Blaze Exclusive: Atheist Activist Answers Your Questions About ‘Repulsive’ Bible Scriptures & the 10 Commandments
- Posted on June 18, 2012 at 3:40pm by
Billy Hallowell
- Print »
- Email »
This article is part of an ongoing Blaze series called, “Ask an Atheist.” Millionaire secular activist Todd Stiefel answers readers’ most pressing questions about the atheist activist community. Part One of the series can be read here. The second installment is below.
Earlier this month, atheist activist Todd Stiefel commenced his Blaze question-and-answer series, “Ask an Atheist.” In the first installment, the philanthropist shared his personal faith journey, how he views the “reason for life” and why he doesn’t believe that an omniscient being created and oversees the universe, among other sentiments.
In Part Two, he takes the conversation even further, answering more in-depth questions about the Bible, the Ten Commandments and the role of religion in government.
The first question Stiefel tackles focuses upon the centerpiece of Christian belief — the Bible. One of our readers asked, “What is it that turns you off so vehemently to the Bible?” Rather than disparage the entire book, the atheist leader attempted to frame the issues he has with select portions of the literary work that believers hold dear:
“I am not turned off by the whole Bible, just portions of it. It is many books, not one. Much of the Bible provides fascinating insights into morality, history and culture. Much like any great work of literature, it has its share of quotable passages and good advice. I agree with many of its lessons, including most of the teachings attributed to Jesus. For example, I very much like Bible quotes such as, “do to others what you would have them do to you” (Matthew 7:12), “love your neighbor as yourself” (Matthew 22:36-40) and “love must be sincere. Hate what is evil; cling to what is good. Be devoted to one another in love. Honor one another above yourselves.” (Romans 12:9-10).”
But — as could be expected — there’s much in the holy book that Stiefel rejects. He provides an extensive overview of some of the more controversial and problematic elements that he contends exist in the Bible:
“On the other hand, I reject parts of the Bible which reflect the corrupt ethics of primitive civilizations. Even in context, all atheists and Christians should reject lessons reflected in: ‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property.’ (Leviticus 25:44-46), ‘A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet’ (I Timothy 2), ‘If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters—yes, even their own life—such a person cannot be my disciple’ (Luke 14:26), and “Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys” (1 Samuel 15:3). It is truly frightening that so many people take the Bible literally, attempting to rationalize such passages as anything other than repulsive.”
While Stiefel says that these verses are “repulsive,” many believers and theologians would refute this statement, claiming that these words, in context — both in text and cultural placement — often have understandable explanations. Regardless, the atheist philanthropist also tackled the Ten Commandments in this round of questioning.
A reader wrote, “If the 10 Commandments reflect morality and obedience to ‘right conduct’ that translates to ‘public virtue,’ why are you so intent on eliminating these symbols from American society?” Here, too, Stiefel attempted to showcase his mixed-bag view in claiming that the Ten Commandments are not a full-proof indicator of morality in its purest form:
“First, I disagree with the assumption that the Ten Commandments are a reflection of ideal morality. Many are excellent moral guidelines, such as prohibitions against murder, theft and lying. Other commandments have no place in a top 10 list of ethics. How did ‘remember the sabbath beat out ’slavery is forbidden?’ Further, the punishments associated with the commandments are far from what American society considers reasonable. For example, death is the Biblically mandated penalty for violating these commandments: working on the sabbath (Exodus 31:15), adultery (Leviticus 20:10), blasphemy (Leviticus 24:16), believing in other gods (Deuteronomy 17:2-5), and cursing of one’s parents (Matthew 15:4).
In addition, the Ten Commandments directly conflict with America’s founding laws. The Constitution of the United States gives us ‘freedom of speech’ over ‘thou shall not take the name of the Lord in vain.‘ The First Amendment also protects the right to ’free exercise’ of religion over, ‘Thou shall not have any gods before me.’ How can anyone claim this is a Christian nation when the Constitution explicitly clashes with the Ten Commandments? We certainly have a Christian majority, but not a Christian constitution.”
When it comes to placement of the moral code on public land, he stands firmly against it, claiming that it is wrong for the government to choose one form of religious morality over another:
“I am not intent on eliminating the Ten Commandments from American society, nor are other atheists. We are in favor of Americans having the right to put copies in their homes, church lawns and other private property. We are intent on stopping the government and its representatives from displaying them (and other sectarian doctrine) on government land.
The government should not choose the Protestant Ten Commandments over the Catholic (yes, they are different). It should not choose Jewish morality over Mormon morality. It should not choose to promote any religious doctrine over any other. When the government grows to the point of choosing which religious teachings are correct and which are incorrect, it has begun to erode our freedom. Religious liberty requires the state to not make judgments about which citizens’ religious beliefs are superior to others.”
In the third installment of “Ask an Atheist,” Stiefel will focus upon Jesus Christ and some of atheism’s more philosophical underpinnings.
Popular Stories
MSNBC Host Snaps in Heated Segment: ‘What in the World Is Riskier Than Being a Poor Person in America?’ 687 Comments
Does Misstated Marathon Claim Prove Paul Ryan Is Dishonest? (POLL) 655 Comments
‘Jumah at the DNC’ Speaker: ‘Muslims Visited America Prior to Columbus’ & ‘It Was a Muslim’ Who Guided Him to the ‘New World’ 524 Comments
Obama: RNC Like Watching ‘Black-and-White TV’ Because Romney ‘Did Not Offer a Single New Idea’ 361 Comments
Roseanne Barr: Most Billionaires ‘Violent Pedophiles’ & ‘Heartless’ Cocaine Addicts 321 Comments
Faith
This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 196 Comments- Pakistani Muslim Cleric Accused of Framing Disabled Christian Girl in Koran-Burning Case Read More
- ‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 217 Comments
Meet the Controversial German Imam Accused of Brutally Beating His Wife & Pushing Sharia Law Read More
‘Self-Proclaimed Messiah’ & Unification Church Leader the Rev. Sun Myung Moon Has Died — Here’s His Life Story Read More
Business
- Germany’s Upcoming Court Ruling Will be Huge for the EU Read More
Ford Looks to Beat Toyota for Best-Selling Car in 2012 With This Model 147 Comments
Bernanke & QE3: Here’s What You Need to Know Read More- ‘Extortion’: Why Did the Labor Department ‘Drop the Hammer’ on Oregon Farmers? 300 Comments
Scathing New Ad Capitalizes on Rep. Ryan‘s ’Fading Obama Posters’ Remark 124 Comments
Technology
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 196 Comments
‘TaserDrone’: Hackers Weaponize Quadcopter With Actual ‘Shocking’ Technology Read More
Ever Heard of the Wild ‘Burning Man’ Festival in the Middle of the Nev. Desert? Here’s Your Primer Read More
Stanford Develops Technology ‘Better Than Steroids’ for Athlete Recovery Read More
Have You Pretended to Know What ‘the Cloud’ Is? You’re Not Alone Read More
Submitting your tip... please wait!
Comments (327)
Cavallo
Posted on June 18, 2012 at 4:57pmHe makes several assumptions and jumps to several conclusions with text that he takes out of context and it looks as if also from poor translations. He also makes the mistake with the Constitution in which he attributes pop interpretation instead of original intent. Mr. Stiefel does not understand the Bible, nor does he seem to understand the Constitution. Luckily, Mr Stiefel seems less the anti-theist anti-Christian bigot than the majority of the atheistic representatives in the media spotlight.
Report Post »HappyStretchedThin
Posted on June 18, 2012 at 5:31pmWell said, Cavallo. I don’t have a huge problem with people who legitimately misunderstand the Bible. If they’re honest in heart, they‘ll be open to correction and believe when it’s explained to them correctly. The problem I have with most atheists is that they understand fine, but instead choose to twist before making their attack. Just come at us straight on, without mischaracterization and we’ll have an open and honest discussion. Not sure yet, which camp Mr. Stiefel falls under. Up to us Christians, then, to “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”. Mr. Stiefel, if you’re reading: there IS an explanation that we will all confess one day is good and right behind everything you still find “repulsive” in the Bible. Start with the openness of wanting to know if there is a God, and He will make Himself manifest to you in increments as you experiment on His Word.
Report Post »Independent4233
Posted on June 18, 2012 at 6:15pm“Mr. Stiefel does not understand the Bible, nor does he seem to understand the Constitution.”
You’re right on both counts.
However, it is my opinion that a very large percentage of atheists are homosexuals who despise Christians and are atheists not because they have an intellectual problem with it, but because they are considered to be living in sin, and it enrages them that they are constantly thwarted in their attempts to employ ridicule, hate and trickery to try to turn around the Christian community.
Most atheists are quiet atheists who are not of this vocal variety and don’t feel threatened by religion or have any hate for it, as do the homosexual activists.
Believe me, if homosexuality were adored by religion these same activists would be promoting Christianity
whole-heartedly, so it is not the acceptance of a Christian deity that they really oppose it is non-acceptance of them and their lifestyles that drives them ballistic. And, there is no amount of logic or argument anyone can give to these people that will matter, because they do not oppose religion really, as I said. They oppose and want to destroy Christianity, because their perversions are regarded as sinful and abominable.
Somebody questioned why I enter homosexuality into the atheism question. Well the answer to that is I do so, because it is unequivocally there, and is obvious to anyone with the perceptive ability to see it.
Report Post »SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING
Posted on June 18, 2012 at 6:32pmWow. His exegesis skills are severely lacking. Mishandling scripture should be expected however when a person approaches it with the prejudice that a holy God does not exist. I have taught apologetic classes for a while now and it never ceases to amaze me the sloppy and disingenuous approach most take with scripture and yet speak with such boldness and apparent authority when in fact they have broken many rules of hermeneutics and contextual evaluations. I doubt seriously that he would evaluate other works of antiquity in the same manner and even have a audience that would give a serious ear to anything he had to say.
Report Post »ashestoashes
Posted on June 18, 2012 at 6:46pmThis is the blessed hope of all who believe in the Messisah..
