Atheists worse than the religious types they despise.

Bookworm85

Patricide wrote: »

.....
Bookworm 85, yup its full of a load of crazy evil things, especially the old testament. However the bible also has a rake of good things in there for people to learn from too. Its like any other book. Its like saying there is war and murder etc. in lord of the rings, but im sure there is a moral or two in there.

......

I know I'm a bit late replying to this but I've only just spotted it. You cannot compare a book which millions of people base their lives on to LOTR. LOTR is are the words of Tolkien, the bible is the word of god, which countless people take all too seriously. Yes, there are good deeds in the bible, I'm not denying it. But to say people can derive morals from a series of books, and where within the first 2 books there are countless stories of slaves, rape, sacrifice, abuse of women & children, incest and genocide.

philologos

Bookworm85 - This may totally derail the thread, but as someone who has read Genesis and Exodus several times, I'll need to ask you to cite incidents of all to establish that you aren't taking them out of their correct context. I'm fairly sure that you are applying an anachronism to the Hebrew form of slavery by assuming it the same as colonial slavery, adding rape in where it isn't mentioned, and assuming that God approves of incest, and indeed abstracting the context from the Israelites reclaiming Israel as their own.

Personally, as a Christian, I can take guidance in that I can read the Old Testament in the same way that Jesus would have read it.

Herb Powell

this is funny. I don't believe in God, but I never really mention it unless I'm asked. and guess who always does the asking and subsequently tries to convince me I'm wrong???

Bookworm85

Jakkass wrote: »

Bookworm85 - This may totally derail the thread, but as someone who has read Genesis and Exodus several times, I'll need to ask you to cite incidents of all to establish that you aren't taking them out of their correct context. I'm fairly sure that you are applying an anachronism to the Hebrew form of slavery by assuming it the same as colonial slavery, adding rape in where it isn't mentioned, and assuming that God approves of incest, and indeed abstracting the context from the Israelites reclaiming Israel as their own.

Personally, as a Christian, I can take guidance in that I can read the Old Testament in the same way that Jesus would have read it.

Genesis 6. 7 -"So the LORD said, "I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the ground, man and beast and creeping things and birds of the air, for I am sorry that I have made them." - Genocide

Genesis 16. 3 - "So, after Abram had dwelt ten years in the land of Canaan, Sar'ai, Abram's wife, took Hagar the Egyptian, her maid, and gave her to Abram her husband as a wife." - Slaves

Genesis 19.7 - "and said, "I beg you, my brothers, do not act so wickedly. 8 Behold, I have two daughters who have not known man; let me bring them out to you, and do to them as you please; only do nothing to these men, for they have come under the shelter of my roof." - Rape/ Abuse of women.

Genesis 19.32 - "Come, let us make our father drink wine, and we will lie with him, that we may preserve offspring through our father." Incest

Genesis 21.10 - "So she said to Abraham, "Cast out this slave woman with her son; for the son of this slave woman shall not be heir with my son Isaac." - Slaves/abuse of women & children.


Thats just a few I could see with a quick glance. I'll come back with a few examples from Exodus

strobe

Jakkass wrote: »

Actually, just to take a new angle on this thread. Would the Irish Times encourage proselytism similar to this, from a Christian perspective:
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2010/1019/1224281440918.html

Well they frequently post articles consisting wholly of the opinion of the arch bishop of Dublin etc without any analysis or contrasting opinion and have done for years. So I'm gonna say yes.

GLaDOS

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/atheists.png

And I'm done.

philologos

Bookworm85 wrote: »

Genesis 6. 7 -"So the LORD said, "I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the ground, man and beast and creeping things and birds of the air, for I am sorry that I have made them." - Genocide

This isn't genocide:
systematic killing of a racial or cultural group

Indeed, I would personally argue that since God is our creator, that He bestows us life, and He has the right to take this life away.

