Accountability For Vows And Pledges In Numbers

[Ouroboros]

I don't believe in myths OK.

Yes, you do.

 

Evolution has evidence. Your myth does not.

 

And when you misrepresent it the way you do, you are being dishonest. Dishonesty will not give you any brownie points.

 

The fish did not WILL itself to grow legs. That's your false description of how evolution works. Anyone who has read at least something about evolution knows this. And when you create that kind of straw-man argument against evolution, you're being dishonest. And it's a form of lying.

 

That's why you won't win this discussion. You have to learn to be truthful and honest first.

 

If you want to be honest and truthful, you better study some science behind evolution before you express your opinion about it.

 

Until now, I thought of you as a silly little puppy who doesn't know much, but you just lost my respect after using deceit. Yes. It's deceit when you lie like that. I realize that you have no moral sense to understand that lying to win people for Jesus is a disservice to your own religion and will only come back and bite you in the end. If you want to win people, start by being truthful and know what you're talking about. Deception will not get you there.

[LivingLife]

Believers NEED HAVE to pray and praise God and they NEED HAVE to meditate on His word so that they can shore up their faith for when the storms of life come.

 

There I fixed that for you.

 

After being tricked into the kingdumb, the only way they can keep you enslaved is by ensuring that you continuously read the buybull and and regularly attend church, you know the bits of renewing your mind daily and not neglecting the gathering of the saints. W/o the support structure of the church and encouragement, believers are kept from questioning and thus remain enslaved to the system. Anyone that falls away ess. will deconvert, they may still believe in god but particularly don't really give a shit.

 

The church is well aware of this danger and was aware very early on in the days of the early church. The texts even suggest contrary to jesus' teaching that those that turn away should not really be pursued, it is all part of the great master plan and predestination. The church has no problem with a 10-15% loss, thatb is acceptable as there are still enough gullibles to keep the money rolling in.

 

The mindfuck of regular church attendance will allow them the opportunity to reinforce the idea you are unworthy, allow a repentance and then tell you god loves you in spite of yourself when you admit your are a worm. This will obviously differ from congregation to congregation, but if not reminded of the threat of hell, the idea that you need salvation they will lose their patronage. Having reading guides and midweek services keeps the mindfuck fires fueled.

 

Only the folk that elect to study outside the paradigms of their comfort zones will discover what we all have. These are few and far between as most xians NEVER read their bible

 

You think there is and answer for everything in the bible and there is, it was written that way. The average theologian avoids the contradictory parts and that is why wannabe apologists like you fail so miserably. The cherry picking they do gives enough control over your emotions and keeps the fear factor going. W/o preying on the primordial fear of the unknown humans have, the church would fall apart, it is only this fear that keep the fools faithfool.

 

Why is it the gospels are only used with new converts and then ess ignored unless an evangelist comes to visit? I dare you to read any church articles of faith and see they are heavily weighted on Paul's shit.

 

The church only uses eschatology to keep the fear factor alive, there are so many interpretations that do not gel and that is why the predictions ALWAYS fail.

 

The regular attendance is like seeing a therapist that always will keep you coming back for more, they use the exact same tactic and at the end of the day is is all about the money. In fact you have two contradictory doctrines regarding works in the bible, one says you are saved by grace and the other by good works, which is it? They say faith is one of the 9 gifts of the holy spook yet we all lost our faith in contradiction to the gifts being irrevocable. Why is that? The only defence is that we were never saved to start off with. Even salvation has the Once Saved Always Saved and Once Saved Hardly Saved, the latter being the more common meme.

 

As you can see there are already a myriad of topics I have touched on. There are plenty more. Your only hope with your proselyting is to perhaps capture young gullible minds and perhaps fence sitters. With folk like you, it was the particular church we attended and not all churches are like that, aka the no true Scotsman's fallacy. Yet most iof us probably attended multiple churches only to discover they all operate on the same shit.