Report Post »http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n0z0WfjCxXk
alinmatt
Posted on June 18, 2012 at 7:49pmSome of you guys ought to try reading the old testament. A good place to start is Numbers 31. That story actually starts in Numbers 25, then after an odd intermission of various laws and stuff it takes off again in 31. Why did Moses tell them to keep the virgins and kill every one else, including children? The old testament is filled with God ordained genocides. Christians say that the gods of these other tribes practiced human sacrifice. Perhaps, but is that any worse than asking Israelite men to kill infants and children. They could’ve adopted these children after killing the parents. After all, they did take everything of value that the Midianites had, I don’t think it would break the bank.
Report Post »disenlightened
Posted on June 18, 2012 at 8:57pmIt’s the same old story with these narcissistic, hate-filled clowns…..he doth protest too much, methinks.
Report Post »ModerationIsBest
Posted on June 18, 2012 at 9:44pmI”m so glad that you listed the ways he was wrong in his interpretation of the Bible, the 10 commandments and the Constitution, oh wait, you didn’t do that.
Most Christians will say that Atheists don’t understand the Bible. No, we do, very well, we just don’t look at the Bible with rose colored glasses like religious people do.
For instance, it’s perfectly reasonable and logical for me to say that Christianity is a cult based around a human sacrifice.
That is a perfectly true statement, but you will likely reject it and say, “You just don’t understand.” No trust me, i really do understand, I’m just not brainwashed by it.
You will likely respond with, “Oh but he was also God, and he rose on the 3rd day.” The fact that you claim he was also God, doesn’t take away that he was also human(if he wasn’t, his sacrifice would be irrelevant).
Religion likes hypocrisy and generalizations.
You talk about morality while believing someone had to die to save you from being born sick. Illogical.
Report Post »v15
Posted on June 18, 2012 at 10:03pmI seriously doubt that most atheists are homosexuals. Sure, a person can turn atheist but I seriously doubt that atheism is the gateway to homosexuality. I’ve never looked at weed as a gateway drug.
Report Post »Fatheroftwo
Posted on June 18, 2012 at 10:04pmI believe in God! If I’m wrong, so what! Tell me, what happens to you if your wrong????
Report Post »PROSECUTE_PUBLIC_SERVANTS__FOR_CONSTITUTIONAL_TREASON
Posted on June 18, 2012 at 10:29pm“The fool hath said in his heart there is no God.” Holy Bible
Why would we ask a fool lifes most important questions? After all God says hes a fool and God would know. Why would we allow a fool to interpret the Bible for us no more than we would allow a wildly drunk one eyed fool to drive our children and wife to the airport to catch a flight.
Fools are walking dead according to the Bible. Dead in their tresspass’ and sins serving the great deceiver of this world.
“Choose this day whom you will serve, (we all serve someone) for as for me and my house we will serve the Lord.” Holy Bible
Report Post »v15
Posted on June 18, 2012 at 11:35pmThe Christians on this site look down on Atheists as much as they do on their fellow Christians (i.e. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints). Either one religion is 100% true, or they are all false. That’s the way I see it.
Report Post »RebelPatriot
Posted on June 18, 2012 at 11:44pmHe must be looking for job at MSNBC, they like to pick and choose what is quoted and released to the public in order to further their own agenda.
I wonder if he understands the difference between the Old Testament and the New Testament?
He does understand the principles of Christianity are based on forgiveness and Jesus is the reason Christians believe salvation can be obtained due to Christ’s actions on the cross?
And to the atheist belief that our God is an unjust and unfair God I pose this.
Mankind has been given three chances to live a life worth salvation. We failed in the Garden, we failed during Noah’s time and we failed before Jesus was sent to save us.
What God left for us was salvation through repentence. We will have an opportunity to not burn in hell for our transgressions, but we must believe that Jesus is the way and the light and our sins can be forgiven if we repent.
Report Post »Therightsofbilly
Posted on June 19, 2012 at 12:56amHey Mod,
What is the purpose of your post?
What was your intent?
Do you get pleasure from posting the things that you do?
What do you gain if you manage to pry someone from their beliefs?
What is your motivation?
Report Post »HoneyBager7x7
Posted on June 19, 2012 at 2:23amWhen it comes to the Midianite Judgment, read the entire story and realize the situation.
The judgment scene in Numbers 31 has nothing to do with lewd ‘tests for virginity’
The judgment scene in Numbers 31 has nothing to do with ‘sex slaves’ or even slavery in the sense of New World Slavery
The judgment scene in Numbers 31 has nothing to do with a religious war against the Midianites, “because they worshiped a different god than Israel”
The Midianites were a tribal league of generally nomadic peoples, with a wide variation in orientation, ethics, and practices.
They were known to engage in kidnapping and international slave trading, as well as raiding and pillage of sedentary peoples/villages.
The Moabites, who start the chain of events leading to Numbers 31, are under no danger or threat from Israel, but nonetheless begin unprovoked attempts to vanquish the unsuspecting Israelites
After the Mesopotamian diviner/sorcerer/prophet Balaam fails to curse Israel, he nevertheless advises the Midianite leadership on how to overcome Israel—by a sexual deception of a massive scale.
Report Post »Moab transports women into the area en masse, and Midian moves into the territory east of Shittim, to begin this initiative. Some 6,000-12,000 married women aggressively offer sex to the Israelite men (most of whom are married), and after having sex/adultery, convince then to participate in further acts (involving both sex and disloyalty to the Lord).
HoneyBager7x7
Posted on June 19, 2012 at 2:26amContinued….
Israel ‘falls for it’, and likely makes a ‘covenant’ with a Canaanite fertility god of vegetation (Baal Peor), and are judged by God (at least 24,000 Israelites die of a plague, most of which are males)
The Moabite and Midianite women retreat out of the area, having successfully used their sex as a weapon (with full knowledge, consent, support, and encouragement from their husbands, fathers, and civic leaders).
For this atrocity, God orders Israel to attack this specific group of Midianites (not the Moabites) and eliminate them.
The Israelite force of 12,000 men travel east/southeast to where the Midianite sub-group is camping, and engage in combat. (They are NOT instructed to hunt “all the Midianites in the world down and kill them”—just this group that did the treachery at Baal Peor.) They kill almost all of the males in this battle, but return to the Israelite camp with the herds and property of the Midianites, as well as with the women and (mostly girl) children.
Moses is shocked to find out that they spared the very women who used the sex-weapon against them, and even brought these women back to the Israelite camp! He orders them to execute the women, who had been involved in the treachery (but only the Midianite women—the Moabite women are spared), and any remaining males among the children.
Report Post »HoneyBager7x7
Posted on June 19, 2012 at 2:30amThe 32,000 young girls could be assimilated into Israel, largely because of the death of the 24,000 adult Israelites.
The judgment for the atrocity at Baal Peor fell both on Israel and Midian—both would have lost around 24,000 adult members of the population, and the consequences on the Midianite children (especially the boys) would have been a direct result of the choices of their parents and leaders.
The realities of life in the ANE precluded absorption of the residual boys into the people—in keeping with realities of the time.
Those are the facts. I know America’s reading score bad, but I didn’t know it was that bad.
Report Post »RevRiles
Posted on June 19, 2012 at 2:47amYou have some good points.
Report Post »HoneyBager7x7
Posted on June 19, 2012 at 3:23amModerationIsBest @ LOL
Since you don’t believe in a Creator, why are you so in the business of knowing so much about something you don’t believe in?
Everything is a cult. The whole world is a CULT, made up of other smaller cults, which are made of even smaller cults, which are even made of MICRO-CULTS. I.E. Music Cults.
Its called being in a “CULT”ure. Get real son.
Report Post »HoneyBager7x7
Posted on June 19, 2012 at 3:53amIf Mr. Stiefel knew anything, he would know that taking the name in vain has nothing to do with free speech, but in how you act in your society.
Old Testament passages refer to the name being profaned by the use of hypocritical behavior and false representation of his words and character. (For Example: Pedophile PRIESTS AND MINISTERS)
(Do not go around telling people and LYING on your Creator in your actions – This literally means do not represent his character in an empty or false manner.)
Thats why it said after the fact – The LORD (YHWH) will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.
Report Post »SquidVetOhio
Posted on June 19, 2012 at 9:14am@HONEYBGR7X7
Finally! Someone who knows some OT history! There are few others that can explain it. Christians fall into the trap of trying to sugar coat the OT. Yes, God ordered the Israelites to invade Canaan and kill people (men, women, and children). Yes, God flooded the earth and killed all but 8 people. People don’t understand that it is we that brought this on. We sinned against God and brought sin into the world. God chose a lineage of people ( the Hebrews ) that he would set apart for Himself and bring His messiah. All of the wars Israel was commanded to be involved in was for their survival as these were brutal people that wanted to destroy them (like today). God created us, He wills our very breath. He can justly destroy us if he pleases. However, He is merciful. He “takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked”.
And yes, christianity is a “cult” based on human sacrifice. Just as Abraham told Isaac on Mt. Moriah, “God will provide Himself a sacrifice”.
“Hereby we percieve we the love of God in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.”
That human/Divine sacrifice is what is going to keep us believers out of hell. Not our goodness.
You PWND that guy!
Report Post »HappyStretchedThin
Posted on June 19, 2012 at 10:28am@honeybadger,
Report Post »What a tour de force of contextualization! There may be a detail here and there with some wiggle room for debate, but on the whole I don‘t think I’ve seen a better demonstration of how even atheists like Moderation who claim to know the Bible still practice hyper-judgmental cherry-picking devoid of all context in order to make their point.
May I add another level of context (and perhaps danger) to the discussion?
Moses and the Hebrews believed in prophets-authorized men who received messages from God. The righteous among the Israelites believed that a being with greater wisdom than theirs, who knew what the consequences of leaving a given group alive would have, was commanding their leader, and they submitted their human sense of morality to that leader because of those beliefs. If there is a God capable of resurrection, who understands the eternal, not merely the mortal, then death is not the final end of anything but the test which is mortality. This God decides every day whose test gets to continue, and whose eternal spirit gets separated from their body until resurrection day. The act of removing a spirit who is making eternally damning choices from this life can then be read as an act of mercy-preventing him/her from doing more irreparable damage. God is merciful and loving, and knows when its our time. The Israelites knew by the same Author of their law, that killing without the prophet’s order was anathema, but that SOME killing is moral.
