I just got an email from the American Atheist magazine, and they would like to feature me in their "Atheists in Foxholes" segment. :) I though that was pretty cool. Okay, so I haven't actually been in an actual foxhole, but I have been shot at, and had my life in mortal danger numerous times, and not once, ever, did any sort of theistic thought enter my head. Heck, I can't think of the last time ever that anything close to theism contaminated my brain... I think it was when I was like 15 and trying to bang this hot "bible chick" and it was more a disguise of convenience. And when you think about it, it really seems to be that for the majority of believers. I just have the honesty to actually admit it!
Oh, and now that I have a good job offer, gotta get ready to put this house on the market. Since things have to move so fast, we'll be pricing this place to sell, so I'll be taking a beating on it... Oh well, I look at the long term gain here, over the short term loss. Something that folks on average are notoriously bag at judging. That and I think people get too caught up in security, and are too afraid to take chances. Well, except the chance to watch American Idol, rot their brain with religion, and get fat... But that's another rant I'm sure! ;)
Facebook Badge
My Blog List
-
-
-
Covidfreude3 years ago
-
-
Announcing INSIGHT at Skeptic.com10 years ago
-
-
Technology & Innovation12 years ago
-
-
The Chemtrail Conspiracy13 years ago
-
Introducing VaccineTimes.com14 years ago
33 comments:
I just got an email from the American Atheist magazine, and they would like to feature me in their "Atheists in Foxholes"
Have the American Atheists ever cleared up that "sexual identity" question that last I heard, was still far from settled? Did you inform them that you are straight? I assumed that you are, I really don't know.
it was more a disguise of convenience. And when you think about it, it really seems to be that for the majority of believers
I agree up to a certain point. There are some who attend church regularly who wouldnt be able to give you reason #1 why they believe what they believe if ever asked in a straightforward manner. I would wager that there are even some ministers that would fall into the same category. The Bible tells us to "sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear" (1 Peter 3:15)
Too many Christians are simply content to never leave the comfortable confines of like-minded individuals that they never once prepare anything to answer hard questions and if they ever were confronted with one would simply stare as the proverbial "deer caught in the headlights".
Yes, I am 100% straight. Although, why is that at all anything to even question someone on.
Oh yeah, bigotry, discrimination, hate... All those good christian values expressed to anyone that isn't in whatever one of your 38,000 different interpretations...
Relax slipperskim. When some guy named "Bruce" asks you to forward a picture for the article in which you have to don a red, white and blue leotard, don't say I didnt warn you.
bigotry, discrimination, hate... All those good christian values
Tell you what, cite the one example that gets your knickers in a bunch the most and maybe we can discuss it. Building bridges as it were.
How about the xtian stance on slavery? Or women's rights? Or on letting homosexuals have their human rights? Or even respecting a person's beliefs enough not to try to convert them? In your world, as long as Jeffry Dhalmer accepted jebus, he goes to heaven, but Gandhi is in hell... It's just so fucking silly that it really doesn't deserve the attention I mockingly give it even.
OK Copernicus, what part of cite the one example that gets your knickers in a bunch the most and maybe we can discuss it did you have the greatest difficulty wrapping your mind around?
How about narrowing it down to your personal favorite and we'll take it from there. Capiche?
Why do I have to select just ONE? The whole superstition is a steaming pile of shit. The entire collection of works works against itself. By picking just one singular item, you'll find the apologetics route of weaseling out and obfuscating one iota of data to magically declare that the whole weight of history isn't against you.
Sorry, not going to take that route.
Why do I have to select just ONE? The whole superstition is a steaming pile of shit. The entire collection of works works against itself. By picking just one singular item, you'll find the apologetics route of weaseling out and obfuscating one iota of data to magically declare that the whole weight of history isn't against you.
Sorry, in the future I'll try to use words of common usage in the English languange consisting of less than 3 syllables as to not confuse you. I'll take the lead here and simply ask a direct question of you in order to demonstrate your lack of intellectual honesty in this matter. None of the subjects mentioned can be dismissed by a one or two sentence explanations and can be contentious. Thus..What is your understanding re: The Bible and the issue of Slavery? It's the first issue that you mentioned that you have a problem with and I wouldnt mind examining it in a straightforward manner if you would like to somehow give the impression of at least being someone who is anything other than completely closed-minded on the topic of religion.
