Christians love to claim that their morality comes from the bible. And they do — to an extent. But they often forget about or ignore the evil examples and commands of their holy book.
Here’s a quiz to see if you have biblical morality. It asks questions like:
Two strangers visit your home, and you are kind enough to provide them with accommodations for the night. They tell you they are angels appearing on behalf of the Lord. However, later in the evening, an angry mob turns up seeking to sodomize your guests. What do you do?
If you buy a Hebrew servant, how many years must he serve?
Your next-door neighbor is a nurse that works weekends in the emergency room of the local hospital so that she can care for her children during the week while her husband is at work. When you notice that she works every Sunday, what should you do?
I’m happy to report that I have 0% of the negative morality in the Bible. I hope you can say the same about yourself.
(sent in by Pascalle)
I knew it was a good idea to tell you about that quiz on facebook :)
I have no biblical morals at all.. i’m way too nice.
Cue the deranged–oops, I mean “loving”–godbots who will spout the same tired tropes consisting of the following:
* Clearly, Daniel, you’re misreading the Bible!
* Clearly, Daniel, you went to a messed-up church that totally isn’t what the TRUE church is!
* Random Bible verses along with a “God bless you!”
Add to that the usual suspects who post long diatribes using the True Scotsman fallacy or the First Cause argument, this promises to be a 100+ comment thread.
Damn it, Roger, you just summarized this entire thread before it started! What fun is that? :)
Roger, you forgot
*Clearly Daniel, that is the old testament. With Jesus we have a new covenant with our Lord.
This is probably my favorite…
A friend of a friend is fleeing from an attacking army, seeking shelter in your home. You should…
a. Offer him a glass of milk.
b. Cover him with a blanket and keep watch at the door.
c. Wait ’til he goes to sleep and nail his head to the floor with a tent spike.
d. All of the above.
For the answer, check Judges 4
@Daniel: I know! I’m such a spoilsport.
@jedipunk: man, how did I forget that old chestnut? Isn’t it wonderful how the “new” covenant is all nice and warm and fuzzy…so long as you accept every bit of bullshit that Paul (the dude who NEVER KNEW JESUS) says, or else skip straight to the Book of Revelation, when that warm and fuzzy Jesus goes all “Rambo” on your ass.
Now, I’m no biblical scholar, but I remember reading once that the word for ‘know’ is used in the bible dozens of times. That only once is it used unambiguously to refer to sex and in the Sodom story, it certainly could, ahem, go both ways.
Of course, that doesn’t condone sending your daughters out if you believe it’s a raping mob.
@Roger
*Clearly, Daniel, those examples were only relevant to people in those times.
*Only an atheist would focus on the negative things.
—-
This quiz cracked me up.
I must say that the stoning of the medium to death is tempting along with the rest of the “healers” who are just as bad as the more organized religion in praying on the week and desperate.
As for the whole new covenant thing am I the only one who see the faulty logic. If we take the religeos base assumptions than
1. God is perfect
2. The bible including the old testament is the holy word of god
If so how do you explain the discarding of all those laws.
In this case you should assume that when god decided to break his covenant with the jewish people (insert free will Vs predestination debate here) then his new chosen should still follow his holy rules (unless the whole pork thing was just a huge misunderstanding). It make god sound like Microsoft releasing a beta version (judaism) then working out some bugs and releasing a patch (christianity SP1) and if you take Muslims word for it then releasing the ultimate version.
Isn’t life so much easier when you don’t have to think?
Others here are more versed in the Bible than I.
Can anyone (theist or atheist) explain a moral “learned” in the Bible that can NOT be proven to have been learned through thousands of generations of human social interaction?
This is one of my favorites from the bible. Watch the xtians try to contextualize a way out of all of the immoral passages in thier divenely inspire holy book. Heres one of my favorite qoutes.
“And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do. If she please not her master, who hath betrothed her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed: to sell her unto a strange nation, he shall have no power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her. And if he have betrothed her unto his son, he shall deal with her after the manner of daughters. If he take him another wife: her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish” (Exodus 21:7-10). ”
I watched Dan barker Debate phil fernandez and I think barker did a great job of pointing out the bibles true morality. Here is the Website with the mp3 links
http://www.rctr.org/ap5.htm
Another quote from the divinely inspired moral document.