Hollywood
Posted on June 19, 2012 at 1:34pmThe CROSS is foolishness to those who persih. This gentleman thinks his supposed knowledge of Scripture, gives him the WISDOM, to determine what is TRUE truth. He should review Romans Ch 1 V 19-23
Report Post »With the discovery of DNA, and other incredible details of Intelligent design, implying an Intelligent designer, just truly shows his form of wisdom is true, willing IGNORANCE of our Creator. He stands without excuse as our GOD states. I will pray for him.
Grubmeister
Posted on June 19, 2012 at 3:45pmWhaaa??? I’m homosexual??? My wife will have mixed feelings about this. Half her time will be spent trying to drain the bank account looking for my new wardrobe. The remainder will be spent trying to convert me to Mormonism.
Report Post »alinmatt
Posted on June 19, 2012 at 5:54pm@ honeybadger. Bravo. Way to google numbers 31 and look at christianthinktank.com. Perhaps you ought to read the text before cutting and pasting other peoples ideas. 1. There is no implication in the text that these were married or even mostly married women. Harlotry deals specifically with prostitution. 2. While you may not consider it genocide, most people do. Destroying a group of people based on race, religion, or nationality is genocide. Even if you don’t consider that particular occasion genocide, perhaps you ought to continue reading the OT. 3. Much of your argument is made on assumptions, not the text. 4. I thought the Bible was supposed to be in contrast to the customs of the Ancient Near East. Killing infants and children, regardless of the number or sex of them, is morally despicable. Also, what about Deut. 24:16. Should sons pay for the sins of the father? 5. Why only keep the virgins? Doesn’t matter really, but it‘s likely those virgins didn’t have a say in what became of them. In the OT, women and slaves were property. Being forced to “marry” someone may as well be sexual slavery. 6. Occam’s razor – the simplest explanation is most likely the correct one. Take a look at the rationilizing of the argument you made. It’s like the Olympic Gymnastics for justification. I could make all sorts of arguments in favor of the Midianites, like peace being made through ethnic mixing as is and was common, or a plague probably being an std. Also, thanks for trying to i
Report Post »alinmatt
Posted on June 19, 2012 at 7:14pm… insult me.
Report Post »Would anyone like to try and debate the morality of killing children? I thought the Bible and its god are supposed to be an example in the Ancient Near East, not part of it. After all, the word “holy” means seperate. Is it ever morally justifiable to kill children, happystretchedthin?
HoneyBager7x7
Posted on June 19, 2012 at 7:23pm@alinmatt
I read the entire thing thrice. Booya
1. There is no implication in the text that these were married or even mostly married women. Harlotry deals specifically with prostitution.
Whether they were married, non-married, girlfriends or just random women, WHORING is WHORING, It MEANS exactly what it means. They did their dirt on purpose from the instructions of “BALAAM” This was all BALAAM’s grand idea, he planned it and they DID IT. It says so in the TEXT. READ the TEXT.
Numbers 31:8 – They killed the kings of Midian along with the rest of their slain: Evi and Rekem and Zur and Hur and Reba, the five kings of Midian; they also killed Balaam the son of Beor with the sword.
2. While you may not consider it genocide, most people do. Destroying a group of people based on race, religion, or nationality is genocide. Even if you don’t consider that particular occasion genocide, perhaps you ought to continue reading the OT.
They didn’t destroy that PARTICULAR group of Midianites because of their Religion, Nationality, or RACE, seeing as how they’re all COUSINS. They kicked ass and wiped them out because of their “TREACHERY” at Baal Peor. READ the TEXT.
3. Much of your argument is made on assumptions, not the text.
Report Post »Read the TEXT, I read it three times. You’re the one thats not reading the material and the situation they were in.
HoneyBager7x7
Posted on June 19, 2012 at 7:26pm4. I thought the Bible was supposed to be in contrast to the customs of the Ancient Near East. Killing infants and children, regardless of the number or sex of them, is morally despicable. Also, what about Deut. 24:16. Should sons pay for the sins of the father?
Deut. 24:16 –
Parents are not to be put to death for their children, nor children put to death for their parents; each will die for their own sin.
Yeah, that seems ideal in normal cases, but no, this was not a NORMAL CASE. Read the TEXT
Numbers 25:17: The LORD said to Moses, “Treat the Midianites as enemies and kill them, because they treated you as enemies when they deceived you in the affair of Peor and their sister Cozbi, the daughter of a Midianite leader, the woman who was killed when the plague came as a result of Peor.”
It says in the TEXT that Israel had been forbidden by God to attack Moab, or try to take their land
Deut 2:9: Then the LORD said to me, “Do not harass the Moabites or provoke them to war, for I will not give you any part of their land.
Report Post »I have given Ar to the descendants of Lot as a possession.”, and they had already passed by Moab’s territory, but Moab’s chief—Balak—was nonetheless afraid of Israel, and attempted to mount an (unprovoked) campaign against them.
HoneyBager7x7
Posted on June 19, 2012 at 7:28pmRead the story of Balaam, God told him not to interfere with the Hebrews that were across the way, he warned him more than once, but he messed with them anyway. The Moabites, who start the chain of events leading to Numbers 31, are under no danger or threat from Israel, but nonetheless begin unprovoked attempts to vanquish the unsuspecting Israelites. READ the TEXT
5. Why only keep the virgins? Doesn’t matter really, but it‘s likely those virgins didn’t have a say in what became of them. In the OT, women and slaves were property. Being forced to “marry” someone may as well be sexual slavery.
Are you talking about this?
Exodus 21:7
Report Post »“If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as male servants do. If she does not please the master who has selected her for himself, he must let her be redeemed. He has no right to sell her to foreigners, because he has broken faith with her. If he selects her for his son, he must grant her the rights of a daughter. If he marries another woman, he must not deprive the first one of her food, clothing and marital rights. If he does not provide her with these three things, she is to go free, without any payment of money.”
HoneyBager7x7
Posted on June 19, 2012 at 7:29pmExodus 20:17
“You shall not covet your neighbor’s house. You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or his male or female servant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.”
In essence, “Don’t ***** with YOUR NEIGHBOR, PERIOD”
6. Occam’s razor – the simplest explanation is most likely the correct one. Take a look at the rationilizing of the argument you made. It’s like the Olympic Gymnastics for justification. I could make all sorts of arguments in favor of the Midianites, like peace being made through ethnic mixing as is and was common, or a plague probably being an std.
The event apparently happened and there’s nothing you can do about it. I’m not trying to rationalize it to make it all pretty and sunshine puppies. Both sides messed up and both sides were punished for being STUPID. You want to complain about events that have nothing do with you, but you refuse to come to grips with the era they were in, the location they were at, how hostility of the land. Read the Text, Read what happened, because obviously you don’t know nor understand what occurred.
Report Post »alinmatt
Posted on June 19, 2012 at 8:09pm@honeybadger
Deut. 24:16 –
Parents are not to be put to death for their children, nor children put to death for their parents; each will die for their own sin.
Yeah, that seems ideal in normal cases, but no, this was not a NORMAL CASE. Read the TEXT
I didn’t realize the laws of the bible (or morality for that matter) only applied to normal cases.
I am also aware of the story with Balaam and aware that the text says he counseled them in this sexual attack. I am aware of everything involved in the text. And I am also familiar with the context of the Ancient Near East. Am I in agreement with what the Midianites did? No. That doesn’t justify the response of the Israelites. The main reason I brought these verses up was to discuss the killing of babies. Two wrongs simply don’t make a right.
Report Post »Tell me, when is it okay to kill babies? Maybe I should use the word murder. The last I knew, babies were innocent of the crimes of their parents. Under what specific conditions is it morally justifiable to kill babies?
HoneyBager7x7
Posted on June 20, 2012 at 6:12pmalinmatt:
Tell me, when is it okay to kill babies? Maybe I should use the word murder. The last I knew, babies were innocent of the crimes of their parents. Under what specific conditions is it morally justifiable to kill babies?
When the woman dosen’t want it and when no one can afford it.
Report Post »alinmatt
Posted on June 21, 2012 at 6:49pm@honeybadger, I’ve never been in favor of abortion. I have a libertarian leaning perspective. In order for any society to function well, the people within in it have to be responsible for themselves. I‘m not in favor of removing the consequences of anyone’s actions, especially when another’s life is at stake. A baby in the womb is still a baby, and has a right to life.
Report Post »America’s fading morality is not a good standard to measure by. Keep working on an answer.
alinmatt
Posted on June 21, 2012 at 7:03pmBesides, it‘s not my morality or anyone else’s that’s in question here. I am questioning the Bible’s moral authority that it claims to own.
Report Post »FoxholeAtheist
Posted on June 22, 2012 at 3:45pmAnytime someone comes into conflict with your scriptures or has anything negative to say about them, all of a sudden they are misinterpreting them or misquoting them or taking them out of context, when it is you who are the worst culprits of cherry picking and quote mining. You can’t even come to an agreement among yourselves on what is right or wrong. The example of two different versions of the 10 commandments are a perfect example of how you squabble.
Report Post »nostate
Posted on June 26, 2012 at 10:35amI‘ve read the comments about atheists and I’ve only one thing to say to every one of you vicious, ignorant, brutal, cruel, child-abusing lard-asses:
“…and the horse you rode in on too.”
Yeah. You inferred me right, fat boy.
Report Post »sizzler2220
Posted on June 18, 2012 at 4:55pmDoes he not believe in Allah? I haven’t heard him defile the name of Allah and musslism.
Report Post »CougarNick78
Posted on June 18, 2012 at 5:14pmStifle doesn’t have the stones to do, neither does Dawkins, nor Bill Maher……
Report Post »NJBarFly
Posted on June 18, 2012 at 5:46pmAtheists criticize Islam all the time. Here’s a video of Dawkins calling Islam one of the greatest evils in the world. Maher is also highly critical of Islam. Try watching Religulous.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yyNv8kvd2H8
Report Post »Two Sheds
Posted on June 18, 2012 at 7:16pmNow this is repulsive: http://www.nowlebanon.com/BlogDetails.aspx?TID=2451&FID=6
Report Post »v15
Posted on June 18, 2012 at 11:42pmI‘m guessing he hasn’t addressed Allah because the United States was founded upon Christian principles. If 99.999% of people on this site do not believe in Allah, then why even address it in the first place? Atheists & Christians don’t believe in Allah. No need to even bring it up.
