Atheist Billboard Quoting Bible Verse Vandalized in Pennsylvania

Looks like they ripped what they could reach. It could have been anyone that didn’t like it for any reason.

I would place a guard on it with the sole intention of taking pictures of the people vandalizing it.

Curiosity Q:  Why are comments off on the Hebrew/Arabic billboards story?  Just askin’.
 

Wow.  That DIDN’T take long.  I wonder; is it going to be replaced?

Wow, I didn’t even put money on one day. I figured it would at least make it to the weekend before this went down.

“They removed the entire point of the billboard, the criticism, and left the actual ignorant and savage part.”

Probably that’s all they could reach.

Guards are expensive.  On the other hand given the risk of vandalism it would be prudent to place some kind of recording device nearby.  There are motion activated cameras that store what they see in the minimal case.  The optimal solution would be a video camera that can transmit to an offsite server.  It would be a publicity win to drag some fundamentalists to court and get them to pay for the damages plus some secular community service.

Er, I think the message could have been clearer. If you hadn’t explained the context, it would have been easy to miss the point.

But then, I’m not from Pennsylvania, and didn’t know they were having a “Year of the Bible”.If Christians in Pennsylvania are the kind of people who believe the Bible is inerrant, this might work, but if they are liberals, they might just think it was silly.

Also, the book of Colossians was not written in the Bronze Age. It was was written in the Iron Age. though arguably the ethics of this injunction are pretty backward, even for the Iron Age.

argh that comma changes the meaning of what I wrote.

I meant:  though arguably the ethics of that injunction were pretty backward even in the Iron Age. 

The Wiccans? Yeah, it’s definitely them.

It’s funny that the end result of the vandalism gets the point across even more powerfully than the original full billboard.  Now it looks like a billboard that a ultra-right-wing crackpot church would put up (a bible verse and maybe a picture).  They don’t feel the need to put contact info or take credit on their billboards, at least in my neck of the woods.

LOL they left the most offensive part! 

I’d be willing to bet that there are some atheist security guards out there that would love to do it for free or at a discount.

If one of these signs goes up near me, I’ll patrol it myself. I’ve got a few good cameras and a cell phone to call the police. Really, what more does one need?

Good point and very credible.

It was a politician who vandalized the billboard. no surprise.

Yep, they left the most offensive and disturbing part, way to go!!! 

Offended African Americans, regardless of religious belief?

If they replace it, they should do another verse. Like maybe the one about women submitting to their husbands, or saying that Christians ought to remain celibate.  Or go Old Testament and put one of Yahweh’s commands to genocide and take sex slaves.

I especially like the part when the Bible is quoted out of context and manipulated to try and make a point. 

The point of the verse is NOT to say that slavery is okay. The point of that section of scripture is to teach that no matter what circumstance that you find yourself in, you should be  working as to please one person or  an audience of one (that would be God btw). The following verse, 23, sums up the spirit of the previous verses, but I guess that would require you to read more than 4 words so never mind.

Nice double standard though. Atheists pounce on Christians if they pull from context or misquote and then they turn around and do it intentionally. Sigh. I don’t expect anyone here to be a Biblical scholar, but try getting context first. If that’s too much or if you don’t own a Bible or refuse to read the Bible, try reading Uncle Tom’s Cabin. It does a nice job of showing what vs22 and 23 looks like when lived out. That’s what this passage is talking about. That’s what it’s author  is exhorting his audience, the Christians in Colossae, to live like.

 we expect them to be nutjobs or less educated or less wise, they believe in a skygod that they’ve never seen or had proof of. that kind of blind acceptance leads to hate and rage which we have seen the world over. so yes, this is exactly what people have come to expect of you.

as for aid only coming from religion, that remark is profoundly stupid to a very high degree.

They  couldn’t reach high enough to remove it all, that’s all that saved the remaining portion. I can not believe it lasted one day. I’m pissed. I don’t care if it comes as no surprise or it was expected. I don’t care if the people/persons who did this were christians, elves, blue, green, or yellow. It doesn’t matter if the message was unclear, it was the truth. Just because people are too stubborn or stupid to get it does not mean we should expect the truth to be destroyed or kept hidden away because it makes people think. This has to stop.  We have an incredible amount of people walking around who live their lives based on a fairy tale belief system. Most of them haven’t even taken the time to learn anything about it. I spent the entire day yesterday reading comments from people who live in PA about all different subjects.  It was troubling to say the least.
  Ignorance and stupidity vandalized this billboard and it’s too bad if people don’t speak up and or out about it. We can not allow this kind of thing to continue.  It’s not rude or disrespectful to stand up for yourself or to tell the truth.

 momma J you should do some reading on the True Scotsman fallacy (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/No_True_Scotsman).

Isn’t a big part of Christianity that we are fallen and commit sin? So how can you say with 100% certainty that this wasn’t a Christian who may feel true remorse afterwards and pray for forgiveness?

And what does volunteering in New Orleans/Haiti have to do with vandalizing a sign? One does not preclude the other.

ok mommaJ, is there ANYthing in the Bible that you find bothersome?  That context doesn’t explain away?  If you ‘give’ a slave a wive, then at the end of the 6 years she, and any children remain ‘yours’?  The binding of Isaac?  Lot offering his daughters to a mob to rape?  Mixed fibers bad, but beating your 6-year-indentured servant within an inch of his life ok?  Job?

The apology was ill-advised.  He should have simply agreed that the sentiment IS highly offensive and it came from the Bubble.  The state legislature, then, is guilty of proposing highly offensive dogma as honorable.

So, is that an excuse for the vandalism?
I think Harrisburg Mayor/Queen Linda Thompson needs to spend less time telling Atheists to find Jesus, and more time educating her constituents in obeying the law and finding peaceful methods of debate.

Although an improvement, still an example of bad atheist design. (I look at all these billboards as proof that we atheists don’t believe in intelligent design, even graphic design.) If they can get the billboard replaced, Pa Nonbelievers should look at this as a blessing in disguise (well, so to speak), so here are a few suggestions for them.  As a general rule small print and wordy sections of billboards go unread, So most people will see this as a pro-slavery quote paid for by atheists. Nix the bronze age ethics line and put the “brought to you by the Year of the Bible” in large type with or without adding the part about the PA House. Make the sponsorship message smaller and/or chance the color scheme so it doesn’t stand out so much; pointing out the flawed nature of Biblical morality is the primary purpose of this add, self promotion is secondary.

