NonStampCollector talks about the warped logic of God’s Perfect Justice:
The pictures in the last 1:30 are pretty disturbing…
The pictures in the last 1:30 are pretty disturbing…”
Not if you’re a Christian.
Yeah, because we all know that Christians follow the Mosaic law of the Jews.
Considering how many Christians are more than eager to tell atheists that they’re all gonna burn in hell forever and ever and ever, I’m not sure there’s much of a difference. In the OT, for all its brutality, once you were dead, you stayed dead. The NT introduces us to the hilarious concept of eternal torture in the fiery pits of hell without reprieve or mercy. To Christians, not even death releases you from suffering or torment, and you can’t ever be forgiven. Yes, that’s one of the interpretations, and that’s the problem. It’s all hearsay on a 2,000 year old text.
This is a lot darker that previous videos. Much like Dalton’s latest “Way of the Mister”. We can only laugh for so long before we cry.
Christians may not follow it, but they must condone it and justify it. I don’t know of any modern Christian sects that have jettisoned the OT from the canon.
I know of no sect having done that either (if you don’t count the books Martin Luther dumped).
Condone it? Justify it? It is what it is (or was).
The point is that Christians that seek to live by Mosaic law don’t understand what the New Testament is for.
So, if you find any Christians telling you you shouldn’t do something because of what Leviticus says, count me as someone who will tell them they are an idiot.
So, you’re saying that a Hell you insist doesn’t exist is no different than real people having their heads stove in with rocks?
Jot and tittle, motherfucker.
If he were to gather up stones, would the punishment be death by “sticking”?
Anyway, for those who winced at the pictures, can’t really blame ya, here’s a lighter side of stoning, courtesy of Monty Python:http://youtu.be/MIaORknS1Dk
Do you kiss your mother with that mouth?
Jot and tittle? Really? So, is that a double down on the charge that Christianity is really about enforcing Mosaic Law? Really? Okay, if that’s what you think, have fun with it.
No, I kiss yours with it.
I’m fully aware that Jesus never meant what he actually said, especially if it goes against his followers wishes.
The big problem is that there are still no small number of christians who think the whole bible is gods revealed truth. They are not alone. That is why we have seen just his year – a baptist preacher advocating snapping the wrists of little boys who act ‘effeminate and another saying he thinks gays and lesbians should be rounded up and corralled behind electric fences. And just to make certain we don’t leave anyone out – how about the orthodox jews who spit upon and hurled shit and rocks at school girls (also orthodox) whom they deemed insufficiently modest. And, just today we hear that the Saudis have beheaded a man on charges of witchcraft and sorcery. It is all the same mentality. It is all about evil people who think they have all the answers. They know their god is on their side and it is OK to torment, torture, and kill to maintain their ‘truth’.
I’m no great scholar of the bible but isn’t there a few passages in the New Testament where Jesus makes it perfectly clear that the old laws are still valid and need to be followed.
I do remember reading something in Matthew, some quick GoogleFu and here we go:
“Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place.”
Which of course makes sense, assuming you believe any of this, because with Jesus basically being God made flesh he is, in effect, the same being. Now unless he’s got some serious multiple personality disorder, or he’s just a sadistic piece of shit who wants to fuck with us, it makes no sense for God to send a human avatar of himself to tell his followers to not follow the immutable never ending rules he’d spent countless years and multiple wars and genocides enforcing.
So if I’m reading this right, unless you’re advocating selectively cherry picking from the bible, the Old Testament laws do apply, because Jesus, who is God, said they do.
Except that Christian theology has this idea that the fulfillment and perfection of the law was found in the death and resurrection.
So, what you call cherry picking is really a point of theology that has, oh, a couple o’ thousand years of development.
And part of the point is that the rules were not immutable and never ending.
The “law” however being understood as death as the consequence of sin is not changed. In the theology of the death and resurrection the law of death as consequence of sin is perfected; mercy is reconciled with justice.
Of course it’s probably all horse hockey to you, but still, it’s not cherry picking (though there are of course those who do cherry pick).
