Introduction - Any Believers?

by Believer 240 Replies latest jw experiences

  • DJS


    If it is ridiculous it deserves to be ridiculed.


    Urantia papers? Really? Are you freaking kidding me? Have you and SBF got together to create a good laugh on us?

    Is it the lunar cycle? Y'all drinking or smoking something? JWR influence?

  • cofty

    So OLI let's look at this in more detail.

    Everything you have said about the purpose and timing of the Law is a total red herring.

    The god of Jesus ordered his people to take people from other nations as slaves. It is a moral truth that for one human to own another human as an inheritable possession is wrong. I have never met anybody who thought otherwise. That means that everybody I have ever met is morally superior to the god of Jesus.

    The god of Jesus ordered his people to murder every single baby of the seven nations that inhabited Caanan. The Israelites obeyed up to a point but never saw the project to completion. The only time they are rebuked by Jesus' god in connection with this task is not for being too brutal but for failing to murder enough women and babies. Rather than admit there is never a circumstance when it can be a moral good to hack thousands of babies to death you have obfuscated in order to excuse your god.

    He further ordered his people to save virgins and to distribute them among the army as sex slaves. Of course in his mercy he told them to wait a few days to grieve for their dead families before they could be raped.

    If god is love then everything he does must be done in love. Even when he disciplines and judges it must be motivated by perfect love.

    Your impossible challenge is to explain how slavery, rape and the mass murder of babies are an act of perfect love.

  • sparky1


    I just finished reading the YourAnus papers and I have found the TRUTH about Jesus!

    Gosh......sorry if I am making an ASS of myself.

  • DJS


    Believer has chastised us atheists because we hurt theists' feelings. Apparently theists want to believe whatever they want to believe and have us mean ole atheists respect it. Like most atheists I respect theists' right to believe whatever nonsense they wish. I have zero respect, none, for theists' rights to express those beliefs publicly, to practice those beliefs when they are harmful or to try to spread their infection to others. No respect. Zilch. Zip. Nada.

    Got that?

    Believer picks and chooses the parts of the bible that make her feel nice. She refuses to accept anything about her god that isn't rainbows and unicorns. Her head is firmly planted up her ass, I mean in the sand. Her religion is a religion of one. Believer. And that is her right. It isn't her right to attempt to spread that infection to anyone else and it especially isn't her right to try to spread that infection on the world wide web without rational, intelligent (hint hint) people pushing back. Hard.

    Her religion isn't one of choice; it is of her own making. It is narcissistic, immature and egocentric. It is no different than the religious beliefs of Jim Jones, David Koresh, Heavens Gate or those who have deified Lindsay Lohan (that would be me). Her religion is lazy brained and selfish, and it deserves absolutely no respect. Her beliefs and her belief system - the manner in which she derived those beliefs - is ridiculous and deserves to be ridiculed.

    That Dislike button thing-ey, for all of you on your monthly cycle, is four steps over and two steps down.
  • Bonsai

    Ariana Grande could just be the goddess that unites all theists and atheists! Lohan and Kardashian just don't quite have that divine spark in my humble opinion.

  • DJS

    Ariana Grande stuns. But she's not batshit crazy like LiLo.

    I kinda sorta need batshit crazy. And since it's my deity . . .

  • DJS


    There is a huge difference between believing that the universe was created by an intelligent godlike creator and believing specifically in, for example, the bible version or a specific god.

    The evidence does not point to a creator, but since there is so much we don't know it really isn't worth arguing the point. If that changes and there is sufficient evidence that a creator created the universe, atheists will become believers. Atheism isn't a religion; it isn't associated with emotions of any kind. It is based on evidence.

    Having said that, when any of you theists start talking about the bible, jah, jesus, god is love, this scripture or that scripture - you are preaching. When you make, as Simon pointed out, definitive statements about your beliefs, you are imposing your beliefs on the rest of us.

    Why would you think that acceptable? Why would you think we should respect that? Why would any of you come on this site, which is full of people who have been damaged by religion in general and one in specific, and think it acceptable to preach your version of jesus? So yes KateWild, I find it disgusting and abhorrent when that occurs, and it happens a lot.

    Why would you think your beliefs are any more valid than those of the Hindus, Muslims, Animists, Satanists, Janes, Buddhists or those who still think Thor is the man?