With 70 of the population being Christians it is easy to argue that they do more of pretty much everything, both charity and crime.  Paying a church tax to your own club, btw, doesn’t count as charity.  At best you can claim the 5% of what you donate assuming that your church spends 5% of the money that comes in on out group charity.  The other 95% of the money that is spent paying for the priest, the mortgage, insurance and maintenance on both the church and the priest’s home, along with money spent on magic wafers, wine, candles, incense, and other incidentals is all money spent to support your private club, not to help the needy.
I’m also curious how you think the quote is out of context?  [On a side note I think it would be great if each Christian denomination’s version of the Bible had little footnotes that indicated if a passage is no longer considered the word of god, is ignored because verse X conflicts it and we believe X instead, or is considered a metaphor.  This would allow members and non-members to know which parts of the Bible to ignore and which are mortal sins.]

 I imagine a fairly large percentage of the  “Like Slavery” group are also members of the “Hate Atheists” group.

The great thing is the proliferation of the new led billboards where the sign actually changes every ten seconds or so. By the time they try to vandalize it, the sign would have changed to another sponsor.

The great thing is the proliferation of the new led billboards where the sign actually changes every ten seconds or so. By the time they try to vandalize it, the sign would have changed to another sponsor.

 dude this is an awesome idea!  I mean, since it doesn’t seem to take long for vandalism to happen, it would be so easy and so fun!

Sorry, my cold is getting in the way of my reading comprehension 🙂

“no matter what circumstance that you find yourself in, you should be working as to please one person or an audience of one (that would be God btw)”

I imagine you disagree, but this, right here, is why the idea of morality from the bible is horrifying.  Genocide?  That’s cool…trying to please god.  Rape and pillage?  All good…trying to please god.  Owning slaves?  Not a problem…pleasing god.

If that’s the larger context that you’re referring to, you can have it.  You know what?  Screw that.  You can’t have that.  There are real people here on Earth, alive, right now, and any sense of morality that does not take into consideration of other creatures capable of suffering should be dismissed lest real suffering be inflicted.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PSH0eRKq1lE

Let’s not forget the angle that it could be someone who thinks this was posted by Nazis or Aryans, and they perceive it as a racial issue. 

It’s hardly surprising, in retrospect, that the race card would be played here. From what I’ve read by modern African-American atheists (e.g. Sikivu Hutchinson and Jamila Bey), Christianity is an especially deep cultural bonding force in the African-American community. Having an outsider group (as in, c’mon we all know those are all white folk) point out that blacks in particular are fools for embracing Christianity … err, doesn’t go over well. And it’s easier to deal with the cognitive dissonance by rejecting the outsider group than by  questioning your deep cultural traditions.

 No. Turn it upside-down. Then it counts as art. 😀

Can’t speak for others but I have a degree from a Christian college in biblical studies. So one can’t assume unbelievers don’t know or “refuse to read” the Bible.

I live in PA. It’s a mixed bag. Mostly Christian in the area I’m from. Some are insane and rabid, others are kind and laid back.

No,no. Ms. Thompson needs to learn how to do her job, first and foremost.

 There are dozens of similar verses explaining where to buy slaves, how to keep them, what to with their spouses and children and how to beat them

Wow that was fast. I expected vandalism, but not after only one day.

 For someone who claims to be so much smarter than  Momma J, where in her entire post did she say that all aid comes from religion?  She didn’t. Also, her comments about the aid that is coming to the people suffering from tornadoes is correct. News reports have stated that the first people on the scene with aid and assistance were Christians. Even including, oh how shocking, churches opening up their “private clubs” to house and feed people displaced. 

 Where in this portion of scripture does it say that the woman was pregnant?

The bible is a terrible moral compass, it has caused more destruction in the world than any other piece of fiction. Anyone who uses the bible as a moral compass is likely to own slaves, beat children, and stone gays and adulterers to death. Oh, and not eat figs either.

“But in reality, anyone who would go to such measures is a false witness and isn’t living their life according to the Bible.”

Ah, the No True Scotsman fallacy. It makes it so you never have to defend your religious beliefs because you define the problem away. Christians are *never* bad simply because you define the membership of the set “Christians” to exclude vandals, murderers, rapists, bigots, assholes, and rapacious capitalists. Problem solved.

 It says “her abdomen will swell and her womb will miscarry”  — verse 27.   I see no possible way of inflicting a miscarriage if she was not pregnant.  

There’s a reason why the middle part is called Pennsyltucky: the vast cultural wasteland between Philadelphia and Pittsburgh that resembles something out of Deliverance.

All I hear is “No True Scottsman.”

Pardon the phrase, but you’re preaching to the choir!  I live in Schuylkill County (Southern tip, right in the Dauphin/Lebanon/Berks/Schuylkill intersections).  I saw more Confederate flags growing up than American ones.  Thankfully that’s starting to slowly change.

People ask why I stay.  I just figure *somebody* has to try and drag a few of these folks into the 21st century!

I am sure that is true.  All the more reason not to paint with a broad brush and  criticize an entire group of people

I’m with the others suggesting that instead of putting the same billboard back up (if that’s the route they’re going), avoid the slavery thing.  Right now is the *perfect* time to point out the inequality and abuse of women in the Bible.  Many women are already up in arms via the whole Rush Limbaugh fiasco, all the personhood amendments, all the ultrasound bills.  I’m not so good with slogans, but I think that would be a better direction to push it into.  It’s not like there’s not a boatload of offensive quotes to find.

Though I would love, personally, to put a billboard with this quote right in the direct line of Linda Thompson’s sight in her office:

“But I permit not a woman to teach, nor to have authority over the man, but to be in silence.”
Timothy 2:12

What an illogical comment.  Its like saying that 76% of the people at an atheist convention are Christians because of the demographics of our country.

My brother and I help out with the Salvation Army. He lives 20 minutes away from Joplin and their local unit was there BEFORE the Red Cross has set anything up. I found about it  that evening from my cousin gathered supplies on my own dime and was there somewhere around 4:00 the following morning. FEMA was there for about a week and then pulled out because they were stretched to thin.

Yes, the Red Cross is secular, but they are not the only aid agency then are they? 

Wow! The ceremony in KJV reads like witchcraft or voodoo curse. It’s a recipe for making magical truth serum that will make your wife’s belly swell and her thy rot if she’s lying about having an affair.  This bible thingy never ceases to amaze!