First of all, you are the one that has shown a greater propensity towards mental deficiencies. Not understanding that citing sources that support your beliefs because that is their mission statement fiasco. Also, you also seem to totally miss any posts done with humour. That said, let's look at slavery:
Damn, too many characters... Here is a link that says the same thing: http://godisimaginary.com/i13.htm
Your god seems to just LOVE him some slavery. And isn't it funny that the bible is on the wrong side of nearly all these moral changes toward a more sane and civilized society?
Your god seems to just LOVE him some slavery. And isn't it funny that the bible is on the wrong side of nearly all these moral changes toward a more sane and civilized society?
This is just MONUMENTALLY stupid Lunk. Even by your lofty standards. First you direct me to an apologetic website of one of your co-religionists who, like your above statement, never once define the word slavery.
Incredible.
Then you have the historical autism to come up with something as foolhardy as "isn't it funny that the bible is on the wrong side of nearly all these moral changes toward a more sane and civilized society?" when it would be quite interesting to see you cite one society in which atheism was official public policy and DIDNT ENSLAVE an entire nation.
But I'm game, sporto. Let's have a look at what one of your brethren wrote. From the article you cited.
"(Citing Genesis 17:12) In this passage God understands that people buy other people and, quite obviously, is comfortable with the concept. God wants slaves circumcised in the same way as non-slaves.
Again, the word "slave" isnt defined. "Bondservant" might be a new and unfamiliar word for you but it applies in this case. These were people who willingly subjegated themselves to work under a contract or, by Jewish law, had to repay someone who was owed money by working for the debtor. There were laws guaranteeing them humane treatment and punishment for the master if they were not treated so. If they ran away to another master, the new master was forbidden to return him to the previous one. Insofar as circumcision is concerned, this was an outward sign to the world and was voluntary to the bondservant. This article from the apologetic website called The NY Times from this year clearly states that "Male circumcision, already shown to reduce the incidence of H.I.V. infection in men, also reduces transmission of both herpes simplex virus Type 2 and human papilloma virus, a study has found." Yet another example of the Bible being ahead of the curve when it comes to science and health.
Moving along..From the webpage of unique gems of wisdom that you cited..(Citing Exodus 21:32)Not only does God condone slavery, but here God places a value on slaves -- 30 shekels of silver. Note that God is not sophisticated enough to understand the concept of inflation. It is now 3,000 years later, and a gored slave is still worth 30 shekels of silver according to God's word.
You had better be careful when the bondservant is working or it will cost you. In order to properly guage these instructions Lunk, I would like you to come up with a proper metric from that point in time that was better than 30 shekels to place value on a bondservant. Concentrate on the period of about 1500 BC. If you are able to find a better course of treatment for bondservants (or some societies actually had "slavery" as it existed in the antebellum south) then please list it here so I can show it to Bible scholars.
Your co-congregant also seems to have a problem with this verse from Leviticus You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.
As we've already seen, they had to be treated humanely. A bondservant had to be cared for and couldnt be kicked to the curb because of old age or arthritis preventing them from working anymore. They had to be fed and a roof over their heads. Social Security did not exist then. If the head of a household died, the son couldnt just chuck the "dead weight" out the door. It was against Jewish Law.
Please bring up any other point you would like to discuss re: slavery and the Bible Lunk.
Awaiting replies......
Ah, so beating and driving awls through ears is what you do to bondservants? Remind me never to even consider working for you. If you ever work for me, I'll make sure to treat you biblically though!
Oh, so YOU can go to apologetics sites, but I can't? Nice hypocritical double standard...
Okay, how does the bible treat equal right for women? Oops, another one where misogyny is standard because it's a primitive book written by primitive men.
By coincidence (or Providence, depending upon your worldview) Ray comfort addressed this in a post today at his blog.
A blogger there recently wrote...
"Any Christians out there want to take on why the Bible has such a low opinion of women? The Bible is so much more damaging to society in that regard than porn, in my opinion
To which Comfort replied...
You obviously don’t know your Bible, or perhaps you having been visiting atheist websites and getting a lopsided view of the Scriptures from a few verses from the Old Testament. The Bible highly esteems women. Take the time to read the Book of Ruth or the Book of Esther and other parts of the Old Testament, where women are portrayed as heroes. Or read Proverbs 31 to see the incredible virtues of a liberated, hardworking, much-loved wife and business woman.
