• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Is Defense of the Gospel a Legitimate Activity?

As an atheist, do you think doing apologetics is a legitimate activity?

  • yes

    Votes: 9 47.4%
  • no

    Votes: 10 52.6%

  • Total voters
    19

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
genocide is genocide, the intended killing of a people, yes. But I don't link this activity to him as a person.

I know you don't. You never do. As I pointed out to you the other day. It's part of your dogmatic a priori position. You will never accept any evidence or reality which is not compatible with your preconceived religious beliefs.

You have decided a priori that your god is good and not a genocidal serial killer.
And you'll dogmatically stick to that, even if your god engages in genocide a thousand times over.


As I said, kicking the ball is sometimes just that: kicking the ball.
That doesn't make me a soccer player or ball kicker when I merely wanted the ball off the grass. It's not a personality trait of mine when I just kick the ball every once in a while.

See? You'll come up with this bs analogy just to avoid the obvious.

upload_2021-2-24_16-11-43.png



Well, in the Bible it says anyone who is male and has sex with men is to be killed.
Gays and straight people alike, I have a friend who once had sex with 2 gays. However, he's perfecty straight.

//facepalm


That is a new low. Even for you.

Ow, and I have news for your friend.... he's not "perfectly straight".
He's bisexual at minimum.

God could not have talked these topics without running the risk of being misunderstood by the then people.
They did not know the difference between "sexual orientation" and casual sex with members of the same sex, if you are straight.

LOL!!!!

It never ceases to amaze me the amount of ad hoc nonsense you can come up with to "explain away" obvious facts in defense of your a priori dogmatic position.

Let's assume God merely disapproved of the latter form of consensual contacts... he wouldn't have a chance of getting this message across back then.
In a sense that he would have been understood by the then population.
So no, in my opinion you can't say that he was homophobo, I think.
I think God loves all homosexuals.

Yeah, the god of the bible loves gay people. Especially when they are dead.

(I don't say he approves of gay sex, either, btw.. I'm neutral here)

I can assure you that homophobes like the god of the bible don't approve of gay sex, considering he wants them killed for it.


:rolleyes:
 

Rival

Si m'ait Dieus
Staff member
Premium Member
You liked something about that original post I responded to, and perhaps it would be worth a look at the part you were interested in -- what part was that?
I was just agreeing with the post; or sometimes I like posts even if I don't necessarily agree with them but think it deserves a thumbs up for whatever reason :)
 

halbhh

The wonder and awe of "all things".
I was just agreeing with the post; or sometimes I like posts even if I don't necessarily agree with them but think it deserves a thumbs up for whatever reason :)
I couldn't find any correct allegation in that post. :) (I'm not an apologist even, but simply someone that has read through the books in question)
 

halbhh

The wonder and awe of "all things".
genocide is genocide, the intended killing of a people, yes.

@TagliatelliMonster


An important misnomer. The mortal death of this body, such as for instance in the seemingly genocidal biblical Flood == when someone tries to claim it's actually amounting to a "genocide" (or whatever instance given, even that there is any human mortality at all (that anyone is mortal makes all death then genocide it would seem)...)

Consider:

Suppose Ralph accuses Peter of killing Jane and her child, and indeed they are departed, passed away....

Ok.

But...then, later in time, we discover to our surprise that actually Jane and her child are perfectly fine and living in Australia (* note below)...

Well, it would have to be that Peter didn't actually kill them.

Ergo, Ralph was mistaken to begin with.

----------
(*) The victims of the biblical Flood, and by extension all the dead in some manner, are simply transported to a new location according to the common bible -- akin to the British "transportation" of criminals to Australia in the 19th century. (BBC Two - History File, Britain 1750-1900 - Part 1, Transportation of British criminals to Australia)

i.e. -- "18 For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive in the Spirit. 19 After being made alive, he went and made proclamation to the spirits in prison20 to those who were disobedient long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built...."

Of course, being still alive in the essential (potentially eternal) way, they were not truly killed in a final sense, that is, in the sense of the word 'genocide' which has the sense of meaning of a real final death.