 

So you are indoctrinated very early of your worthlessness, the threat of the fictitious satan being able to control your thoughts, thus the need to read daily and keep your mind full of scripture verses and to attend regularly. This leads me always to the question, is satan omnipresent? Xians always say NO! How then is he able to influence myriads of xians worldwide? Can he travel at the speed of light, is he omniscient, meaning he knows all our thoughts just as god is supposed to do? Xians will say NO, he needs permission from god to fuck with our minds. How is it that it seems very evident to us that god knocks on your hearts door but once you have converted you are pretty much on your own other than the illusion you are filled with the holy spook. That said, if HS filled, why does he not protect you from the devil and his demons? It is only believers that are affected by these issues anyway.

 

I can still shake hands with a pastor and there is NO manifestation of demons EVER, surely, if I have been deceived, then there should be a manifestation. Shit, with all the woo woos running around, folk like us should be falling and writhing in your mere presence, what's that scrip of darkness cannot abide the light? ALL these manifestations only happen in churches or church services, thus god does not dwell in your heart but in temples made of stone, at best you have a corporate god that only appears to have power when you lot gather together, shouldn't that give you a hint that this god is a load of crap?

 

The way your services are done with P&W preceding the sermon are all tools to lull your minds into mild hypnosis to accept the message. You lot are not even aware this is happening. I used to be a P&W leader so I know what I am talking about plus I was good at my craft. Many compliments of how anointed my ministering was. Of course at the time, I believed that this was the holy spook working through me but I was subtly trained to compile programs that work. I could take the congregation into the holy of holies that they would start manifesting "gifts" of the holy spook. Many times the sermon was an anticlimax to the P&W.

 

Apologies for this long rant but it is an insult to our intelligence to listen to you thinking that you have perhaps the answers we missed while "under the influence", it however is entertaining to see apologists handed their ass on a plate every time.

[ShackledNoMore]

[Part 1]

 

ShackledNoMore said: I find your reference to Leviticus 19:18 to provide the best argument to support your point, followed by Deuteronomy 6:5, with the NT references being the weakest. Why? Well, that's from the scripture that the ancient Hebrew jewish believers had. Even if OT god and NT god are the same god, this is how he presented himself to the ancient Hebrews.

 

Thumbelina: To the Christian, the bible is read not in part but as a whole and the whole bible shows God commanding His children to love Him and each other; so yes, I was eager to show that the NT and OT complement each other and I listed the NT example of first.

 

The problem is, that the bible sends mixed messages. There most assuredly are commands to love him and others, in both testaments. There are also lots of commands to kill others: in war in concert with invasion, in retaliation, and as punishment for breaking biblegod's laws such as picking up sticks on the sabbath (as we have already touched upon in this topic) or for a son disobeying his father or for a woman who gets raped and doesn't scream. This is the tapestry the Old Testament weaves. You can cite commands (from the OT and NT) to love your neighbor, but commands to kill people for these sorts of offenses are the commands of an authoritarian bully, and are not consistent with a loving god who wants us to love each other, even if there are commands to that effect in the very same chapters and books. You can certainly choose passages where the OT and NT compliment each other, but the kinder, gentler NT overall does not weave this same tapestry.

 

ShackledNoMore said: Leviticus 19:18 actually gives direction as to how we should treat each other (as opposed to Deuteronomy 6:5 which deals with how jews (and later christians) should regard their god).

 

Thumbelina: Actually it says in Deuteronomy 6:17 that Israelites should keep the 10 Commandments and Ex 20: 12-17, the second part of the 10 Commandments, addresses our relationship with each other.

 

Here's an excerpt from my bible:" Deut. 6:1 The commandment, the statutes and the judgments. The commandments "{Heb. mitsvah; see Deut 4:2} is a reference to the sum and substance of the law -- The ten Commandments or perhaps encompassing all the Torah."

 

Yeah, the whole chapter is about the Israelites' relationship with their god. It just so happens that there are places in the law that command them to love one another, so I suppose that's implied as part of loving and obeying that god, as is stoning for minor infractions and smiting their enemies.

 

ShackledNoMore said: Of course the edict [Lev. 19:18] is limited to one's own fellow Israelites.