Still, I wonder if the priests invented this little ceremony to promote connubial bliss. Even if a woman was getting a little something something on the side, the priest could intercept the inevitable domestic violence by  proving her unsullied!

Name calling? Really? Classy. 

What do those things that you mentioned have to do with me? a) I’m a guy. The moniker is something that was handed to me that was kind of fun (I’ll spare you the back story) b) Again, not a woman but thanks. c) I’m not a parent so I have no children to be disobedient or to discipline. I’m a bit puzzled by the relevancy of your post.

Set up cameras. Even if it takes shifts of volunteers.

 Come out and join us at our meetings!

http://www.panonbelievers.org

His post is relevant because he’s referring to scripture.  I’m honestly a bit surprised that you didn’t seem to catch that.  That YOU aren’t a woman and don’t have kids isn’t necessary to the point.

The original statement was

It’s exactly what I expect from believers though.

mommaJ turned that into

Yes. Because Christians are highly known for their vandalism.

(And then pulled a True Scotsman)

What’s the opposite of ‘believer’?  Maybe ‘atheists’?  Do you think Jews vandalize synagogues?

I’m sure most believers don’t vandalize.  And some atheists do.  But I’m reasonably certain that whoever did THIS believes in Jesus, or Vishnu or Yahweh.

As a graphic designer/part-time proofreader-editor, I agree. Type too small, message not immediate/obvious enough for a billboard. I’d give you a higher grade for sophistication of message, but if people don’t get it easily, what good does that do? And, on the surface, it looks like you’ve delved into more than one controversy (church & state, the bible & slavery), and not indicated clearly on which side you stand. Maybe you think you have, but perception and results are all that matter. If you had taken a scaled-down version out to the person on the street, asked him/her to look at it at an appropriate distance for ten seconds, then asked what they saw and their response to what they saw, you might have come up with a more workable result.

Then you can’t praise people with a broad brush, either, can you?

I can’t think of any conceivable way to defend slavery. The only way is to use logic so tortured that it would look like an Escher. 

Kind of akin to defending rape. Anytime, anywhere, it is wrong.

Why did the person not quote the next line of the passage?  instead of snipping out of context and putting a picture next to it to create a misleading impression.  The answer is obvious, quoting the next line would take much of the bite out of dishonest propaganda.
Also I am unclear how exactly does this passage  as quoted condone slavery?  I obey the tax laws in NZ, I encourage others to as well, yet often I disagree with them. Its actually possible to obey a law and think its unjust at the same time. Out of context quotes followed by poor inferences which don’t follow, I guess thats “free thought” for you.But a final issue, given people in here have advocated banning church billboards because they are “offensive” to cancer sufferers it seems you can’t complain if someone   offended by your message violates your free speech rights. 

“23 Whatever you do, work at it with all your heart, as working for the Lord, not for human masters, 24 since you know that you will receive an inheritance from the Lord as a reward. It is the Lord Christ you are serving. 25 Anyone who does wrong will be repaid for their wrongs, and there is no favoritism.”

I fail to see how this helps.  Having slaves for the sake of some other authority does NOT diminish the immorality of having slaves in the first place.  Putting some context of “slaves, make sure you obey, because the lord will reward you” doesn’t help the cause at all.  Owning people is still wrong.

First off I’m confused. I’ve seen three interesting #’s that claim they know what percentage of people who “claim” to be Christians. Why are those numbers so different?

Not everyone who claims to be a Christian is actually a Bible-studying, praying, God-believing Christian. If so many people are Christians, seeing that the population is growing at such a high rate and all, you’d think churches would be packed out all the time!

A bit more realistic is the percentage of people who say that they go to church regularly. That’s about 40% in the U.S. I could argue that the percentage of people who are true Christians is even lower than that %. Think about it, how many of you have gone to church previously because you had to as a child or did it because your parents did it before you. 

I’m sure that out of the 40%, a measurable % would fall into this category and into the category of attending for a numerous amount of other “wrong reasons”. Example:”Uh…I don’t know…uh… because I’m supposed to”

I give 10% to my church and 20% of their budget goes to vaious charities, both locally and globally. Nice made up #’s by the way. 

I also give annually another 7% on my own to other charities  and causes of my choosing as both monthly giving and as one time, event-based gifts. And no, I’m not rich either. I’m a teacher and my wife works part-time for her father who owns his own CPA firm. She comes back and sees people’s tax returns and almost breaks down when she sees what % of people’s large incomes go to charity. Often it’s less than 1% for those who are making 6 figures. 

As for your last statement, I’m assuming that the quote on the billboard is an attempt to take a part of a scripture and attach some new meaning to it that somehow tries to imply that Christians are pro-slavery or some other nonsense. *Sigh* This has been a recent argument on this and other boards recently. NOWHERE in the Bible does it condone slavery. The quote does not even complete the entire verse. The complete verse and part of the following verse is this:

“Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to gain their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord. Whatever you do, work at it with all you heart, as working for the Lord, not for human masters…” 

I must have missed the part that taught that it is okay to take people captive as slaves. In fact, the term slave as is referenced in the Bible is not the same that today’s society thanks of it. Back then, it was an indebted servitude. Often times it was because someone owed to someone else, a debt that they could not pay off so they had to work it off. Today that idea doesn’t exist because of credit.

 Slavery as we know it (based off of race or gender) today is actually condemned in the Bible in Exodus 21:16 and again in 1 Timothy 1:8-10. So the feeble attempt at trying to tell everyone who horrible the Bible is based on the misquoted 4 words is weak at best. It’s just sad and is really grasping at straws. 

No need for explaining away the true meaning of the text. In fact the problem is that you all don’t read to find out the true meaning of the text. 

It’s like you (collectively, not personally) have been duked by a giant scam. It’s like the picture that circulated the internet that showed G.W.Bush looking at a book that was upside down. SO many believed it and I heard a lot of chatter about how dumb our president was. The dumb ones were the one’s who didn’t take the time to find out if it was real or photoshopped. 

Quotes out of context, both culturally and from the Book itself are a dime a dozen. Not only are groups falling for it, they are trying to use them as a straw man argument to lure people away from the opposing camp. How sad indeed. 

One last argument for the Bible, I will admit that it is a bit soft on slavery. Again, because it meant something different in their day and place, but also because the text has a different purpose than social reform. The book is meant to be studied and learned for personal reform. 

Oh and who was it that was SO instrumental in teaming up with Wilberforce to end slavery in the UK. John Newton, a Christian. I’m pretty sure if the Bible was teaching that slavery was okay, then he either wouldn’t have fought so hard against it or would not have been a believer in Christ. He in fact did and was both.