Then read in the New Testament, about how Jesus treated women with the utmost respect-—the "sinful" woman who washed His feet, and the one who was caught in the act of adultery. Or read in the Epistles about how husbands are instructed to love their wives as much as they love their own bodies.
Most women have no idea how men talk about them when they are not around--how they boast of their sexual exploits. So, I would suggest that you take the time to read the Bible, and you see how God’s Word honors the fairer sex, while much of a godless world treats women as sex objects to be used, and then discarded.
PS, the only apologist site I cited in my last post was the NY Times.
Ah, so beating and driving awls through ears is what you do to bondservants? Remind me never to even consider working for you. If you ever work for me, I'll make sure to treat you biblically though!
Let's adress these one at a time. First these "beatings" that you refer to.
And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished Exodus 21:20
This protects the bondservant. You can't kill him. Again, in order to keep this all in perspective, please cite another source from that time in which the bondservant was treated better. Often times they had no rights at all.
Let me ask you this. If you hired a bondservant, and right before the harvest you found him destroying farm implements, what would you do? You only have a couple of days to harvest the crop and now you are facing possible starvation at worst and economic uncertainty insofar as buying other goods at best. I'm not advocating beating anyone in this situation but given that this instruction was given to uneducated people in the ANE who never even heard of the English Rule of Law, nevermind labor rights, isnt this a step forward for such a society?
Nice "apologies". Sorry, those ring very hollow and weasly. ESPECIALLY the "translation" excuse. Bondservant is not the hebrew word that is under question, but rather the new testament greek word. The hebrew word is slave, very clearly. And the idea of capturing those not of your tribe is yet anthe INSTRUCTION on slavery. And NOWHERE does your impotent, unimaginative, and jerky god ever say that it's not right to own another human being.
The citing thing is your CONSISTENT citing of bible supporting sites for Noah's Ark, mustard *LOL* trees, etc. You have consistently and repeatedly used those sort of sites (and totally missed my point with the flat earth site analogy).
On women, why did Mike Fuckabee want women to submit per the baptist congress message? And why is there also things in the New Testament basically telling women to STFU? Again, it's all a bunch of made up bullshit tales. And again the apologies ring hollow. These are EXCUSES. I don't accept EXCUSES for total and abject failure in being a good human being.
To answer your question directly, if your impotent, stupid, unimaginative, and in all ways sucky god was really so powerful, wouldn't it be easy to give his worshipers rules on stone tablets that followed basic human rights? That outlined rule of law. That outlined labor standards? or was he just so weak that this was beyond him? Oh yeah, his stone tablets were all about LOOK AT ME AND ONLY ME! I AM A SMALL PETTY GOD. And then proceeded to kill 3000 of his own people for having a party because moses took his sweet ass time making up the tablets, and lugging them down the mountain (oh, wait, that whole fable is total bullshit too!).
Lunk, feel free to ask any Bible scholar on your own time, if in Hebrew, there are different words for the "bondservant" that entered into an agreement with a master and someone who became a part of the household through conquest of war. There is no other word.
To answer your question directly, if.....god was really so powerful, wouldn't it be easy to give his worshipers rules on stone tablets that followed basic human rights?
Ok, let's say for a moment that a commandment came down from God "Free all bondservants (or slaves if you prefer)". Then what? Where were they going to go? What were they going to do? The Industrial Revolution was several millenia away so there were no jobs. No employment in the fast food industry. My understanding is that the application process for Wal-Mart in those days was Draconian even by the standards of the day and the civil service exams were fixed.
My guess is that they would have entered into agreements with different landlords and households and continued the way things were.
If someone was part of a household due to conquest of war, it's not like they could just up and go home given that their town and family were probably wiped out anyway.
Re New Testament, 1st Century practices PLEASE READ AND EDUCATE YOURSELF.