 

Thumbelina: No, the edict was not limited to only fellow Israelites. There were other people that were adopted into the fold ---> Num 9:14; Ex 12 48, 49 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Num%209:14;%20Ex%2012:48,49&version=KJV . God promised to bless ALL nations through His chosen people ( http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Gen%2012:3;%20Gen%2022:18&version=KJV Gen 12:3; 22:18 ; they were supposed to be evangelists AND produce the Messiah). The adoptees had to follow the same rules as the Israelites.

 

It is limited to fellow Israelites! Reread that verse. It directly specifies those among your own people. You make the case, citing other verses that the law also immigrants and visitors. Fine. It does not erase all the direction from biblegod to obliterate the Israelites' enemies. It remains tribal, ethnocentric. It also stands along side the harsh mandates for punishments of minor offenses.

 

Thumbelina: What you MISSED was that Lev 19:33, 34 where God instructs the Israelites to treat strangers kindly. He was specific lest they went on a tangent like you did and wrest the scriptures out of context Lev 19:33, 34 33 And if a stranger sojourn with thee in your land, ye shall not vex him. 34But the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God.

 

Leviticus 19 is an interesting chapter. It has a general main theme of how to treat others, but it can't resist throwing in random nonsense from right field. It throws in instructions that:

 

• You've offended biblegod by eating sacrificial meat for a third day and must be cut off from your people
  
• Don't mix animals/seeds/fabrics together
  
• No tattoos or piercings
  
• Don't cut your hair at the sides of your head or the edges of your beard
  
• No mediums
  

 

Then, in typical fashion, it follows up niceness, mom, and apple pie with chapter 20

• Death to anyone who curses their parents
  
• Death to adulators
  
• Death for sexual relations with (step?) parents or in-laws
  
• Death for marriage to both a woman and her mother
  
• Death for bestiality
  
• Banishment for marrying a sibling or half sibling
  
• Banishment for sex during a woman's period
  
• Death to mediums
  

 

Lev 19 is relatively nice as OT chapters go. Focusing on the theme of about two-thirds of the chapter of treating others nicely, vs. 33-34 still really address visitors/immigrants. Let's not forget what Joshua did to all the nations not in biblegod's little clique, on the bible god's orders.

 

You're referring to Lev 19:19 http://bible.cc/leviticus/19-19.htm ; commentators explain about this in the link I provided. I see it as God saying 'be ye separate'; He was giving them physical examples of spiritual and moral truths. The pagans were basically immoral idolaters and God wanted a differentiation between His children and them.

 

Pretty crazy restrictions for a symbolic message, and a divisive one at that. Kind of smacks in the face of the instructions to be kind to foreigners living among you that we just discussed in versus 33-34.

 

ShackledNoMore said: The next verse after that, biblegod is lenient to men who sleep with betrothed female slaves, well, because she was just a slave.

 

Thumbelina: Actually God was lenient to both of them and I'm glad you can at least acknowledge that God was lenient.

 

I do acknowledge that the god of the bible is lenient in some cases. Don't get to happy about this concession, though, because I would also point out that his leniency can be rather arbitrary. He seems to have no problem over some very ghastly things in the OT, while he zaps others for the most minor of transgressions. The thief next to Jesus at his crucifixion got a lot of leniency, too. On the other hand, a heroic skeptic who sacrifices his life to save another will instantly be rewarded with an eternity in the flames of hell for his non-belief and not proclaiming Jesus as his lord. This is not a good thing.

 

ShackledNoMore said: This whole thing really bespeaks tribal loyalty (or you can say "love" if you prefer) as opposed to love of one's fellow man.

 

 

Thumbelina: What is love? If one is good and loyal to one's fellow man it is indeed love. Love is an action word and I don't know about you but when people don't lie, steal, attempt to kill others, covet them or their stuff in a negative way, cheat on their mates and when they honor their parents it bespeaks love and the FEELING of like can and usually do follow.

 

My point stands no matter what definition of "love" you use. Here, it is something that applies to one's tribe or one's nation: one's "people."