Report Post »Grubmeister
Posted on June 19, 2012 at 3:52pmHe didn‘t address Islam because he wasn’t asked about Islam. He, and many other atheists have addressed the dangers of Islam at length. For example, plenty of the Sam Harris books talk about how dangerous Islam is to everyone, atheist or theist.
Report Post »There is no blind eye here. Current demographics in america have muslims as a tiny minority of the population. Christians are the ones throwing their weight around so they get the sharp end of the stick first.
The_Cabrito_Goat
Posted on June 20, 2012 at 4:50pmI suppose that’s a good thing that he does that.
Report Post »nostate
Posted on June 26, 2012 at 10:40amAllah is as imaginary as any other made up god and Muhammed (Place bacon upon him) is a dead pedophile.
Stones?
Report Post »Mr Sanders
Posted on June 18, 2012 at 4:54pmA simple answer to atheism theory of no God – the circular discussion of the fossil record within Evolutionist theory – the greatest ancestor of man’s lineage; soup that spawned from rocks and that is a grandeose statement to make.
Hey, look, I don’t care if you want to be an atheist, go right ahead, but, by fighting so hard against the theory of God or intelligent design and fighting for logic’s sake- you’re creating a religion, a following of sorts. A God can be many things; science, love for movies, love for trees, love for Earth… all pressed to a level of obsession, which is a form of worship, ergo your God created. The Human body, all its own is a wonder to behold. Many biologists on bothsides of the God discussion have come to the conclusion that a force greater than all of us had to have been involved for us to become what we are.
Back to the courts – in simplist terms – to foster order someone had to have a higher moral compass than just logic to keep people in check, I would surmise? Also, a certain amount of countenance must be applied to the masses, especially to the one making the laws, for if he/she did stray who would be judge over them? No, if man is to ‘manage’ himself there must be a higher authority to create checks & balances. If we leave this to Big-G… oh boy…. we’re in trouble. Unless someone has a better set of simplistic, but difficult rules to follow, in one line, like love thy neighbor – God is Coolness!
Report Post »Craig123
Posted on June 26, 2012 at 4:36amTo claim that the fossil record supports intelligent design gets things so 180 degrees backwards it is hard to credit.
Report Post »jmurdock257
Posted on June 18, 2012 at 4:44pmMy Question to an Atheist would be, “What proof would you accept for the existence of God?” I sincerely doubt that even if I were to present God to an Athiest, that they would believe.
Report Post »Fiddlesticks
Posted on June 18, 2012 at 5:16pmThat’s a good question. The fist thing you have to do is define what a God is. Another highly advanced alien species could come along and claim they are gods. Their technology would be so powerful that it would appear as magic or godlike powers to us. But does this make them Gods?
Most people agree that the one true god would be Omnipotent. There would be absolutely no limits to his power. He could change time, create and destroy at the speed of thought. The list goes on. The definition of a “miracle” to an atheist is something that violates the known mechanics of the universe. Do not confuse this with extremely rare odds. The universe is an extremely large place and rare stuff happens all the time. They say winning the lottery has the same odds as getting struck by lightning 3 times. But yet around once a month somebody wins it, and there are some people who win it all the time. So do not confuse odds with miracles.
So I imagine truly omnipotent God would be able to violate/change the very nature of the universe itself to his will.
Report Post »CougarNick78
Posted on June 18, 2012 at 5:25pmWell gents, I heard one Christian Scientist say this about Evolution and the Big Bang Theory- the likelihood of the Big Bang Theory happening so perfectly is 1 in 100 Billion + and the odds of Evolution working out would be less than a tornado hitting a factory, and somehow the winds/vortex will then shoot out a fully assembled, safe, and fully-functioning Boeing 747 Jumbo Jet Airliner……
Something to think about.
Report Post »eaglescout1998
Posted on June 18, 2012 at 5:53pm“What proof would you accept for the existence of God?” I sincerely doubt that even if I were to present God to an Athiest, that they would believe.
============================================================
That is a pointless question to ask of an atheist (or, for that matter, to a theist). I remember a quotation that goes something like this: “For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who don’t believe, no proof is possible.”
Report Post »Fiddlesticks
Posted on June 18, 2012 at 6:19pmI as an Atheist think the question is a viable one. We as Atheists make our claims based on proof. We pride ourselves on our ability to look at the evidence and make a reasoned determination off that evidence. To say that if God presents himself to me and proves his existence, but then I don’t change my mind would make me just as bad as a religious person. Unwavering in my opinion despite the facts.
If an omnipotent God presents himself to me, then I won’t “believe” there is a God. I will “know” that there is one.
Report Post »positiveaob
Posted on June 18, 2012 at 6:21pmIf such gods (christianity is polytheistic, not monotheistic) existed, there would be no need for them to prove themselves since there would be no need to stay hidden.
The answer to your question is simple. It is the same answer (I would hope) YOU would give if someone asked you “what proof do you need to accept the existence of Poseidon and the gods of olympus?“ or ”what proof do you need to accept the existence of Santa Clause?“ Or ”what proof do you need to accept the existence of (insert name of figure from any cultural superstition)?” Namely, I have no reason to believe such beings exist and countless reasons to suspect such beings don’t exist.
Report Post »SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING
Posted on June 18, 2012 at 6:37pmFoolishness dressed up as wisdom, insight, and objective thought. There is a fair amount of vanity and error in the thread above.
Report Post »ashestoashes
Posted on June 18, 2012 at 9:51pmWhen doubting Thomas asked to see the scars in the side of Yeshua..he was shown..Yeshua said something to the effect of “You believe because you see..but blessed is the man who believes and has not seen”..To all followers of Yeshua..this is one of the most beautiful and inspiring videos by what I deem to be the Messianic Jewish believers..It rocked my world..
Report Post »http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n0z0WfjCxXk
Grubmeister
Posted on June 19, 2012 at 4:01pm@ASHESTOASHES
“You believe because you see..but blessed is the man who believes and has not seen”..
Thank you for that wonderful quote. In one sentence you’ve managed to distill the entire problem atheists have with faith. To be blunt, we explicitly reject what you embrace. There is no virtue in ignorance, just fumbling in the darkness.
Report Post »Craig123
Posted on June 26, 2012 at 4:42amAn omnipotent God could surely provide such proof incredibly easily. Say, by re-arranging the stars into a new Bible passage in every language every night, and signing it ‘God’. That would be fairly convincing. An omnipotent God must have made a conscious decision to NOT provide conclusive proof of his/her/its own existence. And then this ever-loving being who has declined to provide proof damns those who do not believe in him to an eternity of torture taht would make a weekend at John Wayne Gacy’s seem like a holiday camp? In between raping virgins, and drowning pregnant women in his great floods that is. Wow. Are you really sure you are worshipping a creature of good?
Report Post »Black3Actual
Posted on June 18, 2012 at 4:43pmOur atheist friend here does not have nearly as much understanding of the issues he is addressing as he supposes. Does he not realize that, by questioning what he sees as an evil in Scripture, he is admitting that God must exist and, therefore, defeating his own claim of atheism?
Report Post »Fiddlesticks
Posted on June 18, 2012 at 5:37pmHow does seeing something we consider immoral by today’s standards be considered “evil in Scripture”? The Bible was written by men. Contemplating/questioning what was written by man does not admit there is a God by default. Since the Bible was written by man, it is subject to the same faults that all men have. In this article he mentions those faults. It is those faults that cause him to realize that maybe the Bible shouldn’t be taken literally as a source of morality. He does mention certain phrases in the Bible that he does like. So don’t think that he just threw away the entire Bible off of a couple of bad versus. He realizes that there is good and bad in the Bible and he has taken the good to heart and tossed the bad out.
Report Post »positiveaob
Posted on June 18, 2012 at 6:28pmNo, actually he is not doing that at all. He is pointing out how ridiculous such beliefs are if one takes them as coming from a divine being or beings.
Report Post »seer
Posted on June 18, 2012 at 4:43pmIt is always interesting when an atheist has moral objections to biblical ethics. Christopher Hitchens was noted for these attacks (God rest his soul). But if you are an atheist from what moral ground are you mounting said attacks? If there is no God, then there is no objective ethical standard that you can appeal too. It simply comes down to personal or cultural preference. You like vanilla I like strawberry – it is trivial. No moral opinion is more correct or valid than its opposite. “Sound and fury signifying nothing…”
Report Post »Fiddlesticks
Posted on June 18, 2012 at 6:04pmIt’s amazing how a short comment can touch upon so many different subjects. I say this because what you’ve posted here has been asked so many times to Atheists. And it really is easy to launch attacks against Religions on their moral codes. I’m not going to go too deep into that. Watching videos by Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris and some others is more than enough to answer that part of the question.
As for the 2nd part of your comment about deriving an ethical standard, you should check out Dan Dennett, Dr. Andy Thompson and Sam Harris on the “Science of Morality”. These guys will teach you how humans are practically wired for Religion. The very things that helped man survive are the very things that make man vulnerable to superstition and other religious dogma. They talk about how religions evolve as time goes on. Christianity is only around 2000+ years old, at one time on this Earth, everybody believed in Zeus & Thor as vehemently as we believe in God now. They‘ve done a lot of research on how we’ve derived our moral code over time and some of its origins.
Report Post »positiveaob
Posted on June 18, 2012 at 6:41pmThe evolutionary basis for morality is a pretty lengthy subject. A bit much to go into in a single comment. There a lot of good books on the topic if you are interested. To a certain extent your statement is correct, morals are subjective and there is no objective standard (certainly if there were, it would not be the old testament). However, certain “moral rules” are so fundamental to the survival of a species that they are seen throughout all cultures and can be thus considered “objective”. Rules against killing, lying, stealing, etc, would fit in this category. Others change with different societies over time. For example, in the time these scriptures were written, enslaving other people and subjugating women were considered morally acceptable which is why you see endorsement of these practices throughout the bible. Even in the late 19th century, coincidentally in the area of the US known as the “bible belt”, slavery was considered acceptable. Now in the 21st century we are pretty well beyond that.
