New To The Flock

[Irreligious]

chrisandrew wrote

... Thought I would find some genuine problems with christianity mentioned in the forum .(something to research) Thanks for the advice

Chris, you have got to be kidding us.

If you don't have a problem with believing in a triumvirate god who magically impregnated a 14-year-old virgin so he could give birth to himself and get tortured to death 33 years later only to re-animate 3 days afterwards all so you can be absolved of responsibility for your own gross misbehavior and live forever with him in some uncharted never-never land after you die, then you must be a genuinely guileless sort of bloke.

You're gonna believe what you need to believe. And if it keeps you from yielding to your baser predilections and screwing over other people, I say, why fuck with that? Please go with Jesus, if for no other reason than the safety of the rest of us.

[antix]

chrisandrew wrote

Sorry about the bad typing. Yeah I cant keep quiet about what God has done for me so ,ok, call me a missionary. Thought I would find some genuine problems with christianity mentioned in the forum .(something to research) Thanks for the advice

A few problems with Christianity (a complete list would occupy more space than an entire set of encyclopedias)

1- the attributes Christian's (typically) assign to god. An omniscient being cannot possibly be omnipotent at the same time. Why, you might ask? Because omniscience by it's very nature presents limits in potential power.

Some examples of this are... an omniscient being cannot have the power to change it's mind. If it sees into the future, then that future is set no matter what. If that future were to change, then their was no omniscience to begin with.

Omniscience also completely wipes out any notion of free will for others, as well as its own self. If such a being knows your actions ahead of time, you cannot possibly choose to do otherwise. Meaning that if this god of yours exists as claimed, you were then not the least bit responsible for your past actions.


2- the bible itself. This book is riddled with so much bloodshed and hatred (and that's not even counting the plain ol' batshit fucking crazy nonsense) that the god contained within it's pages make your past actions look like those of a PTA mother at a bake sale.

some examples:
- god once sent bears to maul children for making a few bald jokes.
- god once instructed his peeps to be happy as they smashed children against rocks.
- punishment for gathering sticks on god's special day is to be stoned to death
- punishment for rapists is to marry the victim and pay her father 50 sheckles. while disobedient children are to be stoned to death.
- god is on record as having thrown the biggest, most childish hissy fit in the history of the world (the flood story) killing everything, man woman and child (even puppies and kittens) save for a handful on a boat, because he (an omniscient being) didn't like the way mankind turned out, even though he (an omnipotent creator) made them in a way that they had no choice but to be.

The list could, of course, go on and on. I'd just like to finish this up by saying that this alleged god of yours, if he exists, is the biggest self righteous manipulative douchewizard that could possibly exist.

[Philboid Studge]

Irr wrote

If you don't have a problem with believing in a triumvirate god who magically impregnated a 14-year-old virgin so he could give birth to himself and get tortured to death 33 years later only to re-animate 3 days afterwards all so you can be absolved of responsibility for your own gross misbehavior and live forever with him in some uncharted never-never land after you die, then you must be a genuinely guileless sort of bloke.

The only factoid I'd question in the above is that zombie Jeezuz absolves "for your own gross misbehavior." I thought the Li'l Bastard was taking care of the shartstain left by Adam & Steve's gross violation of Killy McYaweh's first rule: Thou shalt not seek knowledge. Sins of the father and all that ...

Antix, Antix, Antix. Have I been with you so long and you still believe this stuff?

*The flood is mythology.

*The bears took care of the "not children" (teenagers) who didn't make a bald joke "Go up" is a euphemism for "up yours" and not a good thing to have said to a prophet ... It is a nasty story, however.

*It is the psalmist who takes pleasure in thinking of dashing the kiddie brains of his enemies against the rocks, not God.

*laws against Sabbath breaking and other such are appropriate to a late iron age tribal culture.

The list could go on and on.

[Mog]

Well, I was trying to be subtle here, and hope that by chrisandrew's studying of his faith and other religions, he'd have figured all this stuff out for himself. Now you guys have to tell him all the spoilers early. Nice going!
Well I suppose its better if we can deconvert him now before he can sway dozens of Indians off the path of rationality or different irrationality.

Go away, Lily. Your Liberal interpretations of god's words isn't helping things!

[ubs]

Wow guys. Just like my cats. The only evidence that a theist was even here is a little blood on the sidewalk. Even the bones were eaten.

