Religulous: The Movie

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
223

I really enjoyed the film, thought it was hilarious! Brought nothing new to the table for people who have been interested in this stuff for a while, but still I’d recommend the film to all free-thinkers out there. :wink:

I’d like to mention something that’s bugging me and that’s the use of agnostic. It just describes the TYPE of believer or non-believer. So you can be an agnostic atheist, or an agnostic deist/theist. An “agnostic” as it is often used is usually actually a “weak atheist”. Someone who has no active belief or disbelief in a higher power but isn’t done questioning.

And to the person that thinks the Ten Commandments are a decent set of rules to follow, firstly I would urge you to read your Bible again. Then I would ask you; which version of the Ten Commandments? And would the death penalty still apply for not sticking to any of them?

224

[quote]MeinHerzBrennt wrote:
haney1 wrote:
Lonnie123 wrote:
haney1 wrote:

From that moment, Ghandi said, he decided to adopt what good he found in Christianity, but would never again consider becoming a Christian if it meant being part of the church.

I hope no one is getting the idea that atheists think there is nothing good about Christianity, or religion at large. Of course there are good things inside the books, and of course there are religious people that do good things. However, many of the principles of Christianity that are “good” are simply borrowed from humanists principles that had been around for thousands of years in the first place.

Being good to others, helping the poorest of the bunch, the golden rule… These are all basic principles of humanity, they need not be, nor were they, passed down from some supreme being.

Heres a principle that is decidedly unchristian, but I follow it anyway. Being good for goodness sake. Dont be good because it averts punishment and grants you everlasting life in heaven, just do it because its the right thing to do. You dont need the deterrent of punishment to not do bad things… Unless you are religious.

I don’t think anyone had that idea. My posting of that was purely my personal philosophy when I deal with anyone especially when I am talking about faith.

as a Christian it is my duty to show Christ love to others. How can I do that by spewing hate filled words, and sitting in Church every sunday. I prefer to take my faith out and care for people the way Christ would care for them.

It isn’t to escape any punishment(since I believe that can’t be accomplished by me). I do it because I believe I am suppossed to show them the goodness of God.

When I debate with any athiest I usually try to do it with respect, and hope they can respect where I am coming from.
I don’t think I have made my decision to believe lightly, and I don’t think they have made thiers lightly either. In the end one of us will be right, but while we are here together it is important that we enrich each other lives, not take away.

Haney I respect your approach to these discussions and you seem like a good guy.

One question however; how do you know one of us (christians or atheists) will be right? What if muslims or Buddhists, etc, are right?
[/quote]

Thanks!

I actually should have defined the other us as Theists vs. Atheists. I was trying to use the umbrella terms for the two.

Now when we get to theists that is another level of truth, after all some theists will be more right than others if there is a God. That is another topic though.

225

[quote]Jab1 wrote:
I really enjoyed the film, thought it was hilarious! Brought nothing new to the table for people who have been interested in this stuff for a while, but still I’d recommend the film to all free-thinkers out there. :wink:

I’d like to mention something that’s bugging me and that’s the use of agnostic. It just describes the TYPE of believer or non-believer. So you can be an agnostic atheist, or an agnostic deist/theist. An “agnostic” as it is often used is usually actually a “weak atheist”. Someone who has no active belief or disbelief in a higher power but isn’t done questioning.

And to the person that thinks the Ten Commandments are a decent set of rules to follow, firstly I would urge you to read your Bible again. Then I would ask you; which version of the Ten Commandments? And would the death penalty still apply for not sticking to any of them?

[/quote]

I was unaware of that

226

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
haney1 wrote:
Lonnie123 wrote:
dhickey wrote:
haney1 wrote:
sigh
Why oh Why does every still hold this idea of hell being a physical fire that burns are non-physical entity like a soul?

A little off topic, but everyone should read Dante’s Inferno at some point. The most creative description of hell I have come across. Purgatory and Paradise aren’t as good as Inferno.

