Are Christian fundamentalists apologists for genocide?

by **Ivan** Fri Oct 21, 2011 12:55 pm

Professor Richard Dawkins has refused to take part in a debate with William Lane Craig, a self-styled philosopher who argues that the Canaanites were debauched and sinful and therefore deserved to be slaughtered.

Most modern preachers wouldn’t defend the instruction in Deuteronomy 20:13-15 to kill all the men in a conquered city and to seize the women, children and livestock as plunder. Verses 16 and 17 are even worse: "When you capture cities in the land that the Lord your God is giving you, kill everyone. Completely destroy all the people."

If Christians take every word of their Bible literally, does it mean they condone mass murder? And if they don’t accept all that’s written there, aren’t they being hypocrites for cherry-picking what they accept and don't accept?

Read more of what Richard Dawkins has to say on this:-
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/oct/20/richard-dawkins-william-lane-craig

by gator Fri Oct 21, 2011 2:37 pm

Perfesser [loosely called] Dawkins refuses to debate a lot of people. Is it just possible that he won't debate people if there is any chance at all that other people would turn him into dogmeat in a debate? Personally, I wouldn't waste so much as a penny buying his schlock but I did buy a book refuting The God Delusion [The Dawkins Delusion, McGrath and McGrath ISBN 978-0-8308-3446-4]and they did turn his book into something a lot less than a reasoned discourse on theology.

From what I have read of Dawkins, his main ambition in life is to destroy Christianity. He is not content to not believe in God and he insists that everyone else also not believe in God. This is standard left wing tactics and I'll have no part of it. A lot of people over the centuries have tried to destroy Christianity and they are all gone and Christianity keeps chugging on.

gator

by astra Fri Oct 21, 2011 2:43 pm

The Romans had it right with Mars (War) and Bacchus (Wine)

Vikings and Odin and Thor amongst others of course - just pick one for today!

by **Ivan** Fri Oct 21, 2011 2:59 pm

astra. Ralph Waldo Emerson once said that “the religion of one age is the literary entertainment of the next”.

In his ‘Letter To A Christian Nation', Sam Harris wrote: “While believing strongly, without evidence, is considered a mark of madness or stupidity in any other area of our lives, faith in God still holds immense prestige in our society (the USA). Religion is the one area of our discourse where it is considered noble to pretend to be certain about things no human being could possibly be certain about. It is telling that this aura of nobility extends only to those faiths that still have many subscribers. Anyone caught worshipping Poseidon, even at sea, will be thought insane.”

by **Ivan** Fri Oct 21, 2011 3:28 pm

gator. Call Dawkins whatever you like, but he was a Professor at Oxford University for thirteen years.

As a scientist, Dawkins will only accept things that can be proven. When the bottom line with the Bible or the Koran seems to be that we are meant to believe those books as true because they say they are true, Dawkins rejects that as unscientific. Provide him with irrefutable evidence of the existence of God and he’ll accept it.

Dawkins is not just against Christianity but all religion, arguing that “faith (of any denomination) is an evil precisely because it requires no justification and brooks no argument”. As Voltaire put it: “Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities”.

by Shirina Fri Oct 21, 2011 4:15 pm

He is not content to not believe in God and he insists that everyone else also not believe in God.

The medicine never tastes half as good when you're on the wrong end of the spoon. Christians have been insisting we all believe for years, and they're still doing it. While no one can force another human being to believe in something, Christianity does its measured best to try and force everyone to adhere to their version of values. I needn't travel back to antiquity to demonstrate this - not that antiquity isn't replete with examples. Rather, I can point to the 26+ states that have passed "definition of marriage" amendments in the last few years as proof. Seeing as how even state senators cannot offer a cogent argument for these amendments without quoting from the Bible, I think any rational person can see that religion being legislated into civil law.

To address the original question - anyone who believes in the Bible is a genocide apologist. One would have to be in order to read the atrocities committed in the Old Testament and still consider God a fair, just, and loving God. If you try to confront Christians on this, they offer up a plethora of cop-out answers ranging from, "He's God so He can do what He wants," to "The people God killed really were evil!" In any case, they wriggle like worms on a hook to avoid the stark truth that any entity that would send two she-bears to tear apart a group of kids for making fun of someone's baldness is, in fact, a psychopathic God.

It is easy to condemn a man like Hitler for orchestrating the Holocaust, but it requires a sort of twisted pretzel-logic to praise God for doing much worse. In fact, it requires redefining what makes an act truly evil. Instead of the act itself being evil, this truism is redefined as an act being evil depending on who commits it. Thus, by this logic, the Holocaust was evil only because Hitler in particular committed it and not because the systematic slaughter of 16 million people is inherently evil. If someone other than Hitler had committed the Holocaust, then the Holocaust may not have been evil.

With this new definition of an evil act in play, it becomes all too transparent why Voltaire's words are incredibly accurate.

by oftenwrong Fri Oct 21, 2011 5:32 pm

Perfesser [loosely called] Dawkins refuses to debate a lot of people. Is it just possible that he won't debate people if there is any chance at all that other people would turn him into dogmeat in a debate?

Boxing fans will readily understand Professor Dawkins' caution in sparring with whom he chooses. A contender has to work through various opponents before qualifying to meet The Champ.

by ROB Fri Oct 21, 2011 5:46 pm

anyone who believes in the Bible is a genocide apologist.

That's a huge boatload of rocks parked on the village green to claim as truly "there" without proof. I await such proof, of such an indisputable nature that I will henceforth label myself as you have called me.

But perhaps you're not talking about me. I don't just believe in the Bible, and I don't just believe in God. That's far too casual. I know that God is God, i.e., the author, creator, owner, and sovereign of all that is, was, and ever will be, and I know that God's word is truth.

I've never supported, apologized for, or engaged in genocide; as a matter of fact, I've opposed genocide far more vehemently than most. You se, I, like many that acknowledge the supremacy of he who created us all, have supported unabated the absolute right of the State of Israel to do everything necessary to ensure that genocide never again visits Jews. As El-Hajj Malik El-Shabbazz put it, "By any means necessary."

by Shirina Fri Oct 21, 2011 5:50 pm

Is it just possible that he won't debate people if there is any chance at all that other people would turn him into dogmeat in a debate?

I doubt that is the reason. Formal debate with believers in religion is really a lesson in futility. I only engage in it on message boards because ... hell ... it can be entertaining.

