Christianity, and Ethics

[Czernobog]

I guess you haven't spent much time in an Orthodox Jewish Community.

Evil is Evil. Just because your God did it does not make it suddenly not evil, no matter how irrationally you might think it does.

You are proud of the fact that you worship an evil God. The irony is that you are a Orthodox Jew with this attitude. After the Holocaust, if any group of people should be particularly horrified at the thought of genocide, regardless of the source, it should be Jews.

The Holocaust is irrelevant to this discussion because God never sanctioned exterminating a non-genocidal nation.
I thought your anti-God sites would have told you this, doc.

"They did it first,"?!?!? Really?!?!? Ya know what? For you that actually makes sense. After all, you guys are all about that "eye for an eye" thing. So, I can see you extending that to "You kill our kids, we'll kill yours". Now, Christians, on the other hand, are supposed to live according to an entirely different standard. So that whole "They did it first" argument really wouldn't work for them. But, for the Jews, I can see where you would justify it like that. Don't misunderstand me; it makes it no less evil, but, it does, at least, fall within your moral code.

I would just say that a moral code that can justify genocide is...questionable, at best.

You act like genocide was unheard of 3000 years ago. It wasn't. It was a brutal world. The "they did it first argument" doesn't work if they had killed them all. Don't kid yourself about Christians, we are more than happy to take an eye for an eye. The meek will inherit the earth, you just don't understand what meek means. I've had this conversation with you before, it is wrong to end a human life for any reason. That doesn't mean that lives won't be taken. It means that rationalizations that taking those lives was moral should not be made. For when one does the bar begins to be lowered incrementally until one day you justify putting people in ovens and killing the unborn. Of which you only see one of those as being wrong.

Snooze will simply start this thread again in a few days.
We really have to find out what mental institution he's in.

Hey. Shit head! I gave you a win...sorta. Take it, and be happy. or don't and fuck off. I really don't care.

 

[ding]

Sorry I don't buy your twisted version.

I have already posted again and again that Adam is speaking about the human. Adam means human. The whole Book both the Old Testament and the New Testament is talking about the spiritual hosts and what transpires with those heavenly and earthly host within each human.

What humans come up within their own corrupted minds and precepts goes back on the corrupt humans.

God is a spirit and Jesus is the Word that was with God from the beginning, that 'first born' when God created a body for the first- Man born. It was all created in the heavens and planted into earthen vessels of flesh where we humans now currently reside.

What's to "buy"? It's in black, and white. 1 Sam 15:3 - "Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass."

Kinda hard to misinterpret that. The God of the Old Testament, quite specifically, commanded genocide, and the murder of babies. The God of the New Testament is the same God as the God of the Old Testament. Ergo, you still worship a God that commanded genocide, and killed babies. You can either ignore that, and admit that you do not believe the Bible, or you can insist that you believe the Bible, and acknowledge that you worship a genocidal, baby-killing God. The choice is yours. There is. No. Middle-ground.

There is no middle ground, just like Jesus did not give us middle ground either. Where your argument falls flat is your assumption that the command that was given was somehow justified as moral. Can you show me where that justification was made?

It was customary to dedicate an enemy to the deity, or to ban him, or after a victory to annihilate him. Various Near Eastern nations as well as of the Greeks, Romans, Celts, and Germans did this. But you keep ignoring the fact that it was never carried out, the Canaanites were not annihilated. In fact, in Judg. 3:1, God himself is said to have abrogated His original command.

That's rather what I said. There is no middle ground. Either the Bible is true, and accurate, in which case you worship a God who commanded genocide, and infanticide,. or you must, in some way, "interpret" the Old Testament such that 1 Sam 15:3 doesn't really say what it says, and doesn't really mean what it means.

I have never suggested that it was justified as moral. I, in fact, have maintained all along that there is no way that it can be justified as a moral command. It has been RodISHI who has been trying to insist that it only seems "immoral" because I am trying to judge an ancient people through the lens of the 21st century, as if there was some ancient code of morality that, somehow, made genocide, and infanticide okay. You are quite right. Most ancient civilisations did sacrifice their enemy warriors to their gods. Then they took the women, and children for themselves. Rarely did they kill the women, and almost never did they kill the children. It was, in fact, so unheard of that, typically, whenever a particular warlord behaved in this manor, all of the neighbouring lands would rise up against them in horror, and disgust. And I don't ignore that the command was never carried out. That fact is irrelevant. It only means that the Israelites were capable of higher moral behaviour than the very God they worshipped. You'll notice I didn't say that the Israelites committed genocide. I said the God you worship commanded genocide. You can try to argue around that reality all you like, it will not change that reality. Now, what that reality means for you, I leave to you. But the reality is what it is.

Ummmm... in the time of Confucius they would boil their enemies alive and feed the soup to the families of their enemies. I don't think killing women and children was a big deal to them. Neighbouring lands would rise up against them in horror, and disgust? Talk about fairy tales. Did you just use the British spelling of neighboring and behavior? Man, that explains a lot. You really are a pussy.

Pussy? My, my. Do you pray with your pastor with that mouth!

The fact that the command was never carried out is not irrelevant, especially in light of Judg. 3:1. The Word of God is inspired by the Holy Spirit but written by men. God didn't change His mind. I'll leave that for you to figure out what that means.