Slightly less off topic, but the bible does refer to hell as a place of fire and brimstone, and then theres something about worms eating you forever I think. I could be wrong on that last part though.

Oh you are right it is in there and described like that, the problem is you are not allowing Jesus the ability to use language like a normal person might. If we have to say that every descrition given in the Bible has to be a literal description then we are forced to think that God has wings, and rides around on saddled angels.

You just can’t do that. The Bible is rich and full of literary images.

The Bible also says that in Hell there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. Most people think that means it will be a personal torment of sorrow; However the term gnashing of teeth in every other reference in the Bible refers to anger and hatred towards something.

In a short description
In my opinion the “Fire” that burns the soul is figurative for the type of feeling one would have for rejecting God. Sort of like the feeling of regret when you made a really bad decision.

and one that note everyone should read CS Lewis the great divorce.

I think the bible is an excellent book, if people were to fallow the 10 commandments, the world would be a better place, even better than the 10 commandments, would be the Golden rule. The world would be utopia if the golden rule would be observed by everybody, what I hate about religion is the feeling that they are superior, and in some cases the only one that is correct in their religion. They lose sight of being a good person because they can not see out of their dogma. I think religion is one of the worlds leading problems. Christian, Judaism and Muslim, for some reason Buddhists seem to be staying out of the fray.
[/quote]

Which 10 commandments? Serious question, please list which you are refering to.

227

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
haney1 wrote:
Lonnie123 wrote:
dhickey wrote:
haney1 wrote:
sigh
Why oh Why does every still hold this idea of hell being a physical fire that burns are non-physical entity like a soul?

A little off topic, but everyone should read Dante’s Inferno at some point. The most creative description of hell I have come across. Purgatory and Paradise aren’t as good as Inferno.

Slightly less off topic, but the bible does refer to hell as a place of fire and brimstone, and then theres something about worms eating you forever I think. I could be wrong on that last part though.

Oh you are right it is in there and described like that, the problem is you are not allowing Jesus the ability to use language like a normal person might. If we have to say that every descrition given in the Bible has to be a literal description then we are forced to think that God has wings, and rides around on saddled angels.

You just can’t do that. The Bible is rich and full of literary images.

The Bible also says that in Hell there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. Most people think that means it will be a personal torment of sorrow; However the term gnashing of teeth in every other reference in the Bible refers to anger and hatred towards something.

In a short description
In my opinion the “Fire” that burns the soul is figurative for the type of feeling one would have for rejecting God. Sort of like the feeling of regret when you made a really bad decision.

and one that note everyone should read CS Lewis the great divorce.

I think the bible is an excellent book, if people were to fallow the 10 commandments, the world would be a better place, even better than the 10 commandments, would be the Golden rule. The world would be utopia if the golden rule would be observed by everybody, what I hate about religion is the feeling that they are superior, and in some cases the only one that is correct in their religion. They lose sight of being a good person because they can not see out of their dogma. I think religion is one of the worlds leading problems. Christian, Judaism and Muslim, for some reason Buddhists seem to be staying out of the fray.

Which 10 commandments? Serious question, please list which you are refering to.[/quote]

These are the one’s I grew up with

I do like the golden rule better ,

228

Haney… Fundamentalists or “skilled interpreter”, how does one interpret the passages that reveal a God approved rape or murder? Particularly the murder of children.

What kind of mental gymnastics must one do to allow themselves to follow someone who would massacre an entire population and still claim to hold the moral high ground? What kind of mental tricks must one employ to see that OBVIOUSLY punishment for all eternity is certainly no match for the “crime” of disbelief?

How do follow a book that allows the stoning of non-virgins and the killing of disobedient children? (Deuteronomy 22:20-21) (Mark 7:9)

That DEMANDS that if you know someone who recommends you follow a different religion you must kill them.(Deuteronomy 17:2-5 NLT) (Deuteronomy 13:7-12 NAB)

How does one follow a book that says if a man is caught raping a women, he must pay money to her father and then marry her? (Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NIV)

Shouldnt you be out killing homosexuals or the daughters of priests who have sex? (Leviticus 20:13) (Leviticus 21:9)

How do you follow a God that when mad at the Pharaoh kills the first born child of every couple in the country?

