tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post114777435435325942..comments2023-12-01T18:05:24.875-05:00Comments on Debunking Christianity: Why Didn't God Get it Right?Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger32125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-65109272300256148762007-08-03T08:03:00.000-04:002007-08-03T08:03:00.000-04:00Why didn’t God get it right. Great question. I hav...Why didn’t God get it right. Great question. I have asked myself this question for years. After being a Christian for over 40 years I have concluded that people look to close at the Bible. They pick one verse to support an idea and while another person can easily pick another verse to argue against the same idea. It is especially prevalent on the net. It is like looking at leaf instead of a tree. After reading the Bible many times, I tried looking at the overall theme. I found only one theme that runs through the Bible from cover to cover and many religious people will not like it. It is scary and it removes all the security that we think we have. Here is a short outline that will make you think:<BR/><BR/>God Created everything and it was good.<BR/>He changed his mind and destroyed almost everything with a Flood.<BR/>Then he chose his favorite race and lead them from bondage.<BR/>They started to worship a golden calf.<BR/>He wanted to kill them all, but he changed his mind.<BR/>He wanted to be their king, but he changed his mind and picked Saul instead.<BR/>He changed his mind again, Saul was no good as a king.<BR/>He picked another, David, a man after his own heart, a murderer, an adulterer, a bigamist but he was really good with poetry.<BR/>He changed his mind and would not let David build his temple, he left Solomon do it instead, he was more worth and but really a bigamist, 300 wives and 700 girlfriends.<BR/>This whole time he was under a covenant that he designed with his chosen people,<BR/>which include killing animals to make him happy.<BR/>He changed his mind again, time for a new covenant.<BR/>Killing animals became inadequate, time to kill a person.<BR/>He couldn’t find one to suit so he decided to kill himself, Jesus is God.<BR/>This finally made him happy.<BR/>Until - he changes his mind again.<BR/><BR/>The Christian religion’s foundation is built on the important fact that God never changes. There are a few verses that indicate that he doesn’t change, but overall the Bible obviously tells another story. Look at the universe that God created, it all has one thing in common - everything, everywhere is constantly changing and evolving. Any reasoning person would conclude that God is constantly changing. Christians should not be surprised if God changes his mind about the “plan of salvation”. Even if all his changes were brought about by “the freewill of man”, it does not change the fact that God will still change his mind.<BR/><BR/>Or ---- The Bible and religion may be man made, a way to find or describe God for what ever reason - control, money or an answer for why we are here. If God really wrote the Bible, it would be the most wonderful inspiring work every written. In fact, when the son of God was here, he should have sat down and jotted down some basic ideas. But instead the Bible is about barbaric killings to appease an angry God. This theme would fit perfectly with the Mayans or any other ancient tribe.<BR/><BR/>Why didn’t God get it right, he couldn’t, but he is smart enough to constantly change. Maybe this is the image of God that we were created with, the ability to adapt.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14590215185861084327noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1164073026694476232006-11-20T20:37:00.000-05:002006-11-20T20:37:00.000-05:00Hi I am new here. I couldn't quite believe the com...Hi I am new here. I couldn't quite believe the comment about God not getting it right. That He could be any way responsible for the evil in the world. Clearly the writer has no education about God and in any case (I'm sorry JH) but you're really in no position to be judging God as you've absolutely zero chance of salvation without Him. Best of luck to you though.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1161661695895597472006-10-23T23:48:00.000-04:002006-10-23T23:48:00.000-04:00You ask why there is evil in the universe? You sh...You ask why there is evil in the universe? You shouldn't have...Please stay with me on this one.<BR/><BR/>Does darkness exhist?<BR/>You can't mesure it like light.<BR/>You can make something infnitly brighter, but when it's pitch black, that's it.<BR/>Drakness is the absence of light.<BR/><BR/>Does cold exhist?<BR/>You can't mesure it like heat.<BR/>You can make something infnitly warmer, but when it's absolute zero, that's it.<BR/>Cold is the absence of heat.<BR/><BR/>Does evil exhist?<BR/>Same arguments apply<BR/>Evil is the absence of God.<BR/><BR/>Still not convinced?<BR/>Does quiet exhist?<BR/>Does dryness exhist?<BR/>ETC....Shamgar 1https://www.blogger.com/profile/02733498835458669096noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1147909467922316662006-05-17T19:44:00.000-04:002006-05-17T19:44:00.000-04:00CalvinDude said... Since this post has gotten a li...<I>CalvinDude said... <BR/>Since this post has gotten a little off-topic dealing with feminist sexism...</I><BR/><BR/>Actually, its right on topic for "Why Didn't God Get it Right?"<BR/>You ought to have been born a woman, then you'd better understand.<BR/><BR/><I>Paul said...<BR/>just wanted to take the opportunity to say welcome.</I><BR/><BR/>Thanks, and you too. John Loftus has a great blog concept going on here, and hoping it'll be around for a long time... hopefully more female contributors as his site grows.