Bookworm85 wrote: »

Genesis 16. 3 - "So, after Abram had dwelt ten years in the land of Canaan, Sar'ai, Abram's wife, took Hagar the Egyptian, her maid, and gave her to Abram her husband as a wife." - Slaves

Biblical slavery isn't comparable with colonial slavery. These people had the clear right to the Sabbath rest, likewise they had the right to flee should their masters be abusive and not be returned to them, indeed they had the right to marry and settle down with their wives, the Jewish legal system that was in place had clear laws to protect the rights of slaves from their masters. Claiming that one is the same as the other is an anachronism, it doesn't correctly consider the actual legal context around it. Most times when people became slaves of another it was in order to pay a debt, or if they had stolen. The Hebrew penalty for stealing was to return twice as much as they had stolen, in the inability to do this they were to work it off.

Bookworm85 wrote: »

Genesis 19.7 - "and said, "I beg you, my brothers, do not act so wickedly. 8 Behold, I have two daughters who have not known man; let me bring them out to you, and do to them as you please; only do nothing to these men, for they have come under the shelter of my roof." - Rape/ Abuse of women.

Where does it say that God approves of this? - There are numerous incidents of people sinning in the Bible. Such as David committing adultery and killing the woman's husband in battle, or Judah taking out his daughter in law as a prostitute. The reasons for telling such occurrences is to teach the future generations how not to deal with such issues. It makes a lot of sense for the Biblical authors to do this if the text is meant to be a moral guide.

Bookworm85 wrote: »

Genesis 19.32 - "Come, let us make our father drink wine, and we will lie with him, that we may preserve offspring through our father." Incest

See above.

Also on this a lot of Bibles have the subheading over this section "The Shameful Origins of Ammon and Moab". A reason this may be included was that Ammon and Moab were later enemies of Israel who wouldn't allow them peaceful entry through their lands to get to the Promised Land. This also makes a lot of sense.

Bookworm85 wrote: »

Genesis 21.10 - "So she said to Abraham, "Cast out this slave woman with her son; for the son of this slave woman shall not be heir with my son Isaac." - Slaves/abuse of women & children.

Did you read the rest of this section? If so you can tell me what happened next to Hagar after she fled from Sarah in Beersheva?

Bookworm85 wrote: »

Thats just a few I could see with a quick glance. I'll come back with a few examples from Exodus

This is going to take a long time for both of us, are you sure it is a good idea?

I'm happy to give it consideration as I get more and more time to do so.

Bookworm85

Exodus 2.12 "He looked this way and that, and seeing no one he killed the Egyptian and hid him in the sand." - Moses murders an egyptian.

Exodus 12.29"At midnight the LORD smote all the first-born in the land of Egypt, from the first-born of Pharaoh who sat on his throne to the first-born of the captive who was in the dungeon, and all the first-born of the cattle. 30 And Pharaoh rose up in the night, he, and all his servants, and all the Egyptians; and there was a great cry in Egypt, for there was not a house where one was not dead. - InfanticideExodus 19.12 -13 "And you shall set bounds for the people round about, saying, 'Take heed that you do not go up into the mountain or touch the border of it; whoever touches the mountain shall be put to death; 13 no hand shall touch him, but he shall be stoned or shot; whether beast or man, he shall not live.' When the trumpet sounds a long blast, they shall come up to the mountain." - God threatens to kill people for touching the mountain while he speaks with Moses

Overheal

Jakkass wrote: »

This isn't genocide:
systematic killing of a racial or cultural group

Indeed, I would personally argue that since God is our creator, that He bestows us life, and He has the right to take this life away.

And yet, a mother is a creator, and ...

Bookworm85

Jakkass wrote: »

This is going to take a long time for both of us, are you sure it is a good idea?

I'm happy to give it consideration as I get more and more time to do so.

Um.... **Flicks through bible furiously** ...I'll be back :P

philologos

Overheal: I wouldn't call a mother or a father a Creator. I'd call them initiators, in that they initiate a biological process which is not their own authoring. Dispensing of biological material doesn't mean that you created anything.

Bookworm85 wrote: »

Exodus 2.12 "He looked this way and that, and seeing no one he killed the Egyptian and hid him in the sand." - Moses murders an egyptian.

Read the bold.

Nobody says that Moses was perfect. Nobody says that anyone in the Bible is perfect apart from Jesus Christ. The point is that the people in the Bible, were fallible people, called by an awesome God. I find this amazing. I find looking to people like Paul who persecuted the church, or David who committed adultery, or Peter who sold out Christ, or Judas who betrayed Him, I think "Wow, these guys are really normal", yet God calls them to do amazing things. This is one of the things that gives me inspiration as a Christian.

