Update on a Proposed Co-Written Book with a Christian Scholar

It's not always easy coming to terms about a book proposal. Here's the new proposal he made to me:
I propose that each debate consist of 750 words arguing the affirmation, 750 words arguing the denial. At that point we exchange our brief opening arguments and then write 100 word rebuttals. Then we exchange those brief rebuttals and write 50 word closing statements so that a single debate is about 1800 words total. With an introduction and 20 debates that would put us at about 38-40,000 words which is a nice little 160 page book.
So we're going to begin by writing on three questions each. Here they are:

My first three questions have to do with the biblical god:

The biblical god ruled over a pantheon of gods and had a wife, Asherah.

The biblical god required human sacrifices for his pleasure.

The biblical god commanded the genocide of whole people groups.

His first three questions:

If there is no God then life has no meaning.

If there is no God then everything is permitted.

Science is no substitute for religion.

53 comments:

MKR said...

Science is no substitute for religion.

Point granted; just as medicine is no substitute for illness.

Cole said...

I don't know anywhere where God gets pleasure out of human sacrifices. The cross isn't a very good example. The suffering of the innocent is abhorent to God as is evil. In and of itself such things don't please God. What pleased God was the good He brought out of the act. He was pleased in that the death of Christ atoned for the sins of sinners and healed them. In one sense God was grieved and in another sense He was pleased. His mind is infinitely complex and cannot be fully grasped by our finite minds. He feels everything at once.

Example:

The Bible tells us that God is angered and grieved when bad things happen and pleased when good things happen. Well, right now there are millions of good and bad things happening right now all over the world. So, God is right now all at the same time:

Angry

Grieved

Happy

Pleased

He sees all of reality and feels everything at once.


I also didn't know that God had a wife! I'm going to have to look into that one.

mikespeir said...

Looks like he's going to stick with Appeal to the Consequences two out of three times. Not promising.

Jeffrey A. Myers said...

If there is no God then life has no meaning? Really?

Does lack of conscious authorship render the Grand Canyon less breathtaking? A sunset less beautiful? Is the meaning I derive from their presence less real because the object was not designed by a cosmic author?

Meaning is not derived from some external force. It is generated from within. Telling someone 'This is important' does not make it important to them. Does not impart meaning.


The fact is that God isn’t condemning us. God isn’t judging us. REVEL in the fact that we are free, that we are beneath the notice of the God of the Great All. REVEL in the fact that we can live lives that are full of joy and light and love and meaning REGARDLESS of whether the God of the Great ALL is even aware of us. Take Heart in the simple fact that despite our insignificant place in the cosmos, our lives can be full and meaningful and filled with purpose.

God doesn’t need us.

And more importantly, we don’t need him. Even if God exists, even if he created the Great All, we don’t need him. As far as we are concerned, His work was done 13,700,000,000 years ago. While such a being would certainly deserve our gratitude, recognize that we have NOTHING to offer such a being. Such a being would not notice, desire or require our obedience or adoration any more than we notice, desire or require the obedience of individual atoms or clusters of bacteria.

We do not require God. We don’t need him. We don’t need him to have meaningful lives filled with joy and peace and love and beauty. We don’t need him to save us. We don’t need him to remove our faults. We don’t need him to intercede on our behalf or forgive us for our transgressions, because NOTHING we can possibly do can possibly transgress against the God of the Great All. We are accountable only to one another and to ourselves.

We don’t need God. Because we have one another. Humanity provides more than enough meaning for ourselves.

stevec said...

"If there is no God then life has no meaning. "

The theist's idea of "meaning" is probably some teleological one, e.g. that he has been put on earth for some purpose God has in mind for him, a kind of "mission" if you will. If there is no God, then life indeed has no meaning. So what? Stating that 'if there is no God then life has no meaning" is not a question or an argument, it is merely whining, complaining. Response: Quit whining, crybaby.

Larian LeQuella said...

God was upset at the slaughter of the egyptian first born children, even though he commanded it? I think you need to take off the rose coloured glasses Cole...

As to the three questions the theitard proposed... Man, a simple google search can refute those in less words....

If there is no God then life has no meaning. I think Austin Cline does a good job with many of these downright silly arguments... And is this tard saying that my wife and daughter don't give my life meaning. or the work I do to ACTUALLY alleviate suffering (instead of mumbling to myself like most theitards)? Rediculous question that shows a total lack of neural activity.