Numbers 31:13-18
“13And Moses, and Eleazar the priest, and all the princes of the congregation, went forth to meet them without the camp.
14And Moses was wroth with the officers of the host, with the captains over thousands, and captains over hundreds, which came from the battle.
15And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive?
16Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the LORD in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the LORD.
17Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.
18But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.”
Im wondering if god had a cut off point at 5 or something like that? How could it be moral to save an infant virgin for a maurading army? How moral to kill the men, women, boys and male babies. Why does a moral god spare the female children but smites the male children.
0% here, too! w00t!
Tell you what, if we’re all wrong, Hell is going to have the best party EVER. ;-P
I got 8%
I didnt answer the question before, me and the bible have nothng to do with one another. Zero percent bible morality for me.
Well leaving aside the Bible bashing (pun intended) where do we get our morals from? I think it fairly easy to show that societies do share a common set of morals/norms and these have changed over time but there still seem to be some key features that have ‘evolved’ over time and occur in more than a single culture. So taking some examples – murder, property rights, equality, justice. These are all values that most people would prescribe to but if I was ask to justify why I believe them to be the ‘right’ thing to do I would be hard pressed to come up with a better reason than it just feels right or treat others as you wish to be treated yourself. Doesn’t exactly sound very convincing to me. My own pet theory, admittedly from a level of ignorance, is that morals develop to provide a society mechanisms that allows it to function but then I remember how once the pressure of a society is removed how easy it is for our moral standards change. So any thoughts from people who’ve thought about this a lot harder than I have!
The concept of morality is a fallacy. Nature, character are the true origins of supposed…morality. In the spirit there is no duality, that meaning no potential for both good & evil, only good. The flesh realm is a divided kingdom which can not stand.
Or did you not know that self improvement is both a sin and an impossibility? lol.
There is a life…
JC
Your morality is 100% in line with that of the bible.
You are a good and moral Christian. Jerry Falwell would be proud! Now go sacrifice an ox for the sweet savour of the lord!
…. I just picked all the worst answers. Goddamn.
Ahh…the anti-religious individual…good, we are in agreement!
Now go and learn the true offer…while I get back to my sacrifices…lol.
This quiz gives a great reality check to evil Old Testament teaching. Judges 19:24-29 is one of the most horrific stories of the Bible.
The day I turn my daughter over to a drunken mob to be raped is the day I die. What father wouldn’t give up his own life to save his daughter? The worst part of the story is the mob doesn’t even want his daughter. The father came up with the idea. Instead they take a poor concubine and rape her all night until she dies.
People will claim that Jesus was the “New Deal” and rewrote the teachings of the Old Testament. A righteous and perfect god would have gotten it right the first time.
John C(resident Xian): “The concept of morality is a fallacy.”
True, there is no Absolute morality, which would mean there is no “sin”, in an Absolute sense. For example, is it *always* “evil” to “kill” or “lie”?
Continues….”In the spirit there is no duality, that meaning no potential for both good & evil, only good.”
So, “In the spirit”(wherever/whatever that means) there is no free agency; no free will. ‘ Got it.
Condescends: “There is a life…”
Yes, thank you!…and we’re living it right now!
Today I decided to test my wife’s loyalty to me by asking her to slit our infant son’s throat.
She trussed him up and drew the knife, but at the last minute I told her, “Just kidding!”
We hugged afterward and rejoiced in our perfectly Biblical sense of morality.
John C: “Ahh…the anti-religious individual…good, we are in agreement!”
and not even 3 seconds later……
John C: “Now go and learn the true offer….”
Telling people that they need to learn your personal beliefs *is* RELIGION.
@Boom-
See my most recent response to you on the other thread…
And oh yea…have an awesome day!
@ jabster
So taking some examples – murder, property rights, equality, justice. These are all values that most people would prescribe to but if I was ask to justify why I believe them to be the ‘right’ thing to do I would be hard pressed to come up with a better reason than it just feels right or treat others as you wish to be treated yourself.
