Barnabas' reply to Shai said:
first off, I think I should mention from my post "good men as far as men can be good."
none of them were perfect, that goes without saying. But tyranical despots as Krump would have them described I think not.
.......
David you probably have the best case against, but even he repented of his ways.
I'd like to start by replying to your post to Shai, specifically this sentence:
"none of them were perfect, that goes without saying. But tyranical despots as Krump would have them described I think not."
Not only were they not perfect, many
were tyrannical despots, just look at the actions they took for Christs sake!!
As to my description of tyrannical despots, I'd like to draw your attention to the fact that I was reffering to
specifically the Ayatollahs at the head of Iran ruled by Allah, the fanatical Jewish sects and their leaders that occupy Palestinian land, the 'Lords Army' in western Africa that goes around killing 'enemies of God'. The FACT, cold hard FACT that we saw in the past and still see today is that wherever you get a whole society ruled by a supreme religious ideal you DO get tyrannical despots. I cannot see how you fail to see this blatant reality. You read the bible, extract the 'good' bits and use them as 'evidence of goodness' but fail to see the unreliability in this book when these 'good' things sit side-by-side utterly abominable things. And you suppose that the Koran and Torah are equally good books.
Then you mention how Shai may 'have a case with David', but that it
'doesn't matter because he repented'. Any nutjob can be an asshole then say that he is sorry. Perhaps the supreme irony and contradictive element of hypocrisy in religion is the clause that repentance = being excused for even the most heinous of acts. That is basically letting people off the hook and promoting unaccountability for actions. Yeah,
very moral.
You make false points about christian doctrine, I simply showed you where your points were false, and sighted scripture to prove it.
Again, ‘sighted’ scripture is not proof.
you ask questions, I show you were to find answers, what questions did i ask you. If your talking about me asking you if you read Genesis, thats only to see if you knew the answer to your own question. which i'm starting to think not.
Yes that is the question I was referring to. But your ‘answers’ are nothing more than biblical plaigiarism and hold no weight in counter-argument.
Also tell me, if we cannot trust jewish authors to wright about their kings, how can we trust Roman authors to write about their Emperors, or Americans to right about their presidents.
These days writers are subject to far more scrutinty than in the ancient world so drawing a comparison there is fruitless. We can’t trust Roman authors who wrote about their emperors, we have to take their musings with a pinch of salt. In fact the only writers we can trust the most are those who have no obvious vested interest in any camp, and
certainly have no religious motivation influencing them. Why you think a religious figure is a source of trustworthy account when they 1) are often politically motivated 2) have private agendas and 3) believe in talking snakes is beyond me.
This should also be countered buy the fact the jews did not spare us the less the wholsome periods of their history. Several Kings reigned in Judah and Isreal, and for the most part none were good. The Jews didn't pick and choose what info they gave us. They have not padded their history.
This is all biblical interpretation and the details are subject to
extreme variances. Again, simply relating to me what it says in the bible and stating it as historic fact is nowhere near the reliability of say, the account of a holocaust survivor.
"How many know that if we, only showed the love of Christ more often to our children that they would never have to worry about things like premarital sex, divorce, drug use and abortion. If we raise them to know right from wrong then why would we even have to ask these things."
Once again you take pleasure in making assumptions where none are to be made. Did i say in this post once that non-christians are incapable of raising children, no not once.
No, but the KEY thing that I’m arguing here is that many religious people DO believe that the only way to raise children is the godly way. It is that seething danger and the sheer vulnerability of religious writings to be interpreted in myriad of ways and how we have seen it forcefully applied to people throughout history that is the whole source of my opposition to religion.
surley you have no problem with parents teaching their children not to become teenage unwed mothers and fathers.
Of course I don’t, but you’re totally missing the point. The surface points on morality in faith are often quite innocent, but what you fail to understand is the extreme susceptibility of religion to very rapidly descend into authoritarian dogma, which is actually what it was tailored for.
This final sentence of yours pinpoints the commonly held view among religious people that non-believers are the source of social chaos, lack of discipline, order and promote promiscuity and wayward practices of self-abuse. Religion needs to get off its high horse of supposed moral superiority, understand that it is merely a tool to control the masses and is full of capricious, unbrotherly and cruel doctrines that is sugar-coated with common-sense moralities which anyone could follow totally without the intervention of religion.
.