In any event, and has been pointed out in these parts with no small amount of sarcasm, Christians don’t have a problem with eating shellfish. So, like I said, the idea that Christians live by the Mosaic law is foolish, even if you think (wrongly) that they should.
I tried to watch The Stoning of Soraya M., but as soon as the final scene began, I realized her torture and death were going to be shown in detail, at length, and it was too horrid for me to view. I just skipped to the next chapter on the DVD. It’s one of the main reasons I am so passionate about opposing religion.
A certain action is either moral, or it is not. When your holy, allegedly divinely-inspired text advocates, commands and endorses slavery, genocide, and murder at the behest of an all-powerful deity, you do not then get to claim that that deity is loving. You do not get to weasel out of answering for the despicable actions commanded in said book by saying “It’s all better now! Those rules don’t apply any more!” Fine. If that’s what you believe, fine, and I’m glad you don’t actually believe that gays and non-virgin brides should be stoned to death. But that only means that morals are as mutable as some Christians claim they are to atheists. When a timeless, omnipotent deity commands one thing to be moral, and then changes his mind and says such things are now immoral, followers of the deity don’t have a leg to stand on to dictate morals to the rest of us.
“Human Avatar of himself” …. Brilliant!
I think he IS classy considering what a blowhard you are. Go peddle your crap on John Hagee’s or Brian Fisher’s shit-infested websites. It’ll find great company there. Moron!
Well written SteveS! As for you Nordog, you’re a douche-bag. (Or shit-bin, take your pick).
Nordog is correct about most Xtians as they do not enforce the jew laws except for the ones they do which are usually the ones they themselves don’t do. They get divorces so they don’t enforce them (even though jesus said divorce is bad.)
And as this site and others have shown there are numerous sects that do the nasty stuff too. For the most part the xtians don’t do the nasty stuff here is because its against the LAW and I WOULD SHOOT BACK!!!
Also the stoning as shown is not done as the prisoner is incapacitated because many would fight back which would still end with his death but they would not want anyone else to go with him.
I know I would fight and try to kill as many as possible, why? Because the xtains don’t know it but there is no heaven there is only hell ad ones rank is determined by the numbers he drags down there with him.
Hell if the xtian can make up fairy tales so can I.
So, in your world a Christian is not allowed to tell an atheist murderer that he’s wrong to murder, because that would be dictating morals, and besides, God commanded Jews to commit genocide.
I’ll make a note.
No, murdering IS wrong. It would be wrong even if your holy text said it wasn’t. You don’t get to have it both ways. Murder is either immoral, or it is not. When your god commands murder, you could be a big boy and own up to it. You could have intellectual honesty and acknowledge that that deity is a capricious, jealous, hateful monster. Or you can make throwaway quips about how, apparently, no one can have morals because atheists don’t get to dictate their morals to anyone either. What a cowardly tool you are.
For many Christians, stoning isn’t enough for us non-believers, that’s why they like to use hell instead. Why bring back throwing rocks at peoples heads, as enjoyable for them as that may be, when imagining the tortures that they think may happen to us after we die is so much more satisfying?
“What a cowardly tool you are.”
No, I won’t do either.
But I am beginning to suspect that your use of “hateful monster” is a bit of psychological projection.
That’s a great movie, and yes, that scene is exceedingly difficult. In particular as her own children are involved in the stoning. I did watch it, but I had to take a break, and then vented on a closed atheist FB group.
You might also enjoy “The Kite Runner”.
The deal breaker for me is that God at one point made those rules. At one time e.g. God thought it was reasonable that people should kill animals to atone for various sins. Or be stoned for working on the wrong day. I don’t care what people do today- that’s messed up. And that GOD ever wanted people to do that is messed up. I get that it was ‘normal’ back then, along with all kinds of inheriting slaves and such. But we’re humans. We get it wrong, and work it out, and evolve. Our morals improve. I would expect God to get it right the first time. That God ever ever dictated any of the OT means either a) God’s morals evolved or b) God is a figment of man’s evolving imagination.
