The Universally Stupid And Evil God ~ Quotes

[thomastwo]

Bone_Dancer wrote

Psalm 137:8-9 (New American Standard Bible)
8: O daughter of Babylon, you devastated one,
How blessed will be the one who repays you
With the recompense with which you have repaid us.
9: How blessed will be the one who seizes and dashes your little ones against the rock.

What's your problem with this verse?

[Kate]

[thomastwo]

Bone_Dancer wrote

You are woefully ignorant of the Christ myth, Sopater. Like so many Christians, you actually (erroneously) believe that Jesus fulfilled the prophecy and as such the OT law (first five books of Moses /Pentateuch) does not apply.

What do you mean when you say he is in error? What is this correct interpretation that you claim to have? How do you know that you are right?

How can you write off the actual understanding of the Christian church?

Bone_Dancer wrote

This is wrong! And Jesus never said otherwise.
Isaiah 42:21 (King James Version)


21The LORD is well pleased for his righteousness' sake; he will magnify the law, and make it honourable.


Matthew 5:17-19

States quite clearly that Jesus did not fulfill the law, but perfected it. And as the verses state, not until heaven and earth have passed away...

It's clear, heaven and earth have not passed away.

The law hasn't passed away, but the covenant between God and the Jews has been superceded by a new covenant. Read the NT.

Bone_Dancer wrote

See: 1 John 2:2-6 For further proof that your understanding is in error.

What further proof? Whoever claims to live in him must ... what? Obey the OT law? No. Must walk as Jesus did.

[Kate]

[thomastwo]

GodIsAMyth wrote

A few bible contradictions:

Maybe. Maybe not.

GodIsAMyth wrote

Should We Kill?
Ex. 20:13 Thou shalt not kill.
Ex. 32:27 And he said unto them, Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, Put every man his sword by his side, and go in and out from gate to gate throughout the camp, and slay every man his brother, and every man his companion, and every man his neighbor.

Perhaps one refers to personal morality and the other allows for states to fight wars? Doesn't every modern state make this distinction without it being a contradiction?

GodIsAMyth wrote

Should Good Works be Seen?
Matt. 5:16 Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.
Matt. 6:1-4 Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them: otherwise ye have no reward of your Father which is in heaven. 2 Therefore when thou doest thine alms, do not sound a trumpet before thee, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. 3 But when thou doest alms, let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth: 4 That thine alms may be in secret: and thy Father which seeth in secret himself shall reward thee openly.

Perhaps it's all about the motivation? The one is aimed at glorifying God. The other is aimed at glorifying the person.

GodIsAMyth wrote

Are we punished for our parents' sins?
Ex. 20:5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me
Ezek. 18:20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him

Perhaps there is a sense in which both are correct. For example, could it be that the sinful behaviour of one generation impacts the behaviour and lives of the next as a knock-on consequence. That seems to be a truism. But also perhaps the moral responsibility for the sinful behaviour stops with the one who committed the act?

GodIsAMyth wrote

I could go on and on and on.

OK. Let's a go (too much mario)

[thomastwo]

Kate: Could it be that outrage is cheaper than understanding?

[Kate]

[thomastwo]

Bone_Dancer wrote

You need to actually comprehend the book you hold as inerrant. (It's far from)


Galatians 3:17 (King James Version)


17And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.
(So as to help your understanding:
Galatians 3:17 (New American Standard Bible)


17What I am saying is this: the Law, which came (A)four hundred and thirty years later, does not invalidate a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to nullify the promise.




Galatians 5:3 For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law.

How about 3:19? Did you ever think about considering the whole book?

[Kate]

[thomastwo]

Sternwallow wrote

By what authority do you suggest that "How blessed will be the one who seizes and dashes your little ones against the rock." is not part of God's imperishable word, completely applicable to persons today as it was back then?

Well, it is part of the Bible, and it can be interpreted, understood and applied today using the same ways as it was in the past.

Sternwallow wrote

How are you wise enough to substitute Babylon, a whole civilization, for the object of that evil bargain: blessing for bashing?

I guess anybody wise enough to read and understand the context can come to that conclusion. Perhaps it would be better to ask yourself what conclusions people have actually come to in the Church and in Judaism, rather than generating faux outrage at how it ought to be understood in your opinion?

Sternwallow wrote

How do you dare to cancel all of the OT laws from the eternal God, including the Ten Commandments?

I think Sopater may have over spoken. The OT laws are not all cancelled. They are all superceded. The authority comes from the Bible itself and the way it has been understood by the Church since it's earliest times.

Sternwallow wrote

In what possible context is it not evil to approvingly advocate "dashes your little ones against the rock"? How is that not worse than a sterile abortion?

I'm sure many oppressed peoples over the ages would identify with the feeling of wanting to harm those who oppressed them. Psalms is a book of prayer that covers a range of human responses and emotions. It's not always pretty, but then life is not always pretty. Any spiritual scheme needs to speak to these things to be of value.

Sternwallow wrote

Couldn't you use a few gallons of humility before bringing your twisted interpretation of an already twisted document to us or anyone not in your personal twisted circle.

ditto

[Kate]

[thomastwo]

Bone_Dancer wrote

The greatest proof god does not exist, is the man made cannonized Bible itself.
(evilbible.com)
All-good God Knowingly Creates Future Suffering

God is omniscient. When he created the universe, he saw the sufferings which humans would endure as a result of the sin of those original humans. He heard the screams of the damned. Surely he would have known that it would have been better for those humans to never have been born (in fact, the Bible says this very thing), and surely this all-compassionate deity would have foregone the creation of a universe destined to imperfection in which many of the humans were doomed to eternal suffering. A perfectly compassionate being who creates beings which he knows are doomed to suffer is impossible.

I think when we make a statement like "God is omniscient" we are straining at the edges, and beyond, of what it is possible to say and comprehend. Any argument based on such a premise must be flawed because the terms can't be defined.

But yet, billions of us can live out what we think is our best life based on a glimmer of how an omniscient, just, compassionate, merciful God of love might just save us all.

[thomastwo]

Eva wrote

why oh why would we give a fucking fuck about how a church has understood and lived anything??!!??

I don't know. But what I do know is there is a whole pile of atheists here who can't stop going on about it all the time.

[thomastwo]

Choobus wrote

So is matthew saying that if you want to get into heaven it's better if you are a dickless wonder?

Yeah, and watch out for those Christians running around with lumber in their eyes.

[Eva]

you know we like to make fun of things that don't mak sense......