How do you account for these types of passages in the bible and still follow the faith? I’m genuinely curious.

229

[quote]Lonnie123 wrote:
How do you account for these types of passages in the bible and still follow the faith? I’m genuinely curious.[/quote]

You ignore them.

(I’m curious too)

230

[quote]Lonnie123 wrote:
Haney… Fundamentalists or “skilled interpreter”, how does one interpret the passages that reveal a God approved rape or murder? Particularly the murder of children.

What kind of mental gymnastics must one do to allow themselves to follow someone who would massacre an entire population and still claim to hold the moral high ground? What kind of mental tricks must one employ to see that OBVIOUSLY punishment for all eternity is certainly no match for the “crime” of disbelief?

How do follow a book that allows the stoning of non-virgins and the killing of disobedient children? (Deuteronomy 22:20-21) (Mark 7:9)

That DEMANDS that if you know someone who recommends you follow a different religion you must kill them.(Deuteronomy 17:2-5 NLT) (Deuteronomy 13:7-12 NAB)

How does one follow a book that says if a man is caught raping a women, he must pay money to her father and then marry her? (Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NIV)

Shouldnt you be out killing homosexuals or the daughters of priests who have sex? (Leviticus 20:13) (Leviticus 21:9)

How do you follow a God that when mad at the Pharaoh kills the first born child of every couple in the country?

How do you account for these types of passages in the bible and still follow the faith? I’m genuinely curious.[/quote]

Are you really curious or have you already assummed that I am one of the delusional followers that will excuse away all of the “injustices of the old testament” to protect my precious faith?

Will I ever give you an answer that is satisfactory?

If you are really curious then why hit me with a list of canned questions?

231

Well I can’t speak for Lonnie but I too would be curious as to how someone answers these types of questions so if you don’t mind, could you address them?

232

[quote]MeinHerzBrennt wrote:
Well I can’t speak for Lonnie but I too would be curious as to how someone answers these types of questions so if you don’t mind, could you address them?[/quote]

I will make a deal with you. I will answer one of them.

I will address the Rape\payment issue since the others require alot more work.

first the Hebrew only says “lay with” we have translated that as rape. so it might not even be rape we are talking about, but pre-marital sex. for the sake of the reply lets assume it is rape.

There are several things that go into this, social context being one of the most important.

  1. If she was raped she would no longer be considered marriable and her family would be expected to continually support her, which would work until her parents died. The rapist in this instance is now being forced to support her. In thier times this was considered a very merciful solution, it is also very probable that she would not refuse this solution because it would restore her honor. Something that was highly regarded in thier day and time.

  2. The payment for her was customary dowrey for marriage.
    Since she was a contributing member of the family for food and other designated female tasks her departure from her family would take away from thier means for survival. so the money helps restore that.

Outside of that understanding how they viewed marriage, as well as the shame associated with sex outside of marriage. The shame of marrying a rape victim. Your wife would be a living testimony of the sin you committed. Kind of like the scarlet letter. Plus if the woman was left with just her family, she would be denied the following because no one would marry her.

  1. children
  2. support when her family died
  3. honor
  4. security that a marriage provided in that time.
  5. etc…

There is alot that goes into it, but if you understand the culture of that time, then you would understand what a burden it would be to have to marry the rape victim vs. some other form of punishment.

That is just a summarization of the whole thing though. There is alot more that goes into it. same with most of the other questions that I was asked.

for a little more insight into it there is a great article written on it by Glenn Miller. which isn’t thorough, by any means but it does point to some interesting insights on our quick judgements of the OT laws and thier application.

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/virginity.html

233

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

These are the one’s I grew up with

I do like the golden rule better ,[/quote]

Ok lets take a look at these.

[quote]god said:
ONE: ‘You shall have no other gods before Me.’

TWO: ‘You shall not make for yourself a carved image–any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.’