If there is no God then everything is permitted. THIS old canard... Again, if the guy was going to ask questions, why did he go so lame? And channeling Dostoevsky is he? Again Austin Cline had some comments on this.

Science is no substitute for religion. I would hope not. Religion needs to be eliminated, not replaced. Science deals with reality. Religion is just a fantasy in your head. I think Carl Sagan said it quite well: "In some respects, science has far surpassed religion in delivering awe. How is it that hardly any major religion has looked at science and concluded, "This is better than we thought! The Universe is much bigger than our prophets said, grander, more subtle, more elegant. God must be even greater than we dreamed"? Instead they say, "No, no, no! My god is a little god, and I want him to stay that way." "

LadyAtheist said...

Are you going to address the childish need for a sky daddy to help adults deal with their childhood fears?

Since these "questions" don't have question marks, I'd like to propose this one:

Believers need to grow up.

Jeffrey A. Myers said...

@ Lerrian,

Perfect place for Sagan. I've always been struck by the same phenomenon. Theists really, really want their Interplanetary Santa because if that's all It is, then it makes it okay that they essentially treat It as their handmaiden, asking it to clean up their petty messes, solve their mundane problems and take care of our cosmically inconsequential lives.

The idea that the Universe is SO much vaster than us, SOoooooo much larger puts a damper on our ludicrously narcissistic notion that the Creator of the Great All is actually interested in us. It reveals us as the small, insignificant creatures we are.

It should make us humble. Instead it makes them bristle with indignation. Christians want a deity that is one or two levels of existence higher than us, not one that is eleven or twelve.

Anataboga said...

If there is no God then life has no meaning.

If there is no God then everything is permitted.


Both oft said by theists who don't realise that they a) miss the point and b) are irrelevant.

Let us give the benefit of the doubt and assume the two statements are true without arguing the case against them - then so what? Just because one does not like the fact that an absence of god means no meaning and no morals does not allow one to assert that there must be a god. God exists or not independently of one's liking (or not) for what that means.

Science is no substitute for religion.

Is it meant to be? Science is a way to form and test hypotheses about what appears to be the nature of reality, it usually leads people to question traditional religious beliefs and reject them as indistinguishable from being made up. It shows that a substitute for religion is simply not needed, it does not try to be a substitute for religion.

Is this really indicative of the calibre of your co-author? I do hope not but it's a very bad start.

Solipsister said...

It does seem strange he thinks it all comes down to a choice between religion or science. How sad if those were our only possible choices for constructing meaning. I've always liked that Sagan quote and will toss in an ironic Amen! to Myers' take on the matter. Reminds me of Rorty, a bit. I like the idea that in a post-metaphysical world, poetry and literature--the human imagination--give us plenty of "Sacred Texts." I'll take Whitman over Paul any day.

GearHedEd said...

I say let the theist have his "questions".

If they're that easy to refute, and if they're that petty and insignificant, then the non-theist side just comes out looking that much better.

I think Zappa's "Dumb All Over" captures it nicely.

Jeffrey A. Myers said...

@ Gear

Agreed. If that is really the best they can come up with, this will be a snap. Perhaps he is a plant John is using to make himself look even better.

Angie Van De Merwe said...

I agree that meaning is made from within. Meaning has to coalasce with values. And values give our lives purpose, not God.

God is useful to promote a 'one size fits all" mentality of vision, goals and purpose. And it is focused and controlled by the Church. Whenever there is tight control over others, there is tyranny. And tyranny is when others step over boundaries that define another's life without their knowledge or permission.

Jim said...

If there is no God then life has no meaning.

If there is no God then everything is permitted.


All meaning seems to require is a mind, we have minds--so regardless of the existence of God, meaning exists. However, I believe it exists only as an abstract concept--I think calling it an actual "thing" is reifying it, but I'm not positive on that. I think the counter-author may have a different "meaning," though, for the word "meaning" as in something absolute and larger than ourselves. I.e. something non-demonstrable.

Everything is already permitted except that which humans themselves are willing to risk their lives to prevent.

Do you have a right to life? God isn't going to stop someone from killing you! God also won't stop someone from torturing you, enslaving you, beating you, stealing from you or anything else. God permits all!

Only the government, the police, the military, your friends and family, or you yourself can prevent someone from victimizing you. So what good is having God-given rights and rules, anyway?

Shawn said...

Sorry but none of those look like questions to me, but statements.

