God

Originally posted by SwissGambit
I did read the Old Testament first. Before basically anything else. Cover to cover. At least 50 times. I'm not kidding. I was raised as a Christian and home-schooled - there was no avoiding it. I was a Christian for the first 21 years of life. I was not allowed to read any serious skeptical writings. I was not taught anything about evolution. The hing, or face a consequence he has not experienced in any way, and cannot possibly understand.

I did read the Old Testament first. Before basically anything else. Cover to cover. At least 50 times. I'm not kidding. I was raised as a Christian and home-schooled - there was no avoiding it.

Sounds kind of brutal.

I was a Christian for the first 21 years of life. I was not allowed to read any serious skeptical writings.

You were a Christian because you were FORCED to read the Old Testament 50 times and could not avoid home schooling ?

I was not taught anything about evolution. The most I ever heard about it was from certain guest speakers at church who loved to set up evolutionary strawmen and knock them down for an audience that was in agreement with them from the start.

I see.

OK, back to your question. I actually think you've got the first words of God to man wrong. Look at Gen 2 as well as Gen 1, and try to sequence them. I came up with:

1) God creates man out of dust. [Gen 2:7]
2) God places the man in the Garden of Eden and tells the man he can eat of any tree in the garden except for one. If he eats of the one, he shall surely die. This is the first communication of God to man that is recorded. [Gen 2:16-17]
3) God observes that it is not good for the man to be alone and creates a woman to help the man. [Gen 2:22]
4) God blesses them [i.e., the man AND the woman, indicating that this happens AFTER the events in Gen 2 above] and tells them to multiply and take dominion over the earth. [Gen 1:28]

Even so, I think, my point pretty much is the same.

Let's say what are the first RECORDED words is arguable. You still have God's blessing and mandate to be fruitful, multiply ....

Nothing there about most of the things we usually associate with typical "worship".

In Genesis there is a warning NOT to eat something. No warning not to hate, murder, no warning not to rape, steal, lie, no warning not to cuss, get drunk.

Only a warning to be careful not to eat something.

The first principle is that man must not do a certain thing, or face a consequence he has not experienced in any way, and cannot possibly understand.

Originally posted by jaywill

I did read the Old Testament first. Before basically anything else. Cover to cover. At least 50 times. I'm not kidding. I was raised as a Christian and home-schooled - there was no avoiding it.

Sounds kind of brutal.

I was a Christian for the first 21 years of life. I was not allowed to read any serious skeptical writing a consequence he has not experienced in any way, and cannot possibly understand.

In Genesis there is a warning NOT to eat something. No warning not to hate, murder, no warning not to rape, steal, lie, no warning not to cuss, get drunk.

Only a warning to be careful not to eat something.

I like the interpretation of these facts to say there was no possibility of hate, murder, etc. in the nature of humans, up until the time that they developed a sense of innocence and guilt -- a conscience. The fruit of the tree is symbolic of that. They just were -- without their natural mode of existence entailing evil. Thus they were as the animals, that are not properly accused of hate, murder, etc. as they go about their natural way of living (a natural way that nonetheless includes aggression, killing, forced reproductive acts, taking things from others, deception, -- although I am not sure about cussing and getting drunk.

So the fruit of the tree story is a myth, in the exalted sense of the word, about how humans became uniquely driven by conscience-- although this may not be as unique a trait as our ancestors thought.

Originally posted by googlefudge
You do seem to have a liking for bigoted morons to argue your points for you.

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/04/dinesh_dsouza_is_a_contemptibl.php

http://freethoughtblogs.com/singham/2007/04/20/reacting-to-other-peoples-tragedies/

http://freethoughtblogs.com/axp/2007/04/20/words-of-comfort/

http://freethoughtblogs.com/singham/2008/05 ...[text shortened]... trying to defend ideas from a millennia ago against the realities and truths discovered
since.

hehe. there is an awful number of "new" apologists roaming around and they are wearing the same old turds, with new polish.

Originally posted by jaywill
[b]Denish DSouza takes on the New Atheists on what he says are their strongest points:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mNhf140H42s&feature=related[/b]

Aak.

'whiskey-drinking, child molestor-looking, trench coat wearing...but in a cool kind of way' 🙄

'I wanted to believe, but my brain was getting in the way.' 🙄

Sorry, I kept waiting for this guy to get to the freakin' point, but I'm 12 min in and he's not there yet. There's no way I can take 38 more minutes of this guy.

Originally posted by Pianoman1
"The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully"

Wow ve disposition.

Excellent stuff!! (gues I'll just sit and wait for all the thumbs down!)

Yet Richard still lives!!!

So either Richard is wrong (because he still draws breath due to God's longsuffering and mercy) or the God he proports to know does not exist.

Originally posted by whodey
Yet Richard still lives!!!

So either Richard is wrong (because he still draws breath due to God's longsuffering and mercy) or the God he proports to know does not exist.

He does not purport to know any god. That's why the word fiction is in there. 🙄

Originally posted by SwissGambit
He does not purport to know any god. That's why the word [b]fiction is in there. 🙄[/b]

Sure he does. He reads the Bible and develops an opinion of who that God is in the Bible. I read the same thing and come up with something totally different.

You must then conclude that Richard is either right that God does not exist, or he does not understand that the same God he derides is really longsuffering and merciful.

Of course, there is a limit to such mercy and longsuffering as many can attest.

Originally posted by whodey
Sure he does. He reads the Bible and develops an opinion of who that God is in the Bible. I read the same thing and come up with something totally different.

You must then conclude that Richard is either right that God does not exist, or he does not understand that the same God he derides is really longsuffering and merciful.

