God is Love

[Stevil]

I apologize, but ever since the thread where you wanted me to call the bible, the piece of fiction, I've endeavored to do just that.

This is misleading. You were calling it a fairy tale, I stated that it would be better for you to simply call it fiction if you must try and put words into our mouths. But really it would look much better if you speak from the "I". When a Christian calls the bible fictional or a fairy tale then something smells very fishy. I don't know how the conversation can go well from there onwards.

[Guardian85]

I dont' believe you REALLY do have an interest, as you say, in understanding it because it is evident in the manner in which you spout off all the "wrong, disguting, vile, slavery, murder, rape..." things in the piece of fiction without one ounce of knowledge of a possible interpretation.  Not one.  You just say, "God sent bears in to kill 42 children...how is that love?"  You conveniently avoid searching the original text in Hebrew (readily available online) different translations, and differning views of interpretation.  You miss that they were not "children" chanting from a merry-go-round, but were youths...at least teenagers...more along the lines of a gang...if you will.  A brood of troublemakers.  What the term meant in those days...who they had been taunting and who he was in this fictional God's eyes.  The lesson to the masses this sent... But that escapes you.

It still does beg the question "Do you think mauling by a bear is just punishment for verbal abuse?" I sure as hell don't, and I have taken a lot of verbal abuse.

[AnimatedDirt]

I have challenged it many times. I have called it "evil", murderous, unloving... (you name it, I've probably called it that). And yet, I still live.

In context, some might call that mercy...or allowing free will...even free speech.  But once again, not only do you miss the point of the "story", you miss (one of the) whole point of the OT, per se.  God's people were being "raised" and shown right from wrong.  They were being taught the price of sin (blood from innocent life, and death) as a lesson.  They were children, almost literally, in this sense that they were mere children learning.  This gang of young teens, even 20 somethings (as you mentioned) were poking fun at God's man.  Have you read the previous chapter(s) to know who they were teasing?  At least get the whole story.  Also, have you ever heard a person say, "Say anything you will to me or hurt me, but touch my family and I will not stop..."  This Elisha, was God's man on earth at this point.  This gang had no respect for this.  They were dealt with quickly and efficiently with righteous judgment.  So the lesson is, at the expense of a gang of hoodlums, death is the consequence of those that mock this God.

You say you've done this and yet you live?  But you don't deny you haven't found the Fountain of Youth.  Your death then, if it relates at all to this piece of fiction, when it comes, is well deserved.  Don't take offense again, because you're asking and saying you've mocked this fictional God.

Not sure what you mean by the fountain of youth comment.

The fact that you (surely) acknowledge you will not live forever, is a testament that you will suffer the same consequence, but by a different, possibly a more merciful means...if your life relates to this piece of fiction.

I am trying hard not to get frustrated here. I have stated I have no faith, no belief in wrong and right. I have stated that there are many unknowns, I don't claim to know everything. For what is it that you are accusing me of stating that I know better?

This is on one hand funny and on another sad.  Is it really that you cannot see you have "faith" in your own knowledge and therefore base your beliefs or disbeliefs on this knowledge?  Do you not claim that Christians are deluded for our beliefs in this piece of fiction?  Then is it not logical that in this sense you claim to know "better" than those of this delusion?  If I'm wrong (which is another up in the air concept for you apparently) then forgive me for having such twisted logic.

To me it is beside the point if they were children or in their Twenties. To me it is beside the point who it was that they were calling names. The crime is the same, the Christian god is behaving dangerously towards humans, almost at random. These excuses doesn't make the situation look any less murderous.

I know, the details and context bothers you.

[AnimatedDirt]

I apologize, but ever since the thread where you wanted me to call the bible, the piece of fiction, I've endeavored to do just that.

This is misleading. You were calling it a fairy tale, I stated that it would be better for you to simply call it fiction if you must try and put words into our mouths. But really it would look much better if you speak from the "I". When a Christian calls the bible fictional or a fairy tale then something smells very fishy. I don't know how the conversation can go well from there onwards.

