'Bout Time For A "Religion Sucks" Thread, Ain't It?

[D1B]

Joe, you're stuck with defending the theological absurdities of your religion. You cannot entirely separate it from the purely philosophical. Sorry, dude, and good luck with that.


Regarding - God, a higher power, a force, whatever one want's to call it - IT does not give a **** about the affairs of man.

Yes, you tell me what I have to defend. No wonder you think you are so persuasive.

Joe, tell me the story about Noah's Ark again...



"OMG, Noah got fucked in ass by Ham while he was shitfaced!"

[Ibanez]

The Jews, that recieved the 10 commandments, believed in mulitple dieties but were loyal and obeyed the God that delievered them from the Egyptians (henothiesm). The 1st Commandment can be interpreted to forbid the Israelites from worshiping any other god but the one true God who had revealed himself at Mount Sinai and given them the Torah. Additionally, it can also be read as henotheistic, since it states that they should have "no other gods before me." The existence of other gods is neither confirmed nor denied. These early Jews still worshiped El and Baal (to name a couple).

So, to say thier is only one God when the forbearers of your religion worshipped other gods before AND after the manifestation of "YAWEAH" is weak.

Exodus 2-5



The bible was written by man to convert people to Christianity.

I don't think you understand what I said.

It was more of a philosophical than theological point anyway.

You said there is one god. Right?

[JoltinJoe]

I don't think you understand what I said.

It was more of a philosophical than theological point anyway.

You said there is one god. Right?

What I said that if you accept (as everyone in this thread who commented on it did) that God is "What Is," then there is and can only be one God.

The reference to the Old Testament was simply to point out that a peoplw that some here have called "Bronze-Aged Nomads" grasped (what many in this thread have said is) a fairly sophisticated philosophical/theological point in the name they claimed was revealed to them as the name of God.

[D1B]

You said there is one god. Right?

What I said that if you accept (as everyone in this thread who commented on it did) that God is "What Is," then there is and can only be one God.

The reference to the Old Testament was simply to point out that a peoplw that some here have called "Bronze-Aged Nomads" grasped (what many in this thread have said is) a fairly sophisticated philosophical/theological point in the name they claimed was revealed to them as the name of God.

Joe, elaborate on the leap from "what is" to the asshole who killed everyone because he wasn't happy with their behavior.

[JoltinJoe]

What I said that if you accept (as everyone in this thread who commented on it did) that God is "What Is," then there is and can only be one God.

The reference to the Old Testament was simply to point out that a peoplw that some here have called "Bronze-Aged Nomads" grasped (what many in this thread have said is) a fairly sophisticated philosophical/theological point in the name they claimed was revealed to them as the name of God.

Joe, elaborate on the leap from "what is" to the ******* who killed everyone because he wasn't happy with their behavior.

Look, Jeff, I can waste my breath with you. I explained many times, a long time ago, that the Bible is a revelation of mankinds's evolving understanding of its relationship with "What Is"and the nature of "What Is," culminating in the revelation of the Incarnation.

You refuse to accept this; instead you want to view the Bible as some comic book story about a great super hero with a bad temper sometime, and refuse me any right to claim otherwise. You laugh at people who treat the Bible as history; but you insist I must treat is as a strict historical account.

So, we're done. Mark asked a question and wanted me to answer it. So I did.

[D1B]

Joe, elaborate on the leap from "what is" to the ******* who killed everyone because he wasn't happy with their behavior.

Look, Jeff, I can waste my breath with you. I explained many times, a long time ago, that the Bible is a revelation of mankinds's evolving understanding of its relationship with "What Is"and the nature of "What Is," culminating in the revelation of the Incarnation.

You refuse to accept this; instead you want to view the Bible as some comic book story about a great super hero with a bad temper sometime, and refuse me any right to claim otherwise. You laugh at people who treat the Bible as history; but you insist I must treat is as a strict historical account.

Fair enough Joe.

So, we're done. Mark asked a question and wanted me to answer it. So I did.

[mcveyrl]

I am shocked, SHOCKED, that a thread about religion turned into what it has...


I think I have come to the conclusion that D1B is the Jerry Falwell of atheism. Congrats.

[houndawg]

Joe, elaborate on the leap from "what is" to the ******* who killed everyone because he wasn't happy with their behavior.