 

Still, I don't particularly subscribe to your definition of love. Yes, if you love someone it will go along with the territory that you will not lie, cheat, steal, rob that person, etc. However, that's also how a decent person treats people they don't love. I have certainly gone out of my way to help and be kind to people that I did not love at all, and not because I am an exceptional person: the same would be true of just about any decent person you can find. Now those people closest to me who I do love and have built a life with--there is something different there. There is something, love, that differentiates it from merely acting selflessly and kindly toward a person and nothing more. If a coworker who I have been kind to but don't love dies I feel sad, but I do not mourn him/her in the same way I would a close loved one. This is just a passing comment, by the way, which I don't think is really central to our debate. I'm not really looking for a discussion on agape, eros, and phileo unless you think there is an important tangent there to pursue (our posts are already starting to get LONG!!!)

 

Thumbelina: Yes you are right, the adoptees could marry Israelites and it is a good thing to not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. If you look at Israel's history they apostatized A LOT when they joined themselves with the surrounding nations. Maybe, initially they intended to introduce them to God and the Israelite culture and they probably empathized with some of their troubles but instead they got involved in frivolous conversations and coarse jesting and they got involved in grosser and grosser sins until they apostatized; the pagans converted them instead and consequently they were lost together

 

Look at people today. It is rare for people to convert from one major religion to another. Nobody builds themselves a gold calf after they haven't been to church in a month. All generally speaking... Christians, generally speaking, stay christians. Muslims, generally speaking, stay muslims. Jews, who did not have their own nation until 1948 and still mostly live outside of Israel, nevertheless remain jewish, these days. Try going as a missionary to Japan and it's as hard as all get up to convert the Japanese to xianity. The moral of the story is, most people, generally speaking, remain true to their family or cultural indoctrination early in life. Now what if you are surrounded by a polytheistic tradition and you are trying to promote a new cult centered around one of your gods--exclusively one of your gods. It's going to be work. There is going to be trouble with people including the other gods. As you codify your emerging cult, you need to discourage that. It's difficult when you read through the first books of the bible to get a feel for whether the writers regarded biblegod as the only god, or just the god who was top dog over the other gods. People do not often abandon their religious beliefs even when there is no evidence for those beliefs and a lot of evidence against them. So why would the ancient Israelites, who constantly witnessed incontrovertible evidence for their god start worshipping other gods at the drop of a hat? The wouldn't, if biblegod existed as advertised.

 

ShackledNoMore said: However, the Pentateuch is all about how sinful man is and even how sinful god's people, the Israelites were. It was all about giving mandates to these sinful people.

 

Thumbelina: Skeptics see the glass as half empty whereas the believer sees the glass as half full. God was merciful in the OT. No sinner deserves mercy.

 

Look at what you have said! Who is a sinner? One of the most quoted verses of bible is Romans 3:23, "For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God." Xianity teaches that we are all dirty sinners that deserve an eternity of torture. That includes the little goody two shoes kid who (depending on your theology) died shortly after reaching the age of accountability. Yeah, he tossed his broccoli under the table that day in the restaurant, and he didn't share with his sister that other day, and he had a little tantrum a few times when he was small. Oh, and he didn't figure out that he needed to adopt a certain particular religion that he may or may not have been taught by his parents or in a certain church. Yeah, he doesn't deserve mercy. He deserves to burn forever for his transgressions. Thumbelina, this is as cold and heartless as the threats of your god. You are taught essentially this as a xian, but take away the meme and it is a horrible, horrible thing to say that Joe Average deserves an eternity of torture with no mercy.

[ShackledNoMore]

[Part 2]

 

In a sinful and dangerous world the man is supposed to PROTECT the woman and not harm her.

 

And what happens if/when he does harm her?

 

ShackledNoMore said: She may have made such a vow, but my whole point is that she also could have made a vow to fast for one meal or something equally innocuous. Since the husband's veto power is unrestricted, a better question is "What if a wife makes a vow to fast for one meal ...

 

 

 

Thumbelina: If a husband restricted that then he would be what I call a Nabal (fool) of a husband; he would be an overbearing man.

 

Yes, yes! Nabals abound, and they are still have authority over the wife under biblical law. Your bible passages say for the wife to submit to the husband AND for the husband to love the wife. It doesn't let one spouse off the hook because the other doesn't follow the biblical command.

 

God commanded that temporary law to PROTECT women from harming themselves and their loved ones.