<BR/><BR/><I>John W. Loftus said... <BR/>And when it comes to the male Muslim heaven, have you stopped to think what those 70 virgins did wrong to be in some guys eternal custody?</I><BR/><BR/>Believe in Allah --spend eternity in Hell.<BR/>Reject Allah --spend eternity in Hell.<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hell" REL="nofollow">Heaven and Hell</A> are split into many levels depending on the actions taken in life, where punishment is given depending on the level of evil done in life, and good is separated into other levels depending on how well one followed Allah (God) while alive...Scriveningshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01350122934990690700noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1147883761579454812006-05-17T12:36:00.000-04:002006-05-17T12:36:00.000-04:00And when it comes to the male Muslim heaven, have ...And when it comes to the male Muslim heaven, have you stopped to think what those 70 virgins did wrong to be in some guys eternal custody?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1147879718885506662006-05-17T11:28:00.000-04:002006-05-17T11:28:00.000-04:00When I saw that there were 25 comments here I thou...When I saw that there were 25 comments here I thought I'd read through them all to see what the fuss was all about. <BR/><BR/>Just to set the record straight. I do not want even one other woman. I cannot handle the one I've got, and I like it! She's everything I want and need. <BR/><BR/>One day while drinking I told her that she was my universe. Then I thought for a second and said, "that makes me your God."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1147878917200083962006-05-17T11:15:00.000-04:002006-05-17T11:15:00.000-04:00Since this post has gotten a little off-topic deal...Since this post has gotten a little off-topic dealing with feminist sexism, I put a response to Daniel Morgan and Joe Holman here:<BR/> http://calvindude.com/dude/blog/2006/05/daniel-morgan-takes-a-stab-at-it/Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1147878255724560032006-05-17T11:04:00.000-04:002006-05-17T11:04:00.000-04:00Sharon,I admit I haven't had the chance to read al...Sharon,<BR/>I admit I haven't had the chance to read all you've written here, but just wanted to take the opportunity to say welcome. You seem to be a great person and have a keen wit and intellect. I, for one, am enjoying your presence here. Thanks for taking the time and making the effort to share yourself.<BR/>Paulpaulhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04437206493901034134noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1147873645174650322006-05-17T09:47:00.000-04:002006-05-17T09:47:00.000-04:00Just a follow-up note on stastics that is well wor...Just a follow-up note on stastics that is well worth remembering:<BR/><BR/><I>Status, violence and culture: anthropological issues</I><BR/><BR/>An anthropological perspective on rape is provided by Sanday (1981) using a cross-cultural examination of 156 separate societies. Although these societies were studied at different times by different anthropologists with different focuses (this last a relevant point in the likelihood of disclosing sensitive information about rape), Sanday nevertheless found sufficient information about rape to analyse ninety-five of the societies.<BR/><BR/>Some 47 per cent of the societies experienced little or no rape, 17 per cent were 'unambiguously rape-prone', while the remaining 36 per cent had evidence of rape but no clear indication of its incidence. These last were incorporated into the 'rape-prone' category. Sanday found patterns of behaviour that differed markedly between the two kinds of society. As Benderly (1982) summarises:<BR/><BR/>Societies with a high incidence of rape . . . tolerate violence and encourage men and boys to be <B>tough, aggressive, and competitive</B>. [Sharon: The need for "locking horns" as Daniel Morgan put it.] Men in such cultures generally have special, politically important gathering spots off limits to women, whether they be the Mundurucu men's club or the corner tavern [Sharon: Or male-dominated, male-exclusive cyber-hovels]. Women take little or no part in public decision making or religious rituals: men <I>mock or scorn women's practical judgment</I>. [Sharon: When women say they find a particular comment offensive, please be sensitive to that.] They also demean what they consider women's work and remain aloof from childbearing and rearing. <B>These groups usually trace their beginnings to a male supreme being</B> (Benderly 1982, p. 42).<BR/><BR/>Benderly's conclusion is that:<BR/>The way society trains its boys and girls to think about themselves and each other determines to a large extent how rape-prone or rape-free that society will be (1982, p. 43).<BR/><BR/>Excerpt from a report by Marlene Goldsmith, Chairman, Legislative Council Standing Committee on Social Issues, Parliament of New South Wales<BR/><A HREF="http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/proceedings/20/goldsmith.pdf" REL="nofollow">Source</A> for PDF DocumentScriveningshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01350122934990690700noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1147871780555200522006-05-17T09:16:00.000-04:002006-05-17T09:16:00.000-04:00Solomon was blessed by God with 700 wives and 300 ...<I>Solomon was blessed by God with 700 wives and 300 concubines! That's what I was hinting at! Nobody here would think for a moment that we agree with that philosophy! You should know that.