But the truth is, religious believers have too many escape hatches to slip through in any debate, and they make liberal use of them whenever they are backed into a corner (which is easy to do). For instance, one can always use the "It's a matter of faith" escape hatch, the "False Dilemma Fallacy" escape hatch, or the "If you can't prove science definitively, then it must be God, and you can't prove it isn't" escape hatch.

Religion gives its proponents more than enough leeway for self-declared victories based on the premise of "I believe because I do." Religion is never tasked with proving anything, and its very ambiguity allows people to offer up as proof such absurdities as a sunrise, a child's smile, or an escape from injury during an accident as proof of God's existence.

The latter evidence I find rather interesting given that, all too often, God is given the credit for a miraculous escape from harm. Yet, if that is true, one must wonder how Hitler managed to escape no less than 42 serious attempts on his life. Knowing his reign of terror as I do, the fact that this madman managed to escape assassination attempts dozens of times by literally a hair's breadth, I have to wonder: Does this mean God was responsible for keeping Hitler alive?

Or does miraculous escape from harm only apply to believers, and for everyone else, it's just dumb luck?

I realized that debating religion is often a lost cause after being challenged, in all seriousness, to prove that God doesn't exist. I used to debate formally in college (which is why I know my fallacies), and judges deduct points when using fallacies. Yet fallacious arguments are often the bread and butter of believer arguments. It gets oh so painful listening to it that I find it no small wonder why Dawkins refuses to debate certain people. Sometimes debating quantum physics with your dog is more fruitful than debating religion with fanatics.

by gator Fri Oct 21, 2011 11:08 pm

He's a scientist is he? Here's a quote from The Dawkins Delusion [pp13-14]

"Dawkins clearly has little interest in engaging religious believers, who will simply find themselves appalled by the flagrant misrepresentation of their beliefs and lifestyles. Is the case for atheism really so weak that it has to be bolstered by such half baked nonsense? Dawkins pays his readers the highly dubious compliment of assuming that they will share his prejudices and ignorance about religion....Objections to his analysis are likely to be dismissed and discounted in advance precisely because they are made by "biased" religious people who are foolish and arrogant enough to criticize "objective" and "rational" atheists."

Doesn't sound like much of a scientist to me. In fact, in some ways, he sounds a lot like our very own Dr. David Suzuki who USED TO BE a scientist of sorts. Then he decided that being a schill for the ecoterrorists was a much more profitable venture and used his limited scientific ability to lie to people on all manner of subjects. Dawkins seems to be a lot like that. In the interviews I have seen with him, he is above all, arrogant and conceited and is always talking down to people, who he obviously has no use or respect for. All in all, a nasty bit of work.

gator

by ROB Sat Oct 22, 2011 6:31 am

I only engage in it [debate] on message boards because ... hell ... it can be entertaining.

Thank you for affirming the wisdom of my decision to refrain from debate with you on “on message boards.”

… after being challenged, in all seriousness, to prove that God doesn't exist.

Have you met the challenge straight up by proving “that God doesn't exist?”

Formal debate with believers in religion…

… debating religion…

Anyone who chooses to master certain techniques can win a debate. I saw and heard a masterful debater use such techniques to win a debate in a court of law. As a result, the court ordered that a woman who had abandoned her six children retain sole conservatorship of the six children she had abandoned. While the judge was issuing the order, the woman was “nodding off”, high on something, while sitting at the defense table.

If you were serious about discovering truth insofar as God is concerned, your approach to such discovery would of necessity exclude debate; conversely, your approach to such discovery would of necessity include study, contemplation, and discourse with those whose views regarding God do not mirror your own.

Winning a debate doesn’t create truth.

by Shirina Sat Oct 22, 2011 8:54 am

Thank you for affirming the wisdom of my decision to refrain from debate with you on “on message boards.”

I haven't affirmed anything ... unless the only thing we will ever debate is religion. I specifically said that debating religion can be entertaining. What other motive is there? I'm certainly not going to change anyone's mind, now, am I?

Have you met the challenge straight up by proving “that God doesn't exist?”

There is no challenge there because the null hypothesis is a logical fallacy. To claim that something exists until it is proven not to exist is an invalid argument. Otherwise we would have to assume everything exists until it can be proven otherwise. Thus, until you can prove that there isn't a weightless invisible purple hippo doing a jig on the top of your head, we would have to assume that there is one and act accordingly.

Winning a debate doesn’t create truth.

Neither does faith.

by gator Sat Oct 22, 2011 2:57 pm

The thing that amuses me all to pieces about lefties is that they are NEVER satisfied in just believing something or not believing something. They always have to try to drag everyone else along for the ride as if their beliefs are no more than this year's fashion show.

1. If a right winger doesn't want to work in a union shop, he finds somewhere else to work. If a left winger discovers that there are places where no unions exist, he wants them unionized immediately.
2. If a right winger believes in Gore-Bull warming, he does what he can to lessen the his own impact on the earth. If a left winger believes in Gore-Bull warming, he wants every law in the land changed to reflect the "fact" [said facetiously of course] that we are saving mother earth by throwing billions of dollars at greedy governments who have no intention of using it for its original purpose.
3. If a right winger doesn't want to hunt and kill wild animals, he doesn't buy a gun or go hunting. If a left winger doesn't want to hunt, he wants all guns prohibited by law..
4. If a right winger doesn't want to believe in God, he doesn't bother going to church. If a left winger [calling Perfesser Dawkins to the red phone] doesn't believe in God, he tries to convince everyone else that religion should be against the law.

Now what is it with you people? Are you so unsure of your own stance that getting the majority view is the only way that it will somehow make sense? If big gubmint really that good to you and for you? You all have no confidence in your own belief system. The only way that you can justify it is to throw temper tantrums.

There. If that doesn't get me kicked off of this ultra left wing board, I don't know what will.

gator

by ROB Sat Oct 22, 2011 3:20 pm

Shirina wrote:

Thank you for affirming the wisdom of my decision to refrain from debate with you on “on message boards.”
I haven't affirmed anything ... unless the only thing we will ever debate is religion. I specifically said that debating religion can be entertaining. What other motive is there? I'm certainly not going to change anyone's mind, now, am I?

You have in fact, by your own words, quoted verbatim here…

Shirina wrote:
I only engage in it [debate] on message boards because ... hell ... it can be entertaining.

… a statement which neither delimits nor qualifies in any way your affirmation that you “only engage in it [debate] on message boards because ... hell ... it [debate] can be entertaining”, affirmed the wisdom of my decision to refrain from debate with you “on message boards.”

Shirina wrote:

Have you met the challenge straight up by proving “that God doesn't exist?”
There is no challenge there because the null hypothesis is a logical fallacy.