Or God was meeting man where he found him.
“But I’m beginning to suspect that your use of “hateful monster” is a bit of psychological projection.” Wow, just like god, how weird is that.
That’s right Nordog, what people don’t get is that god put all that hate and torture and killing children crap behind him. Can’t a guy change for christs sake? Why do people keep bringing that shit up? He was a hard ugly god for a hard ugly time, but he learned his lesson and he moved on, everyone else should too.
Wow, you really think god thinks “guest’s” use of “hateful monster” is projection too? That is weird. Or, at least, it’s weird that you would think that.
So, no leeway on shellfish, but if your indentured servant has babies, they’re your baby slaves.
An Omniscient and Omnipotent God had to make do with how His creation turned out?
Clearly men* have always created their gods, their holy rules and their creation myths as whatever was useful to them at the time.
*presumably women would have done the same if ever they were allowed.
I guess I don’t understand why this is so hard for you.. When your all-loving, omnipotent deity commands something, clearly you are are either in agreement with that command or you are not. If his commands first endorse one behavior and then another, he is either fucking with you or he is a psychopathic weirdo.
That’s not really my problem. I’m not the one claiming that his values are timeless and eternal. Either mount a credible defense of the biblical God’s endorsement of slavery and murder or just, seriously, go away. You’re not worth any of our time if you can’t even defend your own holy text.
You really are a complete fucking moron.
What about Leviticus 7:30-36, where God gives instructions for “wave” and “heave” offerings, which are to be made perpetually “by a statute for ever”?
Note it says “For ever”. Not “Until I change my mind for some reason.”
Its not so weird when you think about it. You are a Christian which means that god thinks whatever you want him to think.
That’s the beauty of psychological projections.
“I guess I don’t understand why this is so hard for you.. When your all-loving, omnipotent deity commands something, clearly you are are either in agreement with that command or you are not. If his commands first endorse one behavior and then another, he is either fucking with you or he is a psychopathic weirdo. That’s not really my problem. I’m not the one claiming that his values are timeless and eternal. Either mount a credible defense of the biblical God’s endorsement of slavery and murder or just, seriously, go away. You’re not worth any of our time if you can’t even defend your own holy text.”
It’s not difficult for me at all.
I just reject your premises as much as I reject the idea that you would accept anything that would challenge them.
However, it probably bears noting here that my faith doesn’t come from the Bible. In fact, if you review all the posts I’ve ever made at this blog you will find that I do not invoke scripture at all.
I find many problems with scripture as well. However, I’m willing to consider the the idea that these problems may potentially be reconciled. I trust that is a potentiallity that you reject.
In any event, given that my faith is not based in scripture, but rather my personal experience and then tradition, the problems found in scripture do not pose any direct threat to that faith.
Of course none of this really says anything about what is commonly referred to as “The Problem of Suffering” which is at the heart of your, ah, concerns here.
Given that that particular disucssion has been going on for thousands of years among men far more bright than either of us, and continues without resolution, I must reject the notion that I must go away unless I can resolve this matter to your satisfaction.
Where does the tradition come from? You are a Christian, no? You seem to have adopted some sort of cafeteria-style Christianity – you choose to believe the “Love thy neighbor” commands and reject the “Stone the nonbelievers” commands. But if the god you worship or believe in is the same god who allegedly divinely inspired both the Old and New Testaments, then the level of cognitive dissonance going on in your head must be medically dangerous. I have no idea why you think it is acceptable to say that you don’t get your faith from scripture, and yet presumably call yourself a Christian. Your personal experiences are of absolutely zero value to anyone else unless you can present credible evidence for them. I am not interested in what you call the problem of suffering – I do not find the problem of evil or suffering to be compelling arguments against the existence of god.
So, I have a question for you. It should be easy to answer. Do you believe that the Old and New Testaments are divinely inspired accurate representations of your God’s character?