My two cents. Our expression of morality comes from what we value and what we want. Punishments for murder is illustrative. The punishment has historically been contingent on *who* was murdered. A plantation owner in the antebellum south could usually murder his slave without punishment. In some places, the punishment for murdering a women was less harsh than the punishment than for murdering a man. So while murder is a universal crime, how it applies in legal systems varies based on who/what we value at the time. (I know some people freak out at the thought of humanism, but it values humans equally, which IMO is a step up from many religious practices.)
@beattiude-
Do you understand the symbolism of the “woman”, the female aspect (soul) of man? There is much symbolism and wisdom in scripture when you know the code…
It is the glory of God to conceal a matter and the glory of kings (us) to search it out…Proverbs 25:2
I know…I’m a delusional, crazy guy…lol.
Why would something impossible be a sin? It’s like making a law against eating the sun…
But, really, what makes you think that self-improvement is impossible? I’m happy to report I’ve changed for for the better over the last ten years, and I’m pretty sure I did most of the work myself. If I was the only person who could make this claim, I might understand your point, but millions of people have undergone a process of self-improvement. It’s hardly controversial. Do you believe that I’m deluded about how much of a jerk I used to be (and that everyone who has known me over that period shares an identical delusion), or that some other entity was the driving force behind that improvement? How would you prove that either way?
And why is the Bible written in code? It’s almost like God wants people to think he’s a murderous, misogynistic tyrant with anger issues!
If only he could have written the bible in plain language that anyone could understand, we wouldn’t be having this conversation about how horrific the morality in the bible is, right? More to the point, we wouldn’t have people killing their kids because they think that’s what god wants…
John’s particular mental imbalance allows him to decode scripture in ways that leave the rest of us baffled.
It’s best to just ignore the babblings from that corner.
***
I think the best example of the bible’s screwed up morality comes in the Hebrew concept of the sacrifice that cleans one of sin. I sinned, therefore I will kill a goat, and the goats blood pouring out on the ground and its fatty bits making smoke will please god and absolve me of the sin.
Which, of course, leads directly up to the idea that a sinful world requires that a sinless man be tortured to death to make god happy and absolve us of sin.
It is a fundamentally twisted concept, this ‘kill something to make up for sinning’ idea.
@Jabster:
“…I would be hard pressed to come up with a better reason than it just feels right or treat others as you wish to be treated yourself. Doesn’t exactly sound very convincing to me. ”
What you’ve described sounds a lot like Empathy.
It’s a trait with proven evolutionary advantages, and it’s not limited to homo sapiens.
John C: “See my most recent response to you on the other thread…”
I’ve seen it, thanks, and address it. ‘Didn’t take long.
BTW, your answers here, are no more effective that they are on the Kurt Warner thread.
God ‘less.
@Winter-
There is a “Self” and a Christ within. We live out of one or the other. The former has a finite and limited potential tied to humanity the latter is a spiritual (endless) realm and life and so not limited in that sense. The tire tread on the former is forever worn…the latter never wears down, is incapable of decay or limitation.
We keep trying to “be something”, or someone apart from Him, outside of the original matrix…that’s all I am saying.
Hey its a beautiful day here, I’m headed to the golf course…cant resist…gotta go, take care for now.
I would be happy to pick it up later on if you care to…I always enjoy our discussions, I know you think I’m loopier than a bowl of fruit loops but I appreciate your tolerance and engagement, says a lot for you.
Thx, JC
I know I’m going to regret asking this, but…. do you have any reason to believe this? Does it explain anything that can’t be explained with the self alone?
I’d say you were moderately loopy. I’m fairly certain that you’re actually being honest about your belief, and are prepared to admit to the consequences of that belief, which affords you more respect than I give to most of the theists who post here. I do want to understand what you’re talking about, but you seem to have difficulty putting your thoughts into a form that others can understand, which makes it tricky. But I keep thinking that if I push at it, you’ll eventually say something that makes sense.
The fact that you seem to honestly believe that words mean something different from what everyone believes they mean does not make this easy.
Does it say a lot for me, or for the “Christ” within me? How can you tell who should get the credit?
But, to return to my earlier question for a moment: why would the Bible be written in a code such that the gang-rape and murder of an innocent woman is used to symbolise the integration of wisdom and intellect? Is this meant to be seen as a good thing or a bad thing? Could a metaphor have been constructed such that people couldn’t argue that word of god was horrific and immoral? How many people have turned away from the truth because of these metaphors?