Perhaps better phrased:
Does Christianity accept that the God of the New Testament and the God of the Old Testatement are the same?

If yes, then why does Christianity accept a God that according to your Bible regularly requested human (including infant) sacrifice (or at the very least murder), genocide of competiting tribes, and rape of women and men?

If yes, why is it not commonly preached that your God ruled over a patheon of Gods and had a wife, Asherah?

For the other side:

How does life have any meaning if there's no Christian god?

How does humanbity not descend into anarchy if there's no God?

How is science a substitute for religion?

Angie Van De Merwe said...

Cole,

You are anthromorphizing God. Humans do this as a projection of their own desires, ambitions and character. If they are relative stable and have a healthy ego, then they project and rationalize their own personal goals and values onto "God"..But, if a Christian does not have a good "self-concept", then they sacrifice themselves, as they haven't formed their "self". They then internalize what they think "God" wants and values. And this is self-validating and gives meaning to a life that otherwise would not be meaningful.

The Jewish religion did not acknowledge such a "God' because "yhwh" was not to even be spoken as he was so holy, he was "unknowable"...Then Christian theologians came along...

Anthromophizing is a type of transferrence of human emotion because humans have a hard time owning thier own life and taking responsibility for it. This is like what children do with their parents. Their parents will pay the fine, cover over their indiscretions, etc. "God" is known in the Christian religion as "Father" in Christian theology.

Shawn said...

Not sure if you were soliciting answers/arguments for the questions but it looks fun, so I'll have my go.

Theist Q1 - Who said life has a "universal" meaning? I agree, in an absolute sense. No God, no meaning. Both true.

The issue is that you seem to believe that with a Christian God life has some universal meaning.
At the risk of answering a question with a question, what is the life "meaning" that Christianity provides? Let's say for example, it is to be good to everyone else, and love God so you can get into heaven and avoid hell. Thats not so much "meaning" as a rule book to follow to avoid eternal damnation, and one for which I'm taking an ancient Arab's word for.

In any case, I argue that spending my whole life researching a cure for cancer is very meaningful for me (and more so for others if I'm sucessful), and I can easily do so as an atheist.

Q2 - Again, I agree entirely. There is no God and on a universal level everything is permitted. That's historically verifiable fact.
What stops people behaving badly? Well it plainly isn't your God (he can't even stop those peadophilic Christian leaders).
Actually no system has been 100% successful, but in most societies, it is the legal system and what we generally refer to as "social conventions" that do a much better job than your God seems to.
Q3 - Again, we seem to be in agreement. I don't believe science ever intended to be a substitute, however if you mean that you can't argue scientifically against the physical claims, logic and historical facts of a religion, then we diverge again.
As far as Christianity is concerned, until recently it was proud to call itself a "faith". This clearly demonstrates the fundamental premise of this religion is that followers are required to suspend all requirement for logical evidence and just "trust" the ancient Arabs who wrote the bible.
That this fundamental requirement for rejection of "normal" 21st century logic and reason renders scientific validation impossible, is not questioned. However that doesn't mean that if "allowed" to be applied we couldn't determine, according to normal 21st century logic, whether the claims made by the Bible are likely to be reality or fiction.
One could argue that religion is no substitute for science, and in the context of "intelligent design" scientists have greater entitlement to argue that, considering they don't go around teaching children that Jesus was really a chicken.

Cole said...

Angie,

I don't think I'm anthropomorphizing God at all. I'm just going by what the Bible says. I'm not projecting my ego. Christ came down and revealed Himself and gave us an example to follow as a humble servant of the Father. Yes God is Father but He's also many other things as well. My focus is on Christ and His humility and holiness. The more I depend on God like Jesus did the more independent I actually become. I'm actually a lot more responsible now than what I use to be.

Cole said...

Also Angie,

My psychiatrist thinks I'm doing just fine by trusting in God.

Angie Van De Merwe said...

Cole,

I would challenge you about the concept of a Father, then.

Would a Father ask his son to sacrifice his life for his own goals and purposes? Or would a Father seek to develop his son and his own goals?

Would a Father want his son to be constantly dependent on him and never come to grow and take responsibilty and come to independence?

Would a Father allow such horrible and evil events to take place in the world and in individual's lives? Wouldn't a Father want to protect his son from harm?

You say that God experiences human emotions, which really makes him schizoid, as he must experience all emotions at once since he enters into the personal lives or every human being....then he must be sadio-machiostic as well. He is definately prejudiced, but at the same time he loves everyone>? Sorry I can't buy that.

