Hate Mail

Jonathan Boyd, Page 7

September 5, 2001:

Ahhh, the nitpicks never end. I make an important point about how neither set of Ten Commandments should be used as the basis of law or morality, and rather than deal with that point, you seize upon a nitpick regarding my aside that there's an inconsistency in Exodus 34 (a nitpick based upon one word taken out of context).

I make an important point about how the Bible condones slavery, and you dance all over the place trying to prove that Biblical-era slavery wasn't really all that bad, not seeming to realize that slavery in all its forms is bad.

I make an important point about how the Bible treats women badly, and you act as though you've won some kind of crushing victory because you've found one ambiguous possible exception in the sea of misogyny that is the Bible.

I make an important point about how God specifically ordered horrible atrocities such as the massacre of women and children in the Old Testament, and you mumble that God is perfect and the atrocities were in his best interest, so they were OK.

I make an important point that Old Testament hatred is wrong, and you respond that it's OK to hate "evil", without acknowledging that Old Testament hatred manifested itself in the senseless massacre of nonbelievers.

The story in Exodus 34:

God says he is going to write the Ten Commandments on two tablets.
God says that they will be the same as the first set.
God makes a covenant with the Israelites.
God tells Moses to write down this covenant.
We are not told what Moses is to write the covenant on.

Here's where you add an extra term into the equation: the phantom scroll or tablet upon which Moses wrote a new covenant, which just happened to contain exactly ten commandments. The phantom scroll or tablet which no one ever mentioned again.

We are told that Moses was with God on the mountain for 40 days and nights. We are told that a 'he', which could refer to either God or Moses wrote the Ten Comamndments on the tablets.

In context, it obviously refers to Moses.

The story in Deuteronomy 10:
God says he is going to write the Ten Commandments on two tablets.
God says that they will be the same as the first set.
There is no mention of the new covenant with the Israelites

Precisely. There is no mention of God reciting it, there is no mention of an extra tablet or scroll upon which Moses wrote it, and there is no mention of what happened to it. Almost as if it didn't happen at all, which is fine by me, but it only confirms that Exodus 34 is an inconsistency in the Bible.

We are told that God wrote the Ten Comamndments on the tablets. We know that Deuteronomy is written from Moses' perspective.

How does Moses' retelling of the story (long after the fact) mitigate the fact that there is an inconsistency? You can argue about which account is more reliable, but you can't convince anyone that there is no inconsistency at all.

Now, given that God has said that _God_ will write the Ten Commandments on the tablets and they will be the same as the first ones and Moses says that _god_ and not Moses did write them on the tablets, what should we believe happened?

Neither. You seem to think that I want to figure out which account is correct, even though you should realize that I consider both accounts to be mythological. There is an inconsistency, and regardless of that inconsistency, both sets of commandments encourage religious intolerance. That was my point.

Yes, because going and comparing the version in Exodus which has two possible interpretations with the other version in Deuteronomy which only has one is taking things out of context.

The version in Deuteronomy makes it seem as if the second set of commandments on the mountain was never dictated at all, which is even more of an inconsistency. Thanks for pointing that out.

Like it is in Deuteronomy? As stated by Moses himself? An eye-witness to the event?

Moses is a mass-murderer (3,000 victims in Exodus 32 from his own tribe). Why can't he be a liar too?

Obviously, you never saw History of the World Part I. In the film, Moses came down the mountain with fifteen ... <crash> ... ten! Ten commandments, for all to obey! :)

It is illogical to interpret 'he' as meaning Moses when it could equally mean God by the Exodus version and is stated to mean God by the Deuteronomy version.

Wrong. The Deuteronomy version merely muddies the waters by making it clear that although two sets of ten commandments were recited on that mountain, one of them vanished from the story. Whether it was the first one or the second one that disappeared is irrelevant. The point is, if Moses did indeed write down a second covenant, what did he write it on, and why was it never mentioned again? Your solution raises more questions than it answers.

Actually, I was thinking of this definition of imitate: 'to use somebody or something as a model, attempting to copy an existing method, style, or approach'

How does that change the fact that "imitator" is a derisive term, or the fact that while Damien Sorresso calls me a source of inspiration, he does not copy directly from me?

[Quoted] Inspiration and imitation are two entirely different things.

I disagree.

Too bad. The English language will not be revised just for you. I notice that while you love dredging up dictionary definitions of words to "prove" your nitpicks, you curiously omitted a dictionary definition of "inspiration" to prove me wrong. Could it be that you omitted it because you would rather lie than admit fault?

Once again, you are incredibly cynical. Maybe I should have used a different word so that there would be less ambiguity, but I didn't think you would get upset by a complement, so I just used the first one that came to mind. Not everyone goes round with a dictionary, checking that they are using a word that exactly represents their feelings. I'm sorry if I got you confused, but I really didn't think it was such a big deal.

I don't care if you think you were complimenting me. This isn't about me. The point is that you insulted Damien Sorresso, who doesn't deserve it. "Imitator" is a derisive term, and you don't need to "go round with a dictionary" to know that.

Ah, my mistake, you called me 'brainlessly stupid,' 'fucking brain-damaged,'

Actually, I called your Trekkie pseudoscience arguments "brainlessly stupid" and "fucking brain damaged". I had spent a fair bit of effort trying to explain to you subjects such as how not to abuse limits, and you were ignoring all of it. The fact that I expressed my assessment in such rude terms was regrettable, but your arguments were junk pseudoscience.

an 'asshole' and compared me to 'the various chickenshits on the newsgroups who routinely trash my name,' despite the fact that I was being nice to you and had stood up for you before, assisting in a writing of a massive rebuttal by ASVS against members of SB.com.

I went over the top because I was in a foul mood about a group of idiots on the sb.com boards who had recently gone after my family, and I was tired of your two-faced dishonesty toward me (fawning to my face, dismissive on Usenet behind my back). You're right when you say that I went overboard, but you "forgot" to mention that I actually apologized for it when I cooled down. You're dredging this incident up months later, for the purposes of a blatantly obvious ad hominem attack.

Attack the man rather than the argument. Oldest trick in the book.

It was the same problem you have here - taking things in context. I say "Hi Wong" and you freak out thinking I'm insulting you, without seeing the smiley faces and polite comments that made it clear that I was not intending to be disrespectful.

You're just out to try and make me look bad. It also serves as a useful distraction from your condonement of horrifying Old Testament massacres of women and children such as the Great Flood, the murder of the Egyptian firstborn sons, and the massacres at Sodom, Gomorrah, Jericho, Ai, etc. If you can't defend your own morality, you can at least complain that the other guy is rude, right?