Wintermute, when I grow up I want to be as tolerant and measured as you are in your responses.
I fear that my mother’s fiery Latin blood, combined with my father’s Germanic need to conquer, war in my veins and prevent it.
I like when I arrive at a thread after you, though, because you’ve generally said what I wanted to say but in a much nicer way.
@ Jabster
This has been an interest of mine for awhile now, but theists tend to get caught in the trap of saying atheists are immoral when, if they are honest, really mean that their is no objective sense of morality to found in atheism. Some atheists then stand up to espouse some form utilitarianism or what was referred to earlier as empathy and try to show that these are good grounds to try to define morality from. These grounds would be, simply put, the benefit of society and furthering of human progress.
Personally I’ve found atheists like Hume or Nietzsche more logical, who are skeptical or down right against any idea of objective morality. Which leads me to my last point, I’ve been reading Ayn Rand lately and her philosophy of Objectivism. This is clear attempt to place morality on an objective groundwork apart from any deity. I’d like to hear if any here think she is successful in her efforts or not.
No. I find Rand fairly repulsive, actually.
Ty: Thanks. I try not to give people too much ammunition to dismiss me as a thoguhtless and angry atheist, but I succeed far less often than I’d like. I frequently find it hard to stop my exasperation from turning into outright attacks. I try and limit it to good-natured snark, and that seems to work as often as not.
Barry: Hume started with “no objective morality” and ended up with something in the same ballpark as utilitarianism. Ditto Kant, though a Kantian Imperative view of morality leads to some odd conclusions, so I tend to think of that as a poor sister to real utilitarian systems. Nietzsche and Rand are odious people who jump straight from “there is no objective morality” to “therefore I can do whatever I want, and screw whoever gets hurt” without ever considering the existence of society.
Personally, I feel that utilitarianism (of whatever flavour) is the most defensible basis for a moral framework, but how people come to their morality is of far less important than what those morals are. Nietzsche and Rand fail on that count.
… patiently waiting for John C to introduce a post with a “Hi-diddly-ho” a la Ned Flanders.
“I frequently find it hard to stop my exasperation from turning into outright attacks. ”
I fail that test all too often.
“but how people come to their morality is of far less important than what those morals are. Nietzsche and Rand fail on that count.”
Exactly why I find Rand repulsive. Her path to her conclusions is of far less importance to me than the fact that her conclusions create a very unpleasant society.
I call myself utilitarian, and find that many people have a lot of misconceptions about what that actually means. I get a lot of rebuttals that begin with, “Oh, you can do anything you want as long as it’s useful then?”
Bleh.
Please assume that my idea of useful includes myself, my clan, my country, my species, my world, my universe, etc.
@John C
“Do you understand the symbolism of the “woman”, the female aspect (soul) of man? There is much symbolism and wisdom in scripture when you know the code…”
As others have said. Why is the Bible written in code? It’s not enough that god refuses to show any proof he exists, but you also have to decifer code to even begin to understand his divine word?
How clever of god to use the symbolism code of rape to teach us a moral life lesson.
Nietzsche and Rand are odious people who jump straight from “there is no objective morality” to “therefore I can do whatever I want, and screw whoever gets hurt” without ever considering the existence of society.
Yikes! While I agree with you for the most part on Rand, Nietzsche can’t be read the way you’re reading him without ignoring entire swaths of his commentary. His discussion on revenge, the treatment of criminals, and against “master morality” all point away from this sort of analysis. He was deeply concerned with the consequences of action, and did not ignore the consequences of humans being social creatures.
Coincidentally, if memory serves, didn’t Rand try to justify a rape in one of her books?
It’s been a long time, so my memory may be faulty on that one.
Elemenope:
It’s been a long time since I read Nietzsche, and I never got very far then, before giving up in disgust, so I fully expect that my impression of his philosophies may be in error. Actually, my most prominent memories of him right now are filtered through Hitchcock’s Rope.
Anyway, I stand corrected.