Thank you nordog you just showed up all those people who would make fun of christians for believing in stoning. You made clear that this is not something christians believe, they believe their god (who is perfect love) commanded people do this for a few thousand years, until he could get around to impregnating a Palestinian teen with himself, and then let himself be killed so that the practice he instituted and commanded could be abolished. Now a a guy named nordog can point out that such a barbaric practice is not something he is currently cool with, but he wants to worship (and under threat of everlasting torture recommends you do the same) the being who instituted and commanded stoning for thousands of years. Well don’t I feel silly now that you set us all straight.
The tradition comes from the Magisterium (I’m Catholic).
“Your personal experiences are of absolutely zero value to anyone else unless you can present credible evidence for them.”
Actually, that’s not true, but I don’t care either way. I will allow that my experiences have zero value to you. I don’t live my life like a walking syllogism, so I really am not concerned that you don’t have the evidence you demand of me.
However, I love the dearth of evidence regarding your medical pronouncements.
“I have no idea why you think it is acceptable to say that you don’t get
your faith from scripture, and yet presumably call yourself a Christian.
Yeah, no. I don’t know what acceptability has to do with it. My coming to the faith was a process that lead to an event, and the Bible had nothing to do with it. Apparently you disapprove and have declared that unacceptable. I trust there is much about me that you will find unacceptable.
To your closing question I would say that one could quibble over what it means to be “accurate” but basically, the answer is yes.
Nope, just a disingenuous troll that goes around calling disabled people “Shakes” and demanding that women be slaves to their uterus.
Of course, that doesn’t necessarily exclude him ALSO being a complete fucking moron.
‘shakes’ was Fsq, not Nordog.
Kitty, I figure people calling me names goes with the territory around here. But false accusations are another thing altogether.
I am tempted to say that you are a bald faced liar based on what you just posted, but given your demonstration last evening of not being able to follow what had been written, or by whom, I fear you simply may be deluded.
In any event I held out an olive branch last evening by offering an apology for having fun at your expense. The apology stands.
The standing apology does not mean that I’ll stand by while you falsely accuse me here.
Regarding me calling a disabled person “Shakes” and to borrow from what I see here often, citation needed.
Regarding the charge that I demand women be slaves to their uteruses (uiteri?), that’s just demented (but it does give light to why I’m an object of your bigotry and hatred).
As far as being called a fucking moron by you is concerned, there is no real concern there.
Again, citation please.
Thanks Rich. I had no idea where that was coming from.
Where does the Magisterium get its’ authority from? At some point, you have to acknowledge the Biblical origins of the the Catholic Church. (Duh) And as someone who has just admitted you believe the Bible is divinely inspired and an accurate representation of God, you would expect there to be no mistakes or outright fabrications in said holy text, no?
I can find thousands of people who will sincerely and truthfully tell me that they have been abducted by aliens. They don’t have any evidence of this, but they have personal experiences. Should I believe them? I suppose it doesn’t matter whether I do or not, but if the alien-abduction crowd was trying to get other people to believe their stories, saying that horrible things would happen to nonbelievers in the afterlife, and attempting to enact legislation that affects everyone – even the non-alien-abduction-believing populace – then the question becomes more pertinent.
You seem anxious to distance yourself from the Bible – you’ve now said several times that your journey didn’t involve the Bible, and that you “find many problems with scripture.” Congratulations, we are in agreement. There ARE many problems in scripture – among them, outright lies, fabrications, mistakes, and supernatural nonsense. If you call yourself a Catholic and yet don’t want or care to mount a defense of the deity you believe in, (in direct contravention of 1 Peter 3:15), then once again I must say that I have no idea how you reconcile “gentle Jesus” to the vile commandments attributed to your god that you have admitted is “accurate.”
In the face of such obstinate obtuseness a charge of disingenuousness is in order.
“Where does the Magisterium get its’ authority from? At some point, you
have to acknowledge the Biblical origins of the the Catholic Church.
You know, I couldn’t even get past this first sentence. It really is fatuous.
The Magisterium existed for almost 400 years before that same Magisterium, in the form of the Council of Rom n 382 AD decreed exactly what was and was not to be considered the Holy Canon of Scripture.