You have, by your own words, quoted verbatim here…

Shirina wrote:
after being challenged, in all seriousness, to prove that God doesn't exist.

… affirmed that you have been “challenged, in all seriousness, to prove that God doesn't exist.”

Thus, my direct question to you, so far unanswered by you, is entirely fitting, proper, and appropriate: Have you met the challenge, straight up, without ducking behind debating protocol, of proving “that God doesn't exist” by in fact proving “that God doesn't exist?”

I await your direct answer to my direct question. Insofar as I’m concerned, a one word answer, “yes” or “no”, will suffice.

Shirina wrote:

Winning a debate doesn’t create truth.
Neither does faith.

Thank for your “backdoor” affirmation of the eternally-existent truth that winning a debate doesn’t create truth.

One of the two following statements is truth:

God is.
God is not.

Winning a debate cannot determine which statement is truth. Quoting “the null hypothesis” to an ex-physics student cannot determine which statement is truth.

If you ever choose to seek to discover truth insofar as God is concerned, your approach to discovering such truth must of necessity exclude (a) seeking to win a debate, and (b) quoting “the null hypothesis” to an ex-physics student; neither of these will aid you in seeking to discover such truth.

by **Ivan** Sat Oct 22, 2011 3:27 pm

gator. You won't be kicked off this board because (a) you haven't broken any laws concerning libel, racism or copyright, and (b) you haven't resorted to personal abuse. The fact that you hold right-wing views - as do a number of other members - is irrelevant to your status, and you are most welcome to post here. Bring your friends too!

However, I would ask that if you wish to continue discussing left-right issues that you start a separate thread for that purpose. Thanks.

by oftenwrong Sat Oct 22, 2011 5:26 pm

The choices are limitless. Self immolation usually makes an impression on people.

by Shirina Sat Oct 22, 2011 7:22 pm

The thing that amuses me all to pieces about lefties is that they are NEVER satisfied in just believing something or not believing something.

The thing that amuses me about righties is how they so often project their own shortcomings onto lefties. For instance, while right-wing religious fundamentalists are violating the US Constitution by using religion to create laws against gay marriage, you'll say that it is the left-wingers who are trying to make religion against the law. Except ... I would very much like to see any bills, proposed legislation, or state constitutional amendments that is intended to make religious worship unlawful. The reality is that the right-wingers are the ones forcing religion down our throats, and while there are a handful of militant atheists, they do not have the power, political clout, or resources to cause any harm to religion. If you have any doubt of that, ask yourself what the chances are of a self-proclaimed atheist ever being elected president. It's already quite plain that even people of other faiths will never see the Oval Office, much less someone of no faith at all. Yet somehow it is the lefties and atheists who are pulling all of the strings.

As for the other issues, the same applies. Global Warming, whether you believe in it or not, is irrelevant. There's certainly nothing wrong with trying to save energy and avoid polluting our planet. But for righties, they always wait until the bomb has already gone off before attempting to defuse it. A good case of this concerns the slaughter of all those exotic animals in Ohio. The Republican governor resisted any laws to regulate the private ownership of exotic animals - until 52 of them were set free and had to be killed - and now the same governor is cracking down on exotic animal ownership. Well, hell's bells, Margaret, if only this governor had cracked down BEFORE it had been necessary to kill those beautiful creatures.

In regards to unions, well, let's ask Governor Walker of Wisconsin all about how right-wingers do not interfere. I suppose the tens of thousands who protested Walker's union-busting all turned up at the steps of the state capitol to admire its architecture? Or perhaps they were there to protest Walker's legislation that denied collective bargaining rights to government employees.

On the issue of guns, yes, I know righties think that lefties are out to take away every gun in America, but that's typical right-wing fear mongering. There are no major bills or proposals that are attempting to repeal the 2nd Amendment. However, there were a number of right-wing candidates for the Senate that wanted to remove ALL restrictions on gun ownership, including restrictions on where they could be brought. Why yes, taking guns to school is such a wonderful idea! And so is allowing guns in bars. Alcohol, firearms, and bar fights make for a winning combination, don't they.

Are you so unsure of your own stance that getting the majority view is the only way that it will somehow make sense?

Au contraire, I am supremely confident of my stance, and unlike you, who merely provided general and vague accusations, I have, and always do, provide specific examples to bolster my argument.

The only way that you can justify it is to throw temper tantrums.

Who here has thrown a temper tantrum? So far, you have come the closest, even admitting that you might get thrown off the board for your views, but I don't see any tantrums.

There. If that doesn't get me kicked off of this ultra left wing board, I don't know what will.

I have no idea why you would believe you would be kicked off this board because of your views. In fact, I am pleased that there is someone to actually tangle with. You seem like a decent enough fellow, so I am confident that we can go round and round about politics but still come out of it with mutual respect. Just look at Oz and I ... we don't agree on much; he and I dance quite often about politics, but at the end of the day, we are actually friends.

by Shirina Sat Oct 22, 2011 8:02 pm

… a statement which neither delimits nor qualifies in any way your affirmation that you “only engage in it [debate] on message boards because ... hell ... it [debate] can be entertaining”, affirmed the wisdom of my decision to refrain from debate with you “on message boards.”

*sigh* You know, Rock, I'm going to be very blunt here. I know full well that your very thorough knowledge of the English language allows you to understand how to link pronouns with their original subjects. Knowing that, I can't quite figure out why you're pretending you don't. Here's what I said:

Formal debate with believers in religion is really a lesson in futility. I only engage in it on message boards because ... hell ... it can be entertaining.

Note the bold words. The bold "it" in the second sentence replaces the bold words "formal debate with believers in religion" in the first sentence. Of course you know this already so I am stumped as to why you're behaving as if the word "it" only applies to debate in general. If I didn't know better, I would think you're trying to find an excuse not to debate or discuss with me. If that's the case, then just say so. There is no need for all of these semantics.

… affirmed that you have been “challenged, in all seriousness, to prove that God doesn't exist.”

Again, you're bogging this discussion down in semantics. You can "challenge" me all you wish to. I hold firm to the belief that there is no "challenge" to rise to. See below as to why.

Have you met the challenge, straight up, without ducking behind debating protocol, of proving “that God doesn't exist” by in fact proving “that God doesn't exist?”