</I><BR/><BR/>I had <I>hoped</I> your original comment was meant in sarcasm, I thought it might have been, but that wasn't clear. Too often I have tried to participate in other male-dominated forums, <I>including some non-christian</I>, aside of the "aggressive tendencies to lock horns" that Daniel Morgan spoke of, comments like the one in dispute make it unwelcoming for women, such comments taken for granted by the men who tend to chat "over" the women who are present --as if women are not even reading. Before long, it sinks to dismal and derogatory language, <I>aimed at</I> women. When one man says it's not an issue to be sensitive about, it only validates and prolongs the attitude. I believe most of the men on this blog are gentlemen, and that is originally why I wanted to become involved. Besides John Loftus, I was familiar with Ed Babinski and Daniel Morgan... all fine gentlemen. (<I>Ed needed some polishing though he's good to go now</I>).<BR/><BR/>Thank you for clarifying your position. Women who visit and read your comment in the future, will realize "this is a family/woman-safe hovel".. and men will understand, those old Solomon-like attitudes are unacceptable and <I>on their way <B>out</B></I>. Words can be turned into very powerful weapons that <B>hurt</B> people. I hope other webmasters learn something from what you've said , <I>"Nobody here would ...agree with that philosophy!"</I> in legal circles it's often referred to as a "sexually hostile environment".Scriveningshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01350122934990690700noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1147841101477713402006-05-17T00:45:00.000-04:002006-05-17T00:45:00.000-04:00Sharon said: "Sweetheart, we're not talking about ...Sharon said: "Sweetheart, we're not talking about the past. We are talking about the present, and the future. It's women who suffer. I don't want to be taken captive in a man's brothel... or raped again. It's not funny to me. Most feminists are reluctant to align themselves with males, even in the secular community because of the casual age-old attitudes expressed toward women.. that there's only one woman posting among numerous men on this blog -doesn't that tell you anything at all? <BR/><BR/>Men never have and never do see why women are sensitive, and easy to say "Lighten up", when its not them getting hurt --they're the ones dishing it out, past, present and will be future, unless attitudes change."<BR/><BR/><BR/>My reply: Look, I am truly sorry about the horrible experience you went through. I can't begin to imagine it. In the ministry, I counseled a few women who did go through that, and I saw how it turned their lives upside down. You are not alone, as I'm sure you know. And no one is more opposed to barbarism than me. In fact, I have a chapter on it in my coming book, but your reaction to my joke was unsettling. Your comments and attitude are dangerous and inflammatory. <BR/><BR/>Your words make it appear that you have fallen into the trap so many in your unfortunate position have -- of viewing all men collectively as a cruel breed of raping monsters. That is unjustified and paranoid, a blatant overeaction. <BR/><BR/>Nothing I said justified those remarks. Despite your bad experience, women do not go around thinking of how oppressive men are from every little joke told by them. <BR/><BR/>My gesting had everything to do with topics at hand. I was responding to John's reference to me as "God". You should see the humor in it since this is a blog about Debunking Christianity! Solomon was blessed by God with 700 wives and 300 concubines! That's what I was hinting at! Nobody here would think for a moment that we agree with that philosophy! You should know that.<BR/><BR/>Just the other day, a close friend of mine said something to me, and I jokingly snapped at her, "Woman, hold thy tongue. Speak only when spoken to! Go back to churning the butter!" She replied "Yes, my Lord" (holding up her middle finger!) Now that was funny! <BR/><BR/>So yes, you're going to have to lighten up and fit in like everyone else who doesn't make issues when there are none. Sexism is real, but not here. And there's not a doubt in my mind John would bring any woman on board he felt would make a good contribution. And, uh, we are ex-pastors here, a field generally dominated by men, which is why there happen to be more men here than woman. I don't think it's right for you to stand ready to pounce on any man with accusations of sexism, which is what it sounds like you are doing.<BR/><BR/>I do sincerely hope you can break away from the inner terror you are feeling and learn to relax again. You are among friends who stand beside you in the fight against biblical idiocy and the sexism it creates. But please quit alienating your friends here.<BR/><BR/>There's nothing wrong with joking. Nothing.<BR/><BR/>If you want to get even, you can jab me for not being able to multitask! Tis true in my case! :-)<BR/><BR/>(JH)Joe E. Holmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10273702675019012966noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1147837680730016592006-05-16T23:48:00.000-04:002006-05-16T23:48:00.000-04:00That doesn't mean that women in freethought aren't...<I>That doesn't mean that women in freethought aren't there, or even more rational and informed, but they just don't tend to show up in places like this. I don't know why.</I><BR/><BR/>They would, in fact... it was John Loftus' gentlemen-like approach, his self-control, -- his impression as being a monogamy-type-of-guy that struck me, and I became interested in this blog.<BR/><BR/>Over on theology web, a particularly abrasive Christian man scoffed when I pointed out his bigoted sexist attitude, and several men jumped in insulting and I remarked how ironic it is, that a woman's opinion only is to be taken seriously, if it is something men want to hear. Oh, that was just the biggest bunch of ... and to my amazement, "Pitchfork Pat", got into the thread, and let 'em have it. <B>Another woman</B> with a fresh opinion of her own... a breath of fresh air. Those boys backed off. I realized at that point, "Lighten Up". Not.