Yeah...that doesn't work the way you think it does. Because that means the "men heard it wrong", so they "wrote it down wrong". Okay. That means that there are mistakes in the "inspired Word of God". Which means that any, or all of it can be mistaken. It means that none of it can be trusted. Either it is all trustworthy, or none of it is trustworthy. You don't get to half-ass it, and say "Well, those parts that we like are trustworthy, and those parts we don't were just men who misunderstood what God was saying,". Because the minute you open that door, that means that anyone with an agenda can use that exact same argument to pick and choose which parts of the Bible matter.

I tried to tell you that I wasn't that religious but you wouldn't believe me. Yes, I believe you are huge pussy. Didn't I already make myself clear about that. You are a coward who hides his true beliefs. You would like to abolish religion but you are too much of a subversive to state that openly. That is what makes you a pussy. Can I be any more clear on this?

No. It does not mean they heard it wrong. Why do you think they heard anything at all? It is more than likely came as visions. Who knows if all visions actually came from God or men. I base that belief on the power of deduction. So the rest of what you wrote about trustworthiness is bullshit aimed at undermining religion which you are too cowardly to openly admit. You will never understand the Bible because you are not objective. It is the same reason you will suffer predictable surprises throughout your life.

I don't pick and choose. When I don't understand something I set it aside until I get more information and discover how the puzzle fits together. I love puzzles.

 

[ding]

I guess you haven't spent much time in an Orthodox Jewish Community.

Evil is Evil. Just because your God did it does not make it suddenly not evil, no matter how irrationally you might think it does.

You are proud of the fact that you worship an evil God. The irony is that you are a Orthodox Jew with this attitude. After the Holocaust, if any group of people should be particularly horrified at the thought of genocide, regardless of the source, it should be Jews.

The Holocaust is irrelevant to this discussion because God never sanctioned exterminating a non-genocidal nation.
I thought your anti-God sites would have told you this, doc.

"They did it first,"?!?!? Really?!?!? Ya know what? For you that actually makes sense. After all, you guys are all about that "eye for an eye" thing. So, I can see you extending that to "You kill our kids, we'll kill yours". Now, Christians, on the other hand, are supposed to live according to an entirely different standard. So that whole "They did it first" argument really wouldn't work for them. But, for the Jews, I can see where you would justify it like that. Don't misunderstand me; it makes it no less evil, but, it does, at least, fall within your moral code.

I would just say that a moral code that can justify genocide is...questionable, at best.

You act like genocide was unheard of 3000 years ago. It wasn't. It was a brutal world. The "they did it first argument" doesn't work if they had killed them all. Don't kid yourself about Christians, we are more than happy to take an eye for an eye. The meek will inherit the earth, you just don't understand what meek means. I've had this conversation with you before, it is wrong to end a human life for any reason. That doesn't mean that lives won't be taken. It means that rationalizations that taking those lives was moral should not be made. For when one does the bar begins to be lowered incrementally until one day you justify putting people in ovens and killing the unborn. Of which you only see one of those as being wrong.

So, you, too, open, acknowledge that you worship an evil God, and you're proud of it. Got it.

I worship the Creator of Existence who is perfect in every way. How can He not be? Did He give that order or did men interpret that as His order? Did they carry it out? No. They didn't. Now let's talk about you, ok? You make an argument you don't believe. One that has you taking the moral high ground while expressing disgust for people who believe they are morally superior to others. Your argument is based upon God commanding that all Canaanites be killed. Something you find to be morally reprehensible. So you are morally outraged over babies being killed over 3000 years ago, but the slaughter of 1 million babies per year today does not give you any pause for concern. Did I summarize this accurately?

 

[ding]

Evil is Evil. Just because your God did it does not make it suddenly not evil, no matter how irrationally you might think it does.

You are proud of the fact that you worship an evil God. The irony is that you are a Orthodox Jew with this attitude. After the Holocaust, if any group of people should be particularly horrified at the thought of genocide, regardless of the source, it should be Jews.

The Holocaust is irrelevant to this discussion because God never sanctioned exterminating a non-genocidal nation.
I thought your anti-God sites would have told you this, doc.

"They did it first,"?!?!? Really?!?!? Ya know what? For you that actually makes sense. After all, you guys are all about that "eye for an eye" thing. So, I can see you extending that to "You kill our kids, we'll kill yours". Now, Christians, on the other hand, are supposed to live according to an entirely different standard. So that whole "They did it first" argument really wouldn't work for them. But, for the Jews, I can see where you would justify it like that. Don't misunderstand me; it makes it no less evil, but, it does, at least, fall within your moral code.

I would just say that a moral code that can justify genocide is...questionable, at best.

You act like genocide was unheard of 3000 years ago. It wasn't. It was a brutal world. The "they did it first argument" doesn't work if they had killed them all. Don't kid yourself about Christians, we are more than happy to take an eye for an eye. The meek will inherit the earth, you just don't understand what meek means. I've had this conversation with you before, it is wrong to end a human life for any reason. That doesn't mean that lives won't be taken. It means that rationalizations that taking those lives was moral should not be made. For when one does the bar begins to be lowered incrementally until one day you justify putting people in ovens and killing the unborn. Of which you only see one of those as being wrong.

Snooze will simply start this thread again in a few days.
We really have to find out what mental institution he's in.

Hey. Shit head! I gave you a win...sorta. Take it, and be happy. or don't and fuck off. I really don't care.