Luke 8:52 Meanwhile, everyone was weeping and mourning for her. But Jesus said, "Stop weeping; she is not dead but asleep."

Not that all people would believe that! -->
Luke 8:53 And they laughed at Him, knowing that she was dead.

Some won't believe until that final end when they face the reality.
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
I am entitled to say that the red passage does not exist in the Bible.
You are entitled to be proven wrong.
Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones. Psalms 137:9.
.. in circumstances of being persecuted.
The passage explicitely mentions this, please.
No, it doesn't.
The Bible prescribes equality between man and woman at church. Galatians 3:28.
If the woman cannot speak up there, she needs to get other priviledges at church, so that this going to be evened out, I think.
If people think a woman should not have authority over the man at church... then man should not have authority over the woman either.
That's equality.
This is not at all what Paul said. He did say women are to be quiet in church, hang their heads in humility, ask questions later to their husband, and fully submit to their husband. There is no "balancing it out." Paul put women beneath men and told us we are not to be in a position of authority over them.
God is not wicked or the way you describe him, I think.
Eternal punishment for not getting one life right is heinously savage, barbaricly cruel, and nothing but wicked and cruel. Unlike humans, the god of the bible does not believe in second chances.
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
Notice a key thing: celibacy is only for some.

Just like in Paul: celibacy is better for some, and marriage is better for others.
No, Paul said it's best to be like him. BUT if you cant control thise urges then get married. This isn't birth defects, castration, or being asexual. Paul says it's best for everyone to be unmarried and not have sex. You can't follow what Paul says and follow gods command of "be fruitful and multiply." Thise are not compatible and they do contradict each other.
Apologetics is how we hack things up and piece them back together as Viktor Frankenstein did with his creation. It appears to work, but it just doesn't.
 

halbhh

The wonder and awe of "all things".
Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones. Psalms 137:9.

@thomas t

The Psalms include laments, hopes, fears, angers, pleadings for revenge, pleadings for mercy, praises, and thoughts....

In Psalm 137, someone in Israel is wishing for revenge against the Babylonians that had killed so many of Israel, and even the babies of the Israelites by dashing them on stones.

Psalm 137:1 By the rivers of Babylon we sat and wept when we remembered Zion. ....

It's easy to see this, it's a very short psalm -- One can read it in 10 seconds:
Psalm 137 NIV

But God says that we are not to seek revenge. That doesn't mean the writer of the Psalm is automatically perfect and knows we are not to seek revenge.
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
@thomas t

The Psalms include laments, hopes, fears, angers, pleadings for revenge, pleadings for mercy, praises, and thoughts....

In Psalm 137, someone in Israel is wishing for revenge against the Babylonians that had killed so many of Israel, and even the babies of the Israelites by dashing them on stones.

Psalm 137:1 By the rivers of Babylon we sat and wept when we remembered Zion. ....

It's easy to see this, it's a very short psalm -- One can read it in 10 seconds:
Psalm 137 NIV

But God says that we are not to seek revenge. That doesn't mean the writer of the Psalm is automatically perfect and knows we are not to seek revenge.
Yup. Apologetics. Here is what is here, this horribly atrocious thing, this unholy and wickedly cruel thing, regardless why this is the execution of innocent children. Only the sickness and twistedness of apologetics can and will attempt to turn this into something not so evil.
 

halbhh

The wonder and awe of "all things".
No, Paul said it's best to be like him. BUT if you cant control thise urges then get married. This isn't birth defects, castration, or being asexual. Paul says it's best for everyone to be unmarried and not have sex. You can't follow what Paul says and follow gods command of "be fruitful and multiply."

Look more closely:

Bible Gateway passage: 1 Corinthians 7 - New International Version

Also, while humanity at first on Earth was told to multiply, this is no longer a commandment in the new covenant. (we don't need to rush to 20 or 40 billion Earth population)

Instead:

11 Jesus replied, “Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. 12 For there are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others—and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.”

Matthew 19 NIV
----
Perfect agreement with Paul's epistles, as one would expect.

Notice a key thing: celibacy is only for some.

Just like in Paul: celibacy is better for some, and marriage is better for others.