[Quoted]"If you wanted to be polite to a stranger, you would call him "Mr. Wong", or "Michael". You would not call him "Wong", the way drill sergeants do. If I call you "Boyd", it is a deliberate term of disrespect."

I've never seen it that way and I'm sorry if you did.

We went over this ground many months ago, and you know it. I explained that it's rude to address someone by his last name. You admitted that, but you complained that I was much more rude in my reply. I acknowledged that, and I apologized. So why bring it up now? Obviously, you just want to make me look bad, and you'll use any weapon you can find. So is this a debate, or is it just a mudslinging contest?

You are too quick to assume the reason someone says something without actually asking them. You are too quick to assume that something is said with the intention of being deceitful or offensive.

I never said that you were insulting me. I said that you were insulting Damien Sorresso. "Imitator" is hardly a compliment, particularly when it is applied to someone who is trying to author his own web page.

[Quoted] "Sophistry. It was obvious that I was referring to the second definition of "disciple", not the first. The first definition is so loose that Jim Bakker would qualify."

It was not obvious that you were referring to the twelve. I assumed that you were referring to Biblical disciples, but there was no context which suggested that you were limiting the definition to the twelve. Even if you had been, I still gave you an answer for that definition. Why do you accuse me of being dishonest or presenting a flawed argument when I presented an answer to both possible definitions of a disciple?

Because anyone who reads the sentence will see that I meant the original twelve. You know perfectly well that whenever someone refers to Jesus' disciples in the Bible, he's referring to the twelve. I reiterate: your alternate definition is so loose that Jim Bakker qualifies.

No, it wasn't obvious in the slightest. You are way too cynical. All I could assume is that you were referring to Biblical disciples. You might find it easier to clarify yourself if someone misunderstands you, rather than simply insulting them and their arguments.

Oh, I'll clarify it. You can never do too much idiot-proofing. But that doesn't change my opinion of your arguments. You present minor nit-picks about wording as "very serious errors".

[Quoted] "Must I make a sing-along version for you? How about a pop-up book? A picture of The Last Supper with the caption "where be the wimminfolk", perhaps?"

It's very easy to fling insults and try to be funny. Much harder to be nice and have a reasoned debate.

I've tried to have a reasoned debate, but you are more interested in red herring nitpicks and ad hominem attacks. If I can't have some fun with it, then why should I even bother?

You're not even trying to address the meat of my arguments regarding Biblical morality. You simply nitpick, and then leap from those nitpicks to your bizarre conclusion that God is morality.

[Quoted] "Yes, he does. He lists his complaints against the Israelites, and one of them is the fact that women rule over them."

Then it must have only referred to those women because he made Deborah rule them at one point. You are failing to take the quote in context.

Deborah ruled them at a time when they were suffering because they had fallen out of favour with him. It is you who are failing to take the quote in context, not to mention the larger context of the consistent misogyny of the Old Testament.

Taking in context doesn't just mean the surrounding verses. It means the whole Bible.

Are you seriously trying to suggest that the Bible does not contain misogynism? What about all of the one-sided rules, or the Adam and Eve story, or all the stories of "God's people" taking women as war booty? You can't erase an enormous laundry list of misogynist statements and acts by pointing out one ambiguous item that might be acceptable.

I recall that there were other women in the Bible that were chosen by God to do various deeds, but I can not think of any who were in power off hand.

And how do you explain the use of women as war booty, the Adam and Eve story, or rules such as the one about how a bride must be a virgin or she'll be executed, even though nobody cares whether the groom is a virgin?

[Quoted] "Wrong. Hatred is never noble."

So you do not hate evil? What do you feel towards it then? Are you apathetic towards it? Do you not care about evil? I doubt that you like it, so I won't ask.

You just did ask, and the answer is that hate is evil, and two wrongs don't make a right. I strive to avoid evil. I wish to defend myself from evil. I wish to defend the innocent from evil. But once I let myself start to hate, then I become evil myself. How long can I hate an idea before I start to hate the people who promote that idea? Ideas only persist because of the people who believe in them. If I hate an idea, how long will it be before I try to attack that idea through coercion instead of persuasion? How long before I end up like Pat Buchanan, trying to alter the laws of the nation in order to persecute people for victimless "crimes" such as homosexuality or paganism, even though they hurt no one?

[Editor's note: Mr. Boyd has said that "there are times when we should hate and when violence is necessary". He claims that he hates "evil" itself (which is an idea), but not people. Does he plan to commit this violence against ideas rather than people? Precisely how does one use violence against an idea itself? You guessed it: the only way is to use violence against the people who believe in that idea]

I never said we were to hate those who do evil. I said we were to hate the evil itself. Hate the sin, love the sinner. Have you never heard that saying?

Yes, and it's a nice (albeit unrealistic) saying, but you're changing the subject. We were talking about the Old Testament, remember? You said that God's moral standards are impossibly high. I contested that by saying that the laws of the Old Testament are full of hatred and intolerance, as per the examples in my website. You denied that, saying that the Old Testament contained only "a hatred and intolerance of evil". Now, you want to argue about the precise meaning of that last sentence, rather than the original subject.

In the Old Testament, God's "hatred and intolerance for evil" was expressed through acts of hatred and intolerance toward all nonbelievers. That is what you are defending. That is what I am criticizing. Don't change the subject into a debate about how you worded your defense of the Old Testament: it is the fact that you defend the Old Testament which I question.

[Quoted] "For example, God murdered all the first-born sons of Egypt. Were the little babies in their cribs "evil", worthy of hatred and death?"

I don't know and neither do you [Editor's note: Actually, I do know, because no baby, Egyptian or otherwise, deserves to die. By saying that he doesn't know, he is admitting that he thinks it's actually possible for a baby to deserve death!]. Only God does. Besides which, when they died they would have gone to Heaven, somewhere infinitely better to be that Earth.

That cannot be verified. The only kind of happiness and suffering which can be objectively verified is that which exists here on Earth, therefore that is the only kind of happiness and suffering which should be considered for the purpose of deciding what is good and what is evil, for generating laws, and for living our lives. Think whatever you want in your own head, but don't treat others in this world based on laws which are based on the unverifiable.

How do you know Hitler was evil? Because he killed people in this world. How do you know Stalin was evil? Because he killed people in this world. How do you know Akhenaten was evil? Because he introduced religious intolerance into this world. An act of evil is an act of evil. It is irrelevant whether the victims of that evil go to Heaven, because the evil act still occurred.

