Comments on: AU Under Attack! http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/08/au-under-attack.html NIGHTTIME IS FOR DREAMING. DAYLIGHT IS FOR ACTION. Wed, 7 Jan 2009 02:38:29 +0000 By: Damis http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/08/au-under-attack.html#comment-42733 Damis Mon, 22 Dec 2008 08:07:34 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/08/au-under-attack.html#comment-42733 <cite>I'm always struck by how many ways the Bible can be interpreted.</cite> At least as many "believers" as non-believers have died due to believing a slightly different version than the group with the most power. Hairsplitting between factions can become downright dangerous. <cite>Why, it seems that you can interpret it to mean anything you want. You simply take the parts that don't agree with you and you either claim they mean what you want them to mean or claim that they apply to some specific instance that doesn't apply to your argument.</cite> Convenient, isn't it? I've witnessed essentialists(those who want to believe that Jesus and the bible represent love and peace) get into verbal fights with fundamentalists who take the bible literally in all it's gory violence and swear that their God is a jealous, angry God who would cast many of his children in a lake of fire to be tortured for all eternity, just for not believing in him. Incidentally, these same fundies are the ones who, by and large, are responsible for trying to bring back corporal punishment in the schools and torture by our government...yeah. I'm always struck by how many ways the Bible can be interpreted.
At least as many "believers" as non-believers have died due to believing a slightly different version than the group with the most power. Hairsplitting between factions can become downright dangerous.

Why, it seems that you can interpret it to mean anything you want. You simply take the parts that don't agree with you and you either claim they mean what you want them to mean or claim that they apply to some specific instance that doesn't apply to your argument.
Convenient, isn't it? I've witnessed essentialists(those who want to believe that Jesus and the bible represent love and peace) get into verbal fights with fundamentalists who take the bible literally in all it's gory violence and swear that their God is a jealous, angry God who would cast many of his children in a lake of fire to be tortured for all eternity, just for not believing in him. Incidentally, these same fundies are the ones who, by and large, are responsible for trying to bring back corporal punishment in the schools and torture by our government...yeah.

]]> By: Damis http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/08/au-under-attack.html#comment-42732 Damis Mon, 22 Dec 2008 07:50:43 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/08/au-under-attack.html#comment-42732 Christian hostility and violence is not the exception to the rule! As Hector Avalos end is final chapter in,<i>Fighting Words, The Origins of Religious Violence</i><i>: "We become complicit in violence when we attempt to maintain a book whose main truths can never be verified. We become complicit when we maintain the value of violent scripture by focusing on "aesthetics" that exist no more than the 'aesthetics" of </i><i>Mein Kampf</i><i>. We need to ask ourselves, as academics, why the Bible and the Qur'an, among other scriptures, are worth priveleging at all. Our final mission, as scholars of these scriptures, must be to help humanity close the book on a long chapter of human misery." Damis</i> Christian hostility and violence is not the exception to the rule! As Hector Avalos end is final chapter in,Fighting Words, The Origins of Religious Violence:

"We become complicit in violence when we attempt to maintain a book whose main truths can never be verified. We become complicit when we maintain the value of violent scripture by focusing on "aesthetics" that exist no more than the 'aesthetics" of Mein Kampf. We need to ask ourselves, as academics, why the Bible and the Qur'an, among other scriptures, are worth priveleging at all. Our final mission, as scholars of these scriptures, must be to help humanity close the book on a long chapter of human misery."

Damis

]]> By: OMGF http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/08/au-under-attack.html#comment-26430 OMGF Sat, 25 Aug 2007 14:04:03 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/08/au-under-attack.html#comment-26430 <blockquote>I'm not asking you to take my word for anything. I'm not trying to make converts. I just think if you are going to make ridiculous remarks about a person, you should take the time to find out a little more about Him, so you won't look like such a pathological liar.</blockquote> Wait, so you can't back up your interpretations, but I'm the liar? And, what vicious remarks have I made against any person that are unsubstantiated? Or do you mean that god is a person now? Well, god does commit genocide and many other attrocities, at least as recorded in the Bible. If the Bible is true, then god is a monster. The Bible also talks about hell and a lake of fire. You can try and explain it away, but many others come to different interpretations of those passages. Which one of you is right? You can't answer that. Will you admit that you may be wrong? <blockquote>The Bible is a revelation, not a novel.</blockquote> A revelation of what exactly? Who is this revelation open to? <blockquote>If you have questions about it's veracity, ask Him yourself.</blockquote> You assume too much. You assume that I was not a Xian before I became atheist. Bad assumption. You assume that I never asked god anything, never tried to engage god. Bad assumption. <blockquote>He is the God who speaks. It's really simple, unless of course you don't really want an answer.</blockquote> False dichotomy. You're really racking up the logical fallacies, aren't you?