If you want to know how I personally rationalize doing good things, charitable works, etc, it is because I want to live in a world where people help each other in their times of need, and by doing so myself I am helping make the world that place. No belief in invisible overlords necessary.
Report Post »seer
Posted on June 19, 2012 at 8:10amGood responses guys, but my main points remain valid. I have read and followed these debates for years, and have been involved in a number myself with those who follow Dennett, Harris, Stenger, Dawkins, et al. You speak about ethics as related to the survival of the species; well for most of human history totalitarianism has kept social order, and helped us survive. You find the same totalitarian behavior in higher primates. So if we define “good” as what helps the species survive then totalitarianism is “good.“ Who is considered a ”moral” man my be quite different in Feudal Japan, or 1930s Germany, or the US of today. Sadly, without God as an objective law giver – it all remains relative.
Report Post »Grubmeister
Posted on June 19, 2012 at 4:14pm@Seer
Report Post »What I’d like to know is why anyone would choose to believe in a god, just so they could have an “objective morality”. Does that make sense?
The two questions, whether or not a god exists, and from where our morality comes from, are two very different questions and must be taken in proper order. One must first decide if they believe in god(s).
Of course, if there is a god (or at least your god), the answer of where morality comes from is right there front and center.
If one determines there is no god, they’re left with no alternative. They must either compete as animals in the wild or develop a more sophisticated culture with shared values. It does not need to be void of all morality and ignore the good. The point is, the morality must be subjective in that it is part of a shared system. While some theists believe this is a silver bullet argument for atheists, I see no reason to shy away from it. Sources of morality are not arguments for or against god but they do follow from it.
Fiddlesticks
Posted on June 19, 2012 at 4:20pmTotalitarianism is less about moral code and more about control. Religions and Totalitarian regimes have coexisted side by side for thousands of years. The Catholic (Hitler) & Russian Orthodox (Stalin) churches have both allied themselves with Totalitarian regimes before. It may have been out of self preservation. I disagree with Totalitarianism as the natural state of man. I’m a John Lock “Nature of Man” leaning individual and not a Hobbes guy.
Report Post »Mr.Fitnah
Posted on June 18, 2012 at 4:40pmChristians are not bound by the 10 commandments .
Report Post »BOMUSTGO
Posted on June 18, 2012 at 4:56pmThe New Covenant is thru the Spirit infilling.
The New Covenant
Jeremiah 31:31-33 Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the Lord:
But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.
2 Corinthians 3:3 Forasmuch as ye are manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart.
Hebrews 8:10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:
Report Post »dj109
Posted on June 18, 2012 at 10:29pmJesus made it clear that the Old Testament law was very much still applicable…
Matthew 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.
Report Post »The_Doors_Of_Perception
Posted on June 18, 2012 at 4:22pmHaven’t seen one person refute what he said yet. At least with any type of evidence or proof.
Report Post »CougarNick78
Posted on June 18, 2012 at 4:31pmAh the words of foolishness, indeed…..and no I am NOT agreeing with Mr. Stifle- hint at what he’d do if he had his way. Nice tolerant guys you hang with…..dumas.
Report Post »Black3Actual
Posted on June 18, 2012 at 4:42pmThe refutation is easy – IF he understood half of what he thinks he does. We do not live under the old covenant, nor did the founders consider themselves to be under it. When one understands this, most of his objections fall away. The rest can be dealt with by showing that he is making many errors of equivocation and etymology.
Report Post »SREGN
Posted on June 18, 2012 at 4:44pmI believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else. – C.S. Lewis
Report Post »RailRoadCar9
Posted on June 18, 2012 at 4:52pmthe guy is a douch bag god hater, there is nothing of any legitimate value in what he says , as he lacks the back understanding of history & the bible, & is simply looking to rationalize his hatred of God ,
Report Post »guntotinsquaw
Posted on June 18, 2012 at 5:07pmI will, the Constitution is clear..
1st..CONGRESS shall make NO law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
9th…The enumeration, in the constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
10th..The powers NOT delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the People.
Now as we know, several states had established religion at the time, it is, by the Constitution, the right of State or People. When one reads the Letters to the Danbury Baptists, then you understand, the Church of England was what they were trying to prevent. Pray to whom ever you choose where ever you choose, or not, the 10 Commandments on a State building is the right of the STATE!
Report Post »CougarNick78
Posted on June 18, 2012 at 5:17pm@ Guntotinsquaw…. Right on the money….. The Constitution said there were be no official STATE CHURCH of the US- like Anglicans in Britain, The Orthodox Church of the Czars, Catholicism well take your pick of Spain, Austria-Hungary, Portugal…..etc….. However, it did not ever have the phrase SEPARATION OF CHURCH and state….nor is there an AMENDMENT or RIGHT to NOT BE OFFENDED…..or even this- FREEDOM FROM RELIGION. You’re free to believe or not believe, but the 1st Amendment trumps someone and their whining lawyers, which I am amazed at how many judges are legally & constitutionally illiterate about- see Cross Case in San Diego, Nativity Displays…etc. et.c.
Report Post »Styx
Posted on June 18, 2012 at 6:04pmNot a scholar but this is too easy.
Slaves – refers primarily to indentured servants, extremely common and often voluntary at the time. Also, slaves were freed every 7 years. To a defeated culture who lost many of their men in battle, slavery was a kindness to the widows and orphans – they would die without a patron.
A woman should… – A difference in culture and politics. Oft (purposely) overlooked are the number of commandments regarding how a man should treat a woman, particularly his wife. It was not a one-way street.
If anyone comes to me… – Pure idiocy on display here. The verse is hyperbole to make a point and has nothing to do with hatred and everything to do with placing Jesus first in one’s life.
Do not spare them… – Israel failed on several occasions to complete this assignment. The descendants of those spared are today lobbing rockets across Israel’s border and threatening them with nuclear destruction.
The 10 Commandments are spiritual commandments. Note that each person is perfectly free to break these laws at any time. Death was the ultimate punishment for breaking the law because death is the ultimate result of all sin. On that note, if death was applied each time the law was broken then Israel would have wiped themselves out. There‘s a reason God’s favored form of government was not a king but judges.
And last but not least…
How did ‘remember the sabbath beat out ’slavery is forbidden? – This guy thinks he’s morally superi
Report Post »ashestoashes
Posted on June 18, 2012 at 6:09pmWher’s my very appropriate post Blaze?
Report Post »ashestoashes
Posted on June 18, 2012 at 6:13pm@STYX Great post.. By the way..were you a STYX fan..saw them in concert once..Awesome
Report Post »positiveaob
Posted on June 18, 2012 at 7:13pm@Styx:
Yes, it’s pretty obvious you’re not a “scholar”.
Regarding slavery, the bible refers to slaves, not indentured servants. And you apparently have not read too many of its passages on the subject if you consider such a practice to represent a “kindness”. The writings that would later be compiled/edited/re-edited(many times) into what we now call the “bible” were written at a time when such practice was considered entirely morally acceptable. After all, they were a culture that was very primitive compared to today. Much like they will look at us in 2,000 years and say “people still believed in invisible overlords in the year 2012? Really?”
As far as your rationalization of the bible’s numerous passages on how women should be submissive to men, you’re right to a certain extent. That was a much different culture that believed such things. They also believed that the first woman was created from a rib taken from the first man. If you happened to live in a different part of the world at that time you would believe that lightning was the result of Zeus getting pissed off at somebody. These were primitive cultures and their superstitions were a reflection of just that. So, yes, their beliefs on how a woman should be submissive to men were a reflection of the primitive nature of their culture, as was the rest of the bible, and should be taken as such. In other words, doesn’t apply today.
To be continued…
Report Post »positiveaob
Posted on June 18, 2012 at 7:19pm@Styx (continued)
And do you have examples, just out of curiosity, of how the bible says men should be submissive to women? Since you claim this was a “two-way street?”
A verse being “hyperbole” is just that because you want it to be so. Pretty simple really, the parts of the bible you like=fact, the parts you don’t=hyperbole. You could parse the bible like that if it helps relieve your cognitive dissonance, or you could just accept that these were all just cultural superstitions from an ancient people.
Your comments on the “do not spare them” passage are ignorant at best, downright frightening at worst. You are clearly not someone who has ever met or interacted with any such “descendent” and has never traveled to such an area. And Israle “failed”??? if such a god or gods existed, he/they couldn’t have sort of just vanquished such enemies on his/their own?
And regarding the “death” punishment, the bible (if you choose to believe it’s a true story instead of just primitive cultural superstitions) is pretty clear on it. No stipulation of “you will die, just not now” or “you won’t live to your eighties”, just that you will be put to death. Again, understandable to believe so in an ancient culture from where such teachings originated. A bit silly nowadays.
Report Post »positiveaob
Posted on June 18, 2012 at 7:20pmAnd finally, I dont know where you were about to go with the “this guy thinks he’s morally superior” comment that was cut off. If you were about to say that Mr. Steiffel thinks he’s morally superior to the christian trinity of gods, I can promise you he wasn’t. Why? Because he, like me, understands that such gods are nothing more than primitive cultural superstitions kept alive by a large scale cult mentality. Saying you think you are morally superior to the christian gods is like saying you think you are morally superior to Darth Vader. It would make no sense. What he is doing is pointing out the insanity of believing such things, not saying he is superior to such beings.
Report Post »Heffe44
Posted on June 18, 2012 at 8:17pm@guntotinsquaw
I’m sorry, but you are not right. The 1st Amendment applies to State Governments too. The the “Due Process Clause” of the 14th Amendment (the second of reconstructionist amendments) makes the Bill of Rights applicable to the States.
Also the letter to the Danbury Baptist was quite clear about whether a State could endorse or establish a religion. Don’t take my word for it, there is 200 yrs of presidence to back me up.
