For JoC: God's Nastiest Turd

47 posts / 0 new
Last post
arakish's picture
@ JoC

@ JoC

And almost forgot. You forgot what the OP stated.

In the first response, I give him the challenge to find God's Nastiest Turd.

rmfr

P.S. — My Prophecy. Since we ignored JoC's demand to "pick one," he shall ignore my demand to "pick one."

Sapporo's picture
Yes, but what about rainbows?

Yes, but what about rainbows??

arakish's picture
@ Sapporo

@ Sapporo

"Yes, but what about rainbows??"

Leprechauns. How do you think they get their pots of gold?

One Leprechaun stands at a place. Another stands miles away with an empty pot. The first one uses his Rainbow Power to fire the rainbow up into the clouds and to the empty pot. As the rainbow hits the Silver Lining of the clouds, it pops out planchettes that get magically transformed into gold that slide down the rainbow to collect in the pot.

I thought everyone knew this. It was a special creation by the Ginormous Cosmic Bunnies. Ask Tin-Man.

rmfr

calhais's picture
I never did understand why

I never did understand why some people believe in special creation. I wasn't raised to believe in special creation. Genesis includes odd phrasings like letting the land produce vegetation rather than simply saying that God created the vegetation bit by bit; the account of the rise of animals does include the word `create,' but it isn't clear what that's supposed to mean. I don't see how you jump from even a loose translation of Gen 1 to `every animal species' physiology is the way it is because God particularly arranged for it to be that way' since the word `created,' in its minimal reasonable interpretation, only implies that God is responsible for the overall outcome. Deed doesn't entail method.

arakish's picture
Of "Out of Context"

Of "Out of Context"

It is completely OK, as demonstrated by the NonStampCollector video, that you Absolutists are completely fine with someone taking something sweet out of context from the Bible...

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish, but have eternal life."

You Absolutists are perfectly fine when I take the above "out of context."

However, as soon as someone pulls some nasty thing God did, or commanded to be done...

"Slay utterly old and young, both maids, and little children, and women."

...out of context, you Absolutists scream foul.

Hate to say this, but when it comes to the Bible, THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS OUT OF CONTEXT.

Besides, the ENTIRE Bible is "out of context" since there is NO truth in it, and every thing written in the Bible is plagiarized from myths, legends, fables, far older than the Bible. Some thousands of the years older.

So whenever any of you Absolutists try to use the "out of context" card, suck my dookey chute dry.

rmfr

calhais's picture
It is completely OK, as

It is completely OK, as demonstrated by the NonStampCollector video, that you Absolutists are completely fine with someone taking something sweet out of context from the Bible...

You're an ass--and I say that as a description of that you're wrong and seem to be proud of it--for using a group identity that you define, like `Absolutist,' to shove what you want to believe we believe down our throats.

arakish's picture
Turnabout is... rmfr

Turnabout is...

rmfr

's picture
I resurfaced this thread from

I resurfaced this thread from the archives because it's very interesting, and want an updated view of this thread, if any.

arakish's picture
I am still working on it.

I am still working on it. Just ain't got as much free time as I would like.

rmfr

JoC's picture
@arakish

@arakish

I forget where we left off here. In any case, you have given a long list. Fair enough. But I recall asking for 1. Just 1 which you could consider the worst of the bunch. I don't think you've given me that one.

Also, you're assuming what kind of Christian I am. I do not believe in sola scriptua. Long story short, sola scriptura isn't scriptural. I know there are horrible things in the Bible - slavery, war, infanticide, etc. But just because the Bible records something does not mean endorsement of a certain practice. Admittedly, many Christians do fall into the trap of, "It's in the Bible, therefore it's okay." and I can say they are absolutely wrong. And I'm with you on that.

arakish's picture
@ JoC

@ JoC

So since god commanded such things, it did not endorse them?

rmfr

JoC's picture
Cite the verse (just one. too

Cite the verse (just one. too many verses will clutter up the topic) and we'll talk about it. Most of these are on a case to case basis. But just because certain people did certain things in the Bible, doesn't mean they were endorsed.

arakish's picture
@ JoC

@ JoC

Actually I meant since I was first to go septic diving, it is now your turn to pick one, start a new thread, and we discuss it.

rmfr

JoC's picture
It makes no sense for me to

It makes no sense for me to pick one and explain it since you could always just say, "oh that's an easy one.". Which is why it makes more sense that you pick then and we start from there. Actually, if we were going to have a much more fruitful discussion, might be better if we talked through private message.

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
@job

@job
Typical jesuit training, "let's do it in secret"...that has been the problem with the priesthood since the beginning....

arakish's picture
I'll get back to it when I

I'll get back to it when I get settled at the field installation. Just up to take my final for the night. Then I fly up tomorrow morning.

rmfr

Pages

Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.