Bookworm85 wrote: »

Exodus 12.29"At midnight the LORD smote all the first-born in the land of Egypt, from the first-born of Pharaoh who sat on his throne to the first-born of the captive who was in the dungeon, and all the first-born of the cattle. 30 And Pharaoh rose up in the night, he, and all his servants, and all the Egyptians; and there was a great cry in Egypt, for there was not a house where one was not dead. - Infanticide

I believe that God has the right to give and to take life away. I also trust God's knowledge of all permutations in this case. He is the only one who knows the outcome of all situations, as such I believe that in His knowledge He made the right call, that neither you or I would be able to make.

Bookworm85 wrote: »

Exodus 19.12 -13 "And you shall set bounds for the people round about, saying, 'Take heed that you do not go up into the mountain or touch the border of it; whoever touches the mountain shall be put to death; 13 no hand shall touch him, but he shall be stoned or shot; whether beast or man, he shall not live.' When the trumpet sounds a long blast, they shall come up to the mountain." - God threatens to kill people for touching the mountain while he speaks with Moses

See above. It is not that much to ask that the people obey God in such a simplistic task as not going up a mountain when He asked them not to.

My name is URL

Jakkass wrote: »

This is going to take a long time for both of us, are you sure it is a good idea?

Bookworm85 wrote: »

Um.... **Flicks through bible furiously** :P

eww.. get a room ye crazy kids

strobe

Jakkass wrote: »

I believe that God has the right to give and to take life away. I also trust God's knowledge of all permutations in this case. He is the only one who knows the outcome of all situations, as such I believe that in His knowledge He made the right call, that neither you or I would be able to make.

This is where I part ways with the people who argue "sure what harm is it if someone believes in X religion?"

Jakkass, do you also believe that sometimes God speaks directly to people and that God can tell someone to take another's life away and that it wouldn't be a sin or immoral because God has green lighted it and all morality comes from God?

Bookworm85

Jakkass wrote: »

This isn't genocide:
systematic killing of a racial or cultural group.

No, not of any particular group. Just everybody on the planet bar a select few. (Noah and his cronies)

Indeed, I would personally argue that since God is our creator, that He bestows us life, and He has the right to take this life away.

Biblical slavery isn't comparable with colonial slavery. These people had the clear right to the Sabbath rest, likewise they had the right to flee should their masters be abusive and not be returned to them, indeed they had the right to marry and settle down with their wives, the Jewish legal system that was in place had clear laws to protect the rights of slaves from their masters. Claiming that one is the same as the other is an anachronism, it doesn't correctly consider the actual legal context around it. Most times when people became slaves of another it was in order to pay a debt, or if they had stolen. The Hebrew penalty for stealing was to return twice as much as they had stolen, in the inability to do this they were to work it off.

OK, I hold my hands up to this one, I just read the revision notes in the bible I have, and it says pretty much the same thing.

Where does it say that God approves of this? - There are numerous incidents of people sinning in the Bible. Such as David committing adultery and killing the woman's husband in battle, or Judah taking out his daughter in law as a prostitute. The reasons for telling such occurrences is to teach the future generations how not to deal with such issues. It makes a lot of sense for the Biblical authors to do this if the text is meant to be a moral guide.

But from what I have read (I'm only a small bit into leviticus), God did nothing to punish Lot. From what I remeber the rape doesnt take place, but god sends an angel to guide him out of the city the following morning. He allows a man to offer his daughters to be be raped in his (and his guests) place. In other words Its wrong to rape a man, but its ok to rape women in his stead.


Also on this a lot of Bibles have the subheading over this section "The Shameful Origins of Ammon and Moab". A reason this may be included was that Ammon and Moab were later enemies of Israel who wouldn't allow them peaceful entry through their lands to get to the Promised Land. This also makes a lot of sense.

So they grew up to be nasty men, and nothing was ever done to discipline Lot's daughters. They were never punished by god, their family or their community.

Did you read the rest of this section? If so you can tell me what happened next to Hagar after she fled from Sarah in Beersheva?