As a fellow Christian I appreciate your comments and defense of our faith. You will not find a receptive audience here but it is worthwhile to attempt to correct some misconceptions that are loosely and as in the case of this billboard, intentionally spread about Christians and Christianity.

I commend you for your assistance to animals, however I find it curious that alot of people with these same stickers would be the ones who are pro choice and the right to abort a baby.  If that same treatment was to unborn puppies there would be an outcry, yet millions of unborn children are killed every year.

 If you’re going to give an apology, apologize to all the people who’s right just been deface by an ignorant individual. We don’t need to apologize to whoever refuse to think, understand, rationalize or even respect others’ people point of view. The billboard message was loud and clear. No disrespect on your part toward any one. If someone is offended by it, they should take it up to god, cause he’s the author (apparently) of the bible.

 The numbers vary depending on who’s taking the data, what assumptions they used, whether they only counted individual confirmation (ie, did people say they were Christian, or did they only count the number of people who were attending the church, and if the latter, over how much time?) and what they count as “Christian” (for example, some denominations don’t count, say, Mormans as real Christians).

The 78.4% figure comes from pewforum.org: http://religions.pewforum.org/reports

 Quite right. Apparently a great deal of complaints over the billboard were due to people misinterpreting the advertisement as advocating slavery.

Yes! Helping animals is definitely a valid cause, but maybe the reason that you don’t see those anti-abortion stickers or “Christ fish” (ichtys or ichtus) is because those people are helping out in soup kitchens, distributing clothes and talking to the homeless PEOPLE! I love animals, but I tend to think of people as more important. 

When was the last time you stopped and helped a homeless person? I do it all the time. I sit down with them. Talk with them. Find out their name, their story, how they got to be where they are. Because “homeless” just describes their lack of an address. It does not describe who they are. I buy them a meal, and give them a care package. My wife and I both keep several care packages in our car that are pre-made pick me ups that address finances, hunger and the current weather climate. 

I am unsurprised. This is not the first story I’ve read of atheist group signs being defaced. And I am glad it’s somewhat controversial. It should be as it’s displaying the ignored dichotomy of their ideology that would deface it. The bible is not, “the good book.” and Christianity is not a religion with a nice track record.

And for those trying to say. “But but but…some Christians are good, don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater.” You.Are.Missing.The.Point. How nice or not you are is immaterial to the argument between theist and atheist as your niceness does not make something more or less a fact. The crux of the argument is on empiricism, not morality. And even on the issue of morals faith fails. The idea of a ‘chosen people” is essentially a racist idea.  The idea of being moral without religion is still a relatively modern idea. The bible after all calls the non Christian evil and incapable of good. Those ideas and others in the bible motivates many Christians to try to enact policies in government or to otherwise have a sociological influence. Many of those influences harm people one way or the other. And that is no small part of why atheists create organizations and raise these billboard. as well we should. Free speech is supposed to be for everyone and that includes us atheists.

If the tactic of some Christians is to try to  silence dissent then they have already lost.

2 problems with that though. 1) Light pollution. I love astronomy and star gazing and we have too much of this as it is and 2) More of a question I guess. Do they cost more to run an ad there. Upkeep would be more pricey therefore I would think that the cost to rent space is pricey too. Paying more money for less air time. 

The best solution is for people to find better outlets of letting their thought be known than through vandalism.

The Bible which is the christian dogma book teaches that slavery is acceptable, no loose end here!

Why does God need extra “hands and feet?” Do His “hands and feet” lack sufficient ability? Didn’t God create this tragic situation? Why are you working so hard to change a tragedy that God Himself wished to inflict? You must be agents of Satan, working so hard to alter the course of events and the outcome of a situation God mandated.

Bothersome? Of course. I don’t know your Bible history so I’ll lay this down in extremely general terms. The OT law has so many laws that they cannot possibly keep from breaking, no less than keep them straight. 

It’s almost like an episode of Star Trek where they go to a new culture, have no idea what the laws are and accidentally break them. There are obvious flaws in this analogy of course. The purpose of the OT law, on this side of it, can be seen as completely exasperating the Israelites. If you haven’t noticed the penalty for everything seems to be death right? 

Bottom line, the OT law is impossible to keep. So everyone’s penalty is to die. Sounds a bit crude, but we are talking about offending the creator of everything. So everyone offends God at some point and then everyone’s punishment is death. 

But that’s where the NT comes in with Jesus. His role is to bear that punishment Himself. He’s an advocate. He takes the punishment so others do not have to. 

What about those who have already died before Christ was born? Although they did not hear of Jesus’ name, they knew of someone to come and if they put their hope in that person, whenever He comes and whoever He is then they also do not bear eternal punishment.

So w/o trying to look at each and every circumstance, I can if you REALLY want me to, keep this in mind. 

Context doesn’t explain anything away, but it is necessary to have an idea of what is actually taking place. Just as I am guilty of the previous fallacy that was pointed out to me earlier, athiests are guilty of the quote mining fallacy when it comes to the Bible. It’s not a book that you’ve studied is it? If you studied a specific Shakespearean play, then I would you let go and consider you the authority on it. I might not understand your argument but I wouldn’t try to use Shakespeare to tell you why you are so wrong about the interpretation of Shakespeare. That does not make any sense. Why then do you insist on trying to quote mine a book that I’ve studied since I could read and to what end?

You can say it’s not true. That’s fine. I can’t counter that. I wouldn’t try to. But saying that you don’t agree with it when you haven’t studied it and that I am somehow less than you for believing it AFTER I have studied it is pretty messed up. Just because I read Shakespeare once doesn’t mean I understand every detail of every play. In fact I took a Shakespeare class in college. That was the worst choice that I ever made in college. I wanted to like Shakespeare, but didn’t devote enough effort to get the nuances of it all. Just as you have not done this with the Bible.

Man they have got to think ahead! Before selecting a location, determine if there is a place to put a webcam so we can watch the vandals in action!

 Rom 13:1-7 says all authority is ordained by God and that to resist authority is to resist the ordination of God.  Certainly seems as though he is saying obeying authority (including slave masters) is a good thing.

 Wrong! If a christian did this he is a true Christian because he only act out want his master taught him, that is, no respect for other people property. Remember the all lovable Jesus casting devils into pigs and making them jump of a cliff disregarding the owners care. Are how about god of the old testament destroying other nation property an bellowing? About the apostle burning books in Acts. Again no respect of others.