My first thought is on the story of Lot/angels/Sodom. Nowhere does it say in that story that God commanded Lot to offer his daughters to the mob. It seems to me Lot made up that idea by himself. Since God responded by blinding the mob so they could hurt neither the angels nor Lot’s daughters I would take that as more of a point for God then a point against him.
You challenge the morality of the Bible, but you fail to read the entire section or consider the differences in cultures. We are discussing time periods when in general people were far more barbaric than we are today. That doesn’t mean the biblical God actually wanted slavery etc.
It is impossible to assume that you know what every passage in the Bible is saying when you do not know any of the historical context. Just as an example, Jesus makes several references to “a camel going through the eye of a needle.” Most people think he is talking about an actual sewing needle. In fact he is referring to a very small gate in a city wall called “the eye of the needle” which was used to let late night travelers into the city after the regular gates had been shut. You just can’t take everything in the Bible literally whether you believe it is the inerrant word of God or not. I do not understand why you would interpret it so literally anyway. No other books written thousands of years ago are taken completely literally (e.g. Homer’s Iliad, and the Odyssey, Virgil’s Aeneid, Beowulf . . .).
Furthermore, other parts of the Bible state that the law was a tool to show humanity that we cannot be perfect because if you measure yourself by the law you will never keep all of it. Also, some laws were made because humans are “hard hearted” (i.e. divorce, etc.) and there was no other happy medium.
All I’m saying is that you really can’t take everything out of context when reading the Bible. It all relates together whether you like it or not.
@John C. It is dangerous to suggest that the Bible is a secret code. The fact is, Christianity is a transparent religion. None of its facets are hidden.
However, it is also true that not everyone can understand everything about God (because then God would be human). Christianity actually takes a lot of thought. See C.S. Lewis’s Mere Christianity for further discussion of being a “thinking” Christian.
0%!
For the record, no city is known to have ever had a gate with this name. It’s most often said that is gate was in Jerusalem, which can be definitively said to be false. This is a 20th Century idea to subvert the actual meaning of the phrase.
Jewish midrash of the time frequently used the phrase “It is easier to pass a rope through the eye of a needle than to…”, which preserves more of the literal meaning. But as the Hebrew words for “rope” and “camel” are almost homophonetic, this is a clear pun on that pre-existing, common phrase, and the “eye of a needle” therefore means exactly what most people believe it to mean.
You know, Esther, some of us actually have read the entire bible, do know the social context, and still consider the “morality” of the bible to be grotesque. See my “killing things absolves me of sin” example.
Winter, you beat me to that ‘eye of the needle’ clarification. That’s one of those urban legends that gets passed around in Christian circles quite a lot.
@Esther
You make a more logical arguement than claiming the bible is a secret code. And I agree that it should be read in its entirety and not pulled out of context.
What I don’t agree with it the claim that “We are discussing time periods when in general people were far more barbaric than we are today. That doesn’t mean the biblical God actually wanted slavery etc.”
Yes they were barbaric people. But the scriptures were believed to be inspired by god himself. The Bible doesn’t leave much arguement on this topic:
2 Timothy 3:16
“All Scripture is inspired by God and is useful to teach us what is true and to make us realize what is wrong in our lives. It corrects us when we are wrong and teaches us to do what is right.”
So whether it was written for and authored by babaric people, it was inspired by god. So yes, god did want slavery and all of the other evil laws of the Old Testimant.
Well I did think Esther had a point regarding divorce. Jesus does change the law on divorce. That is a case of God espousing situational ethics so I don’t fully buy the argument that the Bible is a source of objective morality anymore than I buy the argument it is a source of the best morality.
Anything Jesus changes though is hand waved away with the ‘new covenant, old covenant’ excuse.
@Esther-
Scripture (particularly OT) is rich with symbolism and understanding these things helps to unveil the truth behind some of the more harsh sounding words.
I agree, not all scripture is “coded”, but it certainly helps to know the heart & nature of the Author.
“it certainly helps to know the heart & nature of the Author.”
Which you learn by reading scripture, which can only be interpreted correctly if you know the heart & nature of the author.
A-round and round we go…
You forgot Ty, you also learn His nature by opening your heart, and plugging your ears (mind). Duh.
The Slactivist has an excellent (and short) article on the “eye of the needle” story.
Check it out.