If you didn't care you wouldn't have told him to fuck off or call him shit head. On a side note, you are wrecking your autoimmune system by misusing your flight or fight physiology. It was never intended to be used 24/7. I would have thought a doctor of psychiatry would have known about this. Anyway, you won't be able to say you weren't warned when you develop an autoimmune disease. We are the sum of our choices. Choose wisely.

 

[ding]

The issue is that Dr. Snooze is as big a preacher as anyone else.
As he sees it, if you don't conform with his worldview, you're an idiot.

Yadda, yadda, yadda...
Exterminating genocidal nations is, in God's infinite outlook, good for the human race.
I bet you root for ISIS.

Nope. They're as bad as you guys. But, at least you're honest about it. "Genocide isn't evil when God commands it because...





...he's God."

Now you got it.
Now get the fact that you're not God.

No. Your God is EVIL. Genocide is EVIL. Your God is EVIL. And you are proud of the fact that you worship an EVIL GOD. Good for you.

I guess you haven't spent much time in an Orthodox Jewish Community.

Evil is Evil. Just because your God did it does not make it suddenly not evil, no matter how irrationally you might think it does.

You are proud of the fact that you worship an evil God. The irony is that you are a Orthodox Jew with this attitude. After the Holocaust, if any group of people should be particularly horrified at the thought of genocide, regardless of the source, it should be Jews.

You don't believe in evil. You have no basis for evil.

 

[ding]

It is obvious that 2 groups of people foist their beliefs upon others...
[] Christians
[] Atheists

Well, it is our mission statement. At least we own it and don't deny it. We were told to spread the Good News. But let's be honest here there is a distribution for everything. Blanket statements do no one a service.

The issue is that Dr. Snooze is as big a preacher as anyone else.
As he sees it, if you don't conform with his worldview, you're an idiot.

There is no middle ground, just like Jesus did not give us middle ground either. Where your argument falls flat is your assumption that the command that was given was somehow justified as moral. Can you show me where that justification was made?

It was customary to dedicate an enemy to the deity, or to ban him, or after a victory to annihilate him. Various Near Eastern nations as well as of the Greeks, Romans, Celts, and Germans did this. But you keep ignoring the fact that it was never carried out, the Canaanites were not annihilated. In fact, in Judg. 3:1, God himself is said to have abrogated His original command.

That's rather what I said. There is no middle ground. Either the Bible is true, and accurate, in which case you worship a God who commanded genocide, and infanticide,. or you must, in some way, "interpret" the Old Testament such that 1 Sam 15:3 doesn't really say what it says, and doesn't really mean what it means.

I have never suggested that it was justified as moral. I, in fact, have maintained all along that there is no way that it can be justified as a moral command. It has been RodISHI who has been trying to insist that it only seems "immoral" because I am trying to judge an ancient people through the lens of the 21st century, as if there was some ancient code of morality that, somehow, made genocide, and infanticide okay. You are quite right. Most ancient civilisations did sacrifice their enemy warriors to their gods. Then they took the women, and children for themselves. Rarely did they kill the women, and almost never did they kill the children. It was, in fact, so unheard of that, typically, whenever a particular warlord behaved in this manor, all of the neighbouring lands would rise up against them in horror, and disgust. And I don't ignore that the command was never carried out. That fact is irrelevant. It only means that the Israelites were capable of higher moral behaviour than the very God they worshipped. You'll notice I didn't say that the Israelites committed genocide. I said the God you worship commanded genocide. You can try to argue around that reality all you like, it will not change that reality. Now, what that reality means for you, I leave to you. But the reality is what it is.

Yadda, yadda, yadda...
Exterminating genocidal nations is, in God's infinite outlook, good for the human race.
I bet you root for ISIS.

Nope. They're as bad as you guys. But, at least you're honest about it. "Genocide isn't evil when God commands it because...





...he's God."

Now you got it.
Now get the fact that you're not God.

No. Your God is EVIL. Genocide is EVIL. Your God is EVIL. And you are proud of the fact that you worship an EVIL GOD. Good for you.

You don't believe in God or evil. So you don't believe what you just wrote. The only reason you wrote it was to inflame people who believe in God. It's not working.

 

[ding]

You read the last two paragraphs of that entry, right? The author basically said I'm right. The only way you get away from "We worship a god who commanded genocide" is to admit that, at the very least, the Old testament isn't true, and accurate. But, then, by by doing so, you forego any authority of divine inspiration.

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

The reality is that you do not believe your own OP. You make these allegations to inflame and provoke Christians. It's what you do. I believe that you find it entertaining.

I do believe my own OP. The god you worship is a God who commanded Genocide. I do not have to worship that God, or even believe in that God to recognise that the text of your holy books quote the God that you worship commanding genocide. You presume that I have to believe in your God to recognise what your holy book claims your God said. I don't. I just have to be able to read.

I don't believe in Santa Claus either, but I know that, according to the poem, The Night Before Christmas, as he rode away, on his flying sleigh, he yelled, "Merry Christmas to all, and to all a good night!"

I don't have to believe in Santa Claus to know what was written about him. I just have to be able to read.

If you don't believe in God, then you don't believe this happened. If you don't believe this happened, then you don't believe your own argument that God is evil. Heck, you don't even believe in evil for that matter. The only reason you write these things is for the express purpose of insulting and inflaming people who do believe in God. It isn't working. Try harder.