So, no, your wrong. But even if you were right, my previous rejection of the Bible prevented it from leading me to the faith. And in fact, the Magisterium had no real role either.
The Tradition I cited earlier really only boiled down my having, prior to my conversion, a passing understanding of Catholic doctrine as picked up from news and entertainment media.
Now that I’ve scanned your post I am curious, just exactly what “defense of the deity” would you accept?
I thought so.
“Those thinkers who cannot believe in any gods often
assert that the love of humanity would be in itself sufficient for them;
and so, perhaps, it would, if they had it.” – Chesterton
I just wonder at what point your understanding of Catholic doctrine affected the whole process. Was your conversion event specifically Catholic? Did Ratzinger in the flesh appear before you? Or did you have a more general spiritual event, and decide that Catholicism was a good framework in which to place your new found faith? Or is there another option?
I would have suggested that had you lived in Saudi Arabia you would have become a Muslim, but it doesn’t sound like that’s something you would deny.
“Or did you have a more general spiritual event, and decide that
Catholicism was a good framework in which to place your new found faith?”
I would say that there is that third option that’s very close to this.
Actually, my understanding of Catholicism is that it’s only loosely based on the Bible. It seems to be more of a moral code which was created based on Biblical teachings which is only tangentially connected to ancient Jewish law and more closely tied to the supposed teachings of Jesus. They now use a highly fallacious teaching of “Natural Law” and their Catechism to determine right and wrong. The Bible itself is only used as a reference.
If I’m wrong on this, somebody who is more educated on Catholicism please correct me. My study of Catholicism is only in it’s infancy.
When I said “defend the deity,” I wanted you to stop dancing around your own holy text and explain to us exactly how you are OK with slavery when it is commanded by the god you worship. This doesn’t seem like a very difficult question, yet you still refuse to reconcile your faith with a book that commands such acts. I am not interested in whether you think my statement that the Catholic church, which claims authority from the Bible, has Biblical origins – is fatuous; that is why I ended the sentence with “Duh.”
Of course, none of this disproves the existence of a god or gods. It only provides evidence that the Bible is not divinely inspired – the book upon which your religion bases its’ claim to authority.
Well, yeah I refuse, I refuse because there is no answer that will satisfy you.
Am I wrong? Do you apply a genuine open mindedness to this subject? Or have you set your mind to it.
If I thought for one moment this was a genuinely open conversation about an admittedly difficult subject I would be more likely inclined to discuss it with you.
But as it is, you’ve concluded that the God of the Jews and Christians is a monster (I think that’s a fair statement of your position) and that I am a mentally challenged and deranged individual because I worship that God and think that that God is good and loving. Again, I think that’s a fair representation of your position.
Additionally, many here have voiced the notion that because of my Christian faith in the monster God I am by extension a monster as well. I would not be surprised to find that you hold that position as well.
I have faith in many things and people, but the idea that anything I write here will change your position is not one of them.
I can live with that.
It is not my nature to proselytize, especially to those who have obviously spent time and effort examining the subject and have come to an obviously contradictory position.
Your expectations of me to the contrary are not withstanding.
But hey, I guess I should thank you for not going directly to the, “Shut up you fucking asshole!”
So, thank you.
What’s strange is that Nordog mentioned on another thread that he based his morality on nature when he was an agnostic. But it sounds like “Natural Law” is a Catholic thing? Nordog, you never replied to my previous comments about this, so I remain puzzled.
Sorry Anna, sometimes it’s difficult to keep up with everything around here.
Yours is an interesting point. Natural Law is a Catholic thing, but it predates Christianity, so it makes sense that when I went from agnostic to Christian I would be drawn to the Church with a Natural Law tradition.
Thanks! I still don’t understand the concept of basing human morality on nature, but I suppose it makes sense that you’d be drawn to a church that fit what you already believed.
“…but I suppose it makes sense that you’d be drawn to a church that fit what you already believed.”
Yes, no one is drawn to what they reject, but to what the see as resonating with their conclusions.