Besides, most of God's victims in the Old Testament were nonbelievers, and according to Judeo-Christian dogma, they would have gone to Hell after death. This means that by killing them, God accelerated their entry into eternal torment. How is this acceptable?

[Editor's note: one of my key arguments on the Biblical Morality pages is that Christianity weakens inhibitions against violence by making earthly suffering unimportant. By arguing that earthly atrocities are not important because the victims would go to Heaven, he has just given me a convenient piece of evidence that in his case, my argument is absolutely true]

[Quoted] "God murdered the populations of Sodom and Gomorrah. There were undoubtedly small children and little babies in those cities."

See previous. There are a lot of things that happen in the Bible which I cannot give reasons for. Sometimes they disturb me when I first read them and don't understand why they happen. So I have to trust God, have faith that what happened for a good reason and had a just outcome.

In other words, mindless obedience, just as I've been saying all along. You don't know, so you deliberately turn off your critical thinking faculties, "trust God, have faith," and accept that acts of evil might be good.

I cannot prove that it was right - I have to take it on faith, something that non-Christians cannot be expected to do, so I'm not surprised that you find such acts repugnant, especially since you don't believe in an afterlife.

I don't believe in allowing or condoning acts of evil for any reason. You, on the other hand, find evil acceptable if your religious beliefs (in this case, the "better place") give you an excuse. Don't you realize what you're saying? Your religious beliefs allow you to condone acts of evil! Doesn't that make you wonder whether you should amend those beliefs? Whether you should enter the 21st century and join the liberal Christians?

Whereas we believe that death is not the end, so any innocents who are killed will go to a better place, you do not see it that way. I understand why you feel this way. Can you not understand my point of view too?

No. Good and evil in the afterlife, if it exists, must be evaluated there. But here, on this Earth, the only acceptable definition of good and evil must be based on Earthly actions.

Moreover, you ignore the question of what happens to all the "sinners". Is any Earthly sin so heinous that it deserves an eternity of torture? The Baal-worshippers killed by God in the Old Testament would have gone to Hell. Did they deserve that? It's time to state where you really stand on the issue of hatred against sinners, because it's impossible to love someone while saying that it's OK to torture him for all eternity.

I don't know. Again, only God does. If they were, then I guess they're off to Hell. If they weren't, then they're off to Heaven where a much better than life awaits them than would have been possible here on Earth.

You think it's fair for sinners to spend an eternity in Hell? You think it's fair for innocent babies to be robbed of the chance to grow up, have relationships, have children, learn about the world, grow old, and experience all that life has to offer?

Here's the problem: your religious beliefs allow you to condone acts of evil. You argue that it's OK for God to commit evil, because he can cancel out that evil with great acts of generosity in the afterlife. But good and evil aren't like integer numbers, and they don't cancel out. Moreover, we have no way of verifying this repayment, so in essence, you are taking the word of a known evildoer that he'll make it up to us later.

Again, I don't think they committed war crimes. There is a difference between approving of war crime and not believing they happened. It's the difference between a lawyer thinking his client is innocent and a lawyer thinking that what he did, if guilty, was right.

You have a serious case of denial. The Israelites butchered the men, women, and children of Jericho. They did the same in Ai, Makkedah, Libnah, Lachish, Eglon, Hebron, and Debir, just to name a few. They butchered the Midianite women and male children, and then they took all the little virgin girls as war booty. In Deuteronomy 3, they brag about killing all of the women and children in no less than sixty cities. And you "don't think they committed war crimes?"

[His quote] "He was ensuring their survival and the survival of religion centred on him."
[My reply] "How disgustingly egocentric of you ..."

Please read the whole sentence before hitting the reply button. Notice that I said 'religion centred on him' i.e. Judaism.

Ah, I stand corrected. You were merely expressing your belief that atrocities are acceptable in order to preserve a religion. In essence, religious beliefs are more important than human life. That makes you look so much better.

It was for the survival of the people, to ensure the religion's survival.

Nonsense. People can survive even if their religion dies. The Norse Gods, the Greek gods, the Roman gods, the Aztec gods, the Incan gods, the Egyptian gods, and countless other gods have come and gone without the people themselves becoming extinct.

Besides, why did they need to attack members of other religions in order to ensure the survival of their own religion?

[Quoted] In other words, if God says it's OK, then it's OK.

Yes, because God is perfectly good, perfectly loving, perfectly just.

Despite committing acts of unspeakable evil.

[Editor's note: he doesn't seem to realize that with every passing sentence, he makes it more and more clear that he judges God's actions based on his perfection, rather than judging God's perfection based on his actions. Cart before the horse; typical fundamentalist]

Obviously I wouldn't expect you to agree wit that since you're not a Christian, but if you don't bare in mind that this is what people believed when they were writing the Bible, then there are parts that are going to look very, very wrong.

No kidding.

[Editor's note: notice the moral relativism. He finally admits that there are things in the Bible which are horrifying, but he argues that they're OK because people believed in this insanity when they wrote it!]

Of course God is going to look narcissistic is he isn't the perfect, loving, just, good God that he is.

Denying evidence with baseless assertion.

It is only if he has the attributes that we Christians believe he has, that worshipping him is right. If he was any different, then it would be wrong.

More circular logic. Your conclusion requires that it also be the premise, and the evidence is ignored.

Similarly, if he isn't who we think he is, then there is no way he can claim to have the power to forgive sin. And if Jesus wasn't God then he was either a madman on the same level as someone who thinks he is a poached egg, or the worst kind of liar, the very devil himself, for claiming that he was and misleading millions of people. Christianity _must_ appear evil if you do not believe these things beause it is only with all these beliefs that it can possibly be good.

At last, we're getting somewhere. You admit that God behaves in an evil fashion, but you think he's good. God treats people cruelly, but he's merciful. God treats people unfairly, but he's fair. You have demonstrated your dogmatic thinking for all to see: you believe that God is perfect because you start from the assumption that he is perfect, even though you admit that all of the evidence screams for a different conclusion.

Christianity as a whole does not appear evil to me, but your particular brand of Christianity does. Any system of thought which praises acts of evil is obviously evil! Doesn't it occur to you to ask why moderate and liberal Christians are embarrassed by the Old Testament, and reluctant to defend it?

If you believe that, then how can you possibly follow humanism when it is founded on the opinions of mere men?

Because the principles make sense. The principles could have been written by hamsters for all I care, as long as they will lead to a happier world.