I'm not asking you to take my word for anything. I'm not trying to make converts. I just think if you are going to make ridiculous remarks about a person, you should take the time to find out a little more about Him, so you won't look like such a pathological liar.

Wait, so you can't back up your interpretations, but I'm the liar?

And, what vicious remarks have I made against any person that are unsubstantiated? Or do you mean that god is a person now? Well, god does commit genocide and many other attrocities, at least as recorded in the Bible. If the Bible is true, then god is a monster. The Bible also talks about hell and a lake of fire. You can try and explain it away, but many others come to different interpretations of those passages. Which one of you is right? You can't answer that. Will you admit that you may be wrong?

The Bible is a revelation, not a novel.

A revelation of what exactly? Who is this revelation open to?

If you have questions about it's veracity, ask Him yourself.

You assume too much. You assume that I was not a Xian before I became atheist. Bad assumption. You assume that I never asked god anything, never tried to engage god. Bad assumption.

He is the God who speaks. It's really simple, unless of course you don't really want an answer.

False dichotomy. You're really racking up the logical fallacies, aren't you?

]]> By: Mrnaglfar http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/08/au-under-attack.html#comment-26427 Mrnaglfar Sat, 25 Aug 2007 05:39:11 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/08/au-under-attack.html#comment-26427 What's God's email address? I would give him a call but his line is down at the moment. The quicker I get it the better, because I'm really getting tired of consulting my magic 8-ball What's God's email address? I would give him a call but his line is down at the moment. The quicker I get it the better, because I'm really getting tired of consulting my magic 8-ball

]]> By: messianicdruid http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/08/au-under-attack.html#comment-26425 messianicdruid Sat, 25 Aug 2007 02:48:13 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/08/au-under-attack.html#comment-26425 "How do we resolve which interpretation is the correct one? By which one gives the best warm and fuzzies? Your god is not a pleasant god, and the interpretation of a god burning people in hell meshes well with what we know about Yahweh. Sorry to have to point that out to you (actually I'm not sorry.) So, why is your interpretation better than anyone else's? How can we tell?" I'm not asking you to take my word for anything. I'm not trying to make converts. I just think if you are going to make ridiculous remarks about a person, you should take the time to find out a little more about Him, so you won't look like such a pathological liar. The Bible is a revelation, not a novel. If you have questions about it's veracity, ask Him yourself. He is the God who speaks. It's really simple, unless of course you don't really want an answer. www.gods-kingdom.org/Hearing/Default.htm "How do we resolve which interpretation is the correct one? By which one gives the best warm and fuzzies? Your god is not a pleasant god, and the interpretation of a god burning people in hell meshes well with what we know about Yahweh. Sorry to have to point that out to you (actually I'm not sorry.) So, why is your interpretation better than anyone else's? How can we tell?"

I'm not asking you to take my word for anything. I'm not trying to make converts. I just think if you are going to make ridiculous remarks about a person, you should take the time to find out a little more about Him, so you won't look like such a pathological liar. The Bible is a revelation, not a novel. If you have questions about it's veracity, ask Him yourself. He is the God who speaks. It's really simple, unless of course you don't really want an answer.

http://www.gods-kingdom.org/Hearing/Default.htm

]]> By: OMGF http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/08/au-under-attack.html#comment-26419 OMGF Fri, 24 Aug 2007 23:29:42 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/08/au-under-attack.html#comment-26419 <blockquote>Could you trouble yourself to go read the links?</blockquote> I glanced through. The trouble is that this is all interpretation based. You have no proof that your interpretation is the correct interpretation. It's all well and good that you want your god to not be the monster that sends people to hell that just about everyone else thinks he is. In fact, I salute you for recognizing the fact that a god that would send people to hell is a monster. Most theists don't even recognize that. You are still relying on interpretation, however, and there are many interpretations of the same passages that do end in hell. How do we resolve which interpretation is the correct one? By which one gives the best warm and fuzzies? Your god is not a pleasant god, and the interpretation of a god burning people in hell meshes well with what we know about Yahweh. Sorry to have to point that out to you (actually I'm not sorry.) So, why is your interpretation better than anyone else's? How can we tell?