Of course, there is a limit to such mercy and longsuffering as many can attest.

Yeah, you read the OT slavery verses and yet claimed that Israeli slavery was something humane and progressive. So it's no surprise that you have your own 'totally different' view on the OT in general.

Would God be excused from charges of genocide against the Canaanites because he happened to ignore one British skeptic? Would he be rightly labeled as merciful because Dawkins was lucky enough not to live in the day of Noah's flood? Not hardly. There would still be the small matter of all those deaths he ordered and caused. 😵

Originally posted by SwissGambit
Yeah, you read the OT slavery verses and yet claimed that Israeli slavery was something humane and progressive. So it's no surprise that you have your own 'totally different' view on the OT in general.

Would God be excused from charges of genocide against the Canaanites because he happened to ignore one British skeptic? Would he be rightly labeled as ...[text shortened]... hardly. There would still be the small matter of all those deaths he ordered and caused. 😵

You seem to overlook the fact that God has the right to take life since He is the
life giver. HalleluYah !!! Praise the Lord! He gives and He takes away! 😏

Originally posted by jaywill
I mean granted, God in the Old Testament is not Barny the Dinosaur. But he can't see any mercy, longsuffering, love, patience, forgiveness in all of the Old Testament ?

I am sure we all can see parts of the Old Testament where God is described in a favourable light. But the fact that you highlight this rather than give a reasonable argument as to why the charges that Dawkins puts forward are not well founded, suggests you have no valid defence.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I am sure we all can see parts of the Old Testament where God is described in a favourable light. But the fact that you highlight this rather than give a reasonable argument as to why the charges that Dawkins puts forward are not well founded, suggests you have no valid defence.

Or put it another way...

If Hitler or Stalin had been a loving and kind father who looked after their wife and kids
would that make up for the fact that they were genocidal maniacs who ordered and
caused the deaths of millions and caused suffering for countless millions more?


No, of course it wouldn't.


The god described in the bible, particularly but not exclusively the OT, is a monster.

Reading the bible literally leads to only one conclusion, that the god described there is evil.

You have to 'interpret' and 'selectively pick' verses to get any other picture.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I am sure we all can see parts of the Old Testament where God is described in a favourable light. But the fact that you highlight this rather than give a reasonable argument as to why the charges that Dawkins puts forward are not well founded, suggests you have no valid defence.

About five to possibly eight months ago I believe I gave extensive responses on pretty much each of Mr. Dawkins' charges. I think that exchange was between me and VoidSpirit. I don't think I will take the time to re-write all those posts.

However, I am thankful to God that the Bible reveals a well rounded and "holistic" portrait of this God. If God in the Bible ONLY did things upon which jaywill liked I would be a little suspicious.

Everyone gets their toes stepped by God at least somewhere in Scripture. Even Christ cried out on the cross "My God, my God, Why have You forssaken Me?"

And He was sinless. Do expect that from beginning to end you and I will approve of every action of God without exeption ?

To this day there are still passages in the Bible I find difficult to defend. I have learned that as God is working on me to conform me more to the image of Christ, I should expect that.

Originally posted by jaywill
About five to possibly eight months ago I believe I gave extensive responses on pretty much each of Mr. Dawkins' charges. I think that exchange was between me and VoidSpirit. I don't think I will take the time to re-write all those posts.

Can you perhaps give us a thread id?

Everyone gets their toes stepped by God at least somewhere in Scripture.
Then you should have no objection when Dawkins or anyone else calls God a 'toe stepper'.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Can you perhaps give us a thread id?

[b]Everyone gets their toes stepped by God at least somewhere in Scripture.
Then you should have no objection when Dawkins or anyone else calls God a 'toe stepper'.[/b]

Dawkins does not just object to something here and there. Dawkins is out for a total scortched earth policy to exterminate all respect for God in the Old Testament.

You may be impressed. I am not.

And that long discussion between, I believe VoidSpirit and me, is on one of the pages of innactive discussions.

Dawkins and Hitchens had a conversation, according to Christopher Hitchens. Both of course are atheists. But the exchange was interesting. And it went something like this, according to Christopher Hitchens;

The question was, would either of them be willing to leave one single theist standing if they both had the power to totally wipe out all belief in God in the world. Christopher Hitchens told Richard Dawkins that he would be willing to leave at least ONE God believer left in the world. Richard Dawkins, according to Hitchens, was dumbfounded by this.

Dawkins is not just talking about his being offended by a few passages. Dawkins is out to annhilate faith in God from the planet. At least Hitchens would be willing to leave one Theist standing if it was his choice.

Of course as it stands, neither one of them will see their dream. They will come before Christ in total unconditional surrender.

I think the best way for you to look for that link is to get all the discussions of VoidSpirit and see which one started with that quotation from God Delusion.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
Aak.

'whiskey-drinking, child molestor-looking, trench coat wearing...but in a cool kind of way' 🙄

'I wanted to believe, but my brain was getting in the way.' 🙄

Sorry, I kept waiting for this guy to get to the freakin' point, but I'm 12 min in and he's not there yet. There's no way I can take 38 more minutes of this guy.

Aak.

'whiskey-drinking, child molestor-looking, trench coat wearing...but in a cool kind of way'

'I wanted to believe, but my brain was getting in the way.'

Come now. Surely Hitchens has no glass jaw. He dishes stuff out like this in SPADES dude !!



Surely, he can take a little himself.

Sorry, I kept waiting for this guy to get to the freakin' point, but I'm 12 min in and he's not there yet. There's no way I can take 38 more minutes of this guy.

Then you are just going to miss some substantial discussion on the count of some start up stuff. Too bad.