[Quoted] "If God changes his mind again and says it's right to kill nonbelievers again, would you accept that?"

That will not happen until the final battle between good end evil, after we have all been able to make our choice between following God, or following Satan.

Don't evade the question. If you believe that this "final battle" is upon us, would you take up the sword and kill unbelievers at God's command?

You make far too many assumptions. I was pointing out the illogic of killing non-believers. I was not saying that that was the only reason why it was wrong. The whole 'love thy neighbour thing' makes it pretty clear that you don't go round killing people just because they're a different religion or of no religion at all.

And what about the Inquisitioners? They didn't simply kill people, you know. They tried to force them to confess their sins and ask Jesus for forgiveness. In their minds, they were being altruistic because they were helping people get into Heaven, where all of their Earthly torture and the suffering would amount to nothing next to their "eternity of bliss".

You have repeatedly stated that Israelite acts of evil are acceptable in view of your religious beliefs. Do you agree with the reasoning of the medieval Inquisitioners?

[Quoted] "What?!?!? Obedience to a mass murderer is obedience to "morality"?"

Obviously we don't believe that God is a mass murderer.

The Bible describes his acts of mass murder (premeditated killing of defenseless human beings). Unlike more liberal Christians, you take it literally, which means you must accept that each and every one of those murders did occur.

[Quoted] "I challenge you to explain why it is wrong to centre a moral code upon the happiness and well-being of human beings."

I think it is wrong to centre a moral code on what people think will bring them happiness and well-being, rather than listening to what God says is right because God is going to know better.

What they "think" will bring them happiness? What kind of talk is that? Don't you think we can tell whether we're happy or not? God's Old Testament laws would create suffering and pain and death. That is all verifiable, thus making it real. This, in turn, means that we should act to stop it.

We will be much happier in Heaven than we could ever be by following any moral code here on Earth.

Irrelevant. You can interact with God however you like in your own head, but you can't interact with fellow human beings in this world based on your superstitions about the next world. The Israelites did just that (although, realistically, they must have exaggerated ther own military prowess), and you defend them.

I think that the world would be greatly improved if everyone had a closer relationship with God and followed his commands.

You just finished admitting that God filled the world with evil, but it's all irrelevant because he makes good in the afterlife. Then, you turn around and say that the world will be "greatly improved" if we follow his laws! How? Will it be greatly improved after we exterminate all of the homosexuals, as per Leviticus 20:13? Will it be greatly improved after we exterminate all children who swear at their parents, as per Leviticus 20:9? Will it be greatly improved after we exterminate all adulterers, as per Leviticus 20:10? Will it be greatly improved after we kill all the occultists, as per Leviticus 20:27? Will it be greatly improved after we kill all of the blasphemers, as per Leviticus 24:14?

Worshipping God and loving your neighbour _is_ good behaviour. How is following a moral code 'mindless obedience'? Surely then following any moral code is mindless obedience?

Following your moral code is mindless obedience, because your moral code demands that you commit evil if God asks you to commit evil, trusting that he knows best.

It would be a lot better if the order were reversed. Love your neighbour, and then worship and/or obey God. Get your priorities straight. If God asks you to do something which would hurt your neighbour, then you ignore him. If the Israelites had done that in the Biblical era, you wouldn't have to explain away all of these atrocities.

[Quoted] "If he wants us to mercilessly butcher unbelievers, we should mercilessly butcher unbelievers"?

Doing that would be contradictory with what he has taught us.

Wrong. He ordered such atrocities repeatedly in the Old Testament, which you tenaciously defend against all reason.

[Quoted] "The Bible abuses the word "wisdom" just as it abuses the word "evil"."

It ha a different definition to the one you would use, so that must therefore be abuse?

It has a different definition then the accepted meaning of the word, which is definitely abuse of the term. You claimed that the Bible praises wisdom and knowledge (in conversation with me, which means you should be using the proper English definition of the words). It does not.

[Quoted] "In the Bible, "wisdom" means mindless obedience to God, while "evil" and "foolishness" both mean disobedience to God."

Yes, we have a different moral code to humanists.

One which generates enmity and unhappiness, while promising to pay it all back after death (where no one can come back for a refund if things don't go as planned).

[Quoted] "What kind of lunatic says that knowledge and wisdom come from fear?"

The beginning of knowledge comes from a respect for God, a realisation that you are nothing compared to him and that he is capable of doing anything.

Respect and fear are not synonymous. The Bible says that knowledge and wisdom come from fear of God, not respect for God. Fear is forced upon the unwilling by the tyrant, while respect must be earned.

What would be regarded as earthly wisdom is useful down here, but most of our life is going to be spent elsewhere, so the most valuable knowledge is spiritual knowledge. Acknowledging that you are a sinner, while God is perfectly good and all powerful and could therefore do whatever he wants to you and you would deserve it, is a good start to spiritual knowledge. It is putting us firmly in our place and acknowledging that we nee dot listen to God and rely on his grace, rather than trying to do everything ourselves, including trying to earn salvation.

Yadda yadda yadda. I'm not interested in your interminable descriptions of your belief system. We're debating a subject (does the Bible praise knowledge), but you're giving me a Sunday sermon. Get to the point.

I think that spiritual wisdom is considerably more important, though this reminds me of another passage - the parable of the Talents. God calls us to use the gifts he has given us, which includes intelligence and wisdom.

But being the selfish God that he is, he calls upon you to use those gifts to serve him, not mankind. If everyone followed the Bible, there would be no such thing as science. We'd still be sacrificing animals to cure disease. As I've said so many times before, human progress (both social and technological) has come from humanism, while it has been resisted at every turn by your religion.

<big list of anti-wisdom quotes>
This can all be answered in a similar manner to how I answered you above - God reveals himself to the poor, the less intelligent, those lacking in power, to show that these things are ultimately not important. No earthly wisdom, power or might can save our souls [Editor's note: this comes from a guy who claims that the Bible praises knowledge and wisdom] - only God's race can do that, which we need to be aware of. That awareness constitutes spiritual wisdom and is by far more important because it helps us get to heaven, something that earthly wisdom can not do.

More Sunday sermons. Don't bother. Save your typing and realize that you are never going to convert me.

[Quoted] "Yadda yadda yadda. God can say whatever he likes, but actions speak louder than words, and his credo is "do as I say, not as I do"."

I don't recall that being in the scriptures.

Then you're blind. He said "thou shalt not kill" and then he proceeded to murder millions in the Great Flood, thousands at Sodom and Gomorrah, and countless more in the holy wars that would follow.