 

[Czernobog]

No. Your God is EVIL. Genocide is EVIL. Your God is EVIL. And you are proud of the fact that you worship an EVIL GOD. Good for you.

I guess you haven't spent much time in an Orthodox Jewish Community.

Evil is Evil. Just because your God did it does not make it suddenly not evil, no matter how irrationally you might think it does.

You are proud of the fact that you worship an evil God. The irony is that you are a Orthodox Jew with this attitude. After the Holocaust, if any group of people should be particularly horrified at the thought of genocide, regardless of the source, it should be Jews.

The Holocaust is irrelevant to this discussion because God never sanctioned exterminating a non-genocidal nation.
I thought your anti-God sites would have told you this, doc.

"They did it first,"?!?!? Really?!?!? Ya know what? For you that actually makes sense. After all, you guys are all about that "eye for an eye" thing. So, I can see you extending that to "You kill our kids, we'll kill yours". Now, Christians, on the other hand, are supposed to live according to an entirely different standard. So that whole "They did it first" argument really wouldn't work for them. But, for the Jews, I can see where you would justify it like that. Don't misunderstand me; it makes it no less evil, but, it does, at least, fall within your moral code.

I would just say that a moral code that can justify genocide is...questionable, at best.

This posting of yours just jumped off the track.
Committing genocide against a genocidal nation is justified in God's eyes.
But you feel sorry for murderers because you drug them for money.
Presuming you're not a patient in a mental asylum.

Okay. I'm going to ignore the personal attack at the end. I agreed. I just think that any God, or moral code that can justify genocide is questionable.

 

[ding]

I guess you haven't spent much time in an Orthodox Jewish Community.

Evil is Evil. Just because your God did it does not make it suddenly not evil, no matter how irrationally you might think it does.

You are proud of the fact that you worship an evil God. The irony is that you are a Orthodox Jew with this attitude. After the Holocaust, if any group of people should be particularly horrified at the thought of genocide, regardless of the source, it should be Jews.

The Holocaust is irrelevant to this discussion because God never sanctioned exterminating a non-genocidal nation.
I thought your anti-God sites would have told you this, doc.

"They did it first,"?!?!? Really?!?!? Ya know what? For you that actually makes sense. After all, you guys are all about that "eye for an eye" thing. So, I can see you extending that to "You kill our kids, we'll kill yours". Now, Christians, on the other hand, are supposed to live according to an entirely different standard. So that whole "They did it first" argument really wouldn't work for them. But, for the Jews, I can see where you would justify it like that. Don't misunderstand me; it makes it no less evil, but, it does, at least, fall within your moral code.

I would just say that a moral code that can justify genocide is...questionable, at best.

This posting of yours just jumped off the track.
Committing genocide against a genocidal nation is justified in God's eyes.
But you feel sorry for murderers because you drug them for money.
Presuming you're not a patient in a mental asylum.

Okay. I'm going to ignore the personal attack at the end. I agreed. I just think that any God, or moral code that can justify genocide is questionable.

You must have a really hard time accepting the world as it is. I don't have that problem I understand that through cause and effect consciousness is evolving and that errors like moral relativity which leads to normalization of deviance will eventually produce predictable surprises and will self correct those failed behaviors because error cannot stand; eventually it fails.

 

[hobelim]

I guess you haven't spent much time in an Orthodox Jewish Community.

Evil is Evil. Just because your God did it does not make it suddenly not evil, no matter how irrationally you might think it does.

You are proud of the fact that you worship an evil God. The irony is that you are a Orthodox Jew with this attitude. After the Holocaust, if any group of people should be particularly horrified at the thought of genocide, regardless of the source, it should be Jews.

The Holocaust is irrelevant to this discussion because God never sanctioned exterminating a non-genocidal nation.
I thought your anti-God sites would have told you this, doc.

"They did it first,"?!?!? Really?!?!? Ya know what? For you that actually makes sense. After all, you guys are all about that "eye for an eye" thing. So, I can see you extending that to "You kill our kids, we'll kill yours". Now, Christians, on the other hand, are supposed to live according to an entirely different standard. So that whole "They did it first" argument really wouldn't work for them. But, for the Jews, I can see where you would justify it like that. Don't misunderstand me; it makes it no less evil, but, it does, at least, fall within your moral code.

I would just say that a moral code that can justify genocide is...questionable, at best.

This posting of yours just jumped off the track.
Committing genocide against a genocidal nation is justified in God's eyes.
But you feel sorry for murderers because you drug them for money.
Presuming you're not a patient in a mental asylum.

Okay. I'm going to ignore the personal attack at the end. I agreed. I just think that any God, or moral code that can justify genocide is questionable.

Whats your moral take on the indiscriminate slaughter of krill by whales?

Or when bambi gets ripped apart and eaten alive by wolves?

What about the notion of buyer beware?

Is God responsible for a sucker being born every minute and the lowlifes that pick their pockets?

 

[hobelim]

Why do people on both sides seem to think that a story being a fairy tale somehow disqualifies it from having value, even great value?

How else could the Jewish people hide their wealth and the treasures of the Temple from illiterate and superstitious people?

Ah, but no one said a fairy tale or a fable is disqualified from having great value--particularly moral value. It's just not considered scripture.

I see.

Let me help you this much.