A logical fallacy is not merely "debating protocol." A logical fallacy is a self-defeating argument and requires no refutation - other than to point out the fallacy which I have done. I know you want me to say, "No, I can't prove that God doesn't exist," and you would be right. I can't. However, the fallacy still applies. Not being able to prove the existence of God does not prove - or even imply - that he does. Lack of proof does not equate to evidence. You're always wanting "scholarly debate," so how scholarly would it be if I said to you, "Can you prove to me that Winston Churchill was not secretly working with Hitler to engineer the Holocaust? No? Well then, it must be true that Churchill was, in fact, a closet Nazi." The kick is that you know better than to use logic like this in any other capacity, but when it comes to religion, suddenly fallacious arguments become acceptable. Why?

neither of these will aid you in seeking to discover such truth.

Rock, honestly, I've danced this dance hundreds if not thousands of times. My uncle is a Methodist chaplain in the US Army and we've also danced 'round the dinner table about religion. I've done it with the Jehovah's Witnesses, a handful of Muslims, and hundreds of Christians. My mother was once a devout Hindu and I've danced with her as well - though now she is agnostic. I'm not nearly as militant of an atheist as Snowyflake was and I get that there might be some sort of "God" out there. But if you really want to dance with me about a specific God, the Bible, or religion in general, I'll do so. But I highly doubt you hold some secret that I haven't already heard and argued against. If you do have one, then you need to be less cagey about it and put your cards on the table. If I have to already believe in your beliefs for me to hear your "truth" about God, then there doesn't seem to be much point in it.

by ROB Sat Oct 22, 2011 9:56 pm

Shirina wrote:

… a statement which neither delimits nor qualifies in any way your affirmation that you “only engage in it [debate] on message boards because ... hell ... it [debate] can be entertaining”, affirmed the wisdom of my decision to refrain from debate with you “on message boards.”
*sigh*

I often sigh when I feel nostalgia. Does realization that you have, by your own words, affirmed the wisdom of my decision to refrain from debate with you elicit nostalgia within you?

Shirina wrote:
You know, Rock, I'm going to be very blunt here. I know full well that your very thorough knowledge of the English language allows you to understand how to link pronouns with their original subjects. Knowing that, I can't quite figure out why you're pretending you don't. Here's what I said:
Formal debate with believers in religion is really a lesson in futility. I only engage in it on message boards because ... hell ... it can be entertaining.
Note the bold words. The bold "it" in the second sentence replaces the bold words "formal debate with believers in religion" in the first sentence…. I am stumped as to why you're behaving as if the word "it" only applies to debate in general.

As you’ve been so kind to acknowledge my competence insofar as the English language is concerned, an acknowledgement which I appreciate, allow me to analyze your statement.

You words: “formal debate with believers in religion” (your text emboldened and italicized by me).

Your phrase “with believers in religion”, or alternately, “with religious believers”, identifies with whom you feel that formal debate is futile; accordingly, you have stated, with neither delimiters nor qualifiers as to debate topics, that formal debate with the persons identified is futile.

My conclusion strictly follows your statement, and is in fact the only conclusion possible when one exercises sufficient discipline to refrain from assuming the author’s intention and/or putting words, one’s own or otherwise, in the author’s mouth.

If you desire to delimit and/or qualify one or more debate topics to which you refer in your statement that formal debate with believers in religion is futile. Know with certainty that, should you choose to so delimit and/or qualify such debate topics, I will amend my statement to reflect your inclusion of the specificity which your current statement excludes.

Shirina wrote:
If I didn't know better, I would think you're trying to find an excuse not to debate or discuss with me.

You “would think” erroneously.

Shirina wrote:

… affirmed that you have been “challenged, in all seriousness, to prove that God doesn't exist.”
You can "challenge" me all you wish to.

I neither have challenged nor do I wish to challenge you.

Shirina wrote:
I hold firm to the belief that there is no "challenge" to rise to. See below as to why.

You deny your own words with your own words.

On 21 October 2011 at 17:50, you said “I realized that debating religion is often a lost cause after being challenged… to prove that God doesn't exist”, while on 22 October 2011 at 20:02, you said “I hold firm to the belief that there is no ‘challenge’”, thus denying your own words with your own words.

I care not whether you were or were not “challenged”; thus, I care not whether there is or is not a “challenge.” Conversely, I do care if you met the challenge straight up by proving what you claimed on 21 October 2011 at 17:50 that you were challenged to prove, i.e., challenged… to prove that God doesn't exist.”

Once again, did you meet the challenge (if indeed you were challenged; you decide) by proving “that God doesn't exist?” A simple “yes” or “no” will suffice.

Shirina wrote:

Have you met the challenge, straight up, without ducking behind debating protocol, of proving “that God doesn't exist” by in fact proving “that God doesn't exist?”
A logical fallacy is not merely "debating protocol." A logical fallacy is a self-defeating argument and requires no refutation - other than to point out the fallacy which I have done. I know you want me to say, "No, I can't prove that God doesn't exist," and you would be right. I can't. However, the fallacy still applies. Not being able to prove the existence of God does not prove - or even imply - that he does. Lack of proof does not equate to evidence. You're always wanting "scholarly debate," so how scholarly would it be if I said to you, "Can you prove to me that Winston Churchill was not secretly working with Hitler to engineer the Holocaust? No? Well then, it must be true that Churchill was, in fact, a closet Nazi." The kick is that you know better than to use logic like this in any other capacity, but when it comes to religion, suddenly fallacious arguments become acceptable. Why?

Once again, with expectation of a direct “yes” or “no” answer, I ask you this direct question: Have you met the challenge of proving “that God doesn't exist” (if indeed you were so challenged; you decide), without ducking behind debating protocol (or whatever else you may choose to label the “stuff” behind which you currently duck), by proving “that God doesn't exist?”

Once again for sake of absolute clarity, a “yes” or “no” will suffice.

If you are unable to answer a direct “yes/n” question with a direct “yes/no” answer, please so state, that I might cease asking you that which you acknowledge that you are unable to answer. Thank you.

Shirina wrote:

neither of these will aid you in seeking to discover such truth.
Rock, honestly, I've danced this dance hundreds if not thousands of times. My uncle is a Methodist chaplain in the US Army and we've also danced 'round the dinner table about religion. I've done it with the Jehovah's Witnesses, a handful of Muslims, and hundreds of Christians. My mother was once a devout Hindu and I've danced with her as well - though now she is agnostic. I'm not nearly as militant of an atheist as Snowyflake was and I get that there might be some sort of "God" out there. But if you really want to dance with me about a specific God, the Bible, or religion in general, I'll do so. But I highly doubt you hold some secret that I haven't already heard and argued against. If you do have one, then you need to be less cagey about it and put your cards on the table. If I have to already believe in your beliefs for me to hear your "truth" about God, then there doesn't seem to be much point in it.