Look, Jeff, I can waste my breath with you. I explained many times, a long time ago, that the Bible is a revelation of mankinds's evolving understanding of its relationship with "What Is"and the nature of "What Is," culminating in the revelation of the Incarnation.

You refuse to accept this; instead you want to view the Bible as some comic book story about a great super hero with a bad temper sometime, and refuse me any right to claim otherwise. You laugh at people who treat the Bible as history; but you insist I must treat is as a strict historical account.

So, we're done. Mark asked a question and wanted me to answer it. So I did.

"Evolving" is the key word Joe. Where once we walked or rode donkeys, now we drive cars and fly. Cosmology has moved many orders of magnitude beyond the Bible in the attempt to understand the nature of what is. The Bible of today is CERN's Large Hadron Collider. Stay tuned for new Revelations. Or if you prefer, keep riding the donkey.

[Ibanez]

You said there is one god. Right?

What I said that if you accept (as everyone in this thread who commented on it did) that God is "What Is," then there is and can only be one God.

The reference to the Old Testament was simply to point out that a peoplw that some here have called "Bronze-Aged Nomads" grasped (what many in this thread have said is) a fairly sophisticated philosophical/theological point in the name they claimed was revealed to them as the name of God.

I get that.

My issue with the bible is that if it is 100% accurate word for word, than we must accept that incest, murder, vengence,rape and adultry(clearly David wasn't punished) and hatred for other people and a list of more atrocities are acceptable.

Why would a loving, omnipotent, omniscent god test you?

[mcveyrl]

I get that.

My issue with the bible is that if it is 100% accurate word for word, than we must accept that incest, murder, vengence,rape and adultry(clearly David wasn't punished) and hatred for other people and a list of more atrocities are acceptable.

Why would a loving, omnipotent, omniscent god test you?

I'm not touching on any of this other stuff (no way I'm qualified), but wasn't David's son killed and he ousted from his kingship?

[D1B]

I am shocked, SHOCKED, that a thread about religion turned into what it has...


I think I have come to the conclusion that D1B is the Jerry Falwell of atheism. Congrats.

Hey dickhead, it's a "religion sucks" thread.

Also, dumbass, who's promoting atheism here? No one is. We're taking legitimate shots at your silly myths and joltin Joe is hiding in existentialism.

Fuck you you gutless religious robot.

[Ibanez]

I get that.

My issue with the bible is that if it is 100% accurate word for word, than we must accept that incest, murder, vengence,rape and adultry(clearly David wasn't punished) and hatred for other people and a list of more atrocities are acceptable.

Why would a loving, omnipotent, omniscent god test you?

I'm not touching on any of this other stuff (no way I'm qualified), but wasn't David's son killed and he ousted from his kingship?

David son is killed in a battle, by Joab.

In his old age, Davids eldest son and heir, Adonijah, declares himself king. David instead delcares Solomon king and asks him to kill his enemies.

Great moral lesson.

FWIW, I am qualified.

[D1B]

I get that.

My issue with the bible is that if it is 100% accurate word for word, than we must accept that incest, murder, vengence,rape and adultry(clearly David wasn't punished) and hatred for other people and a list of more atrocities are acceptable.

Why would a loving, omnipotent, omniscent god test you?

I'm not touching on any of this other stuff (no way I'm qualified), but wasn't David's son killed and he ousted from his kingship?

Who gives a fuck? Seriously? You ever read the bible? If you did, you'd know it a crock of bullshit. Move on, like joltin joe did and disregard it, especially the Old Testament. Then pick up Kirkeggaard.

[D1B]

I'm not touching on any of this other stuff (no way I'm qualified), but wasn't David's son killed and he ousted from his kingship?

The son dies for the sin of the father? Great moral lesson.

FWIW, I am qualified.

No Mark, it is "What is".

[mcveyrl]

I am shocked, SHOCKED, that a thread about religion turned into what it has...


I think I have come to the conclusion that D1B is the Jerry Falwell of atheism. Congrats.

Hey dickhead, it's a "religion sucks" thread.

Also, dumbass, who's promoting atheism here? No one is. We're taking legitimate shots at your silly myths and joltin Joe is hiding in existentialism.

**** you you gutless religious robot.

First of all, like I give a shit about you.