 

If women are so addle minded that they do not even have the capacity to keep from harming themselves and their loved ones, then how are you able to debate these things with me more effectively than the average xian on this site, including the men, who are the ones who are actually supposed to be allowed to teach? You know that women are not that stupid and that the judgement of men is not so vastly superior.

 

You already conceded that it was an oath to deny herself when you said: " This verse clearly includes vows which only involve herself ..."

 

Whoa! I made no such concession! I said the verse includes certain vows. Now we may have discussed the "oath to afflict the soul" phrase, where I may or may not have made such a concession, but we did not.

 

ShackledNoMore said: ... or to cook healthier meals for her family?"

 

Thumbelina: As aforementioned, it was a vow to afflict HERSELF. Besides, Israelite meals were basically healthy;

 

Even as I was typing that I was thinking that this is more applicable to modern culture than to the Israeli culture of the time, but the husband is still the head of the house: that did not change between testaments. Wouldn't this apply in a timely manner today?

 

Thumbelina: *mischievous grin* You know there's a double standard with that? If the woman is gassy the husband can't kick her out of the bed and he has to put up with it but if the man is gassy then it will be 'Ugh, you stink, you have to sleep on the couch!' Vetoing that vow will help the husband breathe well. lol

 

Where did THAT double standard come from? I was not aware of it! Really, I do not have insight into the private attitudes couples have about flatulence in the privacy of their own homes (and seeing how some people become more "free with their farts" as you get to know them than others, I would say it probably varies considerably), but I would be very surprised if wives are kicking their gassy husbands out of bed on a wide spread basis, where husbands around the world are breathing their wife's fumes under identical circumstances!

 

I was saying that in a Godly home roles can work and the husband can be the priest of the home. As long as the wife is treated well she will be happy to submit to her husband and allow him to lead.

 

Pity that's an xian mandate. I for one, don't want to be married to a puppy dog, I want to be married to an equal. I can see where a lot of women would want to be married to an equal rather than a master, even one who treats her well. I don't know about biblegod, but I appreciate equality in a marriage.

 

Thumbelina: As I said in my previous post, God got all the bases covered

 

 

 

ShackledNoMore:But when he explicitly puts women under submission to men, whether the man is selfless and loving, as he should be, well intentioned but merely stupid, or maliciously sadistic, how is this covering all the bases? How are all the bases covered for women that are battered, sometimes even killed by abusive husbands because they follow the biblical edict of submission to their husbands?

 

 

 

Thumbelina: What I meant by He got His bases covered it was in the context of preventing women from going on strike and abstaining from having intimate relations with their husbands and decreasing the chances of the Messiah being born or being born in a Godly home and saving MANY; No Messiah, no salvation.

 

Then it looks like God has a few more bases he needs to cover. Let's start with protections against women getting the tar beat out of them by abusive husbands. Husbands who are larger than their wives, aggressive, with a more testosterone laden physique. Let's start with some better recourse for these women if that happens. Looks like god has his priorities messed up. Moreover, xians believe that the messiah was born of a virgin. Looks like any policy intended to keep men from getting cut off so that the messiah could be procreated was all for nought.

 

In churches today, there tends to be more women than men and a number of these women are unequally yolked with unbelievers and some of these men are horrible, they lie, they cheat, they may verbally abuse the women and in that case the believing woman is the priest of the home. If the husband then becomes a believer and is then converted then He can become the priest of the home. God did and does look at individual situations and He is merciful; it was/is important for a couple to submit to God and that way there will be harmony in the home and more importantly, salvation and eternal life.

 

Then how come the divorce rate in marriages of these godly christians (evangelical christians) is 34% while the divorce rate of marriages of godless atheists is 21%?

 

Thumbelina: You and your wife are living in a different time and culture; you two are not hoping to produce a Messiah, He came already.

...Born of a virgin, so the tale goes, as I mentioned above. I'm afraid that explanation is not valid.

[ShackledNoMore]

[Part 3]

 

She won't have to veto your decision to wear an ugly shirt, all she has to do is laugh at you until you change it

 

My wife's feelings are important to me, so I would wear another shirt. However, I would stick to an important issue and/or we would discuss it together. It's a partnership, not a contest for dominance. I like that each of us doesn't try to change the other.