<BR/><BR/>I know Ed Babinski use to write some harshly "male-slanted" humor, I have spent a lot of time conversing with him on some facts and fisgures -- trying in "male speak" to make him understand why it offends, and to my knowledge, he's pretty much ceased doing so - he's actually written some stuff that is uniquely sensitive to women... he expressed to me often, better understanding how women are feeling. I sure never got that king of respect, mutual friendship in the church.<BR/><BR/>You don't think Hellbound Allee wants to be part of <B>a brothel</B> do you? No, of course not. And honestly, I do not believe John Loftus wants more than one woman.<BR/><BR/>Myself, I find jokes about blonds and brothels --or outright one-night stands (which involve deceit) offensive. I know too many girls, whom have been lead on by men, "baby baby"... and he's gone. I am deeply offended by the 70 virgins in paradise... ask yourself, what will those women get out of it? <B>He, is their punishment!</B><BR/><BR/>Here's some Ingersoll on "Mistakes of Moses". Not intending to offend, but meant as constructive criticism from a feminist point of view -- Mr. Holman says to "Lighten Up" and Robert Ingersoll says "toss it in contempt". I really do not intend to sound like I'm chastizing, but lots of men simply take those age-old attitudes for granted --it's in the social fabric, it's been this way for thousands of years.<BR/><BR/>"Kill the women? Certainly. And the little dimpled babies in the cradle, that smile and coo in the face of murder -- dash out their brains; that is the will of God. Will you tell me that any God ever commanded such infamy? Kill the men and the women, and the young men and the babes! <B>"What shall we do with the maidens?"</B> "Give them to the rabble murderers!" Do you believe that God ever allowed the roses of love and the violets of modesty that shed their perfume in the heart of <B>a maiden to be trampled beneath the brutal feet of lust</B>? If there is any God, I pray him to write in the book of eternal remembrance, opposite to my name, that I denied that lie. Whenever a woman reads a Bible and comes to that passage, <B>she ought to throw the book from her in contempt and scorn</B>. Do you tell me that any decent God would do that? What would the devil have done under the same circumstances? Just think of it; and yet that is <B>the God that we want to get into the constitution</B>. That is the God we teach our children about, so that they will be sweet and tender, amiable and kind. <B>That monster -- that fiend!</B> I guess the Bible is not inspired about religious liberty, nor about war."<BR/><BR/>--<BR/><BR/>"They say that it is morally inspired. Well, let us examine it. I want to be fair about this thing, because I am willing to stake my salvation or damnation on this question, whether the Bible is true or not. I say it is not; and upon that I am willing to wager my soul. Is there a woman here who believes in the institution of polygamy? Is there a man here who believes in that infamy? You say: "No; we do not." Then you are better than your God was four thousand years ago. Four thousand years ago He believed in it, taught it and upheld it. I pronounce it and denounce it the infamies of infamies. It robs our language of every sweet and tender word in it. It takes the fireside away forever. It takes the meaning out of the words father, mother, sister, brother, and turns the temple of love into a vile den where crawl the slimy snakes of lust and hatred. I was in Utah a little while ago, and was on the mountain where God used to talk to Brigham Young. He never said anything to me. I said it was just as reasonable that God in the nineteenth century would talk to a polygamist in Utah as it was that four thousand years ago, on Mount Sinai, he talked to Moses upon that hellish and damnable question.<BR/><BR/>I have no love for any God who believes in polygamy. There is no heaven on this earth save where the one woman loves the one man and the one man loves the one woman. I guess it is not inspired on the polygamy question.Scriveningshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01350122934990690700noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1147836477886903702006-05-16T23:27:00.001-04:002006-05-16T23:27:00.001-04:00At 10:12 PM, May 16, 2006, Daniel Morgan said...I ...<I>At 10:12 PM, May 16, 2006, Daniel Morgan said...<BR/>I have never and never will raise a hand against, or otherwise physically hurt any woman.</I><BR/><BR/>It says a lot to any woman who visits this blog. Not only are atheists <B>not</B> the silverware thieves they've been made out to be... <I>but they're also some of the last gentlemen</I> left on earth.Scriveningshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01350122934990690700noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1147836477453889602006-05-16T23:27:00.000-04:002006-05-16T23:27:00.000-04:00that there's only one woman posting among numerous...<B>that there's only one woman posting among numerous men on this blog -doesn't that tell you anything at all? </B><BR/>I see this as a separate issue from the feminist/sexist arguments.