing."///
Standing? STANDING? Good grief, if he could write it is fair to conclude that he could read! Any literate man can (and should) read the plain language in the Torah as the ancient history book, which it is. It takes a delusional sort to 'interpret' it to mean something other than what it plainly says. I'll grant that there is a lot of allegory and parables in the New Testament, which are fair game for creative interpretation; but in the first five books of the Old Testament, not so much. ◄Dave►
Robert Watson said:
"You say that you have read it (the Bible) and yet you are not grasping the context, significance, or the symbolism."///
I am not much interested in the bloody symbolism you attach to the vile acts of debauchery, which Moses reported your God ordered him to carry out. Was he lying, or was he accurately reporting his orders? Those who believe the Bible to be the inerrant 'Word of God,' sure spend an inordinate amount of time trying to spin it into what they wish it said. Since the Old Testament was written centuries before Jesus was even born, Christians do not own it and have no special standing (or expertise) for interpreting what the author(s) intended to report. ◄Dave►
Actually, you seem very interested in it! You just have a non-cogent concept.
"...debauchery, which Moses reported your God ordered..." What are you talking about?
If you are going to say that because the OT was written a long time ago; therefore, we cant interpret it, then the same would need to be said for the NT. So too, for Socrates, or Plato. That is a preposterous position. Of course we can correctly interpret ancient writings. Being Christian has nothing to do with "owning it." You can correctly interpret the Bible without being a Christian. But, there are specifics that need to be followed whenever we study a subject. You need to follow them.
Robert Watson said:
"You can correctly interpret the Bible without being a Christian. But, there are specifics that need to be followed whenever we study a subject. You need to follow them."///
I need do no such thing. I am not encumbered with a need to reconcile the cognitive dissonance attendant with attempting to believe the wretched God of Moses and the beneficent mortal Jesus, are one and the same mystical entity. Personally, I have concluded that Moses, Jesus, Mohamed, Joseph Smith, Jim Jones, David Koresh, et al, were all delusional fools, or con artists, or both. I am not much interested in the spin any of their devotees place on their preachifying. ◄Dave►