 

You know before I became a Christian I couldn't stand David, actually even after I became a Christian I still could not stand him but to err is human and I'm not perfect so who am I to judge.

 

This suggests to me that you were not a young child when you converted, and you knew something of the bible before you did. Am I right? Being familiar enough with the bible to dislike David it seems odd to me that you would come to see the glass as half full, as you suggested somewhere else. I don't want to trigger your sharing your testimony, especially here in the Colosseum as opposed to the Lion's Den, but I am curious what did it for you.

 

I do remember reading in the bible (forgive me but I don't remember where right now) that women could not inherit property and there was a case where a man had only daughters and the man died and they might have lost their livelihood so they pleaded their case and was granted the property.

 

Yes, I remember that, too. I just had to look it up. Are you referring to the daughters of Zelophehad in Numbers 27:1-11? Although refreshing, there was still a little cloud that went along with the silver lining. In chapter 36 they were constrained to marry within the tribe of Manasseh to prevent tribal land from changing hands.

 

Thumbelina: What do you mean Jesus was rough around the edges?

 

Some areas that come immediately to mind:

 

He was kind of prissy cursing the fig tree.

 

In a display of bigotry, he called a Samaritan woman a dog in Matthew 15 and she had to grovel for him to heal her daughter.

 

Jesus had a wonderful opportunity to condemn the detestable institution of slavery, but he held his silence. 2000 years later slavery was still defended under the cross.

 

In the OT, for a time they were under a theocracy and the people still rebelled with God right there! So you see people who say ' Oh if I see a miracle, I will believe or serve God.' No they won't, they generally won't because they don't want to submit to God so the novelty of a miracle will wane.

 

I don't know any other way to say this, but that's preposterous. I believe Barack Obama exists because I have evidence. The stories in the bible are just stories: there was never any observable god on the scene. If biblegod gave proof of his existence of course I would believe, and I think it's pretty safe to say that everyone on this site would believe, too. I am a better person not believing in biblegod. As per our discussion, I don't have to think that women are subordinate to me. I don't have to think that those with other religious beliefs are heathen sinners while I know the ultimate truth. I don't have to believe that gays are an abomination. I don't have to believe that slavery is OK or ever could be OK. Why would I want to not believe so that I would not have to submit to a god if the god was actually good?

 

Context my friend, context! In the OT there's an incident recorded where the man was stoned for picking up sticks on the Sabbath but that man was OPENLY rebellious because the Israelites were actual witnesses to God's presence. If God did not get rid of such an arrogant, presumptuous person then others would have followed in his stead and that was a deterrent to others who may have wanted to do the same.

 

So I should put my rebellious son to death (as commanded by the bible) for defiantly marking up the wall with crayons while I was present in the room? That would sure teach my other kid not to do the same! He was merely picking up sticks, for crying out loud, and no there is not a fundamental difference in that comparison. In fact, there's reason not to mark up the wall with crayons beyond just "because I said so." I can't fathom how you see a god portrayed this way as merciful in the face of such egregious barbarism.

 

What if there is a really debilitating virus that is going around in a community and your wife, and let's say her sisters, had a really aggressive strain of the virus and you were the only one that had a serum that could stabilize the disease and prolonged treatment will eventually eradicate the disease? The disease makes people irrational and even violent. What if all of a sudden one of your wife's sisters decided that she was not going to take the serum anymore and she eventually made her way in the community where she intended to kill as many people as she can and infect whomever she can? She is about to kill some people, should she be "taken out" in order to prevent a catastrophe?

 

That is not a parallel comparison. If a guy were entering the town square with spears and armor to mass murder as many people as possible and god (or a swat team member, or even some guy on the scene, for that matter) took him out, then it would be different. The human race will not self destruct because some guy picked up sticks. Have you ever jaywalked, or driven 5 mph over the speed limit? Do you think you should have been executed for your transgression? After all, you broke the law, willfully. Does evil now abound because you were not executed? Remember, we're talking about a civil penalty prescribed for this offense.

 

ShackledNoMore: I would think the biblical husband would simply forbid that in the spirit of family harmony. Ephesians 5:22-24: "Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything."

 

Thumbelina: Taking texts out of contexts in order to hang on to unbelief?

 

There's two issues here. First, lest we lose site of this, the bible is a book of myth. The OT is composed of parables and stories. I don't know for sure whether or not you are a literalist, but there was no creation 6000 years ago and there was no global flood. This is not difficult to prove. Yes, I said prove. Therefore, my debate about the bible is merely an exercise for me. I am meeting you on your turf, so to speak. There is no need for me to alter my interpretation of "the good book" to protect any non-belief. It would be interesting to ask you to attempt to show that the bible indeed provides the Ultimate Truth^TM, but that has not been within the scope of this conversation.

 

Second, as I pointed out above, the decree for husbands to love their wives does not absolve the wife of the duty to obey her husband whether he fulfills his responsibility or not! If you have been driving over the speed limit, it does NOT make it OK for me to drive recklessly! If the husband does not love his wife or "submit himself to her" (I suppose this means commit to her with her best interests at heart since he is given authority over her), even though he is told to do so, it does NOT make it OK for the wife to disobey him. Nor does it make it OK for the man to abandon his responsibility because his wife does not obey him. Where does it say that? Then I have not taken it out of context.

[ShackledNoMore]

[Part 4]

 

Digusting? No. Crazy? Definitely. I think atheism, the sin, is disgusting but I love the atheists, the people.

 

Glad to hear that you love me, Thumb. I love you, too, I suppose, at least in an abstract dispassionate xenial sense, or perhaps in certain respects, an abstract dispassionate philial sense. At least I don't think you deserve to spend eternity in hell but for the grace of your god.

 

Apparently plenty of scavengers are tasty but that does not mean one should eat them. If they were healthy then God would have put them in the clean meat category but He didn't so ...

 

Scavenger: an organism that typically feeds on refuse or carrion

 

I hate to break this to you, but rabbits are NOT scavengers. They are herbivores. It looks like this next tidbit might send you on your road to apostasy: rabbit is a white meat, low in fat, low in calories, and low in sodium and cholesterol. It is about as healthy a meat as you can get. I dug up a link here and here. Now, it turns out that rabbits are healthy and god didn't put them in the clean meat category. Uh oh. Apparently "God" also thinks that rabbits chew their cud, a factual error found in Leviticus 11:6.

 

Is your father-in-law an atheist?

 

I took the answer to be irrelevant, but I will tell you in a minute. The relevant thing is that it would have been a demonstration, actually proof of your god's existence if my father were walking around today. I can assure you, this conversation would have taken a very different turn if that had happened. I would be the most passionate defender of biblegod's existence on this board! Contrary to your assumptions, I look at hard facts, and I think that would have filled the bill. If you truly believe that god regenerates these body parts, the least you could have done is pray that his leg grows back. Believe me, a documented, verifiable instance of a leg growing back would be good for many, many converts.

 

Now, if it matters, my father-in-law, like most people, is a theist. Specifically, he is catholic. I don't know what you think about catholics, but if we could find an amputee that has beliefs similar to yours, or an atheist amputee, whichever you think is more suitable, I would be equally satisfied, provided I could verify it and have a way of knowing for sure that there was not deception or fraud involved, although I don't know who the ideal amputee would be if believers are left to live with this thorn in their side and atheists are left to will their own legs back into existence.

[Thumbelina]

 

 

 

Galien, I am sorry how bluntly I stated this, it was insensitive. I was too blunt (I generally am used to aggressive atheists, I sometimes stay in that mode of dealing a little aggressively with them). I did not mean to make it seem that the person who committed suicide was evil, it just means that maybe they did not learn how to surrender to God and also we never know if God will save them. That being said, suicide should NEVER be an option for anyone, God does care and He does want us to cast our cares upon Him. It seems that you did not get support from your community of faith either but that's just it, people disappoint us but it is not good to focus on them and ruminate on all the bad behavior you noticed; it will harm you. It is better to focus on something positive.

[Thumbelina]

 

Discussion is continued here.