Why are you a Christian if you don't believe the Bible?

Originally posted by @kellyjay
Not from me it isn't.

I’m certain of that.

Words are what they are and convey the meaning they were designed to convey. I’m sure you didn’t know about “gee wiz”, so I was just letting you know.

Originally posted by @divegeester
I’m certain of that.

Words are what they are and convey the meaning they were designed to convey. I’m sure you didn’t know about “gee wiz”, so I was just letting you know.

For that, thank you! I'll more than likely stop using that too for that reason.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
'Depravity' according to your subjective opinion or according to some objective standard?

To the objective standard of any rational person who recognizes the depravity of using child rape and torture as your 'go to' analogy. Here's an idea, why not try instead 'stealing a loaf of bread' or even 'shooting someone dead?' Still apt to the topic of absolute morality but decidedly less creepy and sinister.

Sonship argues that your sick and extreme examples 'jar the atheist's sensibilities' and that we can't blame you for 'wanting to use a surefire example clearly abominable universally.' - I wonder if he would feel the same if atheists repeatedly at every opportunity argued against God's existence due to Him allowing 'the rape and torture of babies?' Would sonship readily accept this as atheists just 'jarring theists sensibilities' and not blame us for 'wanting to use a surefire example clearly abominable universally?'

Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-duke
To the objective standard of any rational person who recognizes the depravity of using child rape and torture as your 'go to' analogy. Here's an idea, why not try instead 'stealing a loaf of bread' or even 'shooting someone dead?' Still apt to the topic of absolute morality but decidedly less creepy and sinister.

Sonship argues that your sick and ...[text shortened]... lities' and not blame us for 'wanting to use a surefire example clearly abominable universally?'

Rape and torture have been so universally condemned by civilized society that their moral depvavity has been hard wired into the emotional impact of the mere utterance of the words. Of course uncivilized people will rebel against this condemnation, treating the two as necessary evils in the fight against whoever is our mortal enemy, or rationalizing the acts another way.

But still, for all that, rape and torture are immoral by intersubjective agreement,* not by the uttered word of some absolute authority. Would that we did have an effective moral authority available — all we have are spokespersons.

So we are left with human motivators, up to and including removal from society, the death sentence, and the threats of God’s wrath, not to mention the direct actions of those who claim to speak for the gods. We pull out all the stops — when the rape and torture are of our kind.

When it’s of victims not of our kind:

Not so much. It becomes a little like stealing that loaf of bread.

https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-objectivity-and-intersubjectivity

Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-duke

Sonship argues that your sick and extreme examples 'jar the atheist's sensibilities' and that we can't blame you for 'wanting to use a surefire example clearly abominable universally.'

The crime is sick.
He is not sick to use the example.

- I wonder if he would feel the same if atheists repeatedly at every opportunity argued against God's existence due to Him allowing 'the rape and torture of babies?'

Where have you been ?

Would sonship readily accept this as atheists just 'jarring theists sensibilities' and not blame us for 'wanting to use a surefire example clearly abominable universally?'

Again, Where have you been ?

You never saw any long debates about the Old Testament occurrences of slavery & warfare spoils in including captured women, etc. ?

The bottom line on most of these arguements, whether leveled by Richard Dawkins or some other atheists is:

1.) There is a difference between what God commanded in to the theocratic nation and what was recorded as having happened.

2.) Most of the laws singled out as being unjust turned out to be God's provision for disallowing social oppression of different kinds.

I'm sure these debates are not NEW to you.
And you probably already saw how I would respond.