We are expected to be ourselves -- each one a unique person.

Some people are not strongly inclined sexually. Some are.

Each person, individual.
 

halbhh

The wonder and awe of "all things".
Yup. Apologetics. Here is what is here, this horribly atrocious thing, this unholy and wickedly cruel thing, regardless why this is the execution of innocent children. Only the sickness and twistedness of apologetics can and will attempt to turn this into something not so evil.
If death of this body is the final real death, then 'God' would be a mere myth, and a myth about a murderous one at that. Genocidal.

If even one innocent human died. Ever.
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
Also, while humanity at first on Earth was told to multiply
That commandment wasn't just given at the beginning.
1 Corinthians 1:8 clearly shows us were being unmarried is good. And 9 he introduces a but. That but being "id you can't control yourself." That is directly against what god commanded several times.
And another pitfall of apologetics is this idea Jesus did away with the old covenants when very clearly Jesus said he came not to do away with the Law and Prophets, and that nothing will change in that regard until all has been fulfilled. And then these apologetics jumble things up, saying they have all been fulfilled and then speaking of prophecies to come they believe haven't been fulfilled.
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
If death of this body is the final real death, then 'God' would be a mere myth, and a myth about a murderous one at that. Genocidal.

If even one innocent human died. Ever.
If we don't survive death it only means that. Some religions have not gave us souls or eternity.
And I dont use unrealistic and unreasonable standards that are arbitrary, anti-human, and from the beliefs of the ancient superstitions of long dead and gone men. So, yes, innocent people, especially children, do die.
 

halbhh

The wonder and awe of "all things".
If we don't survive death it only means that. Some religions have not gave us souls or eternity.
And I dont use unrealistic and unreasonable standards that are arbitrary, anti-human, and from the beliefs of the ancient superstitions of long dead and gone men. So, yes, innocent people, especially children, do die.
If death of this body were the final death, then God would not be real.

But:

Luke 8:52 Meanwhile, everyone was weeping and mourning for her. But Jesus said, "Stop weeping; she is not dead but asleep."

(as we can see, God in the bible is One Who makes 'death' into merely "sleep", from which He awakens us.)
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
I'm more of a classic Warhammer kind of guy. I got a phat Lizard army lead by Lord Kroak in a cold blooded Temple Guard unit that is armed to the teeth! Ow yeah! :D
And a ridiculous amount of Skinks too, followed by a couple nasty beasts like Kroxigors and some dino's. :D

In my analogy though, the warhammer generals would have to be thinking that they are actually fighting an actual war, instead of playing a fantasy game. :)
Like I touched on before, I'd much rather that Christians pretend they're fighting than resort to actual violence... which is something Christians do from time to time.
 

thomas t

non-denominational Christian
See? You'll come up with this bs analogy just to avoid the obvious.

53590_39c06259a20d6b9ea89421c865910332.png
I didn't deny what genocide is.
However, @halbhh brought up an important part, Jesus assures that they keep on living. Well after death. Their souls.
My analogy wasn't bs, it referred to statements about persons in general and was absolutely valid, I think.

What user halb said applies to homosexuals also.
I stay with my opinion: maybe God disapproved only of people having sex against their natural orientation.
But since he could't explain sexual orientation without the risk of being misunderswtood back then, since people didn't know anything about sexual orientations... he made up a one size fits all solution.
This is at least how it could be, as I see it. as I told you in the last post.

( disclaimer: I stay neutral on homosexuality, this was just considering how much God could have said without running the risk of being misunderstood back then, in my opinion)
Ow, and I have news for your friend.... he's not "perfectly straight".
He's bisexual at minimum.
You can only be bisexual of you feel attracted to members of both sexes.
He told me that he wanted just the sex, that's all.

ad hoc nonsense you can come up with to "explain away" obvious facts in defense of your a priori dogmatic position.
no ad hoc nonsense here.
I don't explain away facts.
 

thomas t

non-denominational Christian
You are entitled to be proven wrong.
Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones. Psalms 137:9.
ah ok, this passage does exist.
I must admit, you were right.