A story that starts with 'in the beginning", just like, 'once upon a time', that features a talking serpent in paradise tricking the first human beings, its a fairy tale.

Only to people who do not understand allegory. Let's take a test, ok? Do you know what the significance is of this painting? Let's see how much you think you know, ok? Lest you be confused by this test, the linkage is allegory.

If you understand then tell me, who does the talking serpent represent?



A.. a preternatural disembodied bad guy of the spirit world, turned into a garden pest by God.

B. an invisible being from another dimension that tries to get people to do naughty things by speaking through snakes, or dogs, and maybe an occasional grilled cheese sandwich.

C . Whoever fucked up your mind.

 

[BreezeWood]

Evil is Evil. Just because your God did it does not make it suddenly not evil, no matter how irrationally you might think it does.

You are proud of the fact that you worship an evil God. The irony is that you are a Orthodox Jew with this attitude. After the Holocaust, if any group of people should be particularly horrified at the thought of genocide, regardless of the source, it should be Jews.

The Holocaust is irrelevant to this discussion because God never sanctioned exterminating a non-genocidal nation.
I thought your anti-God sites would have told you this, doc.

"They did it first,"?!?!? Really?!?!? Ya know what? For you that actually makes sense. After all, you guys are all about that "eye for an eye" thing. So, I can see you extending that to "You kill our kids, we'll kill yours". Now, Christians, on the other hand, are supposed to live according to an entirely different standard. So that whole "They did it first" argument really wouldn't work for them. But, for the Jews, I can see where you would justify it like that. Don't misunderstand me; it makes it no less evil, but, it does, at least, fall within your moral code.

I would just say that a moral code that can justify genocide is...questionable, at best.

You act like genocide was unheard of 3000 years ago. It wasn't. It was a brutal world. The "they did it first argument" doesn't work if they had killed them all. Don't kid yourself about Christians, we are more than happy to take an eye for an eye. The meek will inherit the earth, you just don't understand what meek means. I've had this conversation with you before, it is wrong to end a human life for any reason. That doesn't mean that lives won't be taken. It means that rationalizations that taking those lives was moral should not be made. For when one does the bar begins to be lowered incrementally until one day you justify putting people in ovens and killing the unborn. Of which you only see one of those as being wrong.

So, you, too, open, acknowledge that you worship an evil God, and you're proud of it. Got it.

I worship the Creator of Existence who is perfect in every way. How can He not be? Did He give that order or did men interpret that as His order? Did they carry it out? No. They didn't. Now let's talk about you, ok? You make an argument you don't believe. One that has you taking the moral high ground while expressing disgust for people who believe they are morally superior to others. Your argument is based upon God commanding that all Canaanites be killed. Something you find to be morally reprehensible. So you are morally outraged over babies being killed over 3000 years ago, but the slaughter of 1 million babies per year today does not give you any pause for concern. Did I summarize this accurately?

.

I worship the Creator of Existence who is perfect in every way. How can He not be?

worshiping is not being and is one of many barriers for christians that prevents the realization for their purpose as Spirits and a path to the Everlasting.

the above moonscape is not perfect, it is without evil. the primitive scriptural religions misconstrue the difference that the religion they have abandoned made perfectly clear.

 

[ding]

Why do people on both sides seem to think that a story being a fairy tale somehow disqualifies it from having value, even great value?

How else could the Jewish people hide their wealth and the treasures of the Temple from illiterate and superstitious people?

Ah, but no one said a fairy tale or a fable is disqualified from having great value--particularly moral value. It's just not considered scripture.

I see.

Let me help you this much.

A story that starts with 'in the beginning", just like, 'once upon a time', that features a talking serpent in paradise tricking the first human beings, its a fairy tale.

Only to people who do not understand allegory. Let's take a test, ok? Do you know what the significance is of this painting? Let's see how much you think you know, ok? Lest you be confused by this test, the linkage is allegory.

If you understand then tell me, who does the talking serpent represent?



A.. a preternatural disembodied bad guy of the spirit world, turned into a garden pest by God.

B. an invisible being from another dimension that tries to get people to do naughty things by speaking through snakes, or dogs, and maybe an occasional grilled cheese sandwich.

C . Whoever fucked up your mind.

You know... I just re-read it and the serpent sort of sounds like you. Look at the similarities.

Serpent: “Did God really say, ‘You must not eat from any tree in the garden’?”

hobelim: "How else could the Jewish people hide their wealth and the treasures of the Temple from illiterate and superstitious people?"

Serpent: “You will not certainly die, for God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”

hobelim: A story that starts with 'in the beginning", just like, 'once upon a time', that features a talking serpent in paradise tricking the first human beings, its a fairy tale.

So my answer is "D," you.

Now will you answer my question? Do you know what the significance is of Rembrandt's painting, Christ in the Storm?

 

[ding]

The Holocaust is irrelevant to this discussion because God never sanctioned exterminating a non-genocidal nation.
I thought your anti-God sites would have told you this, doc.

"They did it first,"?!?!? Really?!?!? Ya know what? For you that actually makes sense. After all, you guys are all about that "eye for an eye" thing. So, I can see you extending that to "You kill our kids, we'll kill yours". Now, Christians, on the other hand, are supposed to live according to an entirely different standard. So that whole "They did it first" argument really wouldn't work for them. But, for the Jews, I can see where you would justify it like that. Don't misunderstand me; it makes it no less evil, but, it does, at least, fall within your moral code.