THREE: ‘You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain.’

FOUR: ‘Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.’ [/quote]
The first four I’ll take together. These four are the four most important rules that the the perfect creator of the universe wants you to obey. Not one has anything to do with morality. In fact this god seems pretty petty and selfish to me, even demanding that you should be put to death if you break any of these. Not a good start.

[quote]god said:
FIVE: ‘Honor your father and your mother.’ [/quote]
Why, exactly? Do you still honour them if they beat you, and rape them? People should have to earn honour, not have it handed to them on a plate. And by the way, if your parents do beat you, to answer them back is doing them dishonour. The punishment; death.

[quote]god said:
SIX: ‘You shall not murder.’ [/quote]
Ok good. Ironically the punishment for this is, yep, you guessed it. Death.

[quote]god said:
SEVEN: ‘You shall not commit adultery.’[/quote]
This is all right too. Again I’m not a fan of the punishment for breaking this. Additionally, what if you’re in a forced marriage with someone you hate and fall in love with someone else and spend time with them. Also, what exactly constitutes adultery?

[quote]god said:
EIGHT: ‘You shall not steal.’ [/quote]
Yeah, fine. Pretty obvious. Where is the incredible moral insight you would expect from a supreme being? Also, death for stealing? Oh dear.

[quote]god said:
NINE: ‘You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.’ [/quote]
What if your life is at stake if you tell the truth? These rules are too rigid. They don’t take in to account real life.

[quote]god said:
TEN: ‘You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor’s.’[/quote]

Why exactly is coveting stuff immoral? For the final rule on the list it’s pretty lacking. Why exactly does this omnipotent being care so much about such a stupid and petty thing? Who knows.

Clearly this god just had a memory blank where he forgot write “don’t rape” and “don’t enslave” in the rules. OH WAIT. He fucking loves that shit, he can’t get enough of the raping or enslaving. He even enslaves his most faithful with eternity in heaven. Ah. Nothing like a benign dictatorship.

234

[quote]Jab1 wrote:
pittbulll wrote:

These are the one’s I grew up with

I do like the golden rule better ,

Ok lets take a look at these.

god said:
ONE: ‘You shall have no other gods before Me.’

TWO: ‘You shall not make for yourself a carved image–any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.’

THREE: ‘You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain.’

FOUR: ‘Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.’
The first four I’ll take together. These four are the four most important rules that the the perfect creator of the universe wants you to obey. Not one has anything to do with morality. In fact this god seems pretty petty and selfish to me, even demanding that you should be put to death if you break any of these. Not a good start.

god said:
FIVE: ‘Honor your father and your mother.’
Why, exactly? Do you still honour them if they beat you, and rape them? People should have to earn honour, not have it handed to them on a plate. And by the way, if your parents do beat you, to answer them back is doing them dishonour. The punishment; death.

god said:
SIX: ‘You shall not murder.’
Ok good. Ironically the punishment for this is, yep, you guessed it. Death.

god said:
SEVEN: ‘You shall not commit adultery.’
This is all right too. Again I’m not a fan of the punishment for breaking this. Additionally, what if you’re in a forced marriage with someone you hate and fall in love with someone else and spend time with them. Also, what exactly constitutes adultery?

god said:
EIGHT: ‘You shall not steal.’
Yeah, fine. Pretty obvious. Where is the incredible moral insight you would expect from a supreme being? Also, death for stealing? Oh dear.

god said:
NINE: ‘You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.’
What if your life is at stake if you tell the truth? These rules are too rigid. They don’t take in to account real life.

god said:
TEN: ‘You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor’s.’

Why exactly is coveting stuff immoral? For the final rule on the list it’s pretty lacking. Why exactly does this omnipotent being care so much about such a stupid and petty thing? Who knows.