Once again: Neither winning a debate nor quoting “the null hypothesis” to an ex-physics student can determine which of the following statements…

God is.
God is not.

… is truth.

If you choose to seek truth insofar as God is concerned, your approach must of necessity exclude seeking to win a debate and quoting “the null hypothesis” to me or anyone else; rather, your approach must of necessity include study, contemplation of that which you study, and discourse upon that which you study with one or more persons whose views contradict your own.

Dancing won’t help with anything except increasing strength and coordination.

by gator Sat Oct 22, 2011 10:34 pm

For instance, while right-wing religious fundamentalists are violating the US Constitution by using religion to create laws against gay marriage,

Really? Wow! If that is indeed the case, my guess is that those states who recently enacted legislation concerning gay marriage must be some sort of an illusion. Who knew?

I would very much like to see any bills, proposed legislation, or state constitutional amendments that is intended to make religious worship unlawful.

That fits in very well with my assertion that lefties want everyone to sing from the same hymn book [sorry couldn't resist]. Just because you don't believe in God you want anyone's belief in God to be illegal. Didn't they try that in Russia in the last century? Oh BTW,, that is one of perfesser dawkins main objectives in life as well. He has said so in numerous interviews.

The reality is that the right-wingers are the ones forcing religion down our throats,
So who's forcing you? I have never yet seen a Christian, real or perceived, force anyone at gunpoint to a church. Who is forcing you?

On the issue of guns, yes, I know righties think that lefties are out to take away every gun in America, but that's typical right-wing fear mongering.
Never been to canaduh huh? Since Alan Roc decided about a decade or so ago to relieve all Canadians of any chance to own weapons, it has been an ongoing fight to retain ownership of hunting rifles. Once again, the left have decided that anyone who owns a gun or a rifle is automatically a criminal and must register their weapons. And you want to know the funny part? Real life criminals have a lot on their minds other than registering weapons. Thankfully, PM Harper is promising to rid us of that vile POS that has cost us over two billion dollars so far with no end in sight.

unlike you, who merely provided general and vague accusations, I have, and always do, provide specific examples to bolster my argument.
I see [I think]. So providing an ISBN number for a book that I was quoting and providing quoted text is only a "vague argument"? How childish.

RockonBrother - you ever wonder what it's like to debate with Jello? Wink

gator

by ROB Sun Oct 23, 2011 1:10 am

Gator,

Perhaps I have, my Canadi-uhn brother, perhaps I have! By the way, I didn’t know that gators live in Canada. I thought y’all were overrun with polar bears!~!~!

by ROB Sun Oct 23, 2011 1:31 am

Shirina wrote:
For instance, while right-wing religious fundamentalists are violating the US Constitution by using religion to create laws against gay marriage…

This…

“For instance, while right-wing religious fundamentalists are violating the US Constitution by using religion to create laws against gay marriage…”

… presupposes this…

“… right-wing religious fundamentalists are violating the US Constitution by using religion to create laws against gay marriage…”

Here’s what you’ve said:

Shirina wrote:
I have, and always do, provide specific examples to bolster my argument.

Please “provide specific examples to bolster [your] argument” that “right-wing religious fundamentalists are violating the US Constitution by using religion to create laws against gay marriage.”

This is a direct question; accordingly, I await your direct answer.

by Shirina Sun Oct 23, 2011 7:16 am

Really? Wow! If that is indeed the case, my guess is that those states who recently enacted legislation concerning gay marriage must be some sort of an illusion. Who knew?

Please “provide specific examples to bolster [your] argument” that “right-wing religious fundamentalists are violating the US Constitution by using religion to create laws against gay marriage.”

This response is to both Gator and Rock on Brother.

As I'm sure you know, the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment to the Constitution prohibits the passing of laws for religious reasons. In other words, there can't be laws on the books simply because the Bible says something is an "abomination" (i.e. gay marriage). In my own state of NC, I have watched speeches of state senators in support of passing our own anti-gay marriage amendments, and the only arguments they can offer are religious ones. In fact, they quote from the Old Testament and say things such as, "We need to protect the institution of marriage as God meant it to be," and other such rubbish. When Americans pass laws that restrict freedom for a particular group, there had better be a damned good reason for it ... and because it goes against the Bible or because "it's disgusting" are not good enough reasons. They never have been. Since the various state constitutions are being used to turn Biblical Law into Civil Law, it is a flagrant, obvious, and despicable violation of the US Constitution. I cannot make it any clearer or simpler than that.

But it doesn't end there. I have watched over and over again how the Right-Wingers and Libertarians demanded that the states decide. You know ... states' rights? Or states' sovereignty, as Rock called it? We fought a little tiff some years back over this very issue costing the lives of 700,000 Americans. Now, if the states decide not to allow gay marriage, then that's fine. It's their choice. But what these state amendments are doing is making it far more difficult for future generations to change their minds. It is much, much harder to repeal a constitutional amendment especially by the courts. It was a deliberate and malicious act by religious fanatics who believe we should ALL obey Biblical law whether we are Christians or not.

But wait, there's more! Recently, New York became the most populous state to recognize gay marriage. Well, did you see the last Republican debate? Not the most recent one that happened earlier this week, but the one before it? The candidates were asked if they would support an amendment to the United States Constitution (not a state constitution, mind you) defining marriage as between a man and a woman. Michele Bachmann actually said she wouldn't, and I gave her a few "kudos" for that. But all of the other candidates claimed they WOULD support such an amendment. When Bachmann realized she was the "odd man out," she suddenly reversed her decision and said she would, in fact, support it. Now ... I have to ask: What the HELL happened to states' sovereignty? What ticks me off about these people is that they're only for states' sovereignty when the states do what they want them to do ... but when they saw New York "go rogue," they suddenly started clamoring for an amendment to the US Constitution that would ban gay marriage everywhere, even in New York.

So are you both honestly going to sit here and tell me that religion is NOT being forced down the throat of at LEAST 10% of the population whether they're Christian or not? Are you honestly going to sit here and tell me that these amendments are not religious in nature, a way to use state constitutions as a weapon of evangelical tyranny rather than an instrument of freedom? Constitutions are supposed to GRANT us rights, not take them away. Nor were they EVER meant to be used to persecute a subset of the population just because you don't like them or because their actions are a "sin." This is wholly un-American, and it should be an embarrassment to anyone who calls themselves one. History will someday look back at this as just another dark stain on our past. Mark my words.