    They are not any more valid. Believe all you wish, but take it outside or keep it to yourself. It's sort of like smoking; you are free to contaminate yourself with them, but you are not free to contaminate the rest of us.

    I have zero respect for people who smoke indoors or around others. I have the same lack of respect for those who try to impose their religious beliefs, and I do not understand why you feel compelled to speak of them.

    Take Believer, for example, she wasn't content to merely suggest that belief in a creator should deserve respect; no, she had to bring up jesus, the bible, the jah god dude and some idiot reading papers about the pre-jesus jesus. That shows what her real motive was and is - to impose her specific brand of x-tianity on the rest of us and expect us to be in awe of her awesomeness.

  • sweetgrass

    Lol....I watched a program last night about what scientists believe came before the big bang. Horizon program I think. New theories dismiss the big bang ever happening.

    Anyway by the time it finished I found that I agreed and believed each theory in turn only to be replaced by the next one viewed.

    I believe in something but its fluid and always changing.

  • OutsiderLookingIn

    Exactly what part of what I said could be construed as condoning rape? Does the fact that there was a law governing the situation mean approval of the underlying behavior? Are legislators condoning criminal activity because they have codify laws and enact statutes for criminal offenses? Penalties for lawbreaking and laws themselves are generally cultural and subject to change.

    As for cultural relativism, warfare and slavery was a way of life in antiquity. It just was. Marriage was not the romantic notion of two people in love deciding to spend their lives together; the norm was arranged marriage. Among more elite couples, marriage was used to formalize treaties. I'm not sure that we as armchair historians of the last century get to impugn the interpersonal relationships that characterized much of the world. In modern life, it is a moral given that slavery is wrong and I think that's wonderful. But this is a fairly new concept, not even two hundred years old in the "greatest country in the world" (the United States), but in quotes to show the highest self-image is often the basest reality). For thousands of years, slavery was a given; most people were slaves or in various levels of servitude (feudalism, indentured servitude, apprenticeships, sweatshops). The slavery for which we have the most disdain, chattel slavery in the US based on visible race, was particularly brutal and glaring in its inhumanity. Our idea that slavery is wrong is great progress, but what about growing income disparities, the plight of the working poor, or one worker being forced to do what it used to take three people just to keep his job? How many are in a position to quit their job when their boss gets on their nerves? And yet this is obviously progress. Even in moving forward, there always seems to be new ways to oppress.

    To divorce the Old Testament from a historical context (real people at a fixed point in time) is a recipe for disaster. I would agree that, read in isolation, parts of the Old Testament are extreme. But then I see a parallel with Jesus saying, if your right hand is causing you to sin (be separated from God), cut it off. Yes, it's extreme but the idea behind it is that sin really is that big a deal; avoid it at all costs. It doesn't always seem that way to me, but that is the position God takes. Furthermore, I see no indication that strict application of the Old Testament is a reasonable course today. Especially since we have the New Testament, which teaches to live at peace with everyone as much as it depends on you and reinforces the ideas of personal responsibility, kindness to others and minding your own business.

    My effort was only to bridge the gap between the Old and New Testament, and explain to Believer how I reconcile the two. It was never my intent to convince anyone of anything so it's not my "impossible challenge. The primary goal of the Bible is to reconcile us to God. From this perspective, the "act of love" would be keeping Israel close to God and away from the physical and spiritual dangers of idol worship. God was providing everything they needed and had already proven Himself many times before, but even that was not enough for them to trust Him. It wasn't an illusory or hypothetical risk--Israel repeatedly fell into idolatry because they were surrounded by it. It's love to want the best for someone even though they insist on another way. Of course, people have always questioned the underlying premise so the conclusions reached will vary.

  • cofty
    Exactly what part of what I said could be construed as condoning rape? - OLI

    You said you knew the OT well and didn't need references. I assumed you knew about god's instructions to kill all the men and every woman who had been with a man but to save all the virgins and distribute them among the soldiers and priests. They were to be given a few weeks to mourn and then they could be raped.

    Kidnap, forced marriage/rape.

    Your waffle about cultural relativism is a red herring. If I was condemning ancient Israel for their ethics then you would have a point.

    I am condemning your god for advocating rape, slavery, genocide and infanticide. If he is eternally good then evil is always evil. There has never been a time in history when slavery, rape and infanticide were objectively good. Therefore your god - the god of theism - doesn't exist.

Share this