@Esther
[i]That doesn’t mean the biblical God actually wanted slavery etc. [/i]
Er, yeah it does. If he thought to impart “don’t eat shellfish or swine”, then it would seem to me that slavery would be WAY HIGHER on that list of things that says “don’t do”. However, throughout the Bible, there are rules pertaining to slavery, but nothing that condemns it. This means there is only one conclusion to be drawn from that:
God was perfectly a-ok with slavery and rape. But you’re going straight to hell if you go to Red Lobster.
“The concept of morality is a fallacy. Nature, character are the true origins of supposed…morality. In the spirit there is no duality, that meaning no potential for both good & evil, only good. The flesh realm is a divided kingdom which can not stand.
Or did you not know that self improvement is both a sin and an impossibility? lol.
There is a life…”
Gib – ber – ish.
John C – Step away from the bong. At least long enough to post here.
@Bill-
Sorry, Phelps and I gotta a little carried away…lol
Seriously, there is a spirit realm (God is spirit) and there, in that place of the kingdom is no duality…no division of self, a “oneness” where all limitations and pluralities are…no more.
“Seriously, there is a spirit realm (God is spirit)”
Evidence please?
“…and there, in that place of the kingdom is no duality…no division of self, a “oneness” where all limitations and pluralities are…no more.”
Gibberish
“Seriously, there is a spirit realm (God is spirit) and there, in that place of the kingdom is no duality…no division of self, a “oneness” where all limitations and pluralities are…no more.”
I found this concept fascinating when I read it in Joseph Campbell back in college.
And heroically stoned, if I recalled correctly. ;)
I’m beginning to wonder if the writers of the Bible weren’t all heroicially stoned. THEN it might make some damn sense.
Whatever. I didn’t expect to convince anyone. However, know you have not convinced me. I notice no one answered my point about the story of Lot and Sodom. I also notice that your arguments describing why God agrees with slavery are rather convoluted and fail to address my reference to Jesus explaining why God allowed divorce. I’ll move on now, debate without clash is boring. *yawn*
It’s interesting that I have been a Christian my entire life and have always heard the “eye of a needle” passage taken entirely literally until recently. It was explained to me by an extremely well-educated person, so I’m not going to believe you people right off until I’ve looked into it myself.
@ Esther
I notice no one answered my point about the story of Lot and Sodom.
I am not sure what you are talking about. The earlier reference on mob rape was from Judges. So are you talking about the Judges story where the crowd was given the concubine and raped her until she was dead? Are we somehow supposed to be impressed by the morality of that story? Because I’m not impressed.
Esther:
No, Lot’s actions were not at the request of his Angelic visitors, but they so approved of Lot giving up his daughters for mass rape that they spared onlt him and his family when they destroyed the city for its sins. So clearly, God didn’t consider it much of strike against him.
As for the eye of the needle thing, please do look into it. Just because you credulously took someone else’s word and didn’t look into the previous claim is no reason to repeat the error now. Here are some good places to start your research:
http://www.biblicalhebrew.com/nt/camelneedle.htm
http://www.creationtips.com/eye_of_needle.html
Archeaologist will be happy to tell you that no such gate is known (and if it’s not known, we can’t know that Jesus was talking about it, right?), and that all the major cities it’s applied to, that his audience would be likely to know the gats of, definitively did not have such a gate.
The Jerome Biblical Commentary has a wonderful section on this passage, which concludes “The figure of the camel and the eye of the needle means exactly what is said; it does not refer to a cable or a small gate of Jerusalem”. I reccomend you check it out.
But really, ask yourself this: Did Jesus mean “It’s easier to do something mildly inconvenient…”, or “it’s easier to do something really, really difficult…”? If the former why would he dress it up so that someone not familiar with a specific city would assume he meant the latter?
Anyway, please research this as far as you can, and let us know what you conclude.
@Cello: No and no.
@John C. Symbolism does not mean secret code. The idea of the Bible being written in secret code invites heresy. Also, on symbolism, it is very, very easy to misinterpret symbolic references. I would advise that you read some the Christian authors out there (including Martin Luther) who have spent a lot of time and energy trying to understand the Christian life and God’s word.