Just because you don't believe in God you want anyone's belief in God to be illegal. Didn't they try that in Russia in the last century? Oh BTW,, that is one of perfesser dawkins main objectives in life as well. He has said so in numerous interviews.

I'll ask again. Show me any bill, proposal, or piece of legislation that intends to make religious worship illegal. Believe it or not, the same 1st Amendment that SHOULD be protecting gays from persecution and discrimination also protects religion from being persecuted or discriminated against. So until you can cough up something tangible showing where there is some atheist revolution on Capitol Hill gearing up to ban religion, you're just taking shots in the dark. I really don't care what individual atheists believe - and that includes Professor Dawkins. He has a right to his opinions and he has a right to express them and publish them. But until Professor Dawkins is passing constitutional amendments banning religious worship, he is no threat. Treating him as one is nonsense. If you don't like him, don't read his books. Or ... should we ban Professor Dawkins, instead? If not, then I don't see what the issue is.

So who's forcing you? I have never yet seen a Christian, real or perceived, force anyone at gunpoint to a church. Who is forcing you?

LOL! Yeah ... tyranny is never recognized as such when you agree with it. Like I said, 10% of the population are being denied marriage because homosexuality is a sin. That's 30 million people, Gator. That's the equivalent to the ENTIRE population of Canada. Why not go ask them about religion being forced down their throats? Being herded off to church at gunpoint is irrelevant.

Once again, the left have decided that anyone who owns a gun or a rifle is automatically a criminal and must register their weapons

Oh no! Registering weapons! Well, a lot of guns are stolen from honest citizens, and those guns are registered. Many crimes have been solved by tracing guns. And then there are those people who commit crimes of passion with a registered gun then try to flee justice. You know, I'm not against gun ownership. I never have been. What I am against is unrestricted gun ownership. I really don't want convicted murderers, rapists, psychopaths, terrorists, non-citizens, those who renounced their citizenship, and traitors walking into any Wal-Mart and buying guns.

So providing an ISBN number for a book that I was quoting and providing quoted text is only a "vague argument"? How childish.

You can't quote one man from one book and claim all atheists and lefties are out to ban religion. THAT is not only childish, but yet another logical fallacy. Going from the specific to the general is a lousy argument. Plain and simple. I have provided examples from our leaders and presidential candidates, people who really have the power to affect our lives, not some obscure professor that most people - including many atheists - have never even heard of. You can bash Dawkins all you want to as that is your prerogative but using him as the spokesperson for all lefties and atheists is disingenuous at best. And no, you cannot accuse me of the same thing. The reason being is that constitutional amendments don't pass themselves ... they have to be voted on. That means that a majority of people in these states are religious fanatics ... so I'm not just talking about one man or even one senator. I'm talking about the American people.

RockonBrother - you ever wonder what it's like to debate with Jello?

Personal insults WILL get you kicked off the board. I could report it, but I won't. However, I'm sure Ivan will see it eventually. If you want civil debate, I'm your huckleberry, but if you're going to start calling me childish and comparing me with Jello, then your days here are numbered, I think, and not by my hand. Oh, and for the record, at least have the decency to insult me directly. Insulting me to Rock as a way to instigate some sort of "ganging up on" really pisses me off.

by gator Sun Oct 23, 2011 3:21 pm

More anger from Shirina

In other words, there can't be laws on the books simply because the Bible says something is an "abomination" (i.e. gay marriage)

How does your "it's in the Bible" theory explain that for most of recorded history in most cultures, gay "marriage" has been frowned upon if not outright condemned?

[/b]In fact, they quote from the Old Testament and say things such as, "We need to protect the institution of marriage as God meant it to be," and other such rubbish.

This may come as quite a shock to you Shirina but the US Constitutuion is one of the few that actually mention God. That being the case, and you being so angry about it, and you will not single handedly change the Constitution, perhaps you had better find a country that is more suited to your lifestyle. Might I suggest Iran?

It was a deliberate and malicious act by religious fanatics who believe we should ALL obey Biblical law whether we are Christians or not.

That's democracy for you. Highly inconvenient what?

What ticks me off about these people is that they're only for states' sovereignty when the states do what they want them to do
OTOH, we must assume then that you would support state's sovereignty even if they go off in a direction that you dislike. Or is that asking too much?

So are you both honestly going to sit here and tell me that religion is NOT being forced down the throat of at LEAST 10% of the population whether they're Christian or not?
Are you trying to tell us that TEN PERCENT of the US population is gay? Last I saw from a medical mag was that it was estimated to be about half a percent and, at that, the author admitted to being overly generous.

I really don't care what individual atheists believe - and that includes Professor Dawkins. He has a right to his opinions and he has a right to express them and publish them.
But apparently I don't. Is that it?

That means that a majority of people in these states are religious fanatics ... [b]
Once again, there is an extremely simple solution to this problem.

Thanks very much Shirina. Once again, you have proven my premise beyond a shadow of a doubt. You are unwilling to let anyone else have an opinion if it disagrees with your own.

And a note to Rock On Brother - we can't all be polar bears. After all, the brain dead lefties tell us that the polar bears are on the endangered species list, in spite of the fact that people in the know tell us that their population is growing quite rapidly.

gator

by **Ivan** Sun Oct 23, 2011 4:06 pm

gator. I’ve read your message on another forum, dated 10 October, stating that you were planning to drop in on Cutting Edge and “cause the liberals over there some grief”. You haven’t managed to do so, since your reasoning is so flawed, but you are starting to become personal with some of your comments, and I must ask you to refrain from doing that.

Just because something has prevailed throughout “most of recorded history” doesn’t justify it in 2011. Men haven't been prosecuted for assaulting their wives throughout most of history, and there hasn’t been any semblance of democracy throughout most of history, but that’s hardly any sort of justification for having either of those things today. Some Islamic states, of which I assume you disapprove, have been stoning to death adulterers and even rape victims for centuries, but the persistence of the practice doesn't make it a legitimate thing to do.

Maybe it’s your ambition to get yourself banned here so that you can tell all your right-wing friends what an illiberal lot we are. That’s your choice, but it won’t alter the fact that the reasons we might ban people have nothing to do with political views and all to do with the laws of the land and personal attacks on individuals.

by **Phil Hornby** Sun Oct 23, 2011 6:04 pm

It's good when the referee spots a deliberate 'dive' from a player looking to get an opponent into disrepute... Smile

by GreatNPowerfulOz Sun Oct 23, 2011 6:12 pm

The ENTIRE point of this debate is moot...well, actually, the point is deliberately intellecutally dishonest.