Ya, God gave Hagar some water and made a nation of her son and I think they eventually settled in Egypt. Apart from the water she was left to fend for herself and her son on her own. Apparently the boy becam an expert with a bow.

kowloon

No matter how hard I try to focus on this thread and peoples arguments, my thoughts keep going back to the bacon pancakes.

philologos

strobe wrote: »

Jakkass, do you also believe that sometimes God speaks directly to people and that God can tell someone to take another's life away and that it wouldn't be a sin or immoral because God has green lighted it and all morality comes from God?

This position I would feel would be incompatible with Christianity, as Christ has come and died for the sins of the world. If Christ has died for me, in my place on the cross, then it isn't compatible with Christian teaching for me to be a hypocrite. It is God who will judge.

I do think that God can tell us when time is up though (Luke 12:16-21).

philologos

Bookworm85 wrote: »

No, not of any particular group. Just everybody on the planet bar a select few. (Noah and his cronies)

I believe that God as Creator has the right to do this.

Bookworm85 wrote: »

OK, I hold my hands up to this one, I just read the revision notes in the bible I have, and it says pretty much the same thing.

It's OK. I'd really hope that people would really think about what they are arguing against before they do it.

Bookworm85 wrote: »

But from what I have read (I'm only a small bit into leviticus), God did nothing to punish Lot. From what I remeber the rape doesnt take place, but god sends an angel to guide him out of the city the following morning. He allows a man to offer his daughters to be be raped in his (and his guests) place. In other words Its wrong to rape a man, but its ok to rape women in his stead.

Again. God is perfectly equipped to decide when it is pragmatic to punish. He knows the results of actions. Likewise, when Judah took his daughter in law as a prostitute, God didn't act directly, but God convicted Judah that what he did was wrong. Different approaches of dealing with sin are useful at different times and at different places.

Jumping from the conclusion that just because God doesn't step in in every situation that God must in turn approve is flawed reasoning. It goes right back to my response about the Holocaust a few pages ago. Human wrongs are to be pinned on the individuals involved. God might determine it best not to step in if He knows that the results afterwards may result in a better situation in the future.

Another example would be Abraham and Isaac. Where God commands Abraham to offer Isaac. However, God stops him at the last minute. Why did God do this, it seems awfully cruel right? - Simply put it was to show Abraham that God was different. Other Middle Eastern tribes at that time, from a historical perspective did actually sacrifice their children. God was showing Abraham, that this isn't acceptable to Him.

God shows people right and wrong in different ways throughout peoples actions, and it is clear that these are in the Bible for a reason.

Bookworm85 wrote: »

So they grew up to be nasty men, and nothing was ever done to discipline Lot's daughters. They were never punished by god, their family or their community.

See above.

Bookworm85 wrote: »

Ya, God gave Hagar some water and made a nation of her son and I think they eventually settled in Egypt. Apart from the water she was left to fend for herself and her son on her own. Apparently the boy becam an expert with a bow.

God guided Hagar didn't He? He didn't leave her alone. In fact I find that section one of the most inspiring sections in the whole Bible.

Paul uses it as an example in Galatians to describe how the old Israelite order has passed and our being in a New Covenant through Jesus Christ.

curlzy

How has this thread turned into the god channel??? :rolleyes:

Bookworm85

Jakkass wrote: »

I believe that God as Creator has the right to do this.



It's OK. I'd really hope that people would really think about what they are arguing against before they do it.



Again. God is perfectly equipped to decide when it is pragmatic to punish. He knows the results of actions. Likewise, when Judah took his daughter in law as a prostitute, God didn't act directly, but God convicted Judah that what he did was wrong. Different approaches of dealing with sin are useful at different times and at different places.

Jumping from the conclusion that just because God doesn't step in in every situation that God must in turn approve is flawed reasoning. It goes right back to my response about the Holocaust a few pages ago. Human wrongs are to be pinned on the individuals involved. God might determine it best not to step in if He knows that the results afterwards may result in a better situation in the future.

Another example would be Abraham and Isaac. Where God commands Abraham to offer Isaac. However, God stops him at the last minute. Why did God do this, it seems awfully cruel right? - Simply put it was to show Abraham that God was different. Other Middle Eastern tribes at that time, from a historical perspective did actually sacrifice their children. God was showing Abraham, that this isn't acceptable to Him.