[Irreligious]

Philboid Studge wrote

The only factoid I'd question in the above is that zombie Jeezuz absolves "for your own gross misbehavior." I thought the Li'l Bastard was taking care of the shartstain left by Adam & Steve's gross violation of Killy McYaweh's first rule: Thou shalt not seek knowledge. Sins of the father and all that ...

Hmm... I always thought the Christoids sought absolution for their own "sins," which they often blame for their bad behavior because, well, they were born into, or rather, heir to it courtesy of those original primates, Adamy & Evie.

[Philboid Studge]

You could be right, Irr. Who can keep up with this wacky theology, anyway? But if it keeps disturbed individuals from letting their ids run amok then I guess it's not completely useless.

[Eva]

kids, you are all in top shape today....hope some of it sinks in....

(not you, lily. hehehehe)

Mog wrote

Well, I was trying to be subtle here, and hope that by chrisandrew's studying of his faith and other religions, he'd have figured all this stuff out for himself. Now you guys have to tell him all the spoilers early. Nice going!
Well I suppose its better if we can deconvert him now before he can sway dozens of Indians off the path of rationality or different irrationality.

Go away, Lily. Your Liberal interpretations of god's words isn't helping things!

Thank you for proving my point. You are just as much a fundamentalist, as the people you deride. No one considers me a liberal theologically except ... fundamentalists!

[Mog]

Lily wrote

Thank you for proving my point. You are just as much a fundamentalist, as the people you deride. No one considers me a liberal theologically except ... fundamentalists!

Nope, I don't consider you a liberal. Thats why I capitalized it. For all your talk about us not seeing your classical allusions, you fail to see when I'm making one.

I guess sarcasm doesn't show up well on bulletin boards.. I should have put the words in quotes too I suppose.

[Irreligious]

Lily wrote

Thank you for proving my point. You are just as much a fundamentalist, as the people you deride. No one considers me a liberal theologically except ... fundamentalists!

That's a bullshit argument when Francis uses it and it don't smell no better when you type it out.

Theist or atheist, we're all fundamentalists when it comes to the concrete. If you were standing at the precipice of a tall cliff, you'd be fundamentally inclined to watch your balance, if you know what's good for you.

Edited: You know very well what Mog means by your "liberal" interpretation of ancient texts. A pretzel would envy the contortions you've accomplished to make the words in those withered old scrolls conform to your skewed view of the world. Mog means liberal, as in your taking many liberties with what those mystical old goat-herders actually meant when they allegedly wrote the Scriptures.

[nkb]

chrisandrew wrote

I heard the voice of God , He said "you asked me to do my will"

This is fascinating. Would you care to describe to us this voice?

Was it a booming voice, or a timid voice? Did you hear it with your ears, or was it in your mind? If the former, did anyone else hear him talking to you?

Which of the three spoke to you? Was it God himself, or Jesus, or even the Holy Spirit?

Irreligious wrote

(Meaningless stuff snipped.)

Edited: You know very well what Mog means by your "liberal" interpretation of ancient texts. A pretzel would envy the contortions you've accomplished to make the words in those withered old scrolls conform to your skewed view of the world. Mog means liberal, as in your taking many liberties with what those mystical old goat-herders actually meant when they allegedly wrote the Scriptures.

I told you I was tired of biting my tongue at your foolish tirades and so I am not going to do it any more. Particularly not when you make the stupid, ill-tempered statements that you make here.

1. What argument? I made no argument. I made an assertion in response to an unusually foolish remark by Mog, even by moggy standards. I know exactly what Mog meant. He, like you, is absolutely clueless.

2. Your absolute ignorance of biblical scholarship, and it is absolute, means that you do not have a clue as to how middle of the road and widely held my views are. Not a clue. They are widely held. They are middle of the road. They are easily found in reference works, commentaries, etc. The only one with a skewed vision here is you and those who think like you.

It is not a sin to be ignorant. But it sure is a shame. It becomes a sin at the point that it is willful. Where, exactly, are you on that particular continuum?

[Mog]

It is not a sin to be ignorant. But it sure is a shame. It becomes a sin at the point that it is willful. Where, exactly, are you on that particular continuum?

Hey, given that you choose to listen to the voices in your head over more reasonable options, perhaps its you who are willfully ignorant?

The problem with most biblical scholarship is that most biblical scholars are predetermined to interpret the bible with the assumption that the works really are inspired by god. so when the words clash with our more pragmatic outlook, we get choosy about how to interpret them, instead of considering that maybe the words really were literal.

Anyway, given that Chrisandrew wants the full atheist adversarial experience, maybe you should butt out of this thread and let him answer our comments himself?