[Quoted] "Good and evil are not like mathematics: you can't cancel out acts of evil by saying the occasional good thing."

Why do you think that I say that any sin, no matter how insignificant, cuts us off form God and forces us to rely on his grace for salvation?

Don't change the subject, and don't try to preach to me. We were talking about God's acts of evil, not the Bible's prohibition against sin. The Bible's definition of "sin" is not synonymous with "evil". It defines countless victimless "crimes" such as lust or freedom of belief as sins.

[Quoted] "See my big reference page on Biblical violence ..."

That's rather large. 100 KB or so. It'll require a separate discussion.

Why bother? You're just going to say that all of its unspeakable horrors are OK because God pays it all back in the afterlife. You're like an appliance salesman hawking an extended warranty. Eat it now, it'll be worth it in the long run! Trust me, my book says so!

[Quoted] "Fighting Hitler was the right thing to do, because we were defending ourselves against his aggression. However, hating the Germans and the Japanese was the wrong thing to do."

I never said it was right. Notice that I said we should hate evil. I did not say we should hate evil people. There is a huge difference.

Don't try to squirm out of this. You defended the hatred of the Old Testament as a "hatred of evil", but that hatred was manifested in acts of hatred against people. You defended acts of hatred against people, and now you're using the precise wording of that defense in order to claim that it's not what you meant.

[Quoted] "That's why moral people feel some sense of regret about Hiroshima, Nagasaki, the firebombings of Tokyo, the use of flamethrowers to exterminate villagers hiding in caves on Okinawa, the punitive obliteration of Dresden, etc."

Are you saying that I rejoice in those actions? Or merely that I don't feel that it was regretful that it happened? Because I wish such things hadn't.

Then why don't you feel the same way about the atrocities of the Old Testament? Why the double standard?

You're rather judgemental aren't you? Attacking me for an opinion you've decided I hold.

You act as though I'm going on assumptions without evidence, but you can't escape your own words. You defended the Israelite atrocities of the Old Testament, saying that they were "necessary in order to preserve their identity as God's people". Earlier in this very message, you claimed that none of the Israelite atrocities, which ranged from the rape of children to the massacre of prisoners and civilians, constituted legitimate war crimes. You defend acts of evil, therefore you are immoral.

I hate it when evil things happen. I hate to see starving children, suffering in famines. I hate to see thousands of refuges fleeing their hopes. I hate the violence that had engulfed my country for the past 30 years. How do you feel about such things? Are you merely apathetic and uncaring about them?

I think they're a terrible tragedy, and I wish they wouldn't happen. I also think that these tragedies would be a lot less common if people worked for fulfillment and happiness instead of fighting for beliefs such as yours.

Maybe you want me to fall into some stereotypical image you have of Christians who trust the Bible. But that's not going to happen Mike.

It's already happened. You've already stated that you have blind "faith" that God must have a good reason for committing acts of unspeakable evil.

[Quoted] "God is a mass murderer. Obedience to a mass murderer is unacceptable."

This is discussed countless time elsewhere.

Wrong. It is not discussed; it is evaded. Murder is a simple word, with a simple definition. By every definition of the word, God is a mass murderer. You simply stick your head in the sand and say that he isn't, despite all of the evidence to the contrary.

[Quoted] "The humanist moral code is an idea, not an entity."

An idea that originated form the mind of men, making it incomplete and flawed.

Ad hominem fallacy: attacking the idea by attacking the author. That is illogical (although you may be loathe to admit that, since the Ad Hominem fallacy seems to be a favourite of yours). An idea can be perfect even if its author is flawed. For example, 2 + 2 = 4 is an idea. It is a perfect equation, but it came from flawed human beings.

You can't dismiss an idea by attacking its authors.

What perfect person has ever existed to create this moral code of yours? The only perfect person was Jesus. And it wasn't humanism he espoused - it was Christianity.

Two-stage appeal to authority. Jesus was perfect because he claimed to be the Son of the Old Testament God, who you assume to be perfect despite a history of horrifyingly evil acts.

Examine the evidence instead of mindlessly appealing to authority, and you will see that Jesus was not perfect. He condoned slavery, and he gave a false prophecy about the early date of his return. Moreover, many of his parables about the Kingdom of Heaven sound nice only until you reach the end, where he says that the villain of his parable is tortured or killed, and then he proudly boasts that this is what the kingdom of Heaven will be like.

[Quoted] "Moreover, it has never condoned mass murder or war crimes."

And neither has Christianity.

Wrong. Your brand of Christianity does condone mass murder and war crimes. The Great Flood and the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah were mass murders. The Israelite war crimes were legion. You defend them all, based on your religious beliefs.

[Quoted] "Law and morality are two different things."

Morality and human law are two different things. God's Law and morality are not.

Slothful assertion without evidence. I have provided reams of evidence concerning the immorality of God's laws. You cannot simply ignore that evidence and deny the logical conclusion.

I do not think that slavery is right.

Then why do you defend it in the Bible? Are you admitting that Jesus was wrong to condone it? Are you admitting that Paul was wrong to discourage slaves seeking their freedom? Are you admitting that the Israelites were wrong to enslave others? Are you admitting that God was wrong for permitting slavery?

[Quoted] "The Old Testament defines "knowledge" and "wisdom" as obedience to God. Its definition of knowledge has nothing to do with any objective definition of knowledge."

What makes you better qualified to decide what wisdom is than God?

The fact that my knowledge of astrophysics and biology is superior to his, as demonstrated by numerous laughable mistakes in the Bible. The fact that I have the patience to raise children without being cruel to them whenever they disobey me.

[Quoted] "It is not pride, but knowledge that lead us to recognize that we are as good as God, or that we know better than God."

I call that pride, you call it knowledge. We call it different things because while I believe in Christianity, you are a humanist.

No, we call it different things because I am using the proper definitions of the words. One does not need an excess of pride to recognize evil in another.

[Quoted] "Very few of us are mass murderers, therefore the vast majority of people in the world are morally superior to God."

But of course I do not agree that he is a mass murderer.

Slothful assertion without evidence. I have provided evidence to support my conclusion. You ignore the evidence and deny the conclusion.

[Quoted] "Most of us recognize that the sky cannot be rolled up like a scroll (Isaiah 34:4)"

It's a literary device.

The entire Bible is a literary device. How do you propose we determine what is literal and what is not?

[Quoted] "and that insects have six legs instead of four (Leviticus 11:23)"

Maybe God isn't counting the first two as legs, but as arms. I don't know.

