It is not just that comment, You have plenty of comments of sarcasm, exaggeration and distortion, Here are a few examples:
the Lord and Author of all creation couldn't find anything better to discuss with us than an obscure wrestling rule
-- The Bible is a big book... there must be other things God does in there.
The Bible is just chock full of the silliest nonsense, porn, random violence, inexplicable cruelty, and bizarre commandments.
-- Exaggerated opinions that would be smirked at by any repitable Bibilical scholar.
God commanded his people to slaughter everyone in sight.
-- Everyone in sight? Where does it say that? Does that include each other?
Same God. As I said, Jesus commands infanticide.
-- Jesus is the son, not the father, Quote me where Jesus commanded infanticide.
Well I'm sorry you don't appreciate my sense of humor, but the point here is not my posting style, it's whether what I'm saying is correct or not. Apparently, since you cannot refute anything I say, you prefer to focus on my way of saying it. For example, if you believe the Bible, then you do believe that He who set the stars in the sky only ever talked to one group of people, failed to mention what is "murder" and what is permissible killing, but did in fact think to describe a very obscure wrestling rule indeed, one subject to capital punishment by the way. I mean, if your entire defense of your religion is that it makes sense, then you've got some 'splaining to do Lucy, because it sure doesn't make sense to me!
You falsely accused me once of misrepresenting the Bible, and have not had the decency, courage or intellectual integrity to either back up your assertion or retract it. Now do I have to take the time to provide you with examples of nonsense, pornography, random violence, inexplicable cruelty and bizarre commandments? Because believe me, I'll do it.
It wasn't disingenuous. It makes sense to me that I can't know everything about God. According to Christian theology, He only reveals to us what we need to know. Does it make sense to you that you don't know everything about quantum physics, yet you still believe in it?
I'm not suggesting that you need to know everything or anything about God, I'm asking you to defend your assertion that your religion makes sense. After all, that's your only reason for believing it, so it should make a great deal of sense to you. It doesn't, and you retreat behind the ever-popular "God's ways are mysteries to us" defense that covers all the ways that it makes no sense at all. So, in effect, it makes sense to you that your religion doesn't make sense! Kinda nifty, that. I don't "believe in" quantum physics, I don't even understand it. I just figure those physicists probably know more about what they're talking about than I do, don't have time or ability to get a Ph.d in that subject, so take their word for it. If in ten years the physicists as a group have changed their minds completely about their understanding of subatomic particles, then I'll probably take their word for that as well.
Perhaps I should elaborate that it is the worldview that makes the most sense to me (that is, if you consider the phrase "make sense to me" means that I know everything there is to it). Remember, the origin of why I am a theist is because atheism doesn't make sense to me. The reason why Christianity make sense it because it explains why pain and suffering exists in the world. To say that I need to understand everything about the Christian God in order to have it make sense (as a worldview) doesn't make sense to me.
First of all, there are many more choices than Christianity and atheism. There are thousands of religions, any one of which may make more sense than yours. Also, why shouldn't there be pain and suffering? ToE would say that creatures that can feel pain better learn how to avoid danger and injury; people without this capacity are at tremendous risk for constant injury. Finally, the fact that a story provides an explanation for something does not make it correct.
Christian ethics also say that I am responsible for my sins and the good I do.
Do you ever respond to anyone's points at all? It is a basic feature of Christian theology that every baby is born evil, totally depraved as Calvin puts it, because of something their ancestor did, and must be saved through faith in Jesus Christ. I find this theology both sickening and nonsensical. Furthermore, you're not really responsible for your sins, are you? Just repent and confess faith in Jesus, and you're good to go. That's why Jeffrey Dahmer is sitting on the right hand of God right now. This is something else that you dodged earlier, probably because it makes no sense.
Many sins can cripple another person, either physically or mentally. A person who was heavily abused as a child will statistically be more likely to commit crimes and act unethically. Is he responsible for his behavior? Yes, of course. But also we must recognize we can be affected by other people's sins in negative ways.
And other sins have no effect whatsoever on anyone, such as masturbation.
Such is the crime of Satan. He slid his sword deep into humanity, and like the abused child, we are stuck will dealing with the effects. This world is not a paradise, but rather a broken world.
I'm not talking about effects, and haven't even brought up that silly story. I'm talking about guilt. According to your theology, you were born guilty because of something that someone allegedly did thousands of years ago. The concept is so obviously primitive and crazy, I can't understand why anyone buys it, except that our brains really haven't changed very much, and still operate quite well at this primitive and crazy level.
Believe me, your objection make sense to me from an atheist perspective. It is awful to have people commit atrocities and then claim "well God told me to do it!" if there is no God.
Actually, from the point of view of my murdered ancestors, it's pretty awful either way.
But,you need to explain to me why God doesn't have this authority to make your argument complete. Otherwise, it has a big hole. We are not talking about people committing murder on their own volition.
Oh no, you're right. Under your theology, you do in fact worship and obey a genocidal, jealous, petty, vindictive tyrant, who frequently does things and commands us to do things that, without His authority, would be evil, the most evil acts we can imagine. And that's just one more reason why your theology is non-sense. It's not only crazy; it's evil. That's why I spend time on the internet arguing against it; I'm tired of people slaughtering other people in the name of God.
If you don't explain why God shouldn't have that authority (if He exists), then my belief is morally sound taken the assumption that God exists.
Exactly. So let's stop assuming that, so we don't have people doing immoral things and calling it God.
I would be happy if you started a new thread.
Well, you seem to be having trouble keeping up with this one. Maybe later.
I am just happy we both believe in faith and the importance of intuition!
And I'm happy you enjoy making things up and jumping to conclusions. Because I have opinions doesn't mean they are based on faith or intuition. If you want me to explain my reasoning behind this opinion, and I'm sure by now you would guess that I have one, it would require another thread for that.
I don't believe in their faiths, like you, and therefore do not think their commands from God are authentic.
Please try to think, Nick. That's my point. They have just as good a reason for their faith and their actions as you do. In fact, their reasons are the same as yours. We've already established over and over that you have no way, no way at all, to tell which Gods are authentic and which commands are authentic. You believe yours because you were born here and brought up Christian, had a Christian grandmother and your "intuition" (a combination of cultural upbringing and evolutionary psychology) accepts it. He believes his for the same reasons, just fill in "Muslim" for "Christian." His God, like yours, is a violent tyrant who rewards His followers for killing non-believers. You have no basis whatsoever to tell him he's wrong. Doesn't that trouble you? In fact, you agree with him that if God commands it; it's right. Right? Your only disagreement with him is the name of God. But I doubt that you've even studied his religion enough to know whether it makes more or less sense than yours--am I right?
What is the difference? If there is a plague, earthquake, typhoon, or wide-spread starvation, it is allowed by God. What difference does it make what device He uses?
O.K., from your point of view as a believer, I guess your God is even more evil than I have portrayed. From my point of view as a non-believer, there's a big difference. The one is natural and fairly unavoidable. The other is man-made and very avoidable. I oppose belief in Gods that contribute to genocide, because I think it's wrong.
It may be that I am more concerned than you are about genocide because I am a Jew. Because we have been annihilated for centuries by people obeying their God, we tend to be concerned about this issue.