Report Post »DTOM_Jericho (Creator vindicator)
Posted on June 19, 2012 at 9:19am@Styx:
@positive…
“‘Yes, it’s pretty obvious you’re not a “scholar”.
Regarding slavery, the bible refers to slaves, not indentured servants. “‘
Um… it’s pretty obvious YOU are not a scholar. The slavery in Scripture is concerning debt slavery. To link it to the slavery that is a blemish on American and European history is anachronistic, foolish, and childish. If you are going to argue against something you don’t like; at least use logic. Buying other (debt) slaves from other nations would be a blessing to those slaves. Slaves were to be freed either when THEIR debt was fully paid or in the seventh year. Slaves could also CHOOSE to remain with their master. You are as foolish as Obama or the moron in this article quoting Scripture.
A TRUE atheist would not care. A TRUE atheist would be so indifferent because their would be no higher purpose to life other than acquiring things. A TRUE atheist that might be disgusted by evangelizing of ANY religion; certainly would not do the same by talking people out of a religion to their non-belief. That would make you a hypocrite. A true atheist believing in “survival of the fittest” would be glad to be k1lled, right? There would be no such thing as murder, you are just strengthening the gene-pool.
Report Post »positiveaob
Posted on June 19, 2012 at 11:45am@DTOM
“The slavery in Scripture is concerning debt slavery…”
No, actually the slavery in the bible refers to slavery, pure and simple. Such slaves (assuming you are believing any of this stuff as being divinely inspired) could be taken, purchased, passed down as inheritance to offspring, kept as slaves for life, etc, all of which being entirely acceptable according to the local superstitions of that particular culture. These same cultural superstitions you continue to cling to today as being imparted from some invisible overlords in the sky. Rules are set in these writings describing how one is allowed to beat his slave, rules of how female slaves are to please their masters, rules of how a slave is to marry, etc. It’s ABSOLUTELY linkable to the slavery practiced in other cultures. Slavery is evil, pure and simple, and your attempts to justify it are pathetic and despicable.
It never fails to amaze me the lengths and contortions you guys go to to maintain your grip on this superstitious nonsense. I am not clear if it is due to your just being that deeply brainwashed in this cult that you can’t see out of it, or if you just really don’t want to admit you’re wrong. But in either case, if you’re seriously trying to make the case that the bible does anything but condone and support the enslavement of others you’re seriously mistaken. It is very clear on this issue.
Report Post »positiveaob
Posted on June 19, 2012 at 11:47amRegarding your “true atheist” comments, I dont even know where to begin. I choose to dismiss imaginary beings as the cultural superstitions that they are, and somehow that means I dont want to live? Seriously? I am assuming you dont believe in Zeus and the gods of olympus, therefore do YOU believe murder is okay? (although apparently you think slavery is okay, so I dont know what I would put past you).
We speak out against this nonsense not because I give a crap what you believe, but because of the effect this cult has on me and the world around me. I speak out because of the destructive wars, the violence, the holding back of science, the indoctrination of our children in this BS, among many other things. You can have one-sided conversations with whatever imaginary beings you want, and I won’t say a word. But when it affects me, then hell yes I am going to call it out for what it is: mythology.
Report Post »ckokkola
Posted on June 19, 2012 at 12:01pmPositiveAOB wives submit to your wives was not about wives becoming the slaves of the husband, in no way does that imply that. Here is what the original word means:
5293 υποτασσω hupotasso hoop-ot-as’-so
from 5259 and 5021; TDNT-8:39,1156; v
AV-put under 6, be subject unto 6, be subject to 5, submit (one’s) self unto 5, submit (one’s) self to 3, be in subjection unto 2, put in subjection under 1, misc 12; 40
1) to arrange under, to subordinate
2) to subject, put in subjection
3) to subject one’s self, obey
4) to submit to one’s control
5) to yield to one’s admonition or advice
6) to obey, be subject
++++
A Greek military term meaning “to arrange [troop divisions] in a military fashion under the command of a leader”. In non-military use, it was “a voluntary attitude of giving in, cooperating, assuming responsibility, and carrying a burden”.
Notice in a non-military use it is voluntary and that it means to cooperate, assume responsibility and carry a burden. That is what it means for a wife to submit, to be part of a team where she assumes some responsibility and carries a burden along with her husband. Remember Eve was created from the rib of His side not a foot bone.
Report Post »ckokkola
Posted on June 19, 2012 at 12:10pmPositiveAOB Also it says here of the husbands and this is important:
Ephesians 5:25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;
26 That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,
27 That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.
28 So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself.
29 For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church:
30 For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.
31 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.
Men are to love their wives as Christ loved the church. In other words husbands are to love their wives sacrificially, giving all of himself to her up to and including his own life. We are one flesh we are to respect them and give unto them. What scripture is saying here is that men and women have differing roles of which really one person can lead but it should always be in council with you wife taking her opinions into account but the ultimate responsibility is with the man.
Pr 5:18 Let thy fountain be blessed: and rejoice with the wife of thy youth.
Report Post »Ec 9:9 Live joyfully with the wife whom thou lovest all the days of the life of thy vanity, which he hath give
Styx
Posted on June 19, 2012 at 1:21pmThe 1500 character limit is killing me.
@Chokkola – Couldn’t have possibly answered the man/woman question better. We’re to love our wives as Jesus loved the Church, and He died for the Church.
@PositiveAOB – You keep referring to how important these things were historically to a primitive culture, yet in the next sentence refuse to acknowledge that history has a role in interpreting these passages.
For the Israelites, the term “slave” used here refers to indentured servants or debt slaves. This is historical and there were very good reasons for this kind of servitude to exist. I repeat that it was often voluntary. Jacob (later known as Israel) voluntarily indentured himself to his uncle Laban for 14 years.
Hyperbole is hyperbole. Jesus tells us to love our enemies and hate our parents. There is no logical way to reconcile those two statements if they are both literal. Thankfully, it is obvious the second command is not literal, but an illustration of a certain mindset required to follow Christ. That is, we must hold him more dear than anything else in the world, even our own lives.
Report Post »Styx
Posted on June 19, 2012 at 1:23pm@PositiveAOB
Do not spare them… This may be frightening, but it is also historical. I can’t think of any nation (and I could certainly be wrong here) that wasn’t founded in war. Even tribal lifestyles are full of conflict. And unless a hostile population is either wiped out, enslaved, or assimilated, that population will forever be at odds with the conqueror. For Israel, assimilation was not an option God allowed because the cultures he ordered utterly destroyed were ones who did things like sacrifice their children to their gods. If you want to talk about repugnant primitive superstitions, why not talk about that?
Death – Once again, it’s obvious the death penalty was not applied each time a crime was committed. God appointed judges over Israel to execute the law. A judge is only required if evaluation of evidence and thoughtful application of penalties is allowed. You’ll find that the Bible can be surprisingly gray at times. What isn’t gray is that death is indeed the penalty for sin. Adam and Eve were created undying. Sin destroyed not only their perfect nature, but the perfect nature of the world we live in. All evil is the result of sin. On that note, yes, I do believe woman was created from a rib. You believe man evolved through some logically impossible process from a single molecule of organic material, possibly seeded on the Earth by aliens (got a problem with that? Talk to Richard Dawkins.) I think your creation myth requires a lot more faith than mine.
Report Post »Styx
Posted on June 19, 2012 at 1:24pm@PositiveAOB
And yes, you and every other atheist do think you’re morally superior to God. Asking why he made one commandment rather than some other one which you arbitrarily believe is more important is like me reading Sun Tzu’s Art of War and saying “Why do I need to know my enemy? All I need to know is laser guided rockets!”
Report Post »Grubmeister
Posted on June 19, 2012 at 4:32pmHow does one possibly consider themselves superior to something they do not believe to exist?
Report Post »If that were true, in order, I am superior to:
1)The easter bunny
2)Darth Vader, but he might be able to take me in the standing broad jump
3)The energizer bunny
4)The tooth fairy. I have access to more cash than $.50 per tooth
5)Running neck to neck with Santa Clause, but only because the two recipients or his largess will do/say anything to keep the gravy train rolling.
positiveaob
Posted on June 22, 2012 at 6:21pm@Styx: Too much to respond to with a single post, and this is already going on for too long. But a few things, then I’m done.
History ABSOLUTELY has a role in interpreting biblical passages! Like all ancient writings, they reflect the local traditions, laws and superstitions of an ancient culture. What they definitively DONT represent is the divinely inspired word of a supreme being or beings. And that should be plainly obvious to anyone who actually reads the writings that would be compiled/edited/re-edited (many many times) into what we now call the “bible”.
These writings are absolutely clear that such slaves were, in fact, slaves, and were not “indentured servants”. Just repeating your assertion does not make it “historical”.
Same goes for your thoughts on the Arab-Israeli conflict. There is no “god” or gods involved if you are speaking “historically”. Just two cultures in a long and bloody conflict stretching out over millenia. Yes, willingness to sacrifice one’s child to imaginary deities is certainly repugnant. Where do I remember reading something like that in the Judeo-Christian teachings? I seem to remember a story that christians like to tell…
Report Post »positiveaob
Posted on June 22, 2012 at 6:23pm@Styx (continued)
And Your understanding of evolution is quite limited, to say the least. So much so that I don’t even know where to respond. And what the hell does Richard Dawkins have to do with anything? Do you he think he defines atheism or evolution? Really? There’s no “myth” to it. Spend a little time learning about evolutionary science and then we’ll talk. Because based on your comment, I feel like I am trying to discuss calculus with someone who thinks 2+3=7. A woman fashioned from a rib, really? Living in the 21st century you believe this?
The bible is not “gray” at all with respect to punishment of, for example, homosexuality, adultery, etc (again, assuming you take this as some sort of divinely inspired word). It says they are to be put to death. Do you or do you not believe homosexuals should be put to death? Because that is clearly what you would have to believe if you are using the “bible” as your moral directive.