<BR/><BR/>The <A HREF="http://gods4suckers.net/archives/2006/02/24/a-shout-out-to-female-atheists/" REL="nofollow">popular conception</A> is that the number of female atheists is smaller than males, but I'm not sure how factual this is. In fact, <A HREF="http://aasauf.blogspot.com/2006/04/last-meeting-women-in-freethought.html" REL="nofollow">I've written on this before</A>, with some evidence to the contrary. I do know that environments like this one, and others similar, tend to be <B>very hostile and confrontational</B>, which, without being a sexist, I think you would agree is an intrinsically testosterone-correlated behavior. <BR/><BR/>We men love to compete in egos; it seems true of men that whether they're more or less rational than the woman lurker on the site, who doesn't feel the need to debate others about her worldview, they'll "lock horns" with much less hesitation. In my experience, the atheist community is divided into those people who are quiet/closeted/passive atheists and those who are open/active/quasi-confrontational atheists. I'm not claiming to have an absolute fix on things, but I think we agree that the male qualities [naturally-derived] of dominance and aggression go hand-in-hand with the sorts of argumentation that broils over here <I>quite often</I>. That doesn't mean that women in freethought aren't there, or even more rational and informed, but they just don't tend to show up in places like this. I don't know why. Check out all the famous atheist sites on the web (start in <A HREF="http://danielmorgan.blogspot.com" REL="nofollow">my blogroll</A>) and compare the ratio of male/female contributors.<BR/><BR/>I just don't think it's sexist attitudes keeping more women out of spotlighted positions within the freethought community. I think, in fact, there are <A HREF="http://aasauf.blogspot.com/2006/04/last-meeting-women-in-freethought.html" REL="nofollow">a lot of women who ARE in those positions</A>. Ask <A HREF="http://www.hellboundalleee.com/index.html" REL="nofollow">Hellbound Allee</A> what she thinks, though, about women in freethought being confrontational.nsflhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04129382545589470620noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1147835523302275412006-05-16T23:12:00.000-04:002006-05-16T23:12:00.000-04:00or raped againI'm truly sorry. I have never and n...<B>or raped again</B><BR/><BR/>I'm truly sorry. I have never and never will raise a hand against, or otherwise physically hurt any woman. I have, in fact, been in knock-downs with rednecks from my hometown who see it as "proper" to give a woman a "lil' love pat" (typically a backhand slap) when she is "sassy".<BR/><BR/>My friend who recently committed suicide was molested/raped by her mom's bf, and no one believed her for years. <BR/><BR/>I am sorry for your hurt.nsflhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04129382545589470620noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1147835178876190302006-05-16T23:06:00.000-04:002006-05-16T23:06:00.000-04:00Your mind may run to vices against women of the pa...<I>Your mind may run to vices against women of the past, but others do not. No sensible women would take offense to that. Lighten up. <BR/><BR/>Now this is something I never saw coming!</I><BR/><BR/>Sweetheart, we're not talking about the past. We are talking about the present, and the future. It's women who suffer. I don't want to be taken captive in a man's brothel... or raped <I>again</I>. It's not funny to me. Most feminists are reluctant to align themselves with males, even in the secular community because of the casual age-old attitudes expressed toward women.. that there's only one woman posting among numerous men on this blog -doesn't that tell you anything at all? <BR/><BR/>Men <B>never</B> have and never do see why women are sensitive, and easy to say "Lighten up", when its not them getting hurt --they're the ones dishing it out, past, present and will be future, unless attitudes change.<BR/><BR/>Emails like this one cross my inbox all the time... <BR/>Kristina: I saw in the local Shopper paper today a warning from the State Police. It is to all the online users. They are telling everyone to be on the look out for a person with the screen-name : Monkeyman935. It says DO NOT REPLY. DO NOT talk to this person; DO NOT answer any of his/her instant messages or email. Whomever this person might be ,is currently a prime suspect in the murder of a total of 56 women (so far) all contacted through the internet. It also says to PLEASE tell all the women in your buddy list and have them tell everyone they care about. It also said to caution your children if they are computer smart. It could save their lives.This screen-name was seen on Yahoo, Aim, AOL, and Excite, so far.Scriveningshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01350122934990690700noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1147833926070289512006-05-16T22:45:00.000-04:002006-05-16T22:45:00.000-04:00This is the most ridiculous thing I think I've eve...This is the most ridiculous thing I think I've ever heard a freethinker say! <BR/><BR/>There was absolutely nothing wrong with that comment. It was silly fun, nothing more. <BR/><BR/>Your mind may run to vices against women of the past, but others do not. No sensible women would take offense to that. Lighten up. <BR/><BR/>Now this is something I never saw coming!<BR/><BR/>(JH)Joe E. Holmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10273702675019012966noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1147833493830591672006-05-16T22:38:00.000-04:002006-05-16T22:38:00.000-04:00**The Almighty Joe shines down his blessings upon ...<I>**The Almighty Joe shines down his blessings upon John Loftus and blesses him with fortune and fame <B>and all the women he'll ever want!