So is what you are telling me here is that you wouldn't mind if I start using the term 'Bible' when referencing it?  You won't be offended when in discussion about it?  Basically I can stop qualifying it with 'that piece of fiction' (which it seemed made you feel better) and simply refer to it as 'the bible'?

[Davin]

I dont' believe you REALLY do have an interest, as you say, in understanding it because it is evident in the manner in which you spout off all the "wrong, disguting, vile, slavery, murder, rape..." things in the piece of fiction without one ounce of knowledge of a possible interpretation.  Not one.  You just say, "God sent bears in to kill 42 children...how is that love?"  You conveniently avoid searching the original text in Hebrew (readily available online) different translations, and differning views of interpretation.  You miss that they were not "children" chanting from a merry-go-round, but were youths...at least teenagers...more along the lines of a gang...if you will.  A brood of troublemakers.  What the term meant in those days...who they had been taunting and who he was in this fictional God's eyes.  The lesson to the masses this sent... But that escapes you.

To me it is beside the point if they were children or in their Twenties. To me it is beside the point who it was that they were calling names. The crime is the same, the Christian god is behaving dangerously towards humans, almost at random. These excuses doesn't make the situation look any less murderous.

They were children, the people saying the original Hebrew didn't say that they were little boys is bullshit. This video covers it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BZQ-FrsO0GY

Many people use the "that's not what it says in the original Hebrew" bullshit too much because they know that most of the people they're talking to don't know Hebrew. It's dishonest at worst and an appeal to authority at best.

[AnimatedDirt]

Many people use the "that's not what it says in the original Hebrew" bullshit too much because they know that most of the people they're talking to don't know Hebrew. It's dishonest at worst and an appeal to authority at best.

Yes...looking at it's origin is BS.  Thank you Davin.

Moving on.

[Tank]

Many people use the "that's not what it says in the original Hebrew" bullshit too much because they know that most of the people they're talking to don't know Hebrew. It's dishonest at worst and an appeal to authority at best.

Yes...looking at it's origin is BS.  Thank you Davin.

Moving on.

Davin was pointing out that the 'read it in the original Hebrew' defence is really no defence at all, and you can't do it either so why say it? It's a get out for you to close down a debate. Effectively cheating your way out of having to answer a question, another example of what you did on the irreducible complexity thread and the structure of the eye. If you can't answer a question you obfuscate and 'bait and switch' a very disingenuous behaviour; but one that allows you to hold onto your faith.

[Davin]

Many people use the "that's not what it says in the original Hebrew" bullshit too much because they know that most of the people they're talking to don't know Hebrew. It's dishonest at worst and an appeal to authority at best.

Yes...looking at it's origin is BS.  Thank you Davin.

Moving on.

Wow, never have I said such a thing. Do you really have no other defense than to misrepresent what I said? You should move on when you can no longer have an honest discussion.

[Stevil]

I have challenged it many times. I have called it "evil", murderous, unloving... (you name it, I've probably called it that). And yet, I still live.

Also, have you ever heard a person say, "Say anything you will to me or hurt me, but touch my family and I will not stop..."  This Elisha, was God's man on earth at this point.  This gang had no respect for this.

Have you ever heard the saying "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me"?

They were dealt with quickly and efficiently with righteous judgment.

Your death then, if it relates at all to this piece of fiction, when it comes, is well deserved.

And now it seems AD is qualified as God's judge on the people of the earth.

Not sure what you mean by the fountain of youth comment.

The fact that you (surely) acknowledge you will not live forever, is a testament that you will suffer the same consequence, but by a different, possibly a more merciful means...if your life relates to this piece of fiction.

OK, lets play this annoying game of "if your life relates to my belief"

If your life relates to the qu'ran then you shall surely be tortured for all eternity given your false belief in Jesus being god and not adhering to the true prophet Muhammad.