"Paul says to slaves, "If you can gain your freedom, avail yourselves of the opportunity" (1 Corinthians 7:21). And he tells Philemon that that he should welcome his slave Onesimus back "no longer as a slave, but more than a slave, as a beloved brother" (Philemon 16) and that he should "receive him as you would receive me" (v.17). Paul tells Philemon that if Onesimus owes him anything, Paul would pay it himself (v.18-19). Finally he says, "Confident of your obedience, I write to you knowing that you will do even more than I say" (v.21) This is a strong and not so subtle hint that Philemon should grant freedom to Onesimus. Paul's condemnation of "enslavers" in 1 Timothy 1:10 also showed the moral wrong of forcibly putting anyone into slavery.
When we hear the word "slavery" today it is usually what we have read in books and seen on tv, concerning horrible abuses that occurred in the 19th century and earlier. But if that is what comes to mind when we read the word "slave" in Bible, then that is a distorted picture.
The person referred to as a "slave" or "bondsman" in the New Testament (Greek, doulos) was legally bound to a certain master, almost always for a limited period of time, until he could obtain his freedom. A detailed article in The International Bible Encyclopedia explains,
"Persons in slavery under Roman Law in the 1st century AD could generally count on being set free by the age of 30. Pertinent inscriptions, however, indicate that large numbers, approaching 50 percent, were set free before their 30th birthdays."
Slaves in this sense had a higher social status and better economic situation than free day laborers who had to search for employment each day (see Matthew 20:1-7, where the master of the house goes into the marketplace to hire day laborers at different times during the day). By contrast, those who were bondservants (or "slaves") had greater economic security with a continuing job and steady income."
Grudem, Wayne; Evangelical Feminism and Biblical Truth, Chapter 9, www.efbt100.com
"Such slaves (in the first century sense of "bondservants") worked in a variety of occupations: In Greco-Roman households, slaves served not only as cooks, cleaners and personal attendants, but also as tutors to persons of all ages, physicians, nurses, close companions and managers of the household. In the business world, slaves were not only janitors and delivery boys; they were managers of estates, shops and ships as well as salesmen and contracting agents. In the civil service, slaves were not only used for street paving and sewer cleaning gangs but also as administrators of funds and personnel and as executives with decision making powers.
How then did people become slaves? While many were born into slavery and while in earlier years up until the time of Caesar Augustus (63 BC- 14 AD) Romans had obtained slaves through conquest in war by the time of the New Testamant.
Large numbers of people sold themselves into slavery for various reasons, above all to enter a life that was easier and more secure than an existance as a poor freeborn person, to obtain special jobs and to climb socially......
Many non-Romans sold themselves to Roman citizens with the justified expectation, carefully regulated by Roman law, of becoming Roman citizens themselves when manumitted.
Certainly, capable slaves had an advantage over their free counterparts in that their owners would often supply them with an excellent education at the owner's expense. Famous philosophers (Epictetus), teachers, grammarians, administrators (M.A. Felix, the procurator who was Paul's judge in Acts 23:24-24:27) artists, physicians and writers were all a part of this practice. These slaves and former slaves formed a broad band of intellectuals in the 1st century. Such slaves did not have to wait until manumission before they were capable of establishing friendships with their owners and other free persons as human beings.
For many, self-sale into slavery with anicipaton of manumission provided the most direct means to be integrated into Greek and Roman society. As such, in stark contrast to New World Slavery in the 17-19th centuries, Greo-Roman slavery functioned as a process rather than a permanent condition."
Grudem, Wayne; Evangelical Feminism and Biblical Truth, Chapter 9, www.efbt100.com
And still your pussy god NEVER said that owning people is wrong? He FAILED, EPICALLY.
And again, you go to www.efbt100.com as a site, but throw a conniption when I go to godisimaginary.com? Hypocrite!
Sorry, I am dismissing you as mentally feeble, that evangelical site is nothing but apologetic LIES and DISTORTIONS. The bible is so incompetently written that it's obvious that no divine being would even want to associate with it. All a steaming pile of bullshit... And you can twist it to be interpreted as anything your little ratmind wants because soemone else said so. I at least think these things through on my own, and it's intuitively obvious to the casual observer that it's horsehockey.
Also, what the fuck does an industrial revolution have to do with the way you treat people? ANOTHER WEAK EXCUSE!
If your incompetent god was omnipotent, omnipresent, and omnibenevolent, he wouldn't have given them such a shithole to live in as a "promised" land. I swear, why haven't you xtians, jews and muslims fired this asshole? he sucks! he's unimaginative, incompetent, and downright stupid. Hell, given just mundane resources, and no interference I could do a better job than him without having to use any supernatural powers at all (of course, it would involve shedding childish superstitions).