If God instructed that a population be destroyed, it is not "mass murder"...it's an "act of God". If God is truly the Creator of the universe and all things contained in it, then life or death and the manner of both is entirely at His discretion. Imposing "human morality" upon God is intellectually dishonest at best and clear evidence of one's inability to grasp the parameters of the equation if argued genuinely.

God....regardless of how we feel about the fairness of it all...is not encumbered by OUR sense of morality.

As an atheist, even I can see the idiocy of this argument regarding the "morality" of this situation.

by Shirina Sun Oct 23, 2011 7:28 pm

More anger from Shirina

LOL?

How does your "it's in the Bible" theory explain that for most of recorded history in most cultures, gay "marriage" has been frowned upon if not outright condemned?

Okay, Mr. Fallacious Argument, you should know that appealing to tradition is, well, a fallacious argument. By your logic, since slavery was an accepted institution since even before ancient Rome, we should continue owning slaves since it has been done for thousands of years.

This may come as quite a shock to you Shirina but the US Constitutuion is one of the few that actually mention God.

You're right, it would come as quite a shock because it would mean the US Constitution has been rewritten. God is not mentioned even once in the Constitution. Nor was Jesus or Christianity. The only place where any perceived reference at all exists is in the signatory section which says it was signed "On the year of our Lord One Thousand Eight Hundred and Eighty Seven." But since how they wrote the date when they signed it has no bearing on the actual contents of the Constitution, it provides no argument at all that America was meant to be a Christian nation.

That being the case, and you being so angry about it, and you will not single handedly change the Constitution

Considering you're the one who claims the Constitution mentions God (which it doesn't), it would seem you're the one trying to single-handedly change it.

perhaps you had better find a country that is more suited to your lifestyle. Might I suggest Iran?

Heehee ... now that makes a lot of sense. I'm angry that religious fundamentalism is trying to write itself in as civil law, so in answer, you suggest I move to a nation that ... is ruled by its religion. Here's a hint: Think before you post. More accurately, Iran would be more to YOUR tastes given that you seem to have no problem being ruled by Bronze Age superstitions.

That's democracy for you. Highly inconvenient what?

Historical lesson alert! When Hitler and Himmler ordered the systematic execution of SA or "Brown Shirt" leaders, many of them were still shouting "Heil Hitler" even while standing in front of the firing squad. Ernst Rohm, the supreme leader of the SA, was actually a personal friend of Hitler but he was shot, too. None of them could even fathom what they had done wrong, and in fact, none of them had done anything wrong. What's the moral of the story? Even if you gleefully support tyranny, you are not protected from it. Therefore, flirting with it, even just a little, is dangerous business. The next amendment passed might be persecuting you. Incidentally, Hitler was a product of democracy, too. That's why alarm bells should ring in the mind of any rational person when laws are passed that discriminate against one particular group for ideological rather than pragmatic reasons.

OTOH, we must assume then that you would support state's sovereignty even if they go off in a direction that you dislike.

I don't believe that the rights of the minority should be voted on by the majority. That is just another form of tyranny - the Tyranny of the Majority as written about by Alexis de Tocqueville and John Stuart Mill. The issue of gay marriage should be left to the courts to decide to ensure that the Constitution is not violated - like, for instance, voting bans for religious reasons.

Are you trying to tell us that TEN PERCENT of the US population is gay?

Well, according to the statistics I've seen, it ranges from a high of 14% in a place like San Francisco to as low as 6% in New York City; I have seen very very very few statistics that place the number lower than 5% nationally. In addition, there is also the question of how many gays are still "in the closet," which means the number can only get higher. But a statistic of less than one percent is way out in left field.

Once again, there is an extremely simple solution to this problem.

Why yes there is, and that solution is to abide by the Establishment Clause.

Once again, you have proven my premise beyond a shadow of a doubt. You are unwilling to let anyone else have an opinion if it disagrees with your own.

Hmm, why do I get the impression that you came here expecting to be denied your opinion so now you're working feverishly to try and prove your preconception true? Let me quote something I wrote in an earlier post, a sentence that apparently slipped by you. Here it is:

In fact, I am pleased that there is someone to actually tangle with. You seem like a decent enough fellow, so I am confident that we can go round and round about politics but still come out of it with mutual respect.

Now ... why would I express gladness that you are here and mention going 'round and 'round about politics if my goal was to simply silence your opinions and tell you to shut up? You're only seeing what you want to see and, perhaps, what you expect to see. My advice is to clean your glasses ... oh, and to stop using logical fallacies. Strawman arguments are fallacies, as well, and telling me I am out to deny you of your opinions when I've actually expressed the opposite intent is most assuredly a strawman argument.

by Shirina Sun Oct 23, 2011 7:51 pm

Imposing "human morality" upon God is intellectually dishonest at best and clear evidence of one's inability to grasp the parameters of the equation if argued genuinely.

Except that the Christian religion is predicated on imposing human morality on God. In fact, so do most religions. This is precisely how believers know what God wants us to do. Without knowing God's morality, we cannot know our own - or so say the believers. If genocide and the wanton murder of innocents is moral in the eyes of God, then all that we believe God to be is a falsehood. We would, in fact, be worshiping a depraved psychopath, not the fair, just, and infinitely loving God that Christians believe He is. Therefore, all of the "goodness" we ascribe to God no longer applies and God comes across just as malicious and petty as any of the Greek deities. That would raise its own set of questions concerning just how "different" the Christian God is from any other we have worshiped throughout history. Not that it can't already be proven that Judaism borrowed from Paganism, Christianity borrowed from Judaism, and Islam borrowed from Christianity. At this point, there is no reason to believe in one god over another. Poseidon becomes an equally viable candidate for the "one true God" as any other, including Jehovah or Allah.

Of course, if we accept that God does not have to follow "human" morality and that committing genocide is a perfectly viable and moral alternative, becoming more "God-like" would seem to imply that committing genocide is part of the process. Yet I didn't see the Pope beautifying Hitler along with Mother Theresa the other day. So something doesn't add up. Either God is "good" or God is not. Making exceptions to absolute morality (which religious morality almost always is) only cheapens and devalues morality as a concept.

by GreatNPowerfulOz Sun Oct 23, 2011 8:58 pm

Shirina...arguing that you're not in a maze while in the maze doesn't equate to getting you out of the maze, it only means you don't realize you're in one.