Cole said...

Angie,

Thanks for the challenge but I've already dealt with the problem of suffering and have come to a conclusion in my mind about it. God's emotional life is infinitely complex. He's Divine. He's not schizoid like you say. Paradoxical maybe. Clearly we have all had mixed feelings about things and have felt different emotions at once.

exreformed said...

The same old, same old crap from fundamentalists. Even though those lame arguments have been refuted over, and over, and over again, they continue to use them.

@Cole
You said you have already dealt with the problem of suffering. I've known Pastors(fundamental, not liberal) that have phd's who have not resolved the issue of suffering. Of course they use "the bible", like you.

I challenge you to read "Misquoting Jesus" by Bart D Ehrman and then get back to us. Why?, because if the bible is not enerant and not God's word, then 95% of what you say is rubbish and just your opinion.

Cole said...

Ex,

I haven't resolved it in the sense of comming up with a theodicy that explains why God allows suffering in every context.

Shawn said...

"Also Angie,

My psychiatrist thinks I'm doing just fine by trusting in God".

Hilarious stuff. You've got to put that quote in your next book John.

Gandolf said...

Cole said... "Also Angie,

My psychiatrist thinks I'm doing just fine by trusting in God."

Howdy Cole.It is actually an intersting phenomenon what you expose, that part of the reason why humans may have designed and formed their many faith beliefs may have lots to do with creating a form of meditation and helping people with focus.For some people the psychiatrist might even suggest that the patient taking up practicing of yoga or even tae kwon do is been beneficial and so is seen as being fine also.

With all the stresses that form specially in larger societies it sure helps to have other interests that help us focus on other things.Some people turn toward music , many Asian countries learned the great benefit of the sound of running water in water gardens in their back yards also.

I find when ever i go bush the sounds of babbling creeks and birds and nature that is so different to other everyday mundane noises ,soon has my troubles disappear as if by some sort of magic .

Peace Cole.

Cole said...

Gandolf,

I agree. I also use music and the beauties of God's creation to help me focus. I even write love poetry. I've never tried yoga though. Maybe I will one day.

Cole said...

Gandolf,

I also take medication by the way.

Gandolf said...

Cole what ever makes you feel more happy is ok by me.

Just understand that for some people you making the claim " I've already dealt with the problem of suffering" is a very big claim to be making.Specially when as exreformed points out things are maybe not quite as straight forward as you try suggesting.And people like Bart D Ehrman still find things that seem to be problems.

These folk are not trying to offend you,they are just being honest.

Cole yes i do encourage you to get out and try joining in with groups of people ,maybe even things like the local drama society.Fun things where groups of people create "good" company.There is lots of ways to get away from problems without just depending on places like going back to pubs and then AA meetings.

I personally think you do have a special natural knack for the "arts" and you might find once you get used to it and relax ,you might find things such as acting and drama productions easy.

Try it.What have you to lose.

buster said...

The "of whole groups of people is redundant. You need only write "demanded many genocides."

Otherwise it's like writing "the patricide of fathers."

John W. Loftus said...

Cole, I've decided to ban you. This is not the place to talk about you're problems, and having heard from you for about five years now you have problems. Stay away now.

Angie Van De Merwe said...

John, et al,
The most damaging belief is to think that "God doesn't want you happy, he wants you 'holy"!!! That means that suffering is considered "God's training ground". Believe me, when I say that those that adhere to this thinking will go to no ends to do as they please and get what they want at YOUR COSTS! They are certain that what they believe is TRUE for all people at all times that they don't see what they do to others!

"Holiness" by definition means that one is "set apart", which means that the 'real world' is dismissed for the spiritual one! Jobs, information, disciplines are all in question is this regard, because they are "of/in the world"!!! It is baffling that I ever believed in such thinking. But, I suppose I just wanted so bad to "belong" and to be 'loved".

Cole, consider those around you and ask yourself if they truely care about you. And what is the difference of that care versus some other group that you could "belong' to!

GearHedEd said...

A little off-topic, but here it goes:

@ Angie,

about 23 years ago when I was in college, I was approached by some skinheads to join their "group", presumably because of the way I dressed back then (camo pants, jungle boots and black t-shirts). If I had been in a fragile state of mind, I could have been suckered into their gang easily, but I told the guy,

"I don't need your group to feel like I'm important."

and I walked away.