Someone mention Romans?...
What Have The Romans Ever Done For Us?
And still your pussy god NEVER said that owning people is wrong? He FAILED, EPICALLY.
The FACT is that the institution of bondservice that existed in Biblical times and the institution of slavery as it existed in the antebellum south were two completely different things. First of all, the slaves of this country were victims of what the Bible refers to as "manstealing" which was strictly forbidden by Scripture.
It clearly does say that you can't "own" someone. Have you ever heard of a little "commandment" stating Thou shalt not steal? If it's wrong to steal a penny from someone, then how much more so to steal SOMEONE"S FREEDOM?!
Oy vay are you dense.
Really, that is what that commandment says? Please cite and footnote that with material outside of christian apologetics websites. Where does it strictly forbid enslaving someone who is not of your tribe? And if your weak sauce god is so powerful, why does he have to conform to human norms? Is he so pathetic that the traditions of the day take precedence over his will? Again, epic failure.
And again, there is indeed instructions in the bible on how to own people who are not of your tribe. It's wrong no matter HOW you frame it. Your god is just a made up entity so that men of the day could feel justified in doing what they did. Even today, just look at "The Family".
Some of my favorites:
However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)
When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment. (Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)
Except for murder, slavery has got to be one of the most immoral things a person can do. Yet slavery is rampant throughout the Bible in both the Old and New Testaments. The Bible clearly approves of slavery in many passages, and it goes so far as to tell how to obtain slaves, how hard you can beat them, and when you can have sex with the female slaves.
Many Jews and Christians will try to ignore the moral problems of slavery by saying that these slaves were actually servants or indentured servants. Many translations of the Bible use the word "servant", "bondservant", or "manservant" instead of "slave" to make the Bible seem less immoral than it really is. While many slaves may have worked as household servants, that doesn't mean that they were not slaves who were bought, sold, and treated worse than livestock.
You seem to be the one who is dense and totally ignoring the evils of the bable.
Thank you IVAN3MAN. Love that movie. Wonder if xtians actually "get" that movie? :P
- "[Slavery] was established by decree of Almighty God...it is sanctioned in the Bible, in both Testaments, from Genesis to Revelation...it has existed in all ages, has been found among the people of the highest civilization, and in nations of the highest proficiency in the arts." Jefferson Davis, President of the Confederate States of America
- "There is not one verse in the Bible inhibiting slavery, but many regulating it. It is not then, we conclude, immoral." Rev. Alexander Campbell
- "The right of holding slaves is clearly established in the Holy Scriptures, both by precept and example." Rev. R. Furman, D.D., Baptist, of South Carolina
- "The hope of civilization itself hangs on the defeat of Negro suffrage." A statement by a prominent 19th-century southern Presbyterian pastor, cited by Rev. Jack Rogers, moderator of the Presbyterian Church (USA).
- "The doom of Ham has been branded on the form and features of his African descendants. The hand of fate has united his color and destiny. Man cannot separate what God hath joined." United States Senator James Henry Hammond.
Larian: "Love that movie. Wonder if xtians actually "get" that movie?"
According to Wikipedia, apparently not. For instance, after the initial release of the film Monty Python's Life of Brian, it was banned for a year in Norway and because of that it was marketed in Sweden as "The film so funny that it was banned in Norway".
Sure there was a debate within the Christian Church as to whether the institution of slavery as it existed in the antebellum south was Biblical or not. Guess who won? Given that slavery is not accepted by a single denomination should be your first clue. I highly recommend Wilberforce and Bourne. You should read a little.
"Guess who won?"
Certainly not the churches that defended slavery! They pretty much HAD to adapt or become irrelevant. Much like the evolution debate will finally have a backlash on churches that refuse to adapt. The gaps are shrinking and your impotent little paper god will run out of places to hide.
My favorites again:
However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)
When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment. (Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)
Except for murder, slavery has got to be one of the most immoral things a person can do. Yet slavery is rampant throughout the Bible in both the Old and New Testaments. The Bible clearly approves of slavery in many passages, and it goes so far as to tell how to obtain slaves, how hard you can beat them, and when you can have sex with the female slaves.