Clearly this god just had a memory blank where he forgot write “don’t rape” and “don’t enslave” in the rules. OH WAIT. He fucking loves that shit, he can’t get enough of the raping or enslaving. He even enslaves his most faithful with eternity in heaven. Ah. Nothing like a benign dictatorship.[/quote]

You take me way too literal, I was meaning you should not kill people with out a reason, you should not steal you should not shag your neighbors wife, you should not think about doing any of these things. My intension was to make the world a better place, not to prove or disprove the existence of Christ. I believe the Golden Rule is different than what the Bible states, but in my opinion do unto others as you would have others do unto you should be everybody?s credo

235

[quote]haney1 wrote:
Lonnie123 wrote:
Haney… Fundamentalists or “skilled interpreter”, how does one interpret the passages that reveal a God approved rape or murder? Particularly the murder of children.

What kind of mental gymnastics must one do to allow themselves to follow someone who would massacre an entire population and still claim to hold the moral high ground? What kind of mental tricks must one employ to see that OBVIOUSLY punishment for all eternity is certainly no match for the “crime” of disbelief?

How do follow a book that allows the stoning of non-virgins and the killing of disobedient children? (Deuteronomy 22:20-21) (Mark 7:9)

That DEMANDS that if you know someone who recommends you follow a different religion you must kill them.(Deuteronomy 17:2-5 NLT) (Deuteronomy 13:7-12 NAB)

How does one follow a book that says if a man is caught raping a women, he must pay money to her father and then marry her? (Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NIV)

Shouldnt you be out killing homosexuals or the daughters of priests who have sex? (Leviticus 20:13) (Leviticus 21:9)

How do you follow a God that when mad at the Pharaoh kills the first born child of every couple in the country?

How do you account for these types of passages in the bible and still follow the faith? I’m genuinely curious.

Are you really curious or have you already assummed that I am one of the delusional followers that will excuse away all of the “injustices of the old testament” to protect my precious faith?

Will I ever give you an answer that is satisfactory?

If you are really curious then why hit me with a list of canned questions?[/quote]

Canned questions? I went online and pulled the citations for each individual question myself. A fair amount of work went into that post. What questions should I have asked you?

Of course I’m asking you THESE questions because THESE are the HUUUUUGE elephant in the room when you want to talk about how religion delivers good morals. I’m giving you the exact lines out of the book you claim was delivered by a perfectly moral being, and I’m honestly curious how you can possibly reconcile what any good human would do with the writings in the book.

236

[quote]haney1 wrote:
MeinHerzBrennt wrote:
Well I can’t speak for Lonnie but I too would be curious as to how someone answers these types of questions so if you don’t mind, could you address them?

I will make a deal with you. I will answer one of them.

I will address the Rape\payment issue since the others require alot more work.[/quote]

And why is that? It couldnt possibly because they are morally atrocious and you have to play games to make them “seem” or “feel” okay, could it?

Although, I will concede to you that yes, it must be VERY hard to try and convince yourself that killing a girl in front of her father for not being a virgin is a morally just thing to do.

The translation I have provided states quite explicitly that it is rape.

Although I’m not really sure how much better it would be if it was consensual sex either.

[quote]There are several things that go into this, social context being one of the most important.

  1. If she was raped she would no longer be considered marriable and her family would be expected to continually support her, which would work until her parents died. The rapist in this instance is now being forced to support her. In thier times this was considered a very merciful solution, it is also very probable that she would not refuse this solution because it would restore her honor. Something that was highly regarded in thier day and time.

[/quote]

Please, Please, Please read the first sentence of that claim and tell me you dont think that way. Could it be that since rape was seen as such a dishonorable thing back then that the people who invented God would also make sure he saw it that way too?

What do you think a God invented in todays time would say about a rape victim? Totally useless and a financial burden? I highly doubt it.

[quote]2. The payment for her was customary dowrey for marriage.
Since she was a contributing member of the family for food and other designated female tasks her departure from her family would take away from thier means for survival. so the money helps restore that.

Outside of that understanding how they viewed marriage, as well as the shame associated with sex outside of marriage. The shame of marrying a rape victim. Your wife would be a living testimony of the sin you committed. Kind of like the scarlet letter. Plus if the woman was left with just her family, she would be denied the following because no one would marry her.