GearHedEd said...

And I define "holy" as

'a religious adjective applied to questionable concepts, beings, etc., designed to place them beyond question'.

Fordi said...

The last one isn't even in contention. It's like saying work is not substitute for heroin:
1) The more religion you're steeped in, the harder it is to do science
2) While it's possible to do both, the balance of power must eventually shift
3) People used to hardcore religion are rarely satisfied by things like unitarianism

B.R. said...

Just thought I'd throw this out here; what if this theist is only asking these questions so that the book will deal with them? It's hard to believe that a supposedly intelligent Christian would regurgitate these tired old ideas(without God, life is meaningless/anything is permissible) but maybe he's just putting them to rest. I mean, how many times have we all heard Christians make these claims? A hundred times? A thousand? Probably more than that.
Who knows? Maybe-just maybe-theists are finally smartening up.
Doubtful, of course, but maybe...

Angie Van De Merwe said...

B.R.
Fundamentalist religious people are prejudiced against knowledge because whatever can be known other than their 'holy scripture' is suspect, because it undermines "faith claims" about God.

Some seek to defend God, by raionalization, which is theological apologetics. And whatever theology is rationalized become the definition of "God". And the Church authorities defend such doctrine by ostericizing or ex-communicating those that don't adhere or "believe".

Then there are those that defend faith on "faith", as God cannot be defined. These are pluralists and they attempt to gain unity through commonality of human needs.

There has also been attempts to ground religious faith in the real world by re-defining the "logos", as was useful to the Church to defend Christ, as the subject of faith. These are pietic/behaviorial types.

Then, there are others that seek to investigate the real world of history and understand the religious tradition from the political/sociological/psychological "defense" of "real world politics" and defense of "world government".

But, all of these attempts to frame faith fall short to me.

B.R. said...

Same here. I'm just suggesting that maybe it's a little early to assume that this is going to be the nature and tone of his side of the book. Perhaps he's a little more intelligent than we're giving him credit for; the book has barely been started.

B.R. said...

By the way, who wants to place odds that he brings up the old "how can you disprove an infinite Creator?" question? I say 5-1. Any one else?

Angie Van De Merwe said...

The biggest opposition to faith of any kind, is NOT faith per se, but the manipulation of faith by political maneuvors (utopia, universalism, unitarian,uniformity,).
This is when Karl Marx's religion is the opiate of the people become a truism and bottom line, we will loose our liberty if we allow scientific materialism to define the frame for "life" in general!!!

B.R. said...

Uh... so I take it that you're not interested in placing odds?

B.R. said...

"Loose" our liberty? What? Anyway, I still say 5 to 1. Any takers?

Leah said...

Like a lot of the atheist commentators, I'm not impressed with the Christian's questions, but I'm also really underwhelmed by the questions Loftus put forward.

All three questions are nitpicks about OT/NT continuity which Christianity has answered to its own satisfaction long ago. Can't we do better? Let's talk about why Christianity isn't compelling or convincing enough to bother patching up these inconsistencies.
I posted a longer critique and some alternate questions at my blog.

P.Coyle said...

Those are propositions, not questions, but that's what you want given the debate format.

If there is no God then life has no meaning.

This proposition should be restated, because it is unclear. What is the meaning of "meaning" here? Life has no purpose? Life has no value? What?

I suppose it's fair to assume that, by "life," your Christian colleague means "human life," but I suggest that be clarified as well.

If there is no God then everything is permitted.

Again, this is unclear. Surely your colleague did not wish to assert that everything is actually permitted! He would probably be swiftly disabused of such a peculiar notion if he were to start going around robbing banks. Did he mean to assert that "If there is no God, then everything ought to be permitted? I suspect not. What, then, does he mean by such this proposition? That if there is no God it is permissible to wear clothing of mixed fibers, or gather sticks on the Sabbath?

B.R. said...

The offer still stands. 5 to 1 says that when(if) the Christian scholar gets backed into a corner, he'' resort to the "Infinite Creator" fallacy. Does anyone agree?

exreformed said...

@B.R.

I would take your odds at 5 to 1. I would also say 7 to 1 that he resorts to the resurrection some how.

B.R. said...