Could you trouble yourself to go read the links?

I glanced through.

The trouble is that this is all interpretation based. You have no proof that your interpretation is the correct interpretation. It's all well and good that you want your god to not be the monster that sends people to hell that just about everyone else thinks he is. In fact, I salute you for recognizing the fact that a god that would send people to hell is a monster. Most theists don't even recognize that. You are still relying on interpretation, however, and there are many interpretations of the same passages that do end in hell. How do we resolve which interpretation is the correct one? By which one gives the best warm and fuzzies? Your god is not a pleasant god, and the interpretation of a god burning people in hell meshes well with what we know about Yahweh. Sorry to have to point that out to you (actually I'm not sorry.)

So, why is your interpretation better than anyone else's? How can we tell?

]]> By: G Riggs http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/08/au-under-attack.html#comment-26394 G Riggs Thu, 23 Aug 2007 04:06:58 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/08/au-under-attack.html#comment-26394 Looked it over. Thanks. So far, I don't see any discussion of vocabulary/specific original Greek words, but I went straight to the chapter on Gehenna at http://www.gods-kingdom.org/JudgmentofDivineLaw/chapter_2.htm and I've concentrated mostly on that so far. Cheers, G Riggs Looked it over. Thanks. So far, I don't see any discussion of vocabulary/specific original Greek words, but I went straight to the chapter on Gehenna at

http://www.gods-kingdom.org/JudgmentofDivineLaw/chapter_2.htm

and I've concentrated mostly on that so far.

Cheers,

G Riggs

]]> By: messianicdruid http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/08/au-under-attack.html#comment-26378 messianicdruid Wed, 22 Aug 2007 15:55:51 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/08/au-under-attack.html#comment-26378 "Again, I'd be curious as to other translations here too." It seems that one of the links does not work. Try this, I think it covers all the original words in question, but perhaps not all the translations derived from them. www.gods-kingdom.org/JudgmentofDivineLaw/default.htm "Again, I'd be curious as to other translations here too."

It seems that one of the links does not work. Try this, I think it covers all the original words in question, but perhaps not all the translations derived from them.

http://www.gods-kingdom.org/JudgmentofDivineLaw/default.htm

]]> By: messianicdruid http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/08/au-under-attack.html#comment-26377 messianicdruid Wed, 22 Aug 2007 15:49:41 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/08/au-under-attack.html#comment-26377 "I guess we are at an impasse then, because I'm not about to devote 40 years of my life to a book about superstitions, and you think this logical fallacy about my inability to speak on it unless I have is some sort of good argument." Could you trouble yourself to go read the links? You asked for "evidence" and I provide you with what I have. It's probably not good enough for you since you have already decided what ever you have decided. I'd prefer an impasse to being hit in the eye with a turd. "I guess we are at an impasse then, because I'm not about to devote 40 years of my life to a book about superstitions, and you think this logical fallacy about my inability to speak on it unless I have is some sort of good argument."

Could you trouble yourself to go read the links? You asked for "evidence" and I provide you with what I have. It's probably not good enough for you since you have already decided what ever you have decided. I'd prefer an impasse to being hit in the eye with a turd.

]]> By: OMGF http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/08/au-under-attack.html#comment-26364 OMGF Wed, 22 Aug 2007 02:03:10 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/08/au-under-attack.html#comment-26364 I'm always struck by how many ways the Bible can be interpreted. Why, it seems that you can interpret it to mean anything you want. You simply take the parts that don't agree with you and you either claim they mean what you want them to mean or claim that they apply to some specific instance that doesn't apply to your argument. I'm always struck by how many ways the Bible can be interpreted. Why, it seems that you can interpret it to mean anything you want. You simply take the parts that don't agree with you and you either claim they mean what you want them to mean or claim that they apply to some specific instance that doesn't apply to your argument.

]]>