You can't argue that God must follow "human morality" or be judged by standards of human ethos. If God exists as reputed...the Creator of not only humanity but our universe as well, He operates outside the laws of both. He is a singularity. He could wipe out the entire universe and be within His right...as it's His creation...or any/all things in that universe. Genocide implies that murder is taking place...a LEGAL definition we use as humans to describe that unlawful taking of life. Such terminology, by definition, would not apply to God.

The entire premise that God could commit or command "genocide" is ludicrous...and, by definition, impossible.

by oftenwrong Sun Oct 23, 2011 10:21 pm

I've contacted God and He says he'll do as He damwell pleases.

by **Ivan** Sun Oct 23, 2011 10:35 pm

"If God exists as reputed...the Creator of not only humanity but our universe as well, He operates outside the laws of both. He is a singularity. He could wipe out the entire universe and be within His right..."

Fair enough - but why on earth would anyone want to worship such a creature, and love it more than your neighbour and your family? After all, we could just as easily worship the late General Pinochet (Margaret Thatcher's close friend) or even the more recently departed Colonel Gaddafi, if we should wish to pay homage to psychopathic murderers.

None of this answers the question - are those who take the Bible literally, and worship the God allegedly responsible for it, complicit in the genocide which it advocates?

by GreatNPowerfulOz Mon Oct 24, 2011 12:58 am

The question is pointless. If the killing of a group of people is commanded by God himself, it is not "genocide"...as genocide is a term we use to describe the unlawful killing of large groups of persons. The terminology does not apply to God....nor the actions He commands. It's within His rights as the Creator to destroy that which He created for whatever reason and by whatever means He pleases.

Why people worship him is obvious...if you believe in God then you believe that God can and will punish you for disobedience. The belief in the existence of God demands worship, as God is the very definition of a holy deity. If you don't believe in God, then the question of "why worship" Him is irrelevant.

by Shirina Mon Oct 24, 2011 1:41 am

You can't argue that God must follow "human morality" or be judged by standards of human ethos.

Yes, that is the standard argument that Christians put forth, but I still disagree with it. For one thing, God cannot do whatever he wishes and still be regarded as perfect. As I've said before, a perfect God cannot commit an imperfect act, and no, not even if he wants to. The mere desire to be imperfect is a mark of imperfection in and of itself. Therefore, unless genocide (I believe it is an appropriate word) is a mark of perfection, then either our own morals are out of kilter and we should allow genocidal acts ... or ... God is not perfect.

Now, if you wish to attribute an "anything goes" policy to an anonymous, faceless god that we don't know anything about, then I'll happily jump on your bandwagon. But Christianity attributes all sorts of descriptors indicating precisely what God is. When I hear words like "just, fair, loving, patient, and compassionate" attributed to a God who wiped out humanity once, killed the first born of Egypt, destroyed two cities over the issue of hospitality customs, tormented Job just to win a bet with Satan, ordered Abraham to kill his own son, struck dead a couple for simply lying about land donations, sent two she-bears to rip apart a group of kids for making fun of a bald guy, issued rules for slavery instead of denouncing it completely, and making the most trivial offenses capital crimes ... well, sorry, but no.

There seems to be a major disconnect with people when trying to juxtapose the "warm and fuzzy" attributions to God with the petty, childishness, "I'll stomp my feet if I don't get my way" God depicted in the OT.

by GreatNPowerfulOz Mon Oct 24, 2011 2:41 am

Let me put this simply:
If you believe in God, then you believe that He is not accountable to us...we are accountable to Him. The rest of the discussion is pointless.

If you don't believe in God, then a discussing of His "morality" is equally pointless.

Friviolous discussion at best.

by Farley Mon Oct 24, 2011 6:40 pm

"1. If a right winger doesn't want to work in a union shop, he finds somewhere else to work. If a left winger discovers that there are places where no unions exist, he wants them unionized immediately."

Utter simplistic nonsense.

"2. If a right winger believes in Gore-Bull warming, he does what he can to lessen the his own impact on the earth. If a left winger believes in Gore-Bull warming, he wants every law in the land changed to reflect the "fact" [said facetiously of course] that we are saving mother earth by throwing billions of dollars at greedy governments who have no intention of using it for its original purpose."

Those are left/right generalities and totally meaningless. Right = good and virtuous. Left = bad and selfish.

"3. If a right winger doesn't want to hunt and kill wild animals, he doesn't buy a gun or go hunting. If a left winger doesn't want to hunt, he wants all guns prohibited by law.."

I am a lefty...never hunted, never owned a gun. I support hunting. I bet you are flabbergasted.

"4. If a right winger doesn't want to believe in God, he doesn't bother going to church. If a left winger [calling Perfesser Dawkins to the red phone] doesn't believe in God, he tries to convince everyone else that religion should be against the law."

I am a lefty. I do not believe in God. I do not believe religion should be against the law...it should not be used to make laws, however.

by Farley Tue Oct 25, 2011 3:11 pm

Gator wrote.."Just because you don't believe in God you want anyone's belief in God to be illegal"

I have not heard anyone say that they want belief in God to be illegal. That is preposterous.

"Since Alan Roc decided about a decade or so ago to relieve all Canadians of any chance to own weapons"

Utter nonsense.

by Shirina Tue Oct 25, 2011 3:28 pm

If you believe in God, then you believe that He is not accountable to us...we are accountable to Him. The rest of the discussion is pointless.

I suppose the underlying point to this discussion is why anyone would WANT to believe in a God that behaves in the fashion demonstrated in the OT. I could understand a begrudging worship as a means to avoid going to hell, but to feel genuine love for an entity that obviously has the morality of a psychotic megalomaniac goes beyond the pale.

by gator Tue Oct 25, 2011 4:32 pm

Farley, are you Canadian? And, if so, are you old enough to have lived through M. Rock's bit of insanity known as the Long Gun Registration?

destroyed two cities over the issue of hospitality customs,

And Shirina, that is standard left wing response. He didn't destroy them over the issue of hospitality customs. He destroyed them because they made a total mockery of God's gifts to humanity.

gator

by Shirina Tue Oct 25, 2011 4:54 pm

And Shirina, that is standard left wing response. He didn't destroy them over the issue of hospitality customs. He destroyed them because they made a total mockery of God's gifts to humanity.

Are you referring to the supposed angels? And, considering Lot didn't even know they were angels after spending time with them, how was the crowd outside supposed to know who or what they were?

Of course, the idea that the entire population of two cities would show up outside of Lot's door just to have sex with two strangers is an absurdity in and of itself, but we won't let that stand in the way.

by Sponsored content