Sweet. And 3-1 says that he'll defend the barbaric O.T. laws by resorting to the "it was a completely different time & culture", or "slavery was widespread at the time" fallacies. The best O.T. law to hammer him with would either Exodus 21;7, where fathers are allowed to sell their daughters as sex-slaves, of Deuteronomy 25;11-12, where if a wife tries to save her husband from an attacker by grabbing the nuts of the attacker, the Hebrews were required to cut off her hand and show her "no pity".
Who wants to lay odds that he'll defend the mass murder in the O.T. by saying "the Hebrews always sent a messenger to warn them/the women and children *usually* fled before the siege started/the Hebrew couldn't afford to leave enemies behind them", or the classic "they were evil and disobeyed God!".
I'm betting 2-1 on the former argument.

GearHedEd said...

I'm not touching those odds with a vinegar-soaked-sponge-tipped lance...

Breckmin said...

"The biblical god ruled over a pantheon of gods and had a wife, Asherah."

Orthodox Judaism. Philo. Talmud. Torah. The whole Tanakh. Apocryphal writings.

The evidence is over-whelmingly clear that the God of Abraham was an Infinite Creator with NO wife (since He was not male, but merely revealed in the masculine for relational purposes - UNLESS you are a Mormon).

This would be like saying "the biblical god was a golden calf" because a group of ancient Hebrews (who were mislead)worshiped a golden calf. This Asherah nonsense is too easy to refute. There are better questions which will lead to deep truth rather than polytheistic or henotheistic strawmen.

Breckmin said...

"The biblical god required human sacrifices for his pleasure."

a record of a sacrifice does NOT mean it was condoned by God.


The only Sacrifice that was acceptable for the sins of the world was the Son of Man (Jesus Christ of Nazareth). sacrificing a sinner unto a holy God is non-sequitur. Not even the blood of goats or sheep/lambs will save you.
It is utterly ridiculous to claim that God would have "pleasure" at the sacrifice of a sinner.

Question everything.

Basic questions: Why don't orthodox Jews believe in human sacrifice unto the God of Abraham?
or that God "required human sacrifices for his pleasure?" in the O.T?

Why do they see human sacrifices in the O.T. as mistakes on the part of men? Q.E.

Breckmin said...

"The biblical god commanded the genocide of whole people groups."

Can the English word "genocide" really apply to the Infinite Creator and Sustainer of all life?

Doesn't God know everyone's lifespan and claim responsibility for ALL natural evil/calamity?

Yes, God did indeed command the slaughter of entire groups of Israel's enemies.. even their babies (who would grow up to be enemies of Israel and put Israel in danger).

This is no different, however, than the slaughter of people within Israel (who would corrupt what God was doing with Israel as a nation and teaching them to be God's people and what that entailed).

Does it make that much difference if it is "by the sword" or being drowned in a flood, or being burned like Sodom?

God will protect Israel's future as well as chasten them so that they will logically fear Him. (why fear? - they were NOT under grace as we are today. It was logical for them to fear a Holy Creator and pray for His forgiveness).

Question everything

Breckmin said...

"God doesn’t need us."

A statement we can agree on.

"If there is no God then life has no meaning."

or no "eternal purpose"

If there was no God, then there would be no life...no information..no order of existence. It's actually ridiculous to consider what life would be like with no Creator because you would have to substantiate that such a thing were even possible.

A universe with no meaning because there is no eternal purpose - and therefore meaning itself will someday perish - is easy to identify. Such temporary existence will approach nothingness for all of eternity - BUT it is NOT that way.

God has a purpose for this temporary creation.

Breckmin said...

"If there is no God then everything is permitted."

Axiomatic at the point of "no eternal consequences." You could get away with everything you did after the sun burns out. All morality is easily traced to circular assumptions and circular reasoning. There would be NO moral absolutes..only opinion.

You can try to impose conventions and might makes right but the reality is that "they would be no more morally right than you" because everything with respect to morality would be relative.

Easy to identify. Question everything. Does God set the moral standard in His Own universe which He Alone created?

B.R. said...

On your first comment;

Have you recently undergone a lobotomy? They're referring to the origins of YHWH as a deity, not what the sexist, superstitious goat herders wrote about him *after* his worship had been revised and altered for centuries. Did you even read the post? Crap!

On your second comment;

Human sacrifice was acceptable ti YHWH several centuries *before* the Hebrews wrote the Talmud, and before the Hebrews excluded all the extra gods from their mythology; duh. Have you recently suffered a head injury?

On your third comment;

*sigh* Ever hear of something called biological ethics? The directives programmed into our genes that preserve our species from extinction? I mean, where to even start?