However, it is written by someone who suffered from this people a lot.
It's a reaction.
I don't want to know how the Babylonians dealt with them...
ah wait: Jeremiah 39:6-7.
they dashed the children... made the parent watch and blinded the parent afterwards.
If this was common practice, and it may seem a bit like it, if you read on... "solely" dashing the children would seem to be deescalating the conflict in comparison to what the Babylonians did.

This does not make dashing children right of course.

How would you feel and think if some one dashes your children, makes you watch this ... and just after you would be blinded by your perpetrators so that you have that picture in your head better...

Maybe the father of the slaughtered children wrote the Psalm... who knows?

No, it doesn't.
It does: 1 Corinthians 7:26.
This is at least my interpretation of this verse, which is in direct link to being unmarried and Paul's attitude towards it.

This is not at all what Paul said. He did say women are to be quiet in church, hang their heads in humility, ask questions later to their husband, and fully submit to their husband. There is no "balancing it out." Paul put women beneath men and told us we are not to be in a position of authority over them.
Paul said equality in church. As in Galatians 3:28.
So if women have to submit... all the while being equal at church... men have to submit, too.
That's equality as I see it.

Eternal punishment for not getting one life right is heinously savage, barbaricly cruel, and nothing but wicked and cruel. Unlike humans, the god of the bible does not believe in second chances.
but you did not show that God wants eternal punishment for the sins committed in one life only...
who says they suddenly stop sinning right after death?
 
Last edited:

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
However, it is written by someone who suffered from this people a lot.
It's a reaction.
I don't want to know how the Babylonians dealt with them...
ah wait: Jeremiah 39:6-7.
they dashed the children... made the parent watch and blinded the parent afterwards.
If this was common practice, and it may seem a bit like it, if you read on... "solely" dashing the children would seem to be deescalating the conflict in comparison to what the Babylonians did.
Thanks for proving my point. Turning something objectively awful and horrible and attempting to twist it into something defensible. It's not. Self-defense or not, those little ones are innocent, and clearly by the violence we still see in the Middle East today this endless cycle of killing and revenge has gotten that place absolutely nowhere. They're still doing that over there. Some of them have found better ways, as has much of the world. And it doesn't involve endless revenge and genocide. Parts of Africa also have this problem, leading to generations of social and political instability and blood shed.
Meanwhile, some other countries have explicitly prohibited themselves from sending their military on foreign wars of aggression. We've created a neutral organization to help lead to better ways. And much of the world today has never known a lesser risk of a violent death.

How would you feel and think if some one dashes your children, makes you watch this ... and just after you would be blinded by your perpetrators so that you have that picture in your head better...
I don't appreciate you assuming how I would act.
I would hope I wouldn't do something I would later regret. Like killing someone in an act outside of self defense. I've known been in that situation, so I wouldn't pretend I know what I would do. But harming people who had nothing to do with it, at least when I'm in my normal state of mind, is simply not for consideration.

It does: 1 Corinthians 7:26.
This is at least my interpretation of this verse, which is in direct link to being unmarried and Paul's attitude towards it.
That doesn't really state much, and I did cite earlier when Paul does indeed say it's best to remain unmarried if you are.
Paul said equality in church. As in Galatians 3:28.
So if women have to submit... all the while being equal at church... men have to submit, too.
That's equality as I see it.
That has nothing to do with the issue at hand.
But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. 1 Timothy 2:12
Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church. 1 Corinthians 14:34-35
1 Corinthians 11:6-10 Those are more passages from Paul that are inexcusable. Horrible, and probably why the West has such a problem with misogyny and an oppressive patriarchy.
but you did not show that God wants eternal punishment for the sins committed in one life only...
who says they suddenly stop sinning right after death?
Does it matter? The point is, you get it right this life or you are punished in some way (the Bible is inconsistent about how), and punished for all eternity. Forever and ever, all because you failed to get it right during your 70-80 years or so.
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
If death of this body were the final death, then God would not be real.
Not necessarily. It could mean god didn't give us souls. It could mean god is something else entirely different than what anyone on Earth has ever conceived. It could simply mean Earth was a "test crop" and we're not good enough for the soul and eternal life.
 
Top