God shows people right and wrong in different ways throughout peoples actions, and it is clear that these are in the Bible for a reason.




See above.



God guided Hagar didn't He? He didn't leave her alone. In fact I find that section one of the most inspiring sections in the whole Bible.

Paul uses it as an example in Galatians to describe how the old Israelite order has passed and our being in a New Covenant through Jesus Christ.

OK I'm no good at doing multiple quotes - I fudge it up all the time, so you'll have to bear with me.

Regarding Hagar and her son

Genesis 21.15 - 21
When the water in the skin was gone, she cast the child under one of the bushes. 16 Then she went, and sat down over against him a good way off, about the distance of a bowshot; for she said, "Let me not look upon the death of the child." And as she sat over against him, the child lifted up his voice and wept. 17 And God heard the voice of the lad; and the angel of God called to Hagar from heaven, and said to her, "What troubles you, Hagar? Fear not; for God has heard the voice of the lad where he is. 18 Arise, lift up the lad, and hold him fast with your hand; for I will make him a great nation." 19 Then God opened her eyes, and she saw a well of water; and she went, and filled the skin with water, and gave the lad a drink. 20 And God was with the lad, and he grew up; he lived in the wilderness, and became an expert with the bow. 21 He lived in the wilderness of Paran; and his mother took a wife for him from the land of Egypt.

Now I've read on for a few more pages, and even checked the index at the back, and there is no more mention of Hagar or her son after this point. Maybe its just the way I'm interperating it but, it appears they were left in the wilderness, and he married an Egyptian.

Again. God is perfectly equipped to decide when it is pragmatic to punish. He knows the results of actions. Likewise, when Judah took his daughter in law as a prostitute, God didn't act directly, but God convicted Judah that what he did was wrong. Different approaches of dealing with sin are useful at different times and at different places.
Jumping from the conclusion that just because God doesn't step in in every situation that God must in turn approve is flawed reasoning. It goes right back to my response about the Holocaust a few pages ago. Human wrongs are to be pinned on the individuals involved. God might determine it best not to step in if He knows that the results afterwards may result in a better situation in the future.

Now from what I can gather, at this point it has only been a few hundred years since the flood. (lost count who lived for how long, at who begat who!) I know that he made a covenant with Noah not to wash everyone away again. God used the flood to rid the world of the evil and corruption. You'd think after that he'd be more inclined to educate and discipline his people in what was right and wrong. I find it very odd that such a benevolent being would allow the founding fathers of his religion/church and their families/community to behave in such a way.

Another example would be Abraham and Isaac. Where God commands Abraham to offer Isaac. However, God stops him at the last minute. Why did God do this, it seems awfully cruel right? - Simply put it was to show Abraham that God was different. Other Middle Eastern tribes at that time, from a historical perspective did actually sacrifice their children. God was showing Abraham, that this isn't acceptable to Him.

Fair enough, and I can see that for myself. Abraham was obviously devoted, and wanted to do as his god asked him. Abraham was ordered by god to kill his son, Abraham did not choose to do it of his own accord, he was simply following gods instructions. From my understanding it was a test of Abraham's faith.

My interpretation (* and an attempt at humour)

God thinks .. "lets see if this guy really loves me as much as he says he does"

"Abraham!"

"Yes God?"

"I want you to take your son up the mountain, and offer him as a burnt offering"

"Err...OK"

Abraham brings Isaac up the mountain, ties him up and takes out a knife to kill him

God - "Hold it.... just kidding, I was only messing with ya to see if you really love me"

I dont see what kind of lesson this teaches

strobe

Jakkass wrote: »

This position I would feel would be incompatible with Christianity, as Christ has come and died for the sins of the world. If Christ has died for me, in my place on the cross, then it isn't compatible with Christian teaching for me to be a hypocrite. It is God who will judge.

I do think that God can tell us when time is up though (Luke 12:16-21).

But what if we go step by step?

1. Is God free to and/or justified in ending human life in some instances, through some means?: Yes/No

2. Has God communicated with people directly before?: Yes/No
2b. Is he free to do so again?: Yes/No

3. Has God temporarily suspended the fifth commandment before (has he allowed or commanded people to kill):? Yes/No
3b. Is he free to do so again:? Yes/No

========================================================

I don't think that was the point being made in Luke 12:16-21 btw. Is it not more along the lines of "you can't take it with you pal, but being into God is 'money in the bank'"?