More evasions. A leg and an arm are completely different in function, and you know it.

It's a minor point.

No, it isn't. If the Bible is not absolutely perfect, then you cannot prove anything by simply saying that it's in the Bible. You need some kind of observable, verifiable form of evidence, which puts you on the same playing field as the scientists and historians. And that's a playing field upon which you will lose.

[Quoted] "and that the value of pi is roughly 3.14, not 3.00 (2 Chronicles 4:2), therefore we know more than God."

Did God say that pi=3? No. Some Israeli architect or builder did.

Wrong. It was Biblical narrative; the same kind of narrative which tells us that God made the Earth. You didn't even bother looking up the passage, did you?

[Quoted] "Yes, when you define "evil" as free thought ..."

Which the Bible doesn't.

Wrong. See Deuteronomy 20:16-18. See the first commandment.

[Quoted] "... and "good" as mindless obedience to a mass murdering sociopath."

Again, the Bible does not define it as this.

So what? Hitler's own records don't describe him as a mass murdering sociopath either. The Bible is propagandistic, but it describes events which fit the definition of a mass murdering sociopath. Accept it.

[Quoted] "Every single thing they ever did was done in the Old Testament with God's approval or in many cases, his direct participation. Since you yourself pointed out that Jesus did not repudiate the laws of the Old Testament, you have essentially helped me show that it is in fact Christian to do such things."

But you and I disagree about what was done. We are interpreting it differently.

Yes, I see the murder of defenseless women and children as evil. You, on the other hand, are willing to excuse it if it was done in the name of preserving one's religion. You make your religion more important than the preservation of human life.

The way I interpret it, what was done in South Africa, etc. was wrong.

Which particular event in South Africa are you referring to? There have been a great many bad things in South Africa.

<Regarding his refusal to produce arguments from "Mere Christianity" rather than merely telling me to go read it>
[Quoted] "Excuses."

Huh? Excuses about what?

About your failure to produce a single good argument from that book when challenged to do so. You say there are good arguments on virtually "every page", but you can't find one to quote here? Again, I say: excuses.

Is there any particular topic you would like an argument about, or should I take any old one that I happen to think is well explained?

We are already arguing about several topics. If there was a point in that book which was relevant to this debate, you could have quoted it. If there wasn't, then the book was a red herring and you shouldn't have mentioned it. This is a debate, not a recruiting session.

[Quoted] "I've done my homework. I've read most of the Bible."

How thorough. There is a difference between reading to find evidence for theories and studying to learn the actual meaning.

I have made no bones about the fact that I'm examining the Bible as a piece of evidence. That is the only way that anything should be analyzed. When one reads something in an attempt to immerse oneself in its world-view rather than objectively analyzing it, then one is deliberately throwing rational thought to the winds.

[Quoted] "I don't need to read someone else's interpretation of it, particularly when that person is a mindless follower of religious dogma."

I am hardly mindless.

I was referring to C.S. Lewis, who is too stupid to realize that a circular argument is not going to convince any rational person to convert to Christianity. His book is designed for the lost sheep, not the rational thinker.

[Editor's note: he claims that he's not mindless, but what difference does it make, if he insists on suspending critical thought in favour of blind faith?]

And the same would go for most Christians.

Most Christians are not like you.

I'm not sure what you're talking about here. And irrational people are hardly likely to become professors at both Cambridge and Oxford.

He was selected by the faculty, therefore he must be rational in all his beliefs, right? I am directly attacking the irrationality of his stated arguments, and you are indirectly defending them with fallacious appeals to authority.

I disagree. You certainly cannot possibly argue that you are still right about the Ten Commandments.

Your confidence is unwarranted. Your nitpick ignores the main point of my Ten Commandments page, it focuses on a single word taken out of context, it adds extra phantom terms to a simple situation, and it ignores the fact that the Deuteronomy passage only exacerbates the problem.

Many things come down to interpretation and one can not prove the other wrong or inaccurate, but on the matter of facts - what are the commandments? - proof is available.

There is no such thing as absolute proof when one describes historical events which cannot be observed directly. There is only the written record of self-proclaimed eyewitnesses, and we must draw logical conclusions based on an analysis of that record, as well as independent evidence whenever possible.

But more to the point, I don't care what "really" happened. I'm only pointing out that the Ten Commandments are intolerant and that Exodus 34 is inconsistent with the accepted story.

[Quoted] "Only if you use a truly bizarre definition of "love" in which it is possible to love someone and yet promise to torture him for all eternity if he doesn't obey you."

I don't always obey God and yet I believe I'm going to Heaven. Deeds are not what get you there - it is asking for God's forgiveness. You look at things so negatively. Christianity is about a promise that you will go to Heaven if you just believe in Jesus and ask him to forgive you. It is not about threatening people to 'turn or burn'

Spin control. No matter how nicely you choose to put it, anyone who refuses to believe in God will go to Hell. Correct?

[Quoted] "The Israelites were the invaders. They invaded Canaan, not the other way around."

Later on, they were invaded.

At God's whim, as a punishment for worshipping other gods. His idea of "unconditional love", right?

[Editor's note: the Israelites invaded Canaan, butchered women and children, and took their land. Their victims eventually retook their land, and he characterizes that as the invasion?]

[Quoted] "So it was right to commit horrible atrocities in the Old Testament, but it isn't right now? Doesn't it occur to you that right and wrong are not concepts that change on a whim?"

Malachi 3:6 "I the LORD do not change."

Matthew 5:17 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law of the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfil them."

Anything that was wrong now was wrong then.

Then why do you claim that acts we define as war crimes today were not war crimes back then?

Have we had the second Coming yet? Has everyone yet had the chance to chose between God and Satan? No, of course not. Until then, I would not condone violence except for self defence. Even then, there are many good arguments in favour of not defending yourself and submitting totally to your enemies, rather than strike back.

But you would condone violence against others which is not in self defense? If your fellow Christians were killing Satanists and atheists and Hindus, would you try to stop them?

[Quoted] "[Hitler] did nothing which hadn't already been done by the Old Testament Israelites at God's command."

He murdered. He did not love his neighbour as himself.

The Israelites murdered. They did not love their neighbours as themselves. You defend them anyway. Why the double standard?

[Quoted] "Is that the love he showed when he butchered millions of people in the Great Flood, or when he slaughtered the little babies of Egypt?"

Those who were innocent are now in a better place.

Unverifiable excuse. Evil is still evil, and God committed evil. Admit it. Even if one accepts the existence of Heaven, its eternal bliss would represent God's atonement to those innocent victims for his sins against them, which neatly contradicts your claim about his moral perfection.