I would just say that a moral code that can justify genocide is...questionable, at best.

You act like genocide was unheard of 3000 years ago. It wasn't. It was a brutal world. The "they did it first argument" doesn't work if they had killed them all. Don't kid yourself about Christians, we are more than happy to take an eye for an eye. The meek will inherit the earth, you just don't understand what meek means. I've had this conversation with you before, it is wrong to end a human life for any reason. That doesn't mean that lives won't be taken. It means that rationalizations that taking those lives was moral should not be made. For when one does the bar begins to be lowered incrementally until one day you justify putting people in ovens and killing the unborn. Of which you only see one of those as being wrong.

So, you, too, open, acknowledge that you worship an evil God, and you're proud of it. Got it.

I worship the Creator of Existence who is perfect in every way. How can He not be? Did He give that order or did men interpret that as His order? Did they carry it out? No. They didn't. Now let's talk about you, ok? You make an argument you don't believe. One that has you taking the moral high ground while expressing disgust for people who believe they are morally superior to others. Your argument is based upon God commanding that all Canaanites be killed. Something you find to be morally reprehensible. So you are morally outraged over babies being killed over 3000 years ago, but the slaughter of 1 million babies per year today does not give you any pause for concern. Did I summarize this accurately?

.

I worship the Creator of Existence who is perfect in every way. How can He not be?

worshiping is not being and is one of many barriers for christians that prevents the realization for their purpose as Spirits and a path to the Everlasting.

the above moonscape is not perfect, it is without evil. the primitive scriptural religions misconstrue the difference that the religion they have abandoned made perfectly clear.

Not being means to die to self as Christ taught and Christianity teaches. It leads to objective truth which is reality which is existence which is God which leads to not rationalizing one's sins. What has your religion ever done?

 

[hobelim]

Why do people on both sides seem to think that a story being a fairy tale somehow disqualifies it from having value, even great value?

How else could the Jewish people hide their wealth and the treasures of the Temple from illiterate and superstitious people?

Ah, but no one said a fairy tale or a fable is disqualified from having great value--particularly moral value. It's just not considered scripture.

I see.

Let me help you this much.

A story that starts with 'in the beginning", just like, 'once upon a time', that features a talking serpent in paradise tricking the first human beings, its a fairy tale.

Only to people who do not understand allegory. Let's take a test, ok? Do you know what the significance is of this painting? Let's see how much you think you know, ok? Lest you be confused by this test, the linkage is allegory.

If you understand then tell me, who does the talking serpent represent?



A.. a preternatural disembodied bad guy of the spirit world, turned into a garden pest by God.

B. an invisible being from another dimension that tries to get people to do naughty things by speaking through snakes, or dogs, and maybe an occasional grilled cheese sandwich.

C . Whoever fucked up your mind.

You know... I just re-read it and the serpent sort of sounds like you. Look at the similarities.

Serpent: “Did God really say, ‘You must not eat from any tree in the garden’?”

hobelim: "How else could the Jewish people hide their wealth and the treasures of the Temple from illiterate and superstitious people?"

Serpent: “You will not certainly die, for God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”

hobelim: A story that starts with 'in the beginning", just like, 'once upon a time', that features a talking serpent in paradise tricking the first human beings, its a fairy tale.

So my answer id "D," you.

Now will you answer my question? Do you know what the significance is of Rembrant's painting, Christ in the Storm?

lol...I can understand that. Sometimes the truth comes down like a sharp slap in the face by the hand of God. I'm sure the Pharisees standing there looking like idiots after the revelation of Jesus wasn't very endearing either.


Are you asking about the significance of the story of Jesus calming the storm?

Sure.

Once people awakened upon hearing the teachings of Jesus while they were still in the grave it created quite a commotion. They awakened to realize that they had been victimized in a daze, the sleep of death, for their entire lives by money grubbing actors and lying frauds wearing religious clothing.


You know people like, C. whoever fucked up your mind.

The storm was the unrest and riots that were breaking out all over the place.

Peter being afraid to walk on water with Jesus after Jesus rebuked and calmed the storm was Peter being terrified of being lynched by an angry mob who were screaming for blood, not Peter being afraid of defying gravity or drowning.

 

[ding]

Ah, but no one said a fairy tale or a fable is disqualified from having great value--particularly moral value. It's just not considered scripture.

I see.

Let me help you this much.

A story that starts with 'in the beginning", just like, 'once upon a time', that features a talking serpent in paradise tricking the first human beings, its a fairy tale.

Only to people who do not understand allegory. Let's take a test, ok? Do you know what the significance is of this painting? Let's see how much you think you know, ok? Lest you be confused by this test, the linkage is allegory.

If you understand then tell me, who does the talking serpent represent?



A.. a preternatural disembodied bad guy of the spirit world, turned into a garden pest by God.

B. an invisible being from another dimension that tries to get people to do naughty things by speaking through snakes, or dogs, and maybe an occasional grilled cheese sandwich.

C . Whoever fucked up your mind.

You know... I just re-read it and the serpent sort of sounds like you. Look at the similarities.

Serpent: “Did God really say, ‘You must not eat from any tree in the garden’?”

hobelim: "How else could the Jewish people hide their wealth and the treasures of the Temple from illiterate and superstitious people?"