If you’re not willing to do the same, then you are the false Christian!

Because even if you had a point about it not condoning slavery (which I would contend) it’s still implicitly condoning it. If it had instead said something to the effect of “Throw off your shackles, no man should be beholden to another man against his will. Every man is created free! I allow no man to be the master over another and no one should be physically or emotionally punished for their work” then  you’d have a point. But it doesn’t.

Even if she lied to defend it?  There is no misconception and no excuse for her or you to be so ignorant of your own religion.    You can look these sections of the bible up in a few minutes.   Google “slavery in the bible” and get yourself an education.

You just commited the no true Scotman fallacy again in trying to claim that Christians are not in fact Christians when they don’t behave the way you like.  Sorry not the case.

Yeah, he said that right after he lied about slavery in the bible.

I was thinking that as a possibility, but they’d have to be really stupid.

Brilliantly said.  

I think it shows how tall they were, but that’s just me.

Just like Rush Limbaugh.

The Bible & Abortion, This is in the book of Numbers
5:11 (1-31)

 I actually cannot
believe the ridiculous responses to these passages from Christians.  1st depending on which version you
read from – the wording is actually very similar nonetheless, although everyone
seems to have their own interpretation hence all the different versions of the
bible & different factions of religions across this country and the
world.  This is on Christianity and is
written because these people seem to think they have all the answers when most
in reality no very, very little about the book they actually place so much
emphasis on.

Now, regardless of whether you agree on whether this is an
abortion or a miscarriage performed by the Priest, the one thing that stands
out is the fact that the Priest is placing a horrible curse on this woman  or making her drink this horrible potion because
God has said to do so because of Adultery.

The priest gets to charge or judge her in this case because
of what? No facts were ever discussed just the punishment.

The entire issue of adultery is based on no factual evidence
at all, not to mention that the woman has NO SAY whatsoever just like some
religious fundamentalists want today, or just like the whole damn contraception
issue now, which claims the Church no longer wants to pay for contraception
(hmm funny when you break it down to the final level they aren’t paying anyway
the employee is, they have 25 dollars or so a week to cover their medical
insurance taken from their pay, the only thing the church provides is the large
group to receive a better premium price, so in the end it is all about control
by the church) not freedom of speech, or freedom of religion it is just utter
non-sense .

But another issue is (If God is Omnibenevolent this sure isn’t
a very loving God to torture a women then save her only if she is innocent of
adultery) 

Secondly, (If God is Omniscience then he would already know
if she committed adultery hence the torture or curse would not need to be
carried out)

Thirdly, (If God is Omnipotent then he would have had the
power to never allow this horrible act to take place to begin with)

Now the verses in question and the arguments the Christians used
were that she was not pregnant and it didn’t mention pregnancy!  Wrong, it depends on which version or
interpretation you read, I listed all the versions literal interpretations and
for the sake of argument I will take the ones that speak more vaguely and not
mention directly womb, miscarriage, infertile, child, baby, etc…

Given the book is ancient text and regardless whether you
take it as the word of God or the truth, literally, or don’t believe at all,
the fact remains that people were having sex regardless and I am quite certain
there was no birth control available at the local drug store, nor was civilization
so advanced enough to know how to utilize “Pull and Pray” method.  So my guess is that many people were impregnated
regardless of the matter, so hiding infidelity would be quite difficult in the
Bronze Age or Dark Age. Regardless in the King James Version if she is innocent
she will conceive seed, can’t argue with that as being pregnant. However the
other versions use the terms mentioned above which cannot deny a
pregnancy. 

I just love how the so called Christians who will argue a
point in futility with absolutely no knowledge of the book they worship so
dearly. 

This is exactly what I mean when I always say the belief come
1st and all explanations for the belief follow!!! (Even with the
lack of evidence is painfully clear, or just plain doesn’t make sense or
whether you try to manipulate the words to make it say what you wish it to
believe.

This is why there are so many different versions and why
there are so many different beliefs. Funny how none of the logic Christians utilized
to justify their view on this matter makes any rational sense.

This is heinous and this is awful regardless what you
believe, once again there is the abhorrent verses in the Bible which cannot be
denied, it is not all kindness and love, try reading the book before you preach
to me about it.

ASV: “thy thigh to fall away”

AMP: “her thigh to fall away”

CEB:
“induces a miscarriage”, “her womb will discharge and she will
miscarry”

CEV: “You will never be able to give birth to a
child.” “Immediately unable to have children.”

DARBY: “thy thigh to shrink”

DRA: “thy thigh to rot, and may thy belly swell and
burst asunder.”

ERV: “You will not be able to have any children. And if
you are pregnant now, your baby will die.” “Your loins will
fall.”

ESV: “your thighs fall away”

GW: “your uterus drop” “make you have
miscarriages”

GNT: “your genital organs to shrink”

HCSB: “your thigh shrivel”

KJV: “thy thigh to rot”

MSG: “your womb shrivel”

NASB: “your thigh waste away”

NCV: “your body unable to give birth to another
baby.”

NIRV: “your body unable to have children”

NIV: “your womb miscarry”

NIV1984: “your thigh waste away”

NLV: “your leg waste away”

NLT: “makes you infertile, causing your womb to
shrivel.” “her womb to shrink.”

TNIV: “your womb miscarry”

WYC: “thy hip to grow rotten” “hip shall wax
rotten”

YLT: “thy thigh to fall”

Because there’s no citation to this, I’ll provide one:

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/our-humanity-naturally/201103/misinformation-and-facts-about-secularism-and-religion

Okay fetus. Which is a human life. Is a toddler, teen or geriatric not a person as well. Is it okay to kill them just because they are inconvenient if we give them different titles too?

 And it bothers me. It doesn’t matter that slavery was considered ethical back then. What does it matter what people thought was ethical? We know it’s never ethical. Or is slavery moral at some times, but not others? If you travel back in time far enough, is there a transitional point between slavery being moral and being immoral?

It was “moral” because the people in charge considered it moral. That need not even have been the majority of people, or the majority of a race, or even the majority of a single country. All that stands in the way of slavery being immoral is for a single person to command others to tolerate it, and be obeyed. And when you have this useful little set of oral traditions which state that God appoints rulers and that all must obey the rulers without question, as they would God and whatever God says is moral is moral, suddenly you’ve set yourself up for one solitary man to command whether or not slavery is celebrated or condemned.