By your argument, Hitler's innocent victims are now in a better place. Gee, I guess this makes him a great guy!

He demonstrated his love on the cross by dying for us. I find it most impressive that you have managed to discuss the Judeo-Christian God with barely a word about the cross.

One death makes up for millions? Your math is seriously deficient.

[Quoted] "Explain all the massacres!"

Explain the cross of God does not love.

Do the math.

[Quoted] "Please explain why you believe that the slaughter of defenseless women, children, and prisoners of war is not murder."

See earlier in the mail.

Where? You have never explained why the slaughter of defenseless people is not murder.

[Quoted] "Non sequitur. Power and pre-eminence do not automatically deserve praise, nor do they confer moral authority."

God is perfectly good and just. Moral authority comes form him. He loves us, created us and gave us the ability to love. For that he deserves praise.

More Sunday sermon nonsense. I gave you numerous examples of his imperfection. You cannot contradict those examples by simply denying the conclusion that is drawn logically from them.

[Quoted] "God is a pitiless mass murderer. We cannot condone or forgive his evil simply because he supposedly has great power."

I do not condone or forgive any such evil because I do not agree that it occurred.

Bury your head in the sand.

[Quoted] "Many of God's laws demand that we treat one another horribly, with religious intolerance and death penalties for minor offenses such as swearing at your parents (Exodus 21:17, Leviticus 20:9) and working on Sunday (Exodus 31:15)."

But when he saved an adulteress from being stoned to death, he showed that grace was a better way than killing, no matter how lawful.

Doesn't change the fact that God's laws are evil.

[Quoted] "They even demand death for completely victimless "crimes" such as worshipping other Gods (Exodus 22:20) and homosexuality (Leviticus 20:13)."

God is a victim. Morality is a victim.

Morality is a "victim" whenever people worship other gods or engage in homosexual acts? Ah, so you're openly saying that other religions are immoral? You're openly saying that homosexuality is immoral?

Thanks for admitting your bigotry. And while we're at it, perhaps you would care to explain precisely how God or "morality" is victimized by religious freedom or homosexuality. He's supposed to be omnipotent, remember? We can't hurt him.

I didn't say otherwise. Jesus commends good behaviour, however that is not what we were discussing - what we were discussing was priorities. And God should be a priority because a close relationship with him can bring out good behaviour, whereas the reverse is not true.

Wrong. Moses was very close to God, yet he was a mass murderer. Ethics stand on their own; they do not devolve from religious affiliation. As a typical Christian fundamentalist bigot, you obviously think that piety = morality, and that therefore, all who don't belong to your religion are immoral.

[Quoted] "Which is unverifiable, and which requires misery here on Earth for some reason."

Faith is the word you are looking for. If you do not believe in life after death then Christianity will seem pointless.

Virtually all religions have some form of life after death. I don't have a problem with them unless they condone acts of evil in this life, the way you do.

[Quoted] "Why does he require us to suffer on Earth in order to make him happy and let us into heaven?"

It is not always necessary, but sometimes it will be. Being a Christian can be unpopular with people. Following Jesus' commandments can similarly be unwelcome. Returning evil with good, turning the other cheek, having the courage not to strike back when someone hits you are all good things that involve us suffering on some level. they don't get us into Heaven though. It is asking for God's forgiveness that does it. No human act saves us - only God's grace does.

Thank you for another sermon, preacher! PRAISE JESUS! I have seen the light! Oh, wait. It was just the bottom of my optical mouse.

[Quoted] "Does our suffering make him happy? Is that his "agape love"?"

It is us demonstrating that love.

Irrelevant. The question was whether he loves us, not whether you love him.

[Quoted] "So in other words, your entire concept of ethics is based around your selfish desire for an "eternity of bliss","

It is based on what God says is right, a desire to love him and a desire to go to Heaven.

Appeal to authority (and a questionable authority at that). You cannot win or even participate in an argument over the question of God's morality if you assume his moral perfection as a premise. The very concept of a debate requires that one does not take the outcome as a premise.

[Quoted] "Suppose God comes to you and says that Judgement Day is nigh, so you must go to a nearby atheist convention and massacre everyone with a machine gun in order to prove your worth to him. Would you do it?"

I don't picture it happening.

Don't evade; he asked for such things in the Old Testament, so he could ask for them again. Answer the question.

[Quoted] "Wrong. If we refuse to worship him, he will kill us and torture us for all eternity. Read the damned Bible, and if you're too lazy, then read my big reference page on Biblical violence."

Funnily enough, I have read the Bible and more thoroughly I suspect than you. I am totally convinced of God's unconditional love. People go to Hell because of their sin, not because of any lack of love. God's love coexists with his desire for justice.

Slothful assertion. I provide evidence for the conditional nature of his love, and you deny the conclusion without addressing the evidence.

[Quoted] "So she would worship him. If she worshipped Baal, what do you think he would have done to her?"

Well, given that he didn't strike down the Roman Centurion who asked him for help, but instead cured his daughter, I think that he would have treated her the same.

Red herring. The Roman Centurion must have believed in his healing powers, or he wouldn't have brought his daughter to him. He is not an example of how Jesus treats nonbelievers. Again, I ask: if she was a Baal worshipper, how would he have treated her?

All sin is equal.

Why? And why must you introduce yet another irrelevant tangent?

[Quoted] "He was always angry at somebody. Scarcely a passage goes by in the Bible without God's anger burning against people."

I think you're exaggerating.

Read my big reference page on Biblical violence.

[His quote] "Why did he call David a man after his own heart, despite all his failings?"
[My reply] "Because he mercilessly killed heathens. That's the sort of thing that makes God happy."

No it's not. If it was, the Great Commission would have been to go unto all the nations of the world and slaughter anyone who doesn't believe in te resurrection.

Then explain the Old Testament. I have said all along that Jesus improved upon it, and modern Christians have improved further. But you seem bound and determined to prove that nothing has changed, and that the God of the Old Testament is no different than Jesus or the God of modern Christians.

[Quoted] "Because the Romans nailed him there. It sure as hell didn't sound like a well-laid plan; don't you remember him screaming "why have you forsaken me?""

He was quoting from Psalm 22.

Oh really? And how do you know he was quoting Psalm 22 instead of simply saying those words? Besides, Psalm 22 was about an ordinary mortal.

[Quoted] "As long as you worship him. If you don't, then you will die and be tortured forever,"

Wrong. You are suggesting that we can earn our way to Heaven. That is not true. It is only through God's grace that we can be saved.