</B>**</I><BR/><BR/>This blog comprises mostly of men, and probably the majority of visitors are men. I doubt many of you truly understand <I>why</I> the comment was offensive and unacceptable. Let me be clear: I'm not arguing at Joe Holman, and no desire to argue with him, but lots of women would visit, read that comment and take offense and leave. What I'm saying is really meant as constructive criticism, so more women can feel comfortable around secular hovels like this one, (I am aware it was meant in humor, among the boys, I understand) that's the way it's always been... seems like harmless fun, but it's not humorous. It brings to my mind all the struggles, the degradation, humiliation, wanton plunder, heartache and brutality that women have faced through all of history. and still facing. I expect it from Christians or Muslims, but not people who call themselves humanist; atheists, agnostics or deist. They really should know better.<BR/><BR/>I mean what if women ran the show, how would any of you feel if everything was female dominated from government to corporations to the education system, to the internet --and you visit a blog of "freethinkers", and thinking "I fit in here, I find people I identify with -people like myself", and then one of the women post in humor to another woman <I>**The Almighty Sharon shines down her blessings upon Patricia and blesses her with fortune and fame <B>and all the suckers you can use for money</B> you'd ever want!**</I><BR/>I know men sure don't like to get used, for instance when a pretty woman leads them on, baby baby... making him feel like a king --and then bang, she gets what she wants out of him, and "she's gone"... the poor man dishing up his hard earned money, just to find out he's been used... lied to... exposed for a sucker, she's out with somebody else... he's devastated, his pride ripped and his ego torn into. That's how women have been feeling for quite a few thousand years now. As all of you should know by now, the Bible specialized in that form of primitive bigotry.<BR/><BR/>I want men to be more sensitive to what they're saying, and result in reaching more women. My intent is not to offend any of you, but rather trying to make you aware of just how sensitive women are to those kind of comments.Scriveningshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01350122934990690700noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1147827548803234502006-05-16T20:59:00.000-04:002006-05-16T20:59:00.000-04:00Daniel Morgan: Thus, by their standard, nothing th...<I>Daniel Morgan: Thus, by their standard, nothing their God ever does is "bad", only all "good". How do they know what their God does? The Bible. How do they know that the Bible is inspired and inerrant as a record of God's actions and words? <B>By faith</B>.</I><BR/><BR/><B>Mostly by faith</B>. I acquainted Sunday school teachers, who admitted they'd never actually read the Bible, much less knowing anything of its origins. Jehovah Witnesses coming to my house, and when I asked them to explain why a "good God" would command the mass murder of little children in the promised land, denial was the response. "The Bible doesn't say that. If God did that, he would be a bad God..."<BR/><BR/><I>btw, great post</I> dm. some excellent pointsScriveningshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01350122934990690700noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1147826213382203752006-05-16T20:36:00.000-04:002006-05-16T20:36:00.000-04:00What CalvinDude never wants to grasp is that other...What CalvinDude never wants to grasp is that <I>other, objective</I> frameworks for morality can be and have been presented by philosophers for a very long time. The fact that none of them satisfy CalvinDude, and the other presuppers, is no different than that the framework which they call "absolute and universal" (by faith) we reject as being such. Their argument is valid is one presupposes the truth of the Bible, which is, of course, an act of faith.<BR/><BR/>Exbeliever <A HREF="http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2006/02/evidentialist-challenge-restated.html" REL="nofollow">supplied an argument for objective moral frameworks</A>, and admitted they are neither universal nor absolute. The fact that the presups (and others) reject them does not change the fact that a valid argument has been put forth.<BR/><BR/>Similarly, let me put forth a definition of "good" and "bad" to create a very simple moral framework:<BR/>"good" is the state of actions, events, and natural conditions which minimizes, if not reduces altogether, babies being slaughtered in genocidal warfare<BR/><BR/>"bad" is the state of actions, events, and natural conditions which <I>does not</I> minimize, nor reduce altogether, babies being slaughtered in genocidal warfare<BR/><BR/>Now, according to these two objective standards, it appears that God is <B>quite a bad boy</B> for 1 Sam. 15:3, Num 31:17, and <A HREF="http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/cruelty/long.html" REL="nofollow">lots of other goodies in the Bible</A>.<BR/><BR/>Of course, the presupps can disagree with me on the definition of good and bad here, which I have purposely restricted to the case of infanticide, as the result of genocidal warfare. If they do, though, I would love for them to explain how my definitions of "good" and "bad", <I>as objective markers</I>, fail. Can not all people in all places and all times understand these assessments, whether they reject them or accept them?<BR/><BR/>In what cases is it "better" or "more good" for the set of all events, actions, and natural conditions to lead to <I>increased</I> infanticide as the result of genocidal warfare? Well, according to the theists, <B>when God wants it</B>.<BR/><BR/>Thus, by their standard, nothing their God ever does is "bad", only all "good". How do they know what their God does? The Bible. How do they know that the Bible is inspired and inerrant as a record of God's actions and words? <B>By faith.