What do men with power almost invariably want?

More power.

So slavery is “moral.”

Realbiblical morality right here. That’s all it boils down to — a set of logic-defeating arguments which give rulers and the priesthood the same authority as God, so they can decide what is or isn’t moral, as long as they don’t stress people’s credulity enough.

And several thousands of years later, we’ve still got people buying into it, not just what their leaders have told them is moral (even when it involves lying about child molesting), but what those leaders thousands of years ago told their people. Don’t make excuses for these criminals! Hold to your faith if you need to, but condemn villainous acts for what they are and were!

I have been debating about this billboard with some of my amazulu folk in PA. They failed to mention that it was vandalized even though one of them has a child at that school. 

I didn’t know some of my friends felt this way. 

When I challenged them about the Bible verse, many of them were quiet. 

It has nothing to do with what I “like” for them to act. Put a label on it if you want, if that makes you feel better.

If someone is not repentant about sin then they are not a Christian. Those are not my words, but is what the Bible teaches. I can self-proclaim myself to be whatever I want, but that does not mean it is true. 

Have you ever watched someone try to fit and integrate themselves into any kind of collective? Maybe I admire chess players. Maybe I want to become one and I start to identify myself as one. Until one actually plays the game, they can call themselves a chess player, but really they are not. 

The movie adaptation of Frank Abagnale Jr.’s life would have you believe that he portrayed several different occupations. He played dress up. He wasn’t actually a doctor now was he?

 Clearly you didn’t take me up on my suggestion of the follow up reading. If that’s the case then we’re done and I’m saddened.

Stealing implies a prior owner. No one says that Africans were stolen in Africa. They were captured and then sold into slavery. Slaves ARE men who are owned. So if you steal a man you must be stealing a slave. Since the entire section is on how to busy and sell slaves it fits in just fine with my interpretation, and your interpretation is ridiculous.

 Is a toddler, teen or geriatric person living inside my body and using my resources?

 Yes, seriously. If the Christian god is omnipotent, why can’t it solve these problems on its own? Seriously, if tomorrow I woke up and suddenly all illness was cured and wars had inexplicably halted and poverty were alleviated, and a voice from the heavens took credit, I might just give credence to this whole god idea. God could get two birds with one stone: prove its existence and solve all the world’s problems.

I often give up Christmas to assist. I love my family, but I love my neighbors just as much. MY family can see me any day theywant just about. A homeless person cannot get a meal any day theywant. 
I applaud you on yourpreviousservice. That’s great. It’s pretty lame that any agency in that position would turndown anyone. 

The locals just don’t get it.  They are claiming it is “blatant racism” and haven’t managed to make the association with defects in their book.

Bronxboy47, if you think back to your believing days (if you ever had those), you’ll remember why black folk were offended by the billboard.  Something about that imagery grinds that chip further into the shoulder of black folk who embrace perpetual victimhood.  And there’s the added (perceived) insult of white folk using the history of black slavery to advance their own agenda.

Also, my observation of the “believing” community is that irony is almost always lost on them.  We (atheists) are assuming believers are going to put some thought and consideration into what they’re reading, when they really just go with the knee-jerk reaction; to feel victimized, to conclude that it’s a “test of faith,” and that the “devil” is after them. 

 Accept of course when Jesus said it did still apply…but we’ll just gloss over that too.

 Why couldn’t god have just said,”Don’t own slaves, that’s a commandment. If you own slaves then you will be punished. Also don’t rape people (or anything for that matter). If a woman gets raped, don’t punish her, don’t mark her as unclean and refuse to marry her. Here’s a novel idea, women and children are people too and should be treated as such.”?? If that were in the Old Testament, I think I would respect it a little bit more.

 Actually, nobody knows for sure how the disciples (or any apostles) died. There’s no historical proof one way or another. There are certainly no Roman records that list the disciples or how they died (they were notorious record keepers). Your statement about the disciples dying for the truth or a lie fails, because we don’t know how they died (or even if they existed as is written in the New Testament).

Then you seem to be implying that Christianity’s growth from humble beginnings is miraculous or proof that it was true. Do you know what other religions were persecuted? How about…Druids, Judaism, the Cult of Bacchus and the Pythagoreans. And how many religious groups were persecuted once Christians did gain control? Oh, that’s right, all other religious groups.

Also, every religion has humble beginnings. There have been over a million different gods/goddesses worshiped throughout human history. All followers of these religions were at some point persecuted. Seriously, an idea surviving persecution of an overzealous majority doesn’t give any credence to the idea’s truth.

It’s so much better to be you and to think that there is nothing bigger than yourself. 

That’s kind of the opposite of how many of us think.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jhGKwo6-lCE

An even greater tragedy is that people who design billboards don’t understand the medium.

In the modern world, we are saturated with advertising. Advertising space is not a scarce commodity. The scarce commodity that you, as an advertiser, are actually competing for is attention. You have no deity-granted right to compel people to put some thought into your advertisement. Therefore, you have essentially three options:

1. Make your message simple, clear, unambiguous, and easily understood at a glance.
2. Make your presentation compelling, which gives people a reason to look and think about it, and reward them for it in some way (e.g. make them feel good when they “get” it).
3. Waste your money.

In this case, option #3 was chosen.

I’d wager that almost everyone could have understood the billboard. Everyone here did, after all. The difference is that here, the context is different. By reading this blog, you’ve already committed yourself to investing at least some of your attention. The same is not true when you’re driving past at 60km/h (or whatever the equivalent is in imperial measure).

I didn’t start this way, but as the day wore on, the theistic stance of the vandal mattered to me less.  I think it’s unlikely to be a non-believer just based on what was vandalized, but I don’t recall anything in the Bible saying “Go rip down billboards”.  I think the motivation was more ‘asshat’ than ‘doing God’s work’.

But since vandalism is such a sore point for you, here’s a piece that might interest you from before ‘Friendly’ was on Patheos. http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2010/07/07/worldnetdaily-supports-atheist-billboard-vandalism/

It must suck to be me and to live a life in hope that I will get a reward for being faithful to God.

Yes, because being moral in order to receive a reward is clearly less selfish than doing so simply because it’s the right thing to do.

When you die you die and that’s it. So what’s the use then? Why even live?

This has to be the saddest part of the Christian mindset I’ve ever heard.  Atheists choose not to waste the only life they get being a slave to an imaginary man-god, just so they can get a free ticket to Disneyland in the sky.  To paraphrase Guy Sebastian: “Life is short, we only live it once, so live it up.”