  1. children
  2. support when her family died
  3. honor
  4. security that a marriage provided in that time.
  5. etc…

There is alot that goes into it, but if you understand the culture of that time, then you would understand what a burden it would be to have to marry the rape victim vs. some other form of punishment.

That is just a summarization of the whole thing though. There is alot more that goes into it. same with most of the other questions that I was asked.

for a little more insight into it there is a great article written on it by Glenn Miller. which isn’t thorough, by any means but it does point to some interesting insights on our quick judgements of the OT laws and thier application.

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/virginity.html

[/quote]

Your answer above shows rather clearly that the book was written by humans living in the culture at the time, and not some objective being from outside of it. If it were written by an objective 3rd party, you wouldnt need to explain it “in context”… as if that makes it any more moral.

However, you are missing the larger point here, and that is that while the times and culture certainly have changed, THE BOOK HAS NOT. Nor can it. Therefore, as a follower of THE BOOK you must enforce and believe in everything inside the book as written. You do not get to pick and choose. Is this clear? I will expound on why if not.

If the book says you must KILL adulterers and practitioners of other religions, you dont get to wave your hands and say “well… That was back then.” Thats called rationalization. You are trying to fit the book to the ideas you have already.

So, I ask you now… What would you do if you heard of a man sleeping with another mans wife?

237

[quote]Lonnie123 wrote:
haney1 wrote:
MeinHerzBrennt wrote:
Well I can’t speak for Lonnie but I too would be curious as to how someone answers these types of questions so if you don’t mind, could you address them?

I will make a deal with you. I will answer one of them.

I will address the Rape\payment issue since the others require alot more work.

And why is that? It couldnt possibly because they are morally atrocious and you have to play games to make them “seem” or “feel” okay, could it?

Although, I will concede to you that yes, it must be VERY hard to try and convince yourself that killing a girl in front of her father for not being a virgin is a morally just thing to do.

first the Hebrew only says “lay with” we have translated that as rape. so it might not even be rape we are talking about, but pre-marital sex. for the sake of the reply lets assume it is rape.

The translation I have provided states quite explicitly that it is rape.

Although I’m not really sure how much better it would be if it was consensual sex either.

There are several things that go into this, social context being one of the most important.

  1. If she was raped she would no longer be considered marriable and her family would be expected to continually support her, which would work until her parents died. The rapist in this instance is now being forced to support her. In thier times this was considered a very merciful solution, it is also very probable that she would not refuse this solution because it would restore her honor. Something that was highly regarded in thier day and time.

Please, Please, Please read the first sentence of that claim and tell me you dont think that way. Could it be that since rape was seen as such a dishonorable thing back then that the people who invented God would also make sure he saw it that way too?

What do you think a God invented in todays time would say about a rape victim? Totally useless and a financial burden? I highly doubt it.

  1. The payment for her was customary dowrey for marriage.
    Since she was a contributing member of the family for food and other designated female tasks her departure from her family would take away from thier means for survival. so the money helps restore that.

Outside of that understanding how they viewed marriage, as well as the shame associated with sex outside of marriage. The shame of marrying a rape victim. Your wife would be a living testimony of the sin you committed. Kind of like the scarlet letter. Plus if the woman was left with just her family, she would be denied the following because no one would marry her.

  1. children
  2. support when her family died
  3. honor
  4. security that a marriage provided in that time.
  5. etc…

There is alot that goes into it, but if you understand the culture of that time, then you would understand what a burden it would be to have to marry the rape victim vs. some other form of punishment.

That is just a summarization of the whole thing though. There is alot more that goes into it. same with most of the other questions that I was asked.

for a little more insight into it there is a great article written on it by Glenn Miller. which isn’t thorough, by any means but it does point to some interesting insights on our quick judgements of the OT laws and thier application.

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/virginity.html

Your answer above shows rather clearly that the book was written by humans living in the culture at the time, and not some objective being from outside of it. If it were written by an objective 3rd party, you wouldnt need to explain it “in context”… as if that makes it any more moral.