Please don’t put words in my mouth. I have tried to extend you the same courtesy by asking you what you believe before assuming I knew it. I never called you mentally challenged, and I do not think you are a monster. It is also not in my character to default to ad hominem attacks (although I did call you a cowardly tool, for which I apologize).
I obviously can only speak for myself, too.
It’s also true that I have examined this issue and come to a position on it. The same is true for you. I, too, am under no illusion that you will magically agree with me. The fact that we have opposing opinions doesn’t mean both of us will take our current positions to the grave, however. I just wanted you to explain how you make sense of this to yourself. If you refuse to answer the question, I won’t take that as a victory, because the point of all this was NOT to yell at you until you took your ball and went home. It was to get an answer out of you.
To me, the only realistic and compassionate response to a command to commit genocide is to refuse and to condemn the commander. You have come to a different conclusion about the commander. Not only do you not condemn the deity for this, you love, worship, and call him loving!
Can you explain that, or will you still refuse to answer?
I suppose so. It’s hard for me to relate, since I’ve never converted or deconverted from anything.
I guess in that situation, I’d focus on my conclusions and why I reached them the way that I did. I’d try to step outside culture/society as much as possible and try to ascertain if I believe certain things because they seem the most logical to me, or if I believe them because a lot of other people believe them. Check for confirmation bias, and all that.
First, let me apologize for, so to speak, putting words in your mouth.
I tried to couch my statements in terms that would allow for the fact that I could be wrong on what you hold.
But in any event it was not my intention to misrepresent you. Lord knows (pardon the expression) I get that a lot myself and don’t care for it.
Second, thanks for the apology.
Third, I want to give you are a reply longer than time allows at the moment. So I’ll get back to this this evening.
That’s a good approach imo.
Mm, yup. My bad, there. After a while they all kinda blur together into one giant mass of douchebaggery.
Like I said, you’re very gracious.
Why am I not surprised you didn’t write a reply? I suppose the next time a blog post here involves Mosaic law you’ll be right back here, using Parthian tactics: You say your little one or two sentence piece, draw people’s fire, and when met with anyone who wants you to actually defend your position, you’ll go silent. If your refusal to defend your opinion is that you likely won’t convince anyone, then that is a testament to the weakness of your argument (which we still haven’t heard, by the way). If your response to criticism is to refuse to answer because you think you won’t convince anyone, then why did you post anything on this blog at all? After all, you didn’t think you would convince anyone with your little one-sentence replies to other people’s posts, did you? Why post anything at all, then?
I’m done with you, for now. As I said before, I’m not one for ad hominem attacks, but this isn’t an unfounded accusation: You actually are being disingenuous.
How are you a Christian if your faith has nothing to do with the Bible and is not based on the Bible? So your faith is strictly based on Catholic traditions and dogma? So, can I assume that Catholicism is not based on the Bible but on traditions/dogma created by Catholic religious leaders?
That’s the whole point of me trying to get him to actually defend his faith. But he doesn’t want to actually answer for anything in the Bible so he makes appeals to personal experience and “tradition” -all while calling himself a Christian.
Hey, Nordog, I believe there’s something in your Bible about being able to defend your convictions – “But whosoever shall deny me before men, him I will also deny before my Father which is in heaven.” Matthew 10:33
Or do you not want to talk about that, since the Bible has nothing to do with your faith?
I apologize for not writing my reply. As a husband I find the my time is not always my own, and I did want to take some time to formulate a reply. I wanted to take time that I simply have not had.
I still intend to return to this and give you a reply.
Better yet, if you want a thoughtful and mutually respectful dialog on this, email me at the address below.
If, however, you see this as little more than an opportunity to accuse, don’t waste your time.
I’ve already answered this. You can scroll for it if you like.
Sorry, wrong address. It’s really firstname.lastname@example.org.
Please respond to this blog post, if you would. Thanks.
All gods are made in the believer’s own image. The fact that most gods are deranged, hypocritical, sociopathic mass murderers suggests something rather disturbing about believers…