Serpent: “You will not certainly die, for God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”

hobelim: A story that starts with 'in the beginning", just like, 'once upon a time', that features a talking serpent in paradise tricking the first human beings, its a fairy tale.

So my answer id "D," you.

Now will you answer my question? Do you know what the significance is of Rembrant's painting, Christ in the Storm?

lol...I can understand that. Sometimes the truth comes down like a sharp slap in the face by the hand of God. I'm sure the Pharisees standing there looking like idiots after the revelation of Jesus wasn't very endearing either.


Are you asking about the significance of the story of Jesus calming the storm?

Sure.

Once people awakened upon hearing the teachings of Jesus while they were still in the grave it created quite a commotion. They awakened to realize that they had been victimized for their entire lives by money grubbing actors and lying frauds wearing religious clothing.


You know people like, C. whoever fucked up your mind.

The storm was the unrest and riots that were breaking out all over the place.

Peter being afraid to walk on water with Jesus after Jesus rebuked the storm was Peter being terrified of being lynched by an angry mob, not Peter being afraid of defying gravity or drowning.

Who told you that bullshit? No wonder you don't believe the Good News, your head has been filled full of bullshit.

What was Jesus doing in the boat while the storm was going on, Einstein?

 

[Czernobog]

Evil is Evil. Just because your God did it does not make it suddenly not evil, no matter how irrationally you might think it does.

You are proud of the fact that you worship an evil God. The irony is that you are a Orthodox Jew with this attitude. After the Holocaust, if any group of people should be particularly horrified at the thought of genocide, regardless of the source, it should be Jews.

The Holocaust is irrelevant to this discussion because God never sanctioned exterminating a non-genocidal nation.
I thought your anti-God sites would have told you this, doc.

"They did it first,"?!?!? Really?!?!? Ya know what? For you that actually makes sense. After all, you guys are all about that "eye for an eye" thing. So, I can see you extending that to "You kill our kids, we'll kill yours". Now, Christians, on the other hand, are supposed to live according to an entirely different standard. So that whole "They did it first" argument really wouldn't work for them. But, for the Jews, I can see where you would justify it like that. Don't misunderstand me; it makes it no less evil, but, it does, at least, fall within your moral code.

I would just say that a moral code that can justify genocide is...questionable, at best.

This posting of yours just jumped off the track.
Committing genocide against a genocidal nation is justified in God's eyes.
But you feel sorry for murderers because you drug them for money.
Presuming you're not a patient in a mental asylum.

Okay. I'm going to ignore the personal attack at the end. I agreed. I just think that any God, or moral code that can justify genocide is questionable.

Whats your moral take on the indiscriminate slaughter of krill by whales?

Is there some ipassage in the Bible demonstrating that The Abrahamic God specifically ordered whales to do this? No? Then it is rather off topic, doncha think?

Or when bambi gets ripped apart and eaten alive by wolves?

See my previous question.

What about the notion of buyer beware?

Is God responsible for a sucker being born every minute and the lowlifes that pick their pockets?

Everyone seems to want to think that my OP, and my subsequent posts have been some general complaint that God is responsible for every mean thing that every icky person has ever done. It isn't, and it hasn't been. I did not say that the Abrahamic God is a genocidal God because of the "general wickedness of man". I said that he is a genocidal god because, according to the holy book that is accepted as the true, accurate, and indisputable record of ancient Israel by both Jews, and Christians, the Abrahamic God specifically ordered his chosen people to go out and slaughter an entire race of people, including their children, infants, and livestock.

Now, so far, the two justifications that I have gotten have been, "Well, they did it first,", Which I have to admit, for a Jew, who does live under that whole, "Eye for an eye" mentality, actually is a rational justification. No less evil, but, at least rational; and - my personal favourite - the priests of the Old Testament got their marching orders through their dreams, so they, probably just misunderstood what God really wanted... Which is why God appears to have changed his mind, when he said he left the Canaanites as a test for the Israelites. So, apparently the "accurate, and indisputable" part doesn't really apply to those parts that weren't quite accurate, and are, in fact, disputable.

Oh. And, of course, since I do not, personally, believe in the Abrahamic God, I am, apparently, incapable of reading the English language, and comprehending words that are clearly written on paper. Because You cannot make a determination about the Abrahamic God, based on the written words of his own worshippers, if you don't, first, profess a belief in him. That is actually the stupidest retort I have ever heard, or read.

 

[hobelim]

I see.

Let me help you this much.

A story that starts with 'in the beginning", just like, 'once upon a time', that features a talking serpent in paradise tricking the first human beings, its a fairy tale.

Only to people who do not understand allegory. Let's take a test, ok? Do you know what the significance is of this painting? Let's see how much you think you know, ok? Lest you be confused by this test, the linkage is allegory.

If you understand then tell me, who does the talking serpent represent?



A.. a preternatural disembodied bad guy of the spirit world, turned into a garden pest by God.

B. an invisible being from another dimension that tries to get people to do naughty things by speaking through snakes, or dogs, and maybe an occasional grilled cheese sandwich.

C . Whoever fucked up your mind.

You know... I just re-read it and the serpent sort of sounds like you. Look at the similarities.

Serpent: “Did God really say, ‘You must not eat from any tree in the garden’?”

hobelim: "How else could the Jewish people hide their wealth and the treasures of the Temple from illiterate and superstitious people?"