Second, you seem to be arguing pretty hard against God's existence. Did I miss something? Are you arguing for Hinduism? Do you even know what you believe (or don't believe) in?

Third, you definitely have no idea what my beliefs are or how I got them.

So, to recap: completely shocked that D1B gets his panties in a bunch when somebody defends their belief; completely shocked that he's denying any beliefs himself while doing so; completely shocked that all he's got for me(when I didn't even espouse any beliefs in the thread) is a "dickhead" and a "fuck you." Good arguments, Mr. Falwell. Keep on, keepin' on. Do NOT let the man keep you down oh you who are persecuted.

[mcveyrl]

I'm not touching on any of this other stuff (no way I'm qualified), but wasn't David's son killed and he ousted from his kingship?

David son is killed in a battle, by Joab.

In his old age, Davids eldest son and heir, Adonijah, declares himself king. David instead delcares Solomon king and asks him to kill his enemies.

Great moral lesson.

FWIW, I am qualified.

I believe he also had a young son die of illness after his affair and subsequent murder of his mistress's husband. At any rate, you questioned whether David was punished -- ultimately he was. You may not agree with the way he was punished (which is not surprising if you do not agree with God), but he was punished according to the OT.

Either way, I'm not going to argue faith with anybody that doesn't have it. If people have earnest questions I'll answer them, but I'm not going to get in a spitting contest with somebody that's made up their mind.

[D1B]

Hey dickhead, it's a "religion sucks" thread.

Also, dumbass, who's promoting atheism here? No one is. We're taking legitimate shots at your silly myths and joltin Joe is hiding in existentialism.

**** you you gutless religious robot.

First of all, like I give a shit about you.

Second, you seem to be arguing pretty hard against God's existence. Did I miss something? Are you arguing for Hinduism? Do you even know what you believe (or don't believe) in?

Third, you definitely have no idea what my beliefs are or how I got them.

So, to recap: completely shocked that D1B gets his panties in a bunch when somebody defends their belief; completely shocked that he's denying any beliefs himself while doing so; completely shocked that all he's got for me(when I didn't even espouse any beliefs in the thread) is a "dickhead" and a "fuck you." Good arguments, Mr. Falwell. Keep on, keepin' on. Do NOT let the man keep you down oh you who are persecuted.

Hey Einstein show me the arguments against god's existence. In fact, earlier in the post I admitted there is some higher power, if you want to call it a god, fine. All I'm saying is we don't know jack shit about it. And it sure as hell aint the fuckhead portrayed in your bible.

This whole thread is an attempt to force Joltin Joe to reconcile ALL HE KNOWS ABOUT GOD which comes primarily from the bible with the valid philosophical concept of "what is". Joe has come close, he jukin and jiving, taking a few blows but he's still in this, for now.

[D1B]

David son is killed in a battle, by Joab.

In his old age, Davids eldest son and heir, Adonijah, declares himself king. David instead delcares Solomon king and asks him to kill his enemies.

Great moral lesson.

FWIW, I am qualified.

I believe he also had a young son die of illness after his affair and subsequent murder of his mistress's husband. At any rate, you questioned whether David was punished -- ultimately he was. You may not agree with the way he was punished (which is not surprising if you do not agree with God), but he was punished according to the OT.

Either way, I'm not going to argue faith with anybody that doesn't have it. If people have earnest questions I'll answer them, but I'm not going to get in a spitting contest with somebody that's made up their mind.

Annnnnnd what does this bronze age soap opera have to do with the existence of god?

[mcveyrl]

I believe he also had a young son die of illness after his affair and subsequent murder of his mistress's husband. At any rate, you questioned whether David was punished -- ultimately he was. You may not agree with the way he was punished (which is not surprising if you do not agree with God), but he was punished according to the OT.

Either way, I'm not going to argue faith with anybody that doesn't have it. If people have earnest questions I'll answer them, but I'm not going to get in a spitting contest with somebody that's made up their mind.

Annnnnnd what does this bronze age soap opera have to do with the existence of god?

If you think the OT is a POS, nothing. Since that's what you think, I'll leave it at that.

[Ibanez]

David son is killed in a battle, by Joab.

In his old age, Davids eldest son and heir, Adonijah, declares himself king. David instead delcares Solomon king and asks him to kill his enemies.