And how does that contradict what I said? You're just trying to put a nice spin on it.

[Quoted] "because God's love is unconditional. Right?"

Love coexists with justice. See above.

So it's "justice" for God to torture unbelievers for all eternity? I see. And you insist that you're not a bigot?

[Quoted] "He defines "sin" as disobedience. He doesn't care whether we hurt one another (since he repeatedly orders us to do just that)"

You have heard of 'love thy neighbour' right?

Preach on Sunday, kill on Monday. Read the Old Testament.

[Quoted] "he only cares whether we worship him. The New Testament doesn't change any of that; in fact, it crystallizes it, by admitting openly that he doesn't care how you behave, as long as you worship him."

Matthew 5:7 "Blessed are the merciful, for they will be shown mercy."

Matthew 5:9 "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called sons of God."

Matthew 5:21-22 "You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, 'Do not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.' But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, 'Raca' is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell."

Matthew 5:42 "Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you."

Matthew 5:43-48 "You have hear that it was said, 'Love your neighbour and hate your enemy.' But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in Heaven. He causes the sun to rise on the evil and the good and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect."

Sounds like he cares about our behaviour to me, but maybe you interpret it all differently.

[Editor's note: notice how he gets all of these positive quotes from the New Testament, not the Old Testament, yet he insists that nothing has changed between OT and NT]

Preach on Sunday, kill on Monday. I point out actions taken by God or his followers at his command, and you retort by quoting his sanctimonious preaching and ignoring those actions. Again, actions speak louder than words. You're ignoring the point.

Read the Old Testament, and then answer me this: if he cares about our behaviour, then why doesn't he punish it or reward it regardless of whether we declare our faith in him? Why does he place our declaration of faith and confession of sin above all consideration of our Earthly behaviour? How can you say he cares about it, when he takes no action based upon it?

[Quoted] "We should ask a mass-murdering sociopath to take away our sins? Doesn't he already have enough sins of his own?"

<sigh>

It's a valid question. How many sins has God committed, and what gives him the right to judge anyone else?

[Quoted] "But if you refuse to worship him and utter those words to a contemptible mass murdering sociopath, then his "perfect love" will cause him to torture you for all eternity. Nice guy."

The desire for justice and the inability of our sin to be in his presence are what cause that to happen.

Again, you describe torture of unbelievers as "justice". Nice display of bigotry.

[Quoted] "In other words, you ignore all of the objective evidence that he is unremittingly abusive, because your religious doctrine tells you to. Classic example of mindless obedience to dogma."

I do not see God as abusive not because I have read the Bible, studied it, read books on the subject and come to my own conclusions, although it is true that I have done these things, but because of how I have seen him act in my life. I simply cannot accept through my own experiences that he could possibly be the mass murdering psychopath you make him out to be. Things just wouldn't add up.

Are you denying that the events of the Old Testament occurred? Are you saying that the Old Testament is inaccurate? Because the Old Testament quite clearly describes many acts of mass murder.

[Quoted] "Let me get this straight: you would rather continue to worship an unrepentant mass murdering sociopath than accept principles of ethics which would lead to a more just and kind world?"

I would rather follow a loving God who promises to love me forever in paradise and who provides us with a moral framework that would make this world a better place if we all followed it.

God's rules would not make this world a better place. I have already given numerous examples of how his Old Testament rules would make the world a living nightmare. Once again, you ignore the evidence and deny the conclusion that follows logically from the evidence.

[Quoted] "Explain what is wrong with those values (ie- something wrong with the values themselves, rather than the mere fact that they fail to serve the intentions of your mass-murdering sociopathic God)."

Some of the world's values are wrong because they are at odds with morality as defined by God.

BZZZZTTT! You failed my challenge. I asked specifically for criticisms of intrinsic failings rather than the mere fact that they do not serve God's intentions, and you answered that they do not serve God's intentions. Can't you read?

[Quoted] "The fact that you reject ethics is quite obvious."

No, I follow a different set of ethics. You are rather close-minded if you believe that yours is the only set of ethics. Is that what you believe? You can believe that it is the only correct standard, but to say it is the only one is wrong.

Wrong. Unlike religion, which is personal, ethics are absolute. They are necessary for human society, and human society must enforce them. Something is either right or it is wrong, and the murder of defenseless women and children is absolutely wrong. There are no exceptions to the rule whatsoever, not even for religion. Your moral relativism disgusts me.

I think that Heaven is more real than this world, that God's standards are more important than ones made up by man.

Assertion without evidence, as usual.

I do not think that humanism is totally wrong. Like many moral codes or religions, there are nuggets of wisdom in it, elements of right, but if it is not all right, then I must search for something which is complete and I believe that I have found that in Christianity.

Assertion without evidence, as usual.

<Regarding his Biblical knowledge> I think I'm better qualified to tell you what I have read and what I have not. Perhaps the difference here is that I have studied it.

No, the difference is that you have allowed yourself to be completely immersed in its twisted world-view, rather than examining it with a rational mind.

[Quoted] "Again, I suggest you read my big reference on Biblical violence. God is the most prolific murderer of the Bible, and he also commits the very first murder of the Bible. In every sense of the word, he introduced murder into the world."

The first murder was that of Abel by Cain.

Adam would have lived forever if God had not gone berserk. Adam was the first murder victim (unless, of course, you believe that his longevity disconnects cause and effect, in which case you would feel that God's death penalty for eating the apple was a lie).

[Quoted] "Who the hell wouldn't want to fall away from a mass murdering sociopath?"

God isn't that.

You're ignoring evidence.

[Quoted] "Anyway, God's "chosen people" were subjected to a peculiar form of "love": they were repeatedly punished with horrible plagues and disasters whenever they tried to gain freedom of religion. If the New Testament declares all people to be "God's people" as you say, then we are now all condemned to the same stifling atmosphere of religious intolerance that permeated ancient Israel. Small wonder, then, that Christians have been so intolerant throughout their entire history!"

Are you saying that if you love someone, you cannot punish them? Do you have children? If so, have you ever punished them for anything? Discipline is a very important thing.

Yes, it is. I love my children and I discipline them when necessary, but never with cruelty. Never the way the Old Testament God punishes his "children". Moreover, I don't expect them to worship me or obey my every word. I want them to have long, happy, fulfilling lives, not to spend their lives working for my gratification. That's what real love is, not this Old Testament nonsense of beating the shit out of someone if they don't do what you say.

Jump to sub-page:

Jump to: