Which Christian Behaviors Most Annoy Atheists?

[ag_NO_stic]

I just realized that "Evil" is a blend of "Eve" and "Lil [ith]." 

 

FLEE FROM EVE-IL

[ag_NO_stic]

Just now, PennySerenade said:

I think what had happened was that people were doing the wrong things anyway, but God put limits. This is going to sound crazy, but it is as though He is saying “you are imperfect people- doing the wrong things, so in my mercy, I will set limits”- not that polygamy is good or sanctioned by God. If the people were doing as they thought was right, God was giving them borders. 

 

So....how else were they supposed to repopulate the earth? 

 

Genesis: 1:28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

[ContraBardus]

6 minutes ago, PennySerenade said:

I think what had happened was that people were doing the wrong things anyway, but God put limits. This is going to sound crazy, but it is as though He is saying “you are imperfect people- doing the wrong things, so in my mercy, I will set limits”- not that polygamy is good or sanctioned by God. If the people were doing as they thought was right, God was giving them borders. 

 

Except it is sanctioned by him. He was giving literal instructions for how to go about it.

 

You're jumping through hoops to justify your belief despite the Bible literally contradicting those beliefs in about as black and white a fashion as it possibly can.

 

Also, this line of thought does not jive with "a bunch of kids called a dude bald, so I'll slaughter them all with ravenous bears as punishment" Yaweh from the OT.

[ag_NO_stic]

Just now, ContraBardus said:

 

Except it is sanctioned by him. He was giving literal instructions for how to go about it.

 

You're jumping through hoops to justify your belief despite the Bible literally contradicting those beliefs in about as black and white a fashion as it possibly can.

 

Also, this line of thought does not jive with "a bunch of kids called a dude bald, so I'll slaughter them all with ravenous bears as punishment" Yaweh from the OT.

 

I was thinking the "death to the quiet rape victim" or "stoning your disobedient child" rules myself.

[ContraBardus]

3 minutes ago, ag_NO_stic said:

 

I was thinking the "death to the quiet rape victim" or "stoning your disobedient child" rules myself.

 

Poh-tay-toh, Pa-tah-toh.

 

 

[ag_NO_stic]

Just now, ContraBardus said:

 

Poh-tay-toh, Pa-tah-toh.

 

 

 

This is catchy. I better watch myself, I'll get caught singing it at inopportune times lol.

[mwc]

25 minutes ago, PennySerenade said:

I think what had happened was that people were doing the wrong things anyway, but God put limits. This is going to sound crazy, but it is as though He is saying “you are imperfect people- doing the wrong things, so in my mercy, I will set limits”- not that polygamy is good or sanctioned by God. If the people were doing as they thought was right, God was giving them borders. 

     Mercy?  They killed people who picked up sticks on the sabbath.  Seems like there are some messed up priorities here.

 

     And it was sanctioned by god.  He literally made it into a law.  He wasn't silent about it.  He explicitly explains how to be a proper polygamist.  The way to avoid that situation is to say that marriage is between two people and two people alone and if he wants those people to be a man and a woman he would say just that.  God, being a god, would know the exact *perfect* words to communicate with so there's no mistake or misunderstanding by anyone over any issue.  Especially if this were an important issue.

 

     Let me put this another way.  "Thou shalt not kill."  But people were kind of into killing anyhow.  Why was god so absolute on this rule?  Why not just have a little mercy and put up some boundaries?  Because it's the same thing.  If you want to make a rule you make a rule.  Don't kill.  Be monogamous.  Worship just me.  Do this.  Don't do that.  It's easy.  People follow the rules or they don't.  There's no mercy in ambiguity especially when you should be the most capable and concise being in the universe.

 

          mwc

 

[Guest]

13 minutes ago, mwc said:

     Mercy?  They killed people who picked up sticks on the sabbath.  Seems like there are some messed up priorities here.

 

     And it was sanctioned by god.  He literally made it into a law.  He wasn't silent about it.  He explicitly explains how to be a proper polygamist.  The way to avoid that situation is to say that marriage is between two people and two people alone and if he wants those people to be a man and a woman he would say just that.  God, being a god, would know the exact *perfect* words to communicate with so there's no mistake or misunderstanding by anyone over any issue.  Especially if this were an important issue.

 

     Let me put this another way.  "Thou shalt not kill."  But people were kind of into killing anyhow.  Why was god so absolute on this rule?  Why not just have a little mercy and put up some boundaries?  Because it's the same thing.  If you want to make a rule you make a rule.  Don't kill.  Be monogamous.  Worship just me.  Do this.  Don't do that.  It's easy.  People follow the rules or they don't.  There's no mercy in ambiguity especially when you should be the most capable and concise being in the universe.

 

          mwc

 

Because people are unable to follow God’s law. We can not keep it. 

[ContraBardus]

32 minutes ago, PennySerenade said:

Because people are unable to follow God’s law. We can not keep it. 

 

Doesn't that mean it's an unreasonable standard?

 

That would be God's fault if it was the case.

 

Also, you're still trying too hard to justify your belief in the face of what you'd have to consider God's literal word as a Christian.

 

The Bible directly contradicts what you believe, either it is wrong, or you are. There is no middle ground here. This is one of those rare cases where it really is a black or white issue.

 

You're trying to use weak reasoning to squirm out from under the actual implication of what it says because you can't reconcile it and are trying to take up a middle ground position on it that just isn't defensible.

 

You cannot have it both ways.

 

Here's a little experiment for you. Sit down and read the Bible from cover to cover like a book. Don't skip to your favorite passages, don't only stick to the parts that are "pertinent" to whatever service you've recently attended for "reflection". Read all of it, in order, from page one to the last page, without skipping a single paragraph, from cover to cover.

 

I have little doubt it will change your perspective on the Bible quite a bit.

[mwc]

4 minutes ago, PennySerenade said:

Because people are unable to follow God’s law. We can not keep it. 

     What law(s) that we have discussed can we not keep?  Be specific.  I want to know to what it is you are referring here as we've talked about more than just one and I don't want to make some assumptions at this point.

 

          mwc

 

[★ Citsonga ★]

Greetings, PennySerenade. This has been an interesting thread, and I appreciate your apparent sincerity.

 

6 hours ago, PennySerenade said:

Christians believe God created monogamy, the Jews corrupted it a bit, and the emphasis was placed back on monogamy when Jesus was on the Earth.

 

That's a common Christian claim, but it is erroneous, for a couple reasons found in the Bible itself. One is what mwc pointed out about how the Law allowed for polygamy, and before I get to the other reason, I want to address something that stood out to me in your replies to mwc.

 

3 hours ago, PennySerenade said:

I think what had happened was that people were doing the wrong things anyway, but God put limits. This is going to sound crazy, but it is as though He is saying “you are imperfect people- doing the wrong things, so in my mercy, I will set limits”- not that polygamy is good or sanctioned by God. If the people were doing as they thought was right, God was giving them borders. 

 

2 hours ago, PennySerenade said:

Because people are unable to follow God’s law. We can not keep it. 

 

With these comments you are basically saying that on the one hand God's Law allows for some wrong things simply because people would do them anyway, but on the other hand God's Law is full of things people wouldn't keep anyway. Do you not see the discrepancy there? Why would God forbid some things even though he knew people would do them anyway while simultaneously allowing for other things precisely because he knew they'd do them anyway? How is this representative of a consistent Solid Rock?

 

It's already been pointed out in this thread that there are flaws in the argument that God gave laws allowing polygamy even though he didn't really want polygamy, but now on to the other reason I alluded to above.

 

Here is a fatal blow to your position:

 

2 Samuel 12:7-8

Then Nathan said to David, "You are the man! This is what the LORD, the God of Israel, says: 'I anointed you king over Israel, and I delivered you from that hand of Saul. I gave your master's house to you, and your master's wives into your arms. I gave you all Israel and Judah. And if all this had been too little, I would have given you even more.'" (NIV)

 

Read that a few times to let it sink in. Look it up in your own Bible to see that I'm not making it up. Use whatever translation you prefer.

 

Right there your own Bible has God himself giving wives (that's plural, as in more than one) to King David. That is not God just passively allowing polygamy, but God himself actively giving someone multiple wives. Do you see how this destroys the Christian claim that the God of the Bible was opposed to polygamy?

 

By the way, this is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to how the Bible is actually quite different from how Christians portray it.

 

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Citsonga said:

Greetings, PennySerenade. This has been an interesting thread, and I appreciate your apparent sincerity.

 

 

That's a common Christian claim, but it is erroneous, for a couple reasons found in the Bible itself. One is what mwc pointed out about how the Law allowed for polygamy, and before I get to the other reason, I want to address your replies to mwc.

 

 

 

With these comments you are basically saying that on the one hand God's Law allows for some wrong things simply because people would do them anyway, but on the other hand God's Law is full of things people wouldn't keep anyway. Do you not see the discrepancy there? Why would God forbid some things even though he knew people would do them anyway while simultaneously allowing for other things precisely because he knew they'd do them anyway? How is this representative of a consistent Solid Rock?

 

It's already been pointed out that there are flaws in the reasoning behind claiming that God gave laws allowing polygamy even though he didn't really want polygamy, but now on to the other reason I alluded to above.

 

Here is a fatal blow to your position:

 

2 Samuel 12:7-8

Then Nathan said to David, "You are the man! This is what the LORD, the God of Israel, says: 'I anointed you king over Israel, and I delivered you from that hand of Saul. I gave your master's house to you, and your master's wives into your arms. I gave you all Israel and Judah. And if all this had been too little, I would have given you even more.'" (NIV)

 

Read that a few times to let it sink in. Look it up in your own Bible to see that I'm not making it up. Use whatever translation you prefer.

 

Right there your own Bible has God himself giving wives (that's plural, as in more than one) to King David. That is not God just passively allowing polygamy, but God himself actively giving someone multiple wives. Do you see how this destroys the Christian claim that the God of the Bible was opposed to polygamy?

 

By the way, this is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to how the Bible is actually quite different from how Christians portray it.

 

The law was asked for by the Jews. God knew they could not keep it. The law is a schoolmaster teaching us we can not be good enough- stop trying, and trust in Christ’s goodness instead. 

[★ Citsonga ★]

5 minutes ago, PennySerenade said:

The law was asked for by the Jews. God knew they could not keep it. The law is a schoolmaster teaching us we can not be good enough- stop trying, and trust in Christ’s goodness instead. 

 

Well, it's obvious right there that you didn't pay any attention to what I said. I actually expected a little better in your case, but oh the power of Christian blinders.

 

[★ Citsonga ★]

Speaking of Christian behaviors that annoy nonbelievers, what you did right there is a good example. Your reply did not address what I actually said. You skirted the subject. Your reply was not an answer, but rather a dodge.

 

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, Citsonga said:

Speaking of Christian behaviors that annoy nonbelievers, what you did right there is a good example. Your reply did not address what I actually said. You skirted the subject. Your reply was not an answer, but rather a dodge.

 

I’m sorry. I don’t know all the answers. I’m neither an apologist nor a theologian. I can only adress what I have some ideas and thoughts about. I guess I can say “I don’t know how to answer some of the questions you ask”.

[Guest]

10 minutes ago, Citsonga said:

 

Well, it's obvious right there that you didn't pay any attention to what I said. I actually expected a little better in your case, but oh the power of Christian blinders.

 

I am sorry. I am rather a disappointment. I’m not really an apologist or a defender of the faith or anything like that. 

[★ Citsonga ★]

1 minute ago, PennySerenade said:

I’m sorry. I don’t know all the answers. I’m neither an apologist nor a theologian. I can only adress what I have some ideas and thoughts about. I guess I can say “I don’t know how to answer some of the questions you ask”.

 

That's better, and fair enough. Does it not bother you one iota, though, that the Bible has the very God whom you say opposed polygamy actively giving someone multiple wives?

[ContraBardus]

22 minutes ago, PennySerenade said:

The law was asked for by the Jews. God knew they could not keep it. The law is a schoolmaster teaching us we can not be good enough- stop trying, and trust in Christ’s goodness instead. 

 

Christ never once said anything to prohibit polygamy.

 

In fact, when asked about the subject of marriage and divorce, he referred back to the Old Testament and the laws regarding it there.

 

It's also worth pointing out that all reference to someone being married to a single person or divorced is directed at the wife specifically. The passages go out of their way to single out the woman as the one bound by the limitations. A woman could only have one husband, but a man could have multiple wives.

 

The closest thing a Christian has to advocating the concept of monogamy is Deuteronomy 17:17 "The king, moreover, must not acquire great numbers of horses for himself or make the people return to Egypt to get more of them, for the LORD has told you, 'You are not to go back that way again.'  He must not take many wives, or his heart will be led astray. He must not accumulate large amounts of silver and gold."

 

However, this passage does not prohibit polygamy at all. The terminology used "many wives" does not imply a single wife, only that the king should not have an excessive number. Less than "many" is still more than one. There is no specific limit given. The passage warns against excess, not polygamy. This is the only passage where the number of wives anyone can have is given any limitation, and it's specific to the king as to not allow other pursuits to distract him from his duties.

 

There is absolutely nothing in the Bible at all that prohibits polygamy. Not in the Old Testament, and not in the New Testament either. It is an entirely new and mostly western concept that has no basis in scripture at all.

 

It mostly came into practice because commoners were mostly monogamous because they could not afford multiple wives and huge families. It wasn't a matter of morality, but a matter of economics and feasibility.

[mwc]

     I'm still wondering which laws, out of the few we discussed, that we cannot keep?  Just for clarification.

 

          mwc

 

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Citsonga said:

 

That's better, and fair enough. Does it not bother you one iota, though, that the Bible has the very God whom you say opposed polygamy actively giving someone multiple wives?

No, because there must have been a reason. I know God is good and God is love. I imagine that Saul’s wives and concubines would have been in great danger. This is perhaps the way to provide for them and keep them safe. 

 

No matter what, God is good and God is love. This I know. 

[ContraBardus]

35 minutes ago, PennySerenade said:

No, because there must have been a reason. I know God is good and God is love. I imagine that Saul’s wives and concubines would have been in great danger. This is perhaps the way to provide for them and keep them safe. 

 

No matter what, God is good and God is love. This I know. 

 

Nonsensical phrases like that are kind of annoying. "God is good, God is love" really doesn't mean anything. It's just a nonsense platitude. It's a psychological tool and is really just a kind of reinforcement phrase to be uttered that doesn't have any actual meaning aside from illiciting an emotional response.

 

Acting as a Dog Whistle is another way it functions. It's something that is nonsense to anyone outside of a specific group. Christians don't realize how silly and absurdist those kinds of idioms sound to anyone else. It is literally a Pavlovian tic that is ingrained in church doctrine for this very purpose.

 

It's a complete non-argument that gets inserted into these kinds of discussions as if it was an answer or some sort of deep philosophical point that justifies irrationality. These kinds of phrases aren't anything but a tool used to help push away uncomfortable arguments when countering them becomes difficult. It's why they exist, as a way to steel believers against arguments they can't counter anymore.

 

Another slightly annoying tic displayed here that Christians often have is not knowing the difference between knowing something and believing it. Knowledge is something you can prove or provide sound reasoning for.

 

You couldn't "know God is love" any more than you could "know" that he's 20% fairy dust and 10% magic sparkles. It's not something you know, it's something you believe. They are not the same thing.

 

Also, you do know that Concubines aren't wives, right? The word literally means "live in mistress".

 

In this context they were basically servants specifically used for sex who were not married to Saul. If you really want to be realistic about it, sex slaves. These kinds of servants were usually girls and young women taken prisoner from hostile actions against other nations, or children sired by such women. They were literal spoils of war.

 

I also take issue that any being who would create hell is "good". No lifetime of misdeeds is worth an eternity of suffering. Not even Hitler deserves that. The very concept of eternal punishment is a direct contradiction to the idea that God is merciful or good. Hell is neither of those things no matter how you look at it. Even if someone lives a hundred years and never does a single good deed, an eternity of suffering is not a justifiable punishment for it. The punishment vastly outweighs the crime and is cruel and merciless by definition.

 

Even if the soul can save itself by "accepting God" the fact that such conditions where it could happen exist at all still means that any such God is still cruel and there really is no justifying it.

 

 

[★ Citsonga ★]

53 minutes ago, ContraBardus said:

 

Christ never once said anything to prohibit polygamy.

 

In fact, when asked about the subject of marriage and divorce, he referred back to the Old Testament and the laws regarding it there.

 

It's also worth pointing out that all reference to someone being married to a single person or divorced is directed at the wife specifically. The passages go out of their way to single out the woman as the one bound by the limitations. A woman could only have one husband, but a man could have multiple wives.

 

The closest thing a Christian has to advocating the concept of monogamy is Deuteronomy 17:17 "The king, moreover, must not acquire great numbers of horses for himself or make the people return to Egypt to get more of them, for the LORD has told you, 'You are not to go back that way again.'  He must not take many wives, or his heart will be led astray. He must not accumulate large amounts of silver and gold."

 

However, this passage does not prohibit polygamy at all. The terminology used "many wives" does not imply a single wife, only that the king should not have an excessive number. Less than "many" is still more than one. There is no specific limit given. The passage warns against excess, not polygamy. This is the only passage where the number of wives anyone can have is given any limitation, and it's specific to the king as to not allow other pursuits to distract him from his duties.

 

There is absolutely nothing in the Bible at all that prohibits polygamy. Not in the Old Testament, and not in the New Testament either. It is an entirely new and mostly western concept that has no basis in scripture at all.

 

It mostly came into practice because commoners were mostly monogamous because they could not afford multiple wives and huge families. It wasn't a matter of morality, but a matter of economics and feasibility.

 

I mostly agree, but I would say that the closest thing to advocating monogamy in the Bible would be the "husband of one wife" references in 1 Timothy and Titus. Of course, those are specifically referring to bishops, deacons, and elders.

 

It is indeed true that there's nothing in the Bible specifically limiting men in general to one wife, all the while the OT Law specifically allows for multiple wives and Bible God himself specifically gives David multiple wives.

 

 

[★ Citsonga ★]

1 hour ago, PennySerenade said:

No, because there must have been a reason. I know God is good and God is love. I imagine that Saul’s wives and concubines would have been in great danger. This is perhaps the way to provide for them and keep them safe. 

 

No matter what, God is good and God is love. This I know. 

 

If a Muslim used an argument similar to this in response to someone pointing out something in the Quran that conflicted with the Muslim's belief, would you accept it as a valid argument?

 

[★ Citsonga ★]

1 hour ago, PennySerenade said:

No, because there must have been a reason. I know God is good and God is love. I imagine that Saul’s wives and concubines would have been in great danger. This is perhaps the way to provide for them and keep them safe. 

 

No matter what, God is good and God is love. This I know. 

 

So, basically, you're saying that this God of love had some reason to actively put David into sinful relationships? What could that possibly be?

 

[sdelsolray]

5 hours ago, PennySerenade said:

Yes, the laws in Western nations are informed by Judeo-Christian ethics. But what about laws in Eastern nations? Marriage is usually monogamous- world wide. If it were not, then places like China would have a greater percentage of polygamous marriages. I know of one group in China that practices polyandry, but for the most part, marriage tends to be monogamous.

 

Christianity does not have a copyright, trademark or patent on moral or ethical behavior.