Great moral lesson.

FWIW, I am qualified.

I believe he also had a young son die of illness after his affair and subsequent murder of his mistress's husband. At any rate, you questioned whether David was punished -- ultimately he was. You may not agree with the way he was punished (which is not surprising if you do not agree with God), but he was punished according to the OT.

Either way, I'm not going to argue faith with anybody that doesn't have it. If people have earnest questions I'll answer them, but I'm not going to get in a spitting contest with somebody that's made up their mind.

You cannot comment on my beliefs or views because you do not know them (kind of like how D1b can’t comment on yours). If you would like to know, I’ll be more than happy to explain. I can have a logical, calm discussion on Religion. I can be rational. I used to follow blindly until I learned the history of religions, and the history of the bible. My questions are sincere and to cast them off without asking shows a great deal of arrogance. I am well versed and do not ask questions to stir the pot, but to spark debate and discussion. I approach the subject with rational thought and no bias but with an understanding of the people and society those religions and their respective books are written in (and the purpose they are written for).

David’s child with Bathsheba did die of an illness as punishment. But once again, why punish the innocent?

[mcveyrl]

I believe he also had a young son die of illness after his affair and subsequent murder of his mistress's husband. At any rate, you questioned whether David was punished -- ultimately he was. You may not agree with the way he was punished (which is not surprising if you do not agree with God), but he was punished according to the OT.

Either way, I'm not going to argue faith with anybody that doesn't have it. If people have earnest questions I'll answer them, but I'm not going to get in a spitting contest with somebody that's made up their mind.

You cannot comment on my beliefs or views because you do not know them (kind of like how D1b can’t comment on yours). If you would like to know, I’ll be more than happy to explain. I can have a logical, calm discussion on Religion. I can be rational. I used to follow blindly until I learned the history of religions, and the history of the bible. My questions are sincere and to cast them off without asking shows a great deal of arrogance. I am well versed and do not ask questions to stir the pot, but to spark debate and discussion. I approach the subject with rational thought and no bias but with an understanding of the people and society those religions and their respective books are written in (and the purpose they are written for).

David’s child with Bathsheba did die of an illness as punishment. But once again, why punish the innocent?

I wasn't trying to comment on your beliefs or views. The last paragraph was more of a general statement about my level of involvement in this thread. I obviously don't know you or your beliefs. My apologies if I offended.

I did not see in your original post where you asked any questions and thought you were just making statements.

To respond to your question in the above post, I think there has to be a certain degree of faith that God is making just decisions. He states in the Bible that the sins of the father may be imputed to the son. That's his call. Why he says that, I don't know. That's where the faith comes in, to me.

Again, please accept my apologies. I honestly did not intend to offend in any way.

[Ibanez]

You cannot comment on my beliefs or views because you do not know them (kind of like how D1b can’t comment on yours). If you would like to know, I’ll be more than happy to explain. I can have a logical, calm discussion on Religion. I can be rational. I used to follow blindly until I learned the history of religions, and the history of the bible. My questions are sincere and to cast them off without asking shows a great deal of arrogance. I am well versed and do not ask questions to stir the pot, but to spark debate and discussion. I approach the subject with rational thought and no bias but with an understanding of the people and society those religions and their respective books are written in (and the purpose they are written for).

David’s child with Bathsheba did die of an illness as punishment. But once again, why punish the innocent?

I wasn't trying to comment on your beliefs or views. The last paragraph was more of a general statement about my level of involvement in this thread. I obviously don't know you or your beliefs. My apologies if I offended.

I did not see in your original post where you asked any questions and thought you were just making statements.

To respond to your question in the above post, I think there has to be a certain degree of faith that God is making just decisions. He states in the Bible that the sins of the father may be imputed to the son. That's his call. Why he says that, I don't know. That's where the faith comes in, to me.

Again, please accept my apologies. I honestly did not intend to offend in any way.

I wasn't offended, it takes a great deal to that. You're good. My first post in here was a statement but the questions I have asked, went unanswered or ignored. We're good b rother.

[JoltinJoe]

Look, Jeff, I can waste my breath with you. I explained many times, a long time ago, that the Bible is a revelation of mankinds's evolving understanding of its relationship with "What Is"and the nature of "What Is," culminating in the revelation of the Incarnation.