Dudess

I'm an atheist and I don't give people grief for being religious once they don't force it on me - in fact I have quite a lot of respect for, especially younger, people who stick with it, can't be easy. Wouldn't like any decent religious person having to endure personal abuse/ridicule for believing.
However, I do find there seems to be a number of people who fall over themselves to condemn atheists as arrogant (sometimes solely based on Richard Dawkins - we get it, he's an arrogant prick) - often not religious either, just anxious, it appears, to show how right-on they are. Atheism isn't automatically = arrogance.
I was amazed at some of the people who thanked the re-reg OP in that recent thread where he was basically saying "People who say they're atheist are just trying to be trendy [one of the most retarded sentiments ever] and Irish people should remain repressed catholics in order to be true to their Irishness".

Marcus.Aurelius

If religious people weren't trying to drive a fundamentalist wedge into politics and the moral Zeitgeist, there would be no need for atheists to be so vocal. Perhaps someone more broadminded might realise that there is in fact good reason for all the recent press coverage of atheists.

midlandsmissus

Ah jaysus...am I allowed to say that?

Snakeblood

midlandsmissus wrote: »

Ah jaysus...am I allowed to say that?

No.

strobe

midlandsmissus wrote: »

Ah jaysus...am I allowed to say that?

What did you say MLM?

KidKeith89

Patricide wrote: »

Ok its very seldom I start a thread on AH but there is something that really has been pissing me off as of late.

Militant Atheists!

You know the type of guys-gals who will immediately protest about religion at the slightest chance. Now dont get me wrong, im far from a right wing religious nut. Its just that recently with all these retarded threads, and with a lot of my friends its the exact same **** over and over. Even if we would so much as mention the church here or every time i would in real life pass a a church with my friends the following would ensues:

"you believe in something, o your retarded, your wrong, science is the only constant in this world, there is no proof for anything you believe in, rabble rabble"

"but i dont really believe..."

"rabble rabble rabble, church is wrong, everyone is an idiot except atheists rabble rabble"

The thing is im not talking about preachers or whatever here, these are just average everyday joe soaps like you and me. They dont work for any church they dont go to prayer meetings or whatever else the religious nutjobs seem to do.

90% of the time I feel like im dealing with born again christians trying to convert me rather than "scientific minds". And the thing is these are the same people who usually freak out if they see some religious guy so much as handing out flyers on the street. I mean at least hes doing it as part of his church (an sometimes even for a good cause). However these people just seem to love to argue about how religion is only a pack of ****.

Tl;dr : Militant Atheist types, we get it, you believe in nothing, you find it illogical that people do. However there is no need to shout it from the rooftops every 5 minutes, I dont see any catholic people taking such an aggressive stance(except the right wing nuts).

EDITED to get my message a bit better across.

I'm an atheist and I totally agree with you; there's a lot of us that are annoying d!ckheads. Don't judge us all though on the few idiots.

Patricide

I dont, I just cant stand people of any religion shoving **** down my throat. I just thought being that atheism is the absence of religion that there may be one set of people who dont have preacher types.

How wrong I was.

Shenshen

Patricide wrote: »

I dont, I just cant stand people of any religion shoving **** down my throat. I just thought being that atheism is the absence of religion that there may be one set of people who dont have preacher types.

How wrong I was.

I'm struggling with the concept of atheists as "one set of people" to begin with... they've got nothing in common apart from an absence of believe.

It's a well-worn example by now, but would you call non-stamp-collectors a "set of people"?

prinz

Bookworm85 wrote: »

I dont see what kind of lesson this teaches

One possile lesson comes from the fact that it is thought there were groups/religions in the area at the time who practiced human sacrifice. IMO it is equal parts this (i.e. not condoning human sacrifice), a test of Abraham's faith, and an exhibition of God's faith in Abraham.

Anywho the Christianity forum is probably the best place to continue this Bible study. :pac:

hobochris

Br4tPr1nc3 wrote: »

not believing in god is the same as believing there is no god?
unless ofcourse you believe in something else such as a flying spaghetti monster.

I think I have found my new god