</B>nsflhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04129382545589470620noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1147824062170721692006-05-16T20:01:00.000-04:002006-05-16T20:01:00.000-04:00Calvindude said: "Such assumes, of course, that th...Calvindude said: "Such assumes, of course, that there is a standard by which one can determine what is "right" and what isn't in order to claim that God did not get it right. Thus, in asking the question, you beg two questions:<BR/><BR/>1) You assume a universal standard for "rightness."<BR/><BR/>2) You assume God has not met that universal standard.<BR/><BR/>But of course you don't want to prove those assumptions. It's easier to just say that Presuppositionalists have no argument....<BR/><BR/>(Alas, I know that John will now be upset with me yet again since I dare to put forth my presuppositionalism yet again." <BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>My reply: As a former minister, I understand this objection well and used to use it. It is NO objection to my point at all. The "standard" I employ to convict your deity of wrong is common sense: plain life observation. Let me graphically illustrate it for you...<BR/><BR/>...nerve cells being rended, ripped, or torn by a hungry predator, sharp metal objects being plunged into soft bellies like a pearing knife through a tomato, a bullet penetrating a lungsack and causing a slow, painful death...these are things that all human and animal kinds realize are wrong except in the most dire of circumstances. <BR/><BR/>As I have pointed out in other articles, it is a universal constant to avoid suffering and death. I don't care what lifeform you are talking about, it is a constant. This then qualifies as a "law," or as you put it, "standard", a non-religious standard by which we arrive at a logical conclusion. <BR/><BR/>No deity or sage or yogi or priest or pastor need tell me that it's wrong to kill. Society - all societies - had to be set up with that as a hallmark in order to build any sort of cultural progress. It is self-evident that torture is wrong. Every sane person with a normal psyche will stand in line and oppose it. It's common sense. Spooks got absolutely nothing to do with it. So, "thou shalt not kill...torture, plot against, steal, etc." all have nothing to do with ten commandments or any canonized code. These have been a part of man since the dawn of time. <BR/><BR/>You cannot object on this premise. You and I recognize the same types of evil anyway...murder, stealing, torturing is wrong to you AND me. You and I both recognize these as problems. I simply go further to demonstrate that your god could have set up a way wherein this never could have happened. My article made this all too easy to understand, except with the help of willful ignorance to not understand it.<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>CalvinDude said: "Thus I will simply add: God did get it right because the world is as He wanted it to be because God does have a purpose for things that are evil. What, then, is the problem? Or are you going to assume yet again without proof that it is impossible for God to have a good reason for evil to occur?)"<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>My reply: Wrong. You admit, like all believers, that this is a "fallen" creation succombed to the devil's wiles. This means God did NOT get it right. If you are a Christian, you believe God is coming back to judge the world and reward the faithful and send the wicked ones to Hell. Why did it come to this?? Couldn't God lure things to a more positve end, one where pain and extinction and ethnic cleansings are not known?? God didn't HAVE to go this way. He would have known there are better ways of teaching lessons than to allow corruption and death as he has. Souls fall through the cracks and end up in hell never learning these "lessons" you and your theist friends talk about people learning; meanwhile, others thrive and will be saved to rejoice in heavenly sunlight! It didn't have to be this way! That was the point of my article! Yet your deity deliberately chose a longer, more painful route--one where some of his children will end up spending their eternities being BBQ'ed in Gehenna! <BR/><BR/>So we're back to the initial point of my article: the universe must be the way God intended it to be. Yet the presence of such chaos and horrendous evils are the norm here, not merely exceptions, which is why we humanists realize the divine creator hypothesis doesn't fit. A naturalistic origin of our existence is a much better model, and it fits all observations perfectly.<BR/><BR/>(JH)Joe E. Holmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10273702675019012966noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1147824056467787502006-05-16T20:00:00.000-04:002006-05-16T20:00:00.000-04:00...and all the women he'll ever want!My wife has n...<I>...and all the women he'll ever want!</I><BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2006/05/atheists-should-be-evangelistic.html" REL="nofollow"><STRONG>My wife</STRONG></A> has never had a problem telling people that she's an atheist, especially when they want to talk to her about religion, and <STRONG>I'm learning from her.</STRONG><BR/><BR/>Sounds like Loftus has all the woman he can handle.Scriveningshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01350122934990690700noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1147823008884241572006-05-16T19:43:00.000-04:002006-05-16T19:43:00.000-04:00**The Almighty Joe shines down his blessings upon ...<I>**The Almighty Joe shines down his blessings upon John Loftus and blesses him with fortune and fame and all the women he'll ever want!