You refuse to accept this; instead you want to view the Bible as some comic book story about a great super hero with a bad temper sometime, and refuse me any right to claim otherwise. You laugh at people who treat the Bible as history; but you insist I must treat is as a strict historical account.

So, we're done. Mark asked a question and wanted me to answer it. So I did.

"Evolving" is the key word Joe. Where once we walked or rode donkeys, now we drive cars and fly. Cosmology has moved many orders of magnitude beyond the Bible in the attempt to understand the nature of what is. The Bible of today is CERN's Large Hadron Collider. Stay tuned for new Revelations. Or if you prefer, keep riding the donkey.

Funny you should say that, because many scientists believe that the Hadron Collider will eventually demonstrate the existence of dimensions imperceptible to the human senses. Note that Christian philosophers and theologians, and their philsophical forbearers, like the Platonists and Neoplatonists, have argued for many, many centuries that there are imperceptible realities which we do not tangibly experience through our human senses.

The religious outlook which you reject is some grammar school version of faith. That you apparently do not grasp that the existence of religious faith, on a mature level, reflects some greater "evolution" of personhood causes you to view all people of faith as unthinking rubes -- when it is, in fact, you who needs to catch up.

I am CERTAIN that there are things which are real which cannot be seen, heard, felt, smelt, or tasted. Said another way, not all which is real can be perceived through our five senses. In fact, from a rationalist's perspective, there is no reason to believe that all which is real can be experienced in one of five ways.

[Grizalltheway]

"Evolving" is the key word Joe. Where once we walked or rode donkeys, now we drive cars and fly. Cosmology has moved many orders of magnitude beyond the Bible in the attempt to understand the nature of what is. The Bible of today is CERN's Large Hadron Collider. Stay tuned for new Revelations. Or if you prefer, keep riding the donkey.

Funny you should say that, because many scientists believe that the Hadron Collider will eventually demonstrate the existence of dimensions imperceptible to the human senses. Note that Christian philosophers and theologians, and their philsophical forbearers, like the Platonists and Neoplatonists, have argued for many, many centuries that there are imperceptible realities which we do not tangibly experience through our human senses.

The religious outlook which you reject is some grammar school version of faith. That you apparently do not grasp that the existence of religious faith, on a mature level, reflects some greater "evolution" of personhood causes you to view all people of faith as unthinking rubes -- when it is, in fact, you who needs to catch up.

I am CERTAIN that there are things which are real which cannot be seen, heard, felt, smelt, or tasted. Said another way, not all which is real can be perceived through our five senses. In fact, from a rationalist's perspective, there is no reason to believe that all which is real can be experienced in one of five ways.

And I'm sure it will prove the infallibility of the Pope, too.

[JoltinJoe]

What I said that if you accept (as everyone in this thread who commented on it did) that God is "What Is," then there is and can only be one God.

The reference to the Old Testament was simply to point out that a peoplw that some here have called "Bronze-Aged Nomads" grasped (what many in this thread have said is) a fairly sophisticated philosophical/theological point in the name they claimed was revealed to them as the name of God.

I get that.

My issue with the bible is that if it is 100% accurate word for word, than we must accept that incest, murder, vengence,rape and adultry(clearly David wasn't punished) and hatred for other people and a list of more atrocities are acceptable.

Why would a loving, omnipotent, omniscent god test you?

When saying that the Bible is "accurate word for word," you have to keep in mind that the Bible is a book of collected writings, compiled over a period of thousands of years. As the writings are compliled, the writers reflect on prior scripture, and try to place into context their own modern experiences.

Every discipline grows and expands over time. Philosophers react to prior philosophy and continue to expand and grow by adapting prior throught to modern experience. Scientists grow and expand our knowledge of science by testing prior concepts against modern experiences.

Every discipline evolves into greater understanding over time; so why do we insist that theology must remain constant? Shouldn't our understanding of "What Is" become more refined and nuanced over time?

While the Bible is the inspired revelation of God, as revealed to man, no one story in the Bible stands on its own. The mistake is to assume that any one story is the inspired, accurate word of God. Each story occurs in the greater context of the Bible, which is the accurate and inspired word of God when read in its entirety, with each writing in context, and with each writing seen as interrelated part of a whole or greater truth.