BlakeEM

When the bible says it's the word of god, why do you take it so literally?

Maybe seed means your harvest and dung on your faces simply means spreading dung on the face of the earth (or face of your harvest, meaning the top)? The dung of your solemn feasts means that the food won't taste good; kind of like how we say something tastes like crap, however here it will taste like dung (this doesn’t literally mean they are eating dung). They will then take you away with it because no one wants to eat that crap so they send you away with it. :rolling:

Then again I could be wrong and it could mean that God will corrupt your seed so you can’t re-produce (or so you will be bourn with corrupt demon children haha) and then he will rub dung on your faces.

Also go does say "I will even send a curse upon you". This sounds evil to me! I thought only the Devil curses people?

Mageth

Umm, I'm sure most of us are already quite familiar with the sin-and-repentance schtick.

Bingo!

Not a "sin" against God, not a "sin" in the Biblical sense, no, but that doesn't mean atheists can't and don't consider those things wrong (well, except for perhaps the drunk part). You're right; I don't think God commanded us not to do those things, and that's why we shouldn't do them. But then, I don't need a God to tell me not to do them.

????

Personally, if I stole, killed, lied, or committed adultery, I'd feel guilty as hell. Can't speak for all atheists, though. (I wouldn't feel particularly guilty about gettin' drunk; maybe a bit of a headache).

The human feeling of guilt predates the Bible, and is independent of the Bible. When you say "guilt", you're speaking of an artificial kind of guilt, one in which you feel like you've offended some invisible being.

Here's the rub. I'm "good" (I don't kill, steal, lie, or commit adultery) because I want to be good, and don't want to be bad. I don't need the Bible to tell me to be good, or the fear of offending or "sinning" against some invisible being to motivate me or scare me into being good.

Angrillori

You're rather missing the point.

There's a wide gap between "can sin" , and "do commit acts you call sins".

Now, it may be the case that the only reason you don't commit more sinful acts is because you believe in god. I really don't know, and it is entirely irrelevant to the point.

To make the case that atheists are atheists BECAUSE they want to engage in those behaviours, you have to show that they #1) DO participate in those behaviours, and #2) Participate in those behaviours MORE than christians do.

If they don't participate in those behaviours more than christians, then, well, it looks like "the opportunity to participate in those behaviours" was NOT a motivation for unbelief.

Does that make sense?

So, do you have that information? Or were you just making an unsupported assertion that bordered on ad hom.?


I just did some checking, looks like atheists are UNDER represented in jail....oh well. I was hoping to lend your argument some support. But it looks like atheists are actually less likely to engage in criminal acts than christians. I know not all sins are criminal, but the most well-documented ones are, and it would be a good sign for you if there were more non-believers locked away than believers. Oh well. Maybe you'll have more luck searching than I!
BTW, here's a neat data site:
http://holysmoke.org/icr-pri.htm

Cliftongrl

Yes they were. Women's rights wase an issue that was "on the table" before my great-grandfather's time. Not only women, but many thoughtful men, have recognized the equality of the sexes and protested unequal treatment for quite a long time now.

BlakeEM

I don't do those horrible things because they wouldn't only make me feel guilty but make people not like me very much and make me not like myself very much.

Think of it this way now. Many other Atheists and I included don’t do these things because they are wrong to us, not because a book TELLS us they are wrong.

Now I reverse your claim. Most atheists have no forgiveness for what they do wrong and think of themselves as the only ones to blame for it and they are the only ones at fault. They have no being that will forgive them for anything horrible that they may do.

Now Christians on the other hand can do anything and murder all the people they want and if they ask for forgiveness and mean it they are good to go to heaven.

This is why I feel that Christians sin more than Atheists (religious polls from inside prisons prove this point)

funinspace

Now your just being sexist

We may have to be like the Everedy Energizer bunny in the waiting for an explanation of which parts to consider "holy"....

BadBadBad

Angry? I didn't read it that way. Context. You've got to read this stuff in context. The poster wasn't angry. Dumb struck. The poster was dumb struck.

Oh and at least we try not to make any and every lame fundy excuse in the book to avoid admitting that Christ's (the Son of God, err man, err myth, err God, err err spririt, heck just plain silly concept) teachings are nothing more than the musing of a bunch of ancient goat herders in order to deceive ourselves that our pitiful life has any meaning what so ever. That's what I call running.

I love this. Here let me help you understand. We're not seeing this because:

IT DOESN'T SAY THIS!

On the other hand, if you want to interpret the implied meaning within the Bible, let me remind you that you're not seeing this:

Gen 1:0.5 Caution This book is intended for entertainment purposes only. The concept of God is entirely mythical, and in no way should the character be interpreted as a real entity.

BlakeEM

I think they edited that part out because they can make more money that way

Angrillori

Y'know, I don't usually do the "liquid thru the nose trick," but for some reason the phrase "This book is intended for entertainment purposes only," was irresistably funny. I think I'll be chuckling about that for, well, possibly years.

In fact, I may never open a bible again without thinking that line.

You rock brettc!

Magdlyn

The OP said fundies would not allow these q's on their board. You requested to see them, and acted as if you would have good interpretations of their absurd and cruel nature.

Blake posted them for you. Perhaps you thought there were only 3 or 4 "quality" absurdities in the Bible. Not sure.

So, when you saw this (actually quite modest) list of 22, you seemed overwhelmed by the number.

I do not need to apologize for these verses. You seemed to want to. Take them one at a time if you like. No one is insisiting you answer all 22 in one post.

I tried to help by pointing out the difference between Ecclesiastes and Ecclesiasticus.