**</I><BR/><BR/>Did you hear the joke about Osama thinking he'd get 70 virgins in the afterlife. He arrives, and George Washington and others waiting -- and they beat the crap out of him. Black and blue, he enquires <I>why</I>, and the angel explains "the reward was seventy Virginians".<BR/><BR/>Stupid muslims, and "all the women they want".<BR/><BR/>Ingersoll said any woman who reads those kind of passages in such "Holy Books" - like the Bible <I>ought to throw it from her, in contempt and scorn</I>.<BR/><BR/>Sincerely, your <B>feminist</B> friend.Scriveningshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01350122934990690700noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1147822512155253222006-05-16T19:35:00.000-04:002006-05-16T19:35:00.000-04:00CalvinDude said: I know such thinking is hard for ...<I>CalvinDude said: I know such thinking is hard for atheists, who have nothing but themselves to dwell on.</I><BR/><BR/>"Nothing but themselves", are who are you responsible to, other than yourself? You're on this blog for what purpose? To save souls, so you <B>get a greater reward</B> in the afterlife? I need to brush up on Calvinist views of the afterlife. You say these harsh things, implying Atheists are narrow-mind selfish people -about people you do not personally know, simply because they do not accept your point of view on religion. <BR/><BR/><I>He does everything He does because He wants to.</I><BR/><BR/>That describes yourself, you know? You believe in Calvinism... because you want to -- often times, if you ask people to describe God, and you listen closely to what they tell you --they are not describing God, but themselves. Those who say God is anxiously awaiting judgment day to break kneecaps, are the same people who would be breaking kneecaps right now, if the law permitted. Those who say "God" is a "God of Love", tend to be meek and unassuming people. It's strange how "God" is so many different personalities, depending on the person's own character.<BR/>God is therefore (you admit) not confined to a Bible, or its laws? God can do anything he pleases, right? <BR/><BR/>You know, my favorite story in the Bible since I was a kid was that story about Joseph and his brothers. They treated him terribly. God chose Joseph "special" from among them, giving him visions and the power to interpret dreams. When Joseph spoke what he knew to be true, his brothers perceived it as his arrogance and wanted to punish him (aside of him being daddy's favorite). As you said of the atheists <I>"nothing but themselves to dwell on"</I>, which is not true of atheists, but was how Joseph's brothers perceived him to be... a spoiled brat, who ought to be silent. Most atheists I know have active intact reasoning facilities -and they use them often, considering good and evils twice as often as Christians do, --you have a book that tells you how and what to think, a religion that thinks for you, the atheist must figure it out for themself as they go along (or should I say "alone"?).<BR/><BR/>As for the story of Joseph, God tries him... funny for a chosen one, -he is sold as a slave, but true to his honor and what he knows is right... and for this good, Joseph is repaid with evil, false accusation by Potipher's wife, and sent to prison injustly. But as time passes things work out, where Joseph becomes a great ruler, and a famine strikes the land. <BR/><BR/>Joseph's brothers who spoke harshly of him, condemned and sold him as a slave, go into the land of Egypt to buy corn. How many tricks and pranks did Joseph play on his brothers, (while the whole time it notes he went off to himself and cried) -- yet would express no feeling in front of any of them --knowing who they were, but never revealing who he was. He disguised his language.. he had his cup placed in their sack... then accuses them of theft... Joseph lead them to believe they were under threat of death. He had them going around in circles. But just when they thought their situation was completely hopeless, he reveals his true identity and his brothers are left stunned and amazed. They fell on each other and wept.<BR/><BR/>Also, is it impossible that everyone of these atheists have been personally lead to believe God does not exist, -- and you sit in judgment "God will punish you, God will torment you for eternity, soforth... so on..." -- and one day, we all die.. and find ourselves risen in the afterworld, how will you feel when you see and feel the presence of an immense being you never knew -- perhaps a great light --and you recognize the souls of others you knew in your lifetime... and there stands many atheists you'd acquainted in your life, speechless, amazed, -- <I>God does exist</I>.<BR/>Instead of torment and vengeance, you see a similar love that Joseph felt toward his brothers, proceeding from God to those who did not believe in his existence. <BR/><BR/>I think your position in the afterlife will be far worse than their's. You will be one of the many standing with a shamed face before God. God won't have to lift a finger, you've already done it to yourself in this world.<BR/><BR/>It could happen.Scriveningshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01350122934990690700noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1147821484811226112006-05-16T19:18:00.000-04:002006-05-16T19:18:00.000-04:00John Loftus said: "There is a God! It's Joe Holman...John Loftus said: "There is a God! It's Joe Holman! ;-)"<BR/><BR/>**The Almighty Joe shines down his blessings upon John Loftus and blesses him with fortune and fame and all the women he'll ever want!**Joe E. Holmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10273702675019012966noreply@blogger.com