Report Post »positiveaob
Posted on June 22, 2012 at 6:27pmAnd finally, how could I possibly consider myself morally superior to an imaginary being or beings? How? I point out the irrationality of the actions of such an imaginary being to demonstrate the insanity of considering them – or the being himself – as factual. And I dont even know where to begin with your Art of War analogy. Sun Tzu’s Art of War actually existed, and to the best of my knowledge no one considers such a work to be divinely inspired or infallible. So yes, you are completely within your rights to disagree with Sun Tzu, although you would be facing tall odds in doing so since his thoughts on the matter have stood well the test of time. And also since laser guided rockets don’t obviate the need for quality intel of your enemy. But there’s nothing stopping you from disagreeing and advancing your own theories if they have merit. That’s what separates it from dogma.
Report Post »BOMUSTGO
Posted on June 18, 2012 at 4:21pmI don’t have enough faith to be an atheist.
Report Post »The_Doors_Of_Perception
Posted on June 18, 2012 at 4:29pmThat doesn’t make sense. Athiests don’t rely on faith.
CougarNick78
Posted on June 18, 2012 at 4:36pm@ Doors of Deception— Let’s see faith in an “unseen God,” fath and dependence on gravity and physics…… Sound about the same to me. Oh and what was Isaac Newton’s affiliation? Wasn’t Newton a stupid narrow minded Christian? Also, Jefferson WAS a Christian, so before you try to make everyone an atheist (like little ole you) I figured to head you off at the pass.
Report Post »BOMUSTGO
Posted on June 18, 2012 at 5:12pmIt would take too much faith to believe that the universe came to be by chance and that out of Chaos came order.To have a creation, you must have a creator.
Report Post »positiveaob
Posted on June 18, 2012 at 7:34pm@cougarnick78: If the products of scientific method and rational thought “sound about the same” to you as cultural superstitions regarding invisible overlords in the sky, talking serpents, people staying alive in fish’s stomach for days at a time, etc etc, then you have interesting understanding of the meaning of the word “faith”.
Isaac Newton’s religion is entirely irrelevant. What in the world does that have to do with anything? Is that how you base your beliefs, i.e. “wow this guy was smart and he adhered to the christian belief system. I guess I should to”? Come up with your own thoughts on the matter. That’s what rational thinking human beings do.
And labeling Jefferson as a “christian” is a stretch, to say the least. But if you want to keep telling yourself that, go for it.
There’s no “faith” involved in being atheist. Just a matter of applying rational thinking to all parts of your belief system, not excluding the areas regarding the local superstitions of the culture you happened to have been born into.
Report Post »The_Doors_Of_Perception
Posted on June 18, 2012 at 10:20pm@CougarNick
Again, no sense…you need faith to understand gravity? And you’re trying to credit me with opinions that I do not hold. Newton was a genius and a Christian. Jefferson was a deist…I actually own a copy of The Life and Morals of Jesus Of Nazareth, the bible he meticulously created to exclude crazy talk of miracles and Jesus’ divinity. But I do not fault these men for not having the information that you and I have at the very literal tips of our fingers.
I will gladly keep my mind open to the possibility of a “god” and as soon I am presented with evidence that one exists I will gladly “worship” him. Although, I would assume that a god who created this amazingly enigmatic earth and universe would have no need to be worshiped or become jealous for the lack of it. Jealousy seems like a very human emotion, I have known people who have overcome jealously so I doubt the “creator” would need consolation from me or you.
Open minds and open books are the enemy of superstitions.
Report Post »ckokkola
Posted on June 19, 2012 at 11:50amPostiveAofB Jonah was not alive in the Belly of the great Fish. Take a look at this article:
Did Jonah die in the whale or did he survive three days?
First, it may not have been a whale, the word is a great fish which means it was one of considerable size. Also we find that God appointed this fish to swallow Jonah, as he appointed many other things of his creation that are recorded in the book of Jonah.
Many people believe that Jonah stayed alive in the fish for three days and that is the miracle but this is not what the Scripture portrays of this event.
It says he cried from “Out of the belly of Sheol” not just the whales belly. The Hebrew word for belly of Sheol is different than the belly of the fish, indicating two different areas
The waters surrounded him even to his soul. This is an expression implying death (Ps.69:1. Jer.4:10) the deep closed, weeds wrapped around my head. His body sank to the moorings of the Mountains, where they begin (under land level). Showing he sank to the bottom before he was swallowed by the fish- which implies He died.
While his soul went too the place of the dead, the fish comes and swallows up his body and it is preserved it for 3 days.
The Bible says “The earth with its bars closed behind me forever.” This is Old Testament language for sheol, the place of the dead. Job.38:17: “Have the gates of death been revealed to you? Or have you seen the doors of the shadow of death?
Part 1
Report Post »ckokkola
Posted on June 19, 2012 at 11:52amIsa 38:10 I said, “In the prime of my life I shall go to the gates of Sheol; I am deprived of the remainder of my years.” Ps. 9:13 also mentions the gates of death. Sheol is the place of departed spirits the only way to get there is to die. Jonah is crying from the righteous portion of Sheol which is Abraham’s bosom, (paradise) His soul went to Sheol while his body was swallowed in the fish preserved in its belly (abdomen). He recalls his last thoughts, When My soul fainted within me, that is a description of losing consciousness. He prayed before he died, then his body was scooped up and preserved in the whale for 3 days and nights.
This is why Jesus stated : For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. The men of Nineveh will rise up in the judgment with this generation and condemn it, because they repented at the preaching of Jonah; and indeed a greater than Jonah is here.” (Matthew 12:40-41)
Luke 11:29-30:“This is an evil generation. It seeks a sign, and no sign will be given to it except the sign of Jonah the prophet. For as Jonah became a sign to the Ninevites, so also the Son of Man will be to this generation.”
The sign Jesus is speaking of is his last to the unbelievers- His resurrection.
Part 2
http://www.letusreason.org/Biblexp94.htm
Report Post »Just in time
Posted on June 18, 2012 at 4:12pmWhat is repulsive, is that atheists want to turn this into a secular nation. One devoid of any moral compass.
Report Post »Fiddlesticks
Posted on June 18, 2012 at 4:59pmAtheists apply what is called “Reasoned Morality”. It’s extensive, but you should Google it. The very article above outlines why the Bible shouldn’t be taken as an absolute guide for morality. If the Bible is the word of God without fault (Both Old & New Testament) then its ok to kill people for working on the Sabbath, its ok to stone your unruly kids and its ok to kill every man, woman & child of your enemies. Look at Muslim “Honor Killings”. That is a modern day application of an ancient style morality liken to that mentioned in the Bible. But no Christian here would condone that, or the killing of innocent women and children. Which is good.
But what that means is, the outside world has changed and the norm for what is a moral or immoral act has changed as well. This is often referred to as the “Moral Zeitgeist”. It is this force that changes what is considered acceptable moral behavior by religions. An example of this is the pedophile priest scandals. It wasn’t the church that punished the priests, but external secular law that did. In this case it was the secular law that was more moral than the non secular church.
Report Post »positiveaob
Posted on June 18, 2012 at 7:57pmWanting to maintain our country’s separation of church and state is not “turning us” into anything. It is maintaining the system our founding fathers rightly envisioned, that our government would pass no laws respecting establishment of religion or prohibition thereof. And maintaining such governmental neutrality does not make us a “secular nation”. Just as we are not a muslim, christian, jewish, wiccan, pagan or even a flying spaghetti monster nation. We are a nation built upon the concept that you are free to believe as you want to believe as long as you are not restricting the rights of others to do the same.
If your “moral compass” is the writings that would later (after extensive revisions) be compiled into what we now call the “bible”, then you must be pointed in some interesting directions. How many homosexuals have you killed today?
Report Post »Grubmeister
Posted on June 19, 2012 at 4:40pmNo, what we want is a secular “government”. You can believe anything you wish, as long as it does not conflict with the laws of the land. If your faith, and your god is strong, you both will roll with the punches. What good you do in this life will be recognized by us all, theist and atheist alike.
Report Post »Swing your arms all you want as long as they stay clear of my nose.
landofaahs
Posted on June 18, 2012 at 4:08pmStiefel, you can correct God all you wish when you finally meet him. I would not want to “STIFFLE” your speech.
Report Post »Mr Sanders
Posted on June 18, 2012 at 4:04pmUmmmm…. I think our court system, in basic, is based on the Ten Commandments. Its on a lot of our national monuments….
I doanna think you know whatta you say?
Report Post »Brudder
Posted on June 18, 2012 at 4:10pmNo it’s not; if you don‘t what the court system is actually based on you should probably just be quiet so you don’t look like an idiot.
Report Post »CougarNick78
Posted on June 18, 2012 at 4:33pmBrudder- nice way to be tolerant, polite, and explain the correct analysis. You are sure living up Dick Dawkins first name.
MrSanders- I believe in El Bible, as many do, but the US Law is also a system of English Common Law….although the Brits, before 100 years ago, WERE a Christian nation, and did incorporate lots of Bible into their legal system. Swearing in on the Bible, etc…..
Report Post »Locked
Posted on June 18, 2012 at 4:48pm“I believe in El Bible, as many do, but the US Law is also a system of English Common Law….although the Brits, before 100 years ago, WERE a Christian nation, and did incorporate lots of Bible into their legal system. Swearing in on the Bible, etc…..”
@Cougarnick78′s got it right. It‘s wrong to say the 10 Commandments form the basis of our law system because they don’t. The ones that do (murder, theft, perjury) are nigh-universal. But the US is secular with a strong Christian influence from our founders and the British legal system before them. You can see God’s plan everywhere, but he also gives us free will – it’s up to the individual if they want to keep holy the Sabbath, not the country.
Report Post »CougarNick78
Posted on June 18, 2012 at 4:59pmAlso, The Ten Commandments weren’t the BIG BAD DO NOT BREAK THEEEESE LAWS….these were the ‘Duh, You‘d be an idiot to Not Acknowledge These’ Laws. Although in the New Testament, God’s greatest commandment is to love thy neighbor….which I truly suck at. If my neighbor is Chairman Mao, I need to pray for a guano-load of patience….. Levitical Law, albeit to some as tedious and impossible to follow, is an illustration of health guidelines, but also Christ emphasizing (read Romans) that LAW ALONE will not save you. The numbers game, I hope my goods outweigh my bads is also Eternal Roulette…. one way to Know where you’re heading, Know Christ.