I guarantee if you got pushed into deep water you would swim right? Why?
Because you don’t want to die. Why don’t you want to die? Death would
be easier right?

Well, obviously the vast majority of people want to live if their lives are threatened.  Human beings have a self-preservation instinct that has evolved with us for millions of years.  Just because atheists don’t believe in God doesn’t mean that they find life to be worthless.

Can you tell me certainly that I don’t have a soul and everything just ends?

Can you tell me certainly that there aren’t fairies dancing in my back garden?

Why does anyone fear death? What? You say you don’t fear death? I
guarantee if you got pushed into deep water you would swim right? Why?
Because you don’t want to die. Why don’t you want to die? Death would be
easier right? 

I don’t fear death, I fear dying and pain, so do you. I also enjoy life so why would I want to give it up?

What I don’t get is why you religious people fear death? And aren’t all extreme sport junkies pushing the edge in the hope you get to your nirvana sooner?

 I’d like to see them try and punish it as a hate crime, if they do then they’ll have to punish the bible too.

I am NOT justifying slavery. Nor does the text. It simply says IF you are there, be the BEST at that….

Seeing the lengths you’re going to to defend the Bible’s complete lack of demonizing of slavery makes me sad.

 I gotta agree with Gentle Giant.  The more you try to defend your god, the less he sounds like a being worthy of worship.  Your defenses make me glad such an evil being does not exist.

momma J, please read Numbers 31 at your earliest convenience and weep (literally).
A quick summary:
  Jealous (Exodus 34:14) sees some Israelite men marrying Midianite women and leaving Him for the Midianite religion.
  Jealous commands Moses to raise an army and eradicate all in the land of Midian.
Moses raises an army of 12000 men and sends them off to Midian.
  Army arrives in Midian and kills all men who oppose them (attempt to protect their families and property from invading forces).
  Army burns all buildings and kills all kings in Midian.
  Army takes all surviving children and women back to the Israelite camp along with booty (gold, jewels, cattle, etc.).
  Moses gets pissed “Have ye saved all the women alive? Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the LORD in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the LORD.”  (Numbers 31:15-16)
  Jealous says the army is now unclean and must be purified before re-entering the camp.  Pass all treasures under fire.  Kill all surviving male Midianites (young boys and infants).  Kill all mothers.  Subject every remaining female (children, pre-teens, teens) to a horribly invasive, humiliating, terrifying, and painful physical inspection of her hymen.  All non-virgins are slaughtered along with their mothers, brothers and older married sisters.  “Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.” (Numbers 31:17-18)
  The remaining 32000 virgin girls are divided among the Israelites.  16000 among those that did not go to war.  16000 among those that did go to war.  1 in 50 of those divided among those who did not go to war are given to the Levites (keepers of the tabernacle of the Jealous).  1 in 500 of those divided among those who did go to war are “given” to Jealous (human sacrifice likely considering the Israelites’ enthusiasm in slaughtering the survivors’ families). “And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, Take the sum of the prey that was taken, both of man and of beast, thou, and Eleazar the priest, and the chief fathers of the congregation: And divide the prey into two parts; between them that took the war upon them, who went out to battle, and between all the congregation: And levy a tribute unto the Lord of the men of war which went out to battle: one soul of five hundred, both of the persons, and of the beeves, and of the asses, and of the sheep: Take it of their half, and give it unto Eleazar the priest, for an heave offering of the LORD.” (Numbers 32:25-29)

How is this not the Bible supporting slavery?  By Jealous’ command, the Israelites took VIRGIN girls from their families “like those who disgustingly take part in the sex slave business have done to many small children, I would consider that to be stealing. They are stealing them from their mamas and daddies  and are stealing away the children’s future.“?  Why were the soldiers not punished with death for stealing those girls and killing their families?  Why did Jealous command their enslavement and the execution of their surviving family members if the Bible considered slavery to be evil?

Context makes this even worse for your argument, because it was Reuel (the priest of Midian) who took in Moses (fed him, clothed him, housed him) during his exile from Egypt and even gave his daughter, Zipporah, to Moses as his wife (even had a son named Gershom). (Exodus 2:15-22)  Meaning Moses committed the same exact “heinous” crime of marrying a Midianite woman and falling further away from the worship of Jealous.  Did Jealous condemn Moses to death for his crime?

 Also this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fgg2tpUVbXQ

 Are you trying to say that the book of Acts in its entirety is a typical slave parody? Harrill doesn’t say that at all. If you don’t think that the early church tries to reform society and enthusiastically reinforced it, then you just haven’t read it. The overall message in the New Testament is that Christians, even though they were  in this world were to no longer live as if they were. For example, in Ephesians 6 masters were told to treat their slaves with love and compassion and to serve them.  In Galatians, Paul teaches that in Christ there is no slave and master, all are equal.  This was far different from the Roman world.  And it is well documented that at the time of the new Testament approximately 1/3 of the roman population were slaves with no safety net to support them if they were on their own.  So it would have been impractical for Paul to call for all slaves to revolt or for all slaves to be set free. It was a reality of the times.  Instead, Paul calls for men’s hearts to be changed and for all men slave or master to treat each equally and with love and compassion.

 Did you take all of this from the Skeptics annotated Bible? You need to read the entire book of Numbers to see why this was done and why the young girls were saved. Not to become sex slaves as you put it but actually wives.

 They were still stolen from their families and their families slaughtered by Jealous’ command.  There is nothing that could ever make that acceptable or just.  If any person in this day and age were to kill his neighbor’s family and take the virgin daughter as his wife, there would be a mob at his door to arrest/kill him within hours of discovery.

Did not all of the disciples get executed for simply their beliefs? One would think that if it wasn’t true, people when pressured with death or retraction of something false they would indeed retract.

There’s not really any good evidence that they were executed. The biblical stories are at best second-hand accounts written down decades, or in some cases centuries, after the events they describe. The claims therein are not corroborated by any other historical documents. And even if you could prove they were executed for their beliefs, how strongly one believes something has no bearing on whether or not it is true. It is possible to fervently believe something and still be wrong.

To bad nobodyhad thought of the Geneva Conventionback then.

Also strange thatsome of God’s children are more equal than other of God’s children.