Serpent: “You will not certainly die, for God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”

hobelim: A story that starts with 'in the beginning", just like, 'once upon a time', that features a talking serpent in paradise tricking the first human beings, its a fairy tale.

So my answer id "D," you.

Now will you answer my question? Do you know what the significance is of Rembrant's painting, Christ in the Storm?

lol...I can understand that. Sometimes the truth comes down like a sharp slap in the face by the hand of God. I'm sure the Pharisees standing there looking like idiots after the revelation of Jesus wasn't very endearing either.


Are you asking about the significance of the story of Jesus calming the storm?

Sure.

Once people awakened upon hearing the teachings of Jesus while they were still in the grave it created quite a commotion. They awakened to realize that they had been victimized for their entire lives by money grubbing actors and lying frauds wearing religious clothing.


You know people like, C. whoever fucked up your mind.

The storm was the unrest and riots that were breaking out all over the place.

Peter being afraid to walk on water with Jesus after Jesus rebuked the storm was Peter being terrified of being lynched by an angry mob, not Peter being afraid of defying gravity or drowning.

Who told you that bullshit?

What was Jesus doing in the boat, Einstein?

It should be, who told you that bullshit, Sir.

 

[ding]

Only to people who do not understand allegory. Let's take a test, ok? Do you know what the significance is of this painting? Let's see how much you think you know, ok? Lest you be confused by this test, the linkage is allegory.

If you understand then tell me, who does the talking serpent represent?



A.. a preternatural disembodied bad guy of the spirit world, turned into a garden pest by God.

B. an invisible being from another dimension that tries to get people to do naughty things by speaking through snakes, or dogs, and maybe an occasional grilled cheese sandwich.

C . Whoever fucked up your mind.

You know... I just re-read it and the serpent sort of sounds like you. Look at the similarities.

Serpent: “Did God really say, ‘You must not eat from any tree in the garden’?”

hobelim: "How else could the Jewish people hide their wealth and the treasures of the Temple from illiterate and superstitious people?"

Serpent: “You will not certainly die, for God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”

hobelim: A story that starts with 'in the beginning", just like, 'once upon a time', that features a talking serpent in paradise tricking the first human beings, its a fairy tale.

So my answer id "D," you.

Now will you answer my question? Do you know what the significance is of Rembrant's painting, Christ in the Storm?

lol...I can understand that. Sometimes the truth comes down like a sharp slap in the face by the hand of God. I'm sure the Pharisees standing there looking like idiots after the revelation of Jesus wasn't very endearing either.


Are you asking about the significance of the story of Jesus calming the storm?

Sure.

Once people awakened upon hearing the teachings of Jesus while they were still in the grave it created quite a commotion. They awakened to realize that they had been victimized for their entire lives by money grubbing actors and lying frauds wearing religious clothing.


You know people like, C. whoever fucked up your mind.

The storm was the unrest and riots that were breaking out all over the place.

Peter being afraid to walk on water with Jesus after Jesus rebuked the storm was Peter being terrified of being lynched by an angry mob, not Peter being afraid of defying gravity or drowning.

Who told you that bullshit?

What was Jesus doing in the boat, Einstein?

It should be, who told you that bullshit, Sir.

What was Jesus doing while the storm was raging, Einstein?

And which atheist website are you getting your information from?

 

[hobelim]

If you understand then tell me, who does the talking serpent represent?



A.. a preternatural disembodied bad guy of the spirit world, turned into a garden pest by God.

B. an invisible being from another dimension that tries to get people to do naughty things by speaking through snakes, or dogs, and maybe an occasional grilled cheese sandwich.

C . Whoever fucked up your mind.

You know... I just re-read it and the serpent sort of sounds like you. Look at the similarities.

Serpent: “Did God really say, ‘You must not eat from any tree in the garden’?”

hobelim: "How else could the Jewish people hide their wealth and the treasures of the Temple from illiterate and superstitious people?"

Serpent: “You will not certainly die, for God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”

hobelim: A story that starts with 'in the beginning", just like, 'once upon a time', that features a talking serpent in paradise tricking the first human beings, its a fairy tale.

So my answer id "D," you.

Now will you answer my question? Do you know what the significance is of Rembrant's painting, Christ in the Storm?

lol...I can understand that. Sometimes the truth comes down like a sharp slap in the face by the hand of God. I'm sure the Pharisees standing there looking like idiots after the revelation of Jesus wasn't very endearing either.


Are you asking about the significance of the story of Jesus calming the storm?

Sure.

Once people awakened upon hearing the teachings of Jesus while they were still in the grave it created quite a commotion. They awakened to realize that they had been victimized for their entire lives by money grubbing actors and lying frauds wearing religious clothing.


You know people like, C. whoever fucked up your mind.

The storm was the unrest and riots that were breaking out all over the place.

Peter being afraid to walk on water with Jesus after Jesus rebuked the storm was Peter being terrified of being lynched by an angry mob, not Peter being afraid of defying gravity or drowning.

Who told you that bullshit?

What was Jesus doing in the boat, Einstein?

It should be, who told you that bullshit, Sir.

What was Jesus doing while the storm was raging, Einstein?

And which atheist website are you getting your information from?

Jesus was the dude who was saying the shit that was causing the storm.

It was like a zombie apocalypse.

The sign that God was with him, the miracle was that with only a few words Jesus calmed a raging riot.