And, let’s just say, by some interesting twist, there ended up being “no God” and I die. Well, I died living happy. How about you Dawkins Disciples, how happy are you guys? And is your happiness based on good or just making Christians miserable?
Report Post »Mr Sanders
Posted on June 18, 2012 at 5:00pmThat’s good – thank you. Education and encouragement is good!
Apparently – more to learn – I sit corrected Brudder – I am humbled.
Report Post »CougarNick78
Posted on June 18, 2012 at 5:23pmMRSanders- I hope you were being sarcastic to BRudder- cuz I don’t see “you should probably just be quiet so you don’t look like an idiot….” as encouraging at all.
No worries, Sanders, just do your homework and double check everything your allies and obvious sworn enemies have to say. A faulty round of ammo provided by a friend can be as deadly or more deadly than the enemy’s expected shots at you.
Report Post »Stone Cold Truth
Posted on June 18, 2012 at 7:06pmGo read the National Monument, Bruder. Our country was founded mostly by Christians and God believing people. That’s why they opened meeting with prayer and put faith based writings on stuff like monuments. Nobody is making you believe in God, but to deny our roots to make atheists feel better is misguided emotion. On D Day everybody prayed. During the Revolution George Washington prayed all the time with his men and asked them to look up instead of bowing their heads so that may see the very face of God. He’s the father of our country. Come on all already.
Report Post »Grubmeister
Posted on June 19, 2012 at 4:50pmI don’t want to beat this to death but…
Report Post »I would not want to be a judge who made legal decisions based on the ten commandments. He’d be overturned so often by superior courts I doubt it would be long before he was disbarred.
We are a country of laws. Look up the ten commandments and show me any law that demands I worship no god except the christian god. There are also a few others that would be hard to find.
RightUnite
Posted on June 18, 2012 at 4:04pmOh yay!! Another total fruitcake!!!
Report Post »Grubmeister
Posted on June 19, 2012 at 4:54pmActually, as an atheist, I try to only speak the truth. I don‘t go on making stuff up and believing things that defy physics because they’re in a 2000 or 5000 year old book. If you ask me a question, I may not have the answer but I won’t feed you a line of BS either. I won‘t tell you there is no god but I will tell you I don’t believe one exists.
Report Post »HKS
Posted on June 18, 2012 at 4:02pmWell now I don’t know about you, but when I feel the need of spiritual guidance, the first person I think of is an atheist.
Report Post »boxy
Posted on June 18, 2012 at 4:15pmTotally, it makes so much sense to ask for the truth from someone who has no truth in them.
Report Post »The_Cabrito_Goat
Posted on June 18, 2012 at 4:01pmNo thanks, I‘d rather not hear him talk in circles and think he’s won….
Report Post »barber2
Posted on June 18, 2012 at 4:01pmQuestion : why ask an atheist ?
Report Post »1956
Posted on June 18, 2012 at 4:38pmIf you study the other side of the argument, it makes it easier to formulate the counter-argument. It’s called debating. A lot of people don’t know the atheist reasons for not believing in God…. no matter how they phrase it, it still comes down faith, or the lack of…
Report Post »Too much faith in their own intellectual superiority, and not enough in an omnipotent and omniscient moral authority.
SREGN
Posted on June 18, 2012 at 4:46pmFor the humor value. The more they try to prove there is no God, the more they prove there is.
Report Post »ScienceIsNotEvil
Posted on June 18, 2012 at 6:36pm1956
How is it moral to order the deaths of innocent kids?
Report Post »F_This
Posted on June 18, 2012 at 4:00pmThere is always a simple answer to these people. Don’t like it here in America? Get the f*&k out!
Report Post »BOMUSTGO
Posted on June 18, 2012 at 4:00pmPsalms 14:1 . The fool hath said in his heart,there is no God.
Report Post »antitheist
Posted on June 18, 2012 at 7:48pmPsalm 137:9: Blessed is the one who grabs your little children and smashes them against a rock.
Report Post »TRONINTHEMORNING
Posted on June 18, 2012 at 3:57pmSure, Todd; whatever buddy. Get saved, read the Bible; ask the Holy Spirit to guide you. It’s a simple process and proven to be a soul saver.
Report Post »Brudder
Posted on June 18, 2012 at 4:11pmExcept for the other 5 billion people on the planet that are not Christians.
Report Post »TRONINTHEMORNING
Posted on June 18, 2012 at 4:34pmGod set the standard of salvation, not any one man. I go with God’s plan of salvation and let Him deal with the billions of other people. I can only decide for myself and I am quite certain of my pardon and my place in Heaven.
Report Post »CougarNick78
Posted on June 18, 2012 at 4:39pm@ Brudder- Butt-rudder, you must be a new troll with a BIG ATHEIST CHIP on yea narrow little teenaged basement dwelling shoulders. Educate us on why Mr. Stifle is right, and over 1-2 Billion X-ians are wrong. Oh, of those 4-5 Billion that ARE NOT Christians….. 2-3 Billion are Islamic…. Wanna pick a fight with the Mohammedans or are you a pathetic chicken who only picks “soft targets?”
Report Post »tomloy
Posted on June 18, 2012 at 3:56pmReminds me of a quotation from the Bible, it was something like, salvation is foolishness to the nonbeliever.
Report Post »landofaahs
Posted on June 18, 2012 at 4:05pmFor the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing. 1Cor 1:18
Report Post »Nevermind
Posted on June 18, 2012 at 3:53pmscuba13
Here’s my question to atheists. Why can’t you prove that there is no God?
**************
They dont have to , you do. There isnt any proof to your god, nor to Allah or Buddah so Athiests already have all the proof they need. You need to provce that there actually is a God but you cannott. There is as much proof of God as there is the Easter Bunny or Santa Claus.
Report Post »BOMUSTGO
Posted on June 18, 2012 at 4:01pmExplain the nine gifts of the Spirit that are still in operation today among Spirit filled believers?
Report Post »SLOWBIDEN
Posted on June 18, 2012 at 4:21pmI’d rather not cast my pearls before swine.
Report Post »Stone Cold Truth
Posted on June 18, 2012 at 7:59pmWe’re all going to die sooner or later, so when that happens you’ll see for yourself. You‘ll either cease to exist on all planes or you’ll wake up to St. Peter and Jesus for the final judgement. The difference is that atheists stand to be severley disappointed if wrong while believers wouldn‘t even know it if they’re wrong.
Report Post »Grubmeister
Posted on June 19, 2012 at 4:59pmI think it’s rude to refer to your friends as swine.
Report Post »Its Gonna Getcha
Posted on June 18, 2012 at 3:51pmHe‘s like the others who say our country’s history & foundation is flawed, but who joins in the picket lines to lecture how labor unions have built America to make it what it is. So which is it?
Report Post »blackyb
Posted on June 18, 2012 at 3:51pmThis atheis is a fool. He apparently cannot read and is a liar from hell.
Report Post »microace
Posted on June 18, 2012 at 3:44pmI just wonder if he has actually ever read either one? I don’t see contradictions.
Report Post »scuba13
Posted on June 18, 2012 at 3:43pmHere’s my question to atheists. Why can’t you prove that there is no God?
Report Post »Locked
Posted on June 18, 2012 at 3:53pmLogically, it’s because proving a negative is impossible. Christians like me can see that: can you not?
Report Post »Brudder
Posted on June 18, 2012 at 4:08pmGee, wow what an original and thought provoking question. You prove there is no Lochness Monster first.
Report Post »tzion
Posted on June 18, 2012 at 4:14pmAtheists don’t have to prove that G-d doesn’t exist. However, too many atheists fallaciously insist that science disproves G-d. No one can disprove G-d unless they themselves were omniscient. Any atheist who says otherwise is lying.
Report Post »CougarNick78
Posted on June 18, 2012 at 4:41pm@ Brudder-aka New Troll— Loch Ness Monster? Yeah, didn’t Richard Dawkins say he believes that the earth is more likely to be a creation of aliens than a deity? You and Dawkins are sadly deceived.
And if God doesn’t exist, why are you fighting Him like He does (which many know He does indeed exist)?
Report Post »SREGN
Posted on June 18, 2012 at 4:43pm“I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.” – CS Lewis
Report Post »1956
Posted on June 18, 2012 at 4:46pmScience ends up proving over and over that God is real. They have yet to produce any living cell in any experiment using the same conditions on earth that would have been in existence at the time they estimate life began on this planet. They cannot create a new creature, they can’t explain the workings of the universe….. and on, and on, and on….
Report Post »Therightsofbilly
Posted on June 18, 2012 at 6:24pm@LOCKED
Liberals have a negative impact on society in general, and the economy specifically.
This has been proven.
Report Post »Grubmeister
Posted on June 19, 2012 at 5:05pm“And if God doesn’t exist, why are you fighting Him like He does (which many know He does indeed exist)?”
Is that another one of those questions about “why do you hate god so?“ or ”what happened to you when you were growing up to make you hate god?”
I know of no atheist who believes god exists and still claim to be atheist. It is a contradiction of terms to be both a theist and an atheist. Apparently, you have access into the minds of many more atheists than I do. Is that a talent you’ve received from god or did you just develop that on your own? I’ll bet you could use that to make a tidy profit on wall street.
Report Post »Grubmeister
Posted on June 19, 2012 at 5:19pm@1956
“Science ends up proving over and over that God is real.”
Considering how few scientists believe in god, they must be a really dense bunch of people. Apparently, they don’t even believe their own results or know how to properly analyze them.
There is speculation that the initial building blocks for RNA and DNA were extremely unlikely events (not impossible however). That it took billions of years for them to occur naturally is not unreasonable. That we haven‘t yet been able to reproduce them in a laboratory isn’t surprising. We’ve been trying to do it for what, a few years? In a small tank or petri dish? Some theories hold that there may have been lost generations of replicators before the current forms. We don’t have all the answers yet but really, if we could reproduce life in a lab, would it change anything for you? Why should our ability to reproduce life have any effect on your belief in god? Past experience says you’ll just retreat to a new more tenable position, until such time as you’re dislodged there. This really isn’t about science, it’s about honesty.
Report Post »