However, you are missing the larger point here, and that is that while the times and culture certainly have changed, THE BOOK HAS NOT. Nor can it. Therefore, as a follower of THE BOOK you must enforce and believe in everything inside the book as written. You do not get to pick and choose. Is this clear? I will expound on why if not.

If the book says you must KILL adulterers and practitioners of other religions, you dont get to wave your hands and say “well… That was back then.” Thats called rationalization. You are trying to fit the book to the ideas you have already.

So, I ask you now… What would you do if you heard of a man sleeping with another mans wife? [/quote]

This is why I didn’t want to answer. No answer that I give would ever satisfy you. So I assumed correctly when I thought “what is the point”. I gave you my answer to the one question, so you can assume that I will probably answer the rest the same.

This isn’t me walking away for lack of interest, but lack of time. Something I stated several posts ago. You are more than welcome to reivew all of my posts on the topic of religion just look for haney or haney1(I had another login at one point).

some of my post have matured from fundamentalist view points to my current. It is possible that this topic has been discussed in some of those.

I would hope that you will only keep an open mind, I know I do. I am always challeging my faith. I am actually looking to read bart earhman’s latest book possibly at the end of summer.

238

[quote]MeinHerzBrennt wrote:
Well I can’t speak for Lonnie but I too would be curious as to how someone answers these types of questions so if you don’t mind, could you address them?[/quote]

The typical response is that the atrocities were all in the old testament, and everything was changed when the Law of Moses was fulfilled through Jesus.

Of course, they never address why the old testament atrocities were allowed in the first place. What kind of god would sanction the killing of women and children? Seriously?

And isn’t the Christian god supposed be unchanging? Malachi 3:6:

239

Well, it’s never been known for consistency.

240

[quote]haney1 wrote:

So, I ask you now… What would you do if you heard of a man sleeping with another mans wife?

This is why I didn’t want to answer. No answer that I give would ever satisfy you. So I assumed correctly when I thought “what is the point”. I gave you my answer to the one question, so you can assume that I will probably answer the rest the same.

This isn’t me walking away for lack of interest, but lack of time. Something I stated several posts ago. You are more than welcome to reivew all of my posts on the topic of religion just look for haney or haney1(I had another login at one point).

some of my post have matured from fundamentalist view points to my current. It is possible that this topic has been discussed in some of those.

I would hope that you will only keep an open mind, I know I do. I am always challeging my faith. I am actually looking to read bart earhman’s latest book possibly at the end of summer.

[/quote]

Perhaps you could just answer really quickly what you would do with the question posed at the top of the quote above… If you honestly believe the bible to be the word of God, there should be absolutely no hesitation.

241

[quote]Lonnie123 wrote:
haney1 wrote:

So, I ask you now… What would you do if you heard of a man sleeping with another mans wife?

This is why I didn’t want to answer. No answer that I give would ever satisfy you. So I assumed correctly when I thought “what is the point”. I gave you my answer to the one question, so you can assume that I will probably answer the rest the same.

This isn’t me walking away for lack of interest, but lack of time. Something I stated several posts ago. You are more than welcome to reivew all of my posts on the topic of religion just look for haney or haney1(I had another login at one point).

some of my post have matured from fundamentalist view points to my current. It is possible that this topic has been discussed in some of those.

I would hope that you will only keep an open mind, I know I do. I am always challeging my faith. I am actually looking to read bart earhman’s latest book possibly at the end of summer.

Perhaps you could just answer really quickly what you would do with the question posed at the top of the quote above… If you honestly believe the bible to be the word of God, there should be absolutely no hesitation.[/quote]

sigh
I tell you what. why don’t you answer it for me since you have clearly decided I can only have one answer.

242

Lonnie, my answer is, “if I heard he was sleeping with my wife, I’d beat the shit out of him. Otherwise, not a goddamned thing.”

Not sure if it’s what Jesus (or Moses, or Muhammad) would recommend, but it works for me.

Cheers.