 No, I meant to read all of Harrill’s book.  See also my response to momma j below.  The paternalistic vision of Ephesians 6 is a rosy presentation of slavery.  Clearly, beating slaves was compatible with “loving” them.  Loving your neighbor as yourself was compatible with enslavement. Slavery is a labor and class differential that is inherently oppressive to the body and soul, regardless of how “nice” a master thought he or she was being.  Oddly, your fundamentalist Christianity prevents you from unequivocally saying that. 

And Paul most certainly did not say that slave and master are equal in their statuses on earth, which is how you are misreading Galatians 3:28.     

Sometimes when you are trying to make a point, you need to consider your audience and make as simple and clear as possible. I agree that you need to measure the tone and focus the message.

Thank you for a through response. 

 This method of interpretation was common until about 350 or so ad when an Augustine started to interpret the Bible allegorically. This was the method accepted by the Catholic church and thus controlled until the 1700’s.  A literal interpretation of the Bible does not preclude the normal use of language which can include figures of speech, analogies, metaphors, etc. The goal is try and get as close to the original author’s intent as you can.  To determine that you use what is written as well as the context and the historical setting, just as you would when reading any other book.  Of course I do believe that the Bible includes recorded miracles. You obviously believe in only the natural world, so of course your view would be different.

Now if you are concerned about which would be right, I would ask you the same thing.  If you are trying to determine what is correct, what method would you use?

I know it is way off topic, but is it just me that finds the way the nested comments reduce further and further in width within a fixed width column really friggin’ annoying? Or is it just a Firefox rendering issue? Using the right-click -> “Inspect Element” option is a partial work around for reading comments too far nested, but still seems like an inelegant solution to a problem that shouldn’t really exist.  Then again, I suck at html and javascript… and most other things in life.

Being subscribed in email helps, although email strips the ‘blockquote’ formatting so you can miss who’s saying what.  Other than that when it gets this narrow sometimes I’ll find a reply further up thread and start over with some mention of what I’m doing.  The people in the conversation follow just fine.

Can you read? Please quote where I said that God has no problem with slavery? PLEASE!

They were tired of being repressed and was hoping for either a magnificent general or a incredible social reformer. That was THEIR design for rescue, but not God’s.

Right there.
Seriously, you cannot be that daft. By not opposing such a horrible thing as keeping slaves, even laying down rules for their treatment, your god clearly has no problem with slavery.

 You are a walking cliche

The instinct to swim when pushed into deep water needs no magical explanation.  Evolution does just fine.  The opposite instinct would be an extremely maladaptive trait, quickly removed from the gene pool by natural selection. 

So I guess it was a mutant gene that led to the evolutionary trait that causes one person to push another person under the water in the first place.  If that is true then would you say that violence is genetic? If so then would that justify killing all violent criminals so that that bad gene would be wiped out?

There are numerous competition strategies, including direct violence, co-operation and deceit.  You will see all deployed in nature.  A strategy might work well in one situation but not in another.  If a sociopath resorts to violence all the time, to the exclusion of co-operation, then in a social species like humans, other members will probably co-operate to counter the sociopath.   That’s why they end up in prison (or perhaps on death row).  And as an unintended side effect, less likely to pass on their genes.  Perhaps eventually whatever genes may be linked to sociopathy may die out.

All people are violent to various degrees.  There is certainly no ‘violent’ gene.  Thinking you could (or it would useful to) wipe out violence in humans by stopping some more violent people from breeding is just plain stupid.

When the total number of commentsget too large, linking to a specificcomment doesn’t show youprevious comments.  If youremove everything from the # on in the URL and reload the page, you’ll get ALLthe comments.  Keep searching and everything is there.

i am glad you think so. This solutions sounds alot like eugenics

No one is a Christian then. The bible is full of rules that are so numerous and archaic that nobody can claim to follow them all, and no one seems to care about that fact. Their lack of care is a lack of repentance, so according to your claims they cannot be Christians. You just lied about there not being any advocation of slavery anywhere in the bible. This violates the Christian rule against bearing false witness. You are unrepentant. According to your silly rules you are not a Christian. BTW, you will turn on a dime and likely argue that the number of Christians is an argument for it’s truth, and count these “no true Christians” to your advantage.

The middle ages were so brutal that one could easily argue that there were next to no Christians in Europe based on your criteria, yet it is arguable that Christians of that era were in fact much more Christian in their behavior in other ways, like days in Church.

 There is no ‘dislike’ button, but for this, I would select it.

Atheists love taking things completely out of contest. I do disagree with vandalism. I do support freedom of speech.

“Masters, provide your slaves with what is right and fair, because you also have a Master in heaven” Colossians 4

Arguably, my boss is my master and I am a wage slave.

“THEREFORE, F**K THE BIBLE” to make it obvious for the irony-impaired.

 Look up prison statistics.   Nonbelievers are quite underrepresented in prison relative to their proportion in the general population.

http://atheistempire.com/reference/stats/main.html

If the majority of charitable agencies in the US were founded by Christians, it is only because the majority of people in the US are christians, not because christians have a greater propensity to be charitable.

Several of the wealthiest philanthropists ever were nonbelievers (Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, Andrew Carnegie).

 When was the last time you heard of an atheist priest molesting children?

See. I can fly off on tangents too.

There was no illogical premise asserted. In the US, Christianity is dominant therefore Christianity accounts for most charity. You are the one correlating charity to faith.

Based on latest statistics, the US is the most generous in terms of dollar amount donated to charity. But when the same statistics are polled to show donations per capita, Thailand (Buddhist) leads the pack.

It would seem that if charity is the benchmark to judge a worldview on then call me a Buddhist.

Read about it here: http://unitedexplanations.org/english/2011/12/28/thailand-is-the-most-generous-country-in-the-world-in-2011/

The problem with that assumption is Buddhism is not a faith, it is closer to a philosophy, more in tune with secularism. Classifying it is not really important to the point though, your argument attempts to suggest exclusivity, hubris, as if no one can ‘give’ as well as Christians. It seems that is not really the case. So again, to the point, if charity is the benchmark, it seems Christianity has been outshined by the better worldview.

First let me say that i know that atheists give to charities and that this giving is growing which is wonderful.  As for whether a christian turned atheist would stop giving I doubt that they would.  Even if you stop having faith, the teachings of being charitable would probably still hold merit.  Because of this teaching I think that there is at least some correlation.

“When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished.  If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property.”  (Exodus 21:20-21)

We can quote contradicting verses all day if you want to.

atheism is just as prejudice. they use the same anti theist arguments that can be broken down easily but theists are just to stupid to know how ridiculous those arguments sound. go ahead, insult me but it is the truth