If your life relates to the reality where no god exists then you too have not found the fountain of youth, imagining up a god friend and imagining an acceptance of a god/man half breed called Jesus has been a waste of time, when really you ought to have gone to school, got qualified as a mad scientist and created the elixir of life.

This is on one hand funny and on another sad.  Is it really that you cannot see you have "faith" in your own knowledge and therefore base your beliefs or disbeliefs on this knowledge?  Do you not claim that Christians are deluded for our beliefs in this piece of fiction?  Then is it not logical that in this sense you claim to know "better" than those of this delusion?  If I'm wrong (which is another up in the air concept for you apparently) then forgive me for having such twisted logic.

I do not claim that Christians are deluded. I claim that there is no evidence to substantiate the Christian belief, I claim that the leap of faith required to believe the Christian faith is exactly the same leap of faith required to believe the Muslim faith, the Jewish faith, the Hindu faith, the Maori faith, etc.
I claim that a position of accepting that we have no knowledge and hence not accepting any faith until reasonable evidence is presented, this position is the only rational and consistent position. I call it consistent and any religion position as inconsistent because your rational for accepting Christian faith applies equally to pretty much all other faiths, if you accept one and deny the others then you are inconsistent. But you claim to know better, which, if I were a snarky and sarcastic person, I would state is funny and sad.

To me it is beside the point if they were children or in their Twenties. To me it is beside the point who it was that they were calling names. The crime is the same, the Christian god is behaving dangerously towards humans, almost at random. These excuses doesn't make the situation look any less murderous.

I know, the details and context bothers you.

...and yet strangely the details and context does not bother you. You have clearly stated that it is justified to kill adults for calling names at a prophet, that this is a great example to show the people of the world god's righteous judgment

Can you not imagine the possibility of meeting your god (after death), you are at the pearly gates and he is standing in the way.
You explain that you are a Good Christian and accept Jesus' death as payment for your sins.
He states that when you were in your twenties you said "god damn it!" in your sleep and you never confessed this, you never prayed for forgiveness.
You say, please forgive me all mighty god, I am scum, I know not what I do.
He says, it is too late AD, you need to beg forgiveness during life.
He then burns you to death, righteously, of course.

[Ecurb Noselrub]

I do not claim that Christians are deluded. I claim that there is no evidence to substantiate the Christian belief, I claim that the leap of faith required to believe the Christian faith is exactly the same leap of faith required to believe the Muslim faith, the Jewish faith, the Hindu faith, the Maori faith, etc.

Some people can look at a chasm and feel uncomfortable about trying to jump over it.  Others can look at the same chasm and feel confident the leap can be made.  If they do leap, and it works for them, then their judgment was reasonable.

I claim that a position of accepting that we have no knowledge and hence not accepting any faith until reasonable evidence is presented, this position is the only rational and consistent position. I call it consistent and any religion position as inconsistent because your rational for accepting Christian faith applies equally to pretty much all other faiths, if you accept one and deny the others then you are inconsistent.

Knowledge and faith are not the same thing.  Knowledge can take us to the edge of the chasm, but then it is up to the individual whether or not to take the leap of faith.  He doesn't know he can make it, but believes that he can. To me, that's an important distinction in what is being claimed by faith.

For me, I've been to the edge of my knowledge and looked at the chasm separating me from Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, and Islam.  The chasm leading to Christianity is the only one I feel that I can span.  The others appear too far from my knowledge base to making jumping reasonable.  So, I've made my leap, and feel that I have landed safely on the only faith base that my reason can support.    

[Sandra Craft]

So is what you are telling me here is that you wouldn't mind if I start using the term 'Bible' when referencing it?  You won't be offended when in discussion about it?  Basically I can stop qualifying it with 'that piece of fiction' (which it seemed made you feel better) and simply refer to it as 'the bible'?

Why not?  Other Xtians on the board do.