Many Jews and Christians will try to ignore the moral problems of slavery by saying that these slaves were actually servants or indentured servants. Many translations of the Bible use the word "servant", "bondservant", or "manservant" instead of "slave" to make the Bible seem less immoral than it really is. While many slaves may have worked as household servants, that doesn't mean that they were not slaves who were bought, sold, and treated worse than livestock.
Slavery loving impotent god=Epic FAIL.
Certainly not the churches that defended slavery! They pretty much HAD to adapt or become irrelevant.
Said churches were unable to defend the institution of slavery as it existed in the US due to the fact that it wasnt the same system as described in the Bible.
You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance.
Such people COULD be freed upon renouncing idolatry and accepting semi-Jewish status. Insofar as "passing them on as an inheritance", such people could not be kicked to the curb due to old age, arthritis, etc. They had to be provided for and treated humanely, whether the head of the household was living or whether such responsibility passed to his son.
The Bible clearly approves of slavery in many passages, and it goes so far as to tell how to obtain slaves, how hard you can beat them, and when you can have sex with the female slaves.
It tries to lessen it's severity. Again, you still havent answered what all of the slaves in Abrahamic times would have done if suddenly "freed". Elderly "Abraham and Sarah had (literally) thousands of "slaves". If these peope werent willingly a part of their household, what did Abraham and Sarah do? Take turns "surrounding" said slaves in order that they not escape? In case you arent aware, slavery is as rampant today as it ever was and will probably still be going on until the last trumpet sounds. The Emancipation Proclamation and the surrender at the Appomattox Courthouse did not end slavery.
What is the passage you refer to insofar as "sex" is concerned?
While many slaves may have worked as household servants, that doesn't mean that they were not slaves who were bought, sold, and treated worse than livestock.
When slaves were "bought" as you say, who received the money? THE SLAVE? These people had to be treated humanely. If they ran away to another household, they couldnt be returned. Insofar as slavery through conquest of war, the prevailing attitudes of the time called for wholesale slaughter of conquered peoples. I doubt that you would argue that slaughter would have been preferable.
I'm sorry, your counter "arguments" lack any merit. It's like saying rape is okay if she's really asking for it by showing midriff...
And your arguments still don't address that a supposed omnipotent, omnipresent, omnibelevolent god is a total imbecile fucktwat... He couldn't come up with something better than illiterate goat herders could conceive? That shows me that even if there was any basis for your god, he's an impotent imbecile! Of course, the reality of the situation is that it's all made up by said illiterate goat herders.
And the slaughter that was endorsed in the bible on numerous occasions was also the est your moron god could come up with? Again, it just shows to me that it's all made up bullshit that had nothing divine about it, and was all a con for specific guys to exert power over those around them.
I'm sorry, your counter "arguments" lack any merit. It's like saying rape is okay if she's really asking for it by showing midriff
Please explain this so that even I could understand te comparison you are trying to make. If you were a poor resident of the ANE and your propects for employment were bleak, why WOULDNT you sell you services to someone willing to pay for them? Furthermore, why not sell said services to the one group in that part of the world who had specific laws they had to adhere promising to provide humane treatment to you?
He couldn't come up with something better than illiterate goat herders could conceive? That shows me that even if there was any basis for your god, he's an impotent imbecile! Of course, the reality of the situation is that it's all made up by said illiterate goat herders.
What the heck is that supposed to mean? I know that I don't have to point out to you that such institutions did not develop yet. There was no English rule of law, no hour and wage division of the Dept of Labor, no unions, no attorneys that would take your case. Nothing. I know you wouldnt do anything spectacularly stupid like comparing two very different systems that are thousands of years apart so what is your point? Also please provide for me any evidence whatsoever that a naturalistc system was any better. Any better at all.
And the slaughter that was endorsed in the bible on numerous occasions was also the est your moron god could come up with? Again, it just shows to me that it's all made up bullshit that had nothing divine about it, and was all a con for specific guys to exert power over those around them.
I don't what youre talking about with the "exert power" BS so perhaps you could provide an example from the Bible. Are you referring to the Amelkites with your "slaughter" reference? See 1 Samuel 15:3 to see what I am referring to. And we can take it from there.
Post a Comment