@wintermute, The angelic visitors spared Lot because Abraham asked God to spare Lot and Lot’s family. The whole story goes back a wee bit further than that one chapter.
@All who responded to me: Again, I see a general theme of misconstruing people’s actions to be God’s on this blog. Unfortunately, the God of the Bible is not easy to understand. I cannot answer for everything in the Bible and have my own questions. I do not think there is anything wrong with challenging assumptions or questioning God. However, I do not see those of you who comment here challenging any of your own beliefs. It’s easy to challenge other people’s beliefs (i.e. Christians). It takes strength and honesty to question your own (yes, I have followed my own advice). It seems to me that you would prefer the Christian God be some sort of fairy godmother who grants wishes and stuff. Nope, sorry. There are tough questions in the Bible that take thought. Do not assume that every Christian is a moron just because we have beliefs you do not understand. Take the time to think about your own beliefs and reactions to the beliefs of others.
As I said . . . moving on now. . . bye.
@ Esther
However, I do not see those of you who comment here challenging any of your own beliefs.
That’s because we can’t even get past the argument that we have beliefs in the first place. LOL.
I know a lot of the comments are overly simplified but most of us do get the context from which Christians are speaking. I think it is like a scale. Everyone has questions, like yourself. But with nonbelievers those questions weigh out to the side of disbelief while believers end up on the side of belief.
And God is a Magic Wishing Pixie who does whatever he’s asked, right? Because that seems to be a minority opinion amongst the theists that post here…
Or is the point of the story that Abraham was a selfish jerk who just wanted to save his friend (even though he was the kind of person who’d send his daughters out to get raped), and not care what happened to anyone else?
Y’know, these concerned trolls (like Esther) can be put down with one shot: present incontrovertible, empirical, testable and repeatable evidence and proof of the existence of your deity. Hell, failing that, present incontroveertible, empirical, testable and repeatable arguments for the existence of your deity. And please, no First Cause arguments, or I’ll have to use my pimp hand on you.
Actually, no they can’t. Because they don’t understand what all those words you used mean.
Wintermute,
You are exactly right. No matter what most of us say, people are often either unable or unwilling to understand our words.
I got 85% in line with the Babble. I simply chose the most ridiculously violent and evil answer on the list. Not too bad for an evil atheist.
@ esther
“@All who responded to me: Again, I see a general theme of misconstruing people’s actions to be God’s on this blog. Unfortunately, the God of the Bible is not easy to understand. I cannot answer for everything in the Bible and have my own questions.”
mark:My question to you Esther is this, if folks like you are looking for gods word. If folks like me and the other non believers on this board at one point and time searched dillignently for answers to these types of questions then exactly why would god make his masterpiece (the bible) so hard to understand.
It makes no sense to me why an all loving god would make it hard to understand exactly where he is comming from or what his word is. Especially given the fact that if one chooses the wrong religion that person will spend forever in hell?
Robert Heinlein and I both know about the loving father offering up his two tender young daughters for the mob to have their way with, if only they will just go away and leave him alone!
How sweet.
Also we both loved the one where God sent two she-bears (yep, their sex is on record!) to tear up the young children for sassing his bald priest Elisha.
Endearingly loving of the little children.
“Suffer the little children to come unto me…”
… preferably if the children themselves suffer.
“Or did you not know that self improvement is both a sin and an impossibility? ”
*LSTM*
Ooooohhh… you must believe that we’re “born evil”.
That’s the premise you swallowed. Yeah, go look at a baby… so eeeevil!
Where’s the evidence? People lie, steal, etc.? Well, other PEOPLE teach them to! A baby doesn’t know how to lie. Teach it with your actions how to lie, then believe it’s evil, and then believe you have to teach and *force* it to tell the truth. Sick.
Love the rejoinder about it being a sin to eat the sun!
Silly “Thou Shalt Nots” are as stupid as believing we need “Thou Shalts”. If something is your true nature, it doesn’t need to be enforced. Go ahead, who *forces* the flowers to grow?
John c:
“Seriously, there is a spirit realm (God is spirit) and there, in that place of the kingdom is no duality…no division of self, a “oneness” where all limitations and pluralities are…no more.”
There is nothing worse than a neo-hippy xian!!! Thay are so tripped out on themselves they don’t know down form up!