the bible is immoral

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
war is not genocide

war is conquest . or defence against conquerors. but nowhere does it say you need to kill the conquered nation.

your logic is laughable. the canaanites practice human sacrifice, namely their children, so they were deemed wicked so the israelites killed them all including their children.

dude, can you possibly post this shaite w deserved to die because they murdered some of their children, let's see if they buy this"

Genocide is your term, an appellation intended to bolster your argument and yes, its a fathers responsibility for seeing that his family is safe? The cannanites had every opportunity to avail themselves of safety, they hardened themselves against God and suffered, what more is there to say, they were ultimately responsible for their own deaths, God cannot have those who would sacrifice children polluting the earth. That children died as a result is a sad reflection of the hard hard-heartedness of their parents, who were ultimately responsible for their safety, diminishing it with terms like, laughable, is not really an argument Zhalanzi, simply a reaction.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Genocide is your term, an appellation intended to bolster your argument and yes, its a fathers responsibility for seeing that his family is safe? The cannanites had every opportunity to avail themselves of safety, they hardened themselves against God and suffered, what more is there to say, they were ultimately responsible for their own deaths, God ...[text shortened]... iminishing it with terms like, laughable, is not really an argument Zhalanzi, simply a reaction.

"look what you made me do, you evil human you: because of your wickedness i had to kill your aunt, your parents, your 2 year and 3 year old children, your 23 year old son and his 2 and 1 year old children, your mailman, your lawyer, the guy who brings milk, your neighbor and his family and the rest of the people in your city. It is really your fault, i never wanted to kill you. If you would only have been good, i wouldn't have had to kill all the people you ever knew."



i did used the term "laughable". that was not the argument. the argument followed. you do not go to hell because your father is wicked, you do not go to heaven because your father is good. you are responsible for your own fate and you are judged for your own actions. and children (and retarded people and insane people) are beyond judgement. these entitle the use of "laughable" to describe your insane logic.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
My attempt? why have i attempted to punish anyone? great learning is driving you mad Zhalanzi! secondly you are ignoring that God exercised mercy towards both David and Bathsheba, was that immoral, should he not simply have executed them? what does that tell us about God? Its hardly consistent with your attempted portrayal of a cruel and vindictive God, is it Zhalanzi, perhaps you can explain it?

mercy towards the criminals and wrath towards the innocent? awesome.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
yes, david did murder someone. and what was his punishment? his child had to die in his place? really? under god's just law i can die at any moment if my father, grandfather decides a life of crime would be fun?


kind of like the people of jericho.


also you do a poor job at disproving dawkings quote. he doesn't mention he is all those things all actually think amsterdam is a city entirely made up of prostitutes and potheads, right?

==============================
yes, david did murder someone. and what was his punishment? his child had to die in his place? really? under god's just law i can die at any moment if my father, grandfather decides a life of crime would be fun?
========================================

You should familiarize yourself with the life of David. Absalom, his rebellious son, was a considerable suffering to David. And his reputation was severly damaged. And he never had peace in his kingdom afterwards. And other sufferings of David also occured.

He also did not get to live his ultimate dream of building a house (temple) for Jehovah. That duty was left for his son to complete. David suffered the consequences of his wrong doing.

============
kind of like the people of jericho.
======================

I don't see a strong connection, other then you are outraged at both parts of the Bible.

=======================================
also you do a poor job at disproving dawkings quote. he doesn't mention he is all those things all the time. so you giving one example of him being the opposite means nothing. you should try and explain the instances where he was all that. like you justified the genocide at jericho.
===============================

The overall effect that Dawkins is trying to portray about God is clear.

I have not dealt with the entire quote. Of course I don't expect your approval of what I wrote so far. And since Dawkins is not on this forum to submit an example,

I gave one. If you know that he used another, then tell us.

==================================
speaking of jericho, i have been relaxed in the conditions of our debate just to show you genocide is not excusable under any circumstances. not even when god commands it (which he won't and didn't). but have you thought about the claim "all jericho was evil"?
=====================================

Where's that quote ?

===============================
do you honestly think that is true? that somehow, absolutely everyone in the city engaged in murdering, raping,etc? that there weren't some nice families? that all the evil dudes gathered there? i mean you don't actually think amsterdam is a city entirely made up of prostitutes and potheads, right?
=================================

I think maybe as some, through those seven days, saw the priests and army of Jehovah circle the city seven times, perhaps they may have repented to God for past atrocities. Perhaps, others convicted in their consciences left the city during those seven days.

Perhaps, some were executed for past sins will receive mercy in the eternal scheme of things. For example in the words of Jesus -

"But I say to you that it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment than for you." (Matt. 11:24)

"Yet it will be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon in the judgment than for you" (Luke 10:14)

"Truly I say to you, It will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment than for that city." (Matt. 10:15)

The impression I get from Christ's references to these OT judged societies, is that it is not the end of the divine story for some of them. The final judgment will reveal some surprises.

So I might insert there also that in the last judgment some of judged [Jericho] may find themselves in a more tolerable situation before the Judge of all the earth, though they were killed in the OT.

The human challenge to God's justice in destroying a whole city was already taken up between Abraham and God. I think the Holy Spirit included for the believer's edification Genesis 18:23-33. There Abraham grills God repeatedly that if N amount of righteous people were in Sodom, would He destroy the whole city including them.

Abraham reduces the number lower and lower and lower. And God assures Abraham that He will not destroy the whole city if that remnant of worthy ones are there. Abraham includes in his challenge "Far be it from You to do such a thing, to put to death the rightreous with the wicked, so that the righteous should be as the wicked. Far be it from You! Shall not the Judge of all the earth not do justly ?" (Gen. 18:25)

I admit that I do not have the personal biographies of all those people in Jericho. Neither do you have them. But I have two hopes at least:

1.) God knew them far better then I do and He knows what He is doing via (Genesis 18:23-32)

2.) Even if some relatively less evil were killed with the worst offenders, in the eternal scheme, the final judgment of them may find them in a "more tolerable" position before God (Matt. 11:24, Luke 10:14, Matt. 10:15)

Since I do not know, I am not willing to insert into that vacuum, accusations, slanders, condemnations toward God. I am not eager to hunt for reasons to accuse God of being inferior to me.

I also don't know how it could be logically possibly that God's creatures who are not the judges of all the earth, could be invested with greater wisdom and justness then our Creator. That is to find the need to educate our Creator on justness and equity.

Does your entire past life give you the confidence that you have the right to educate God on righteousness ? If we were able to video your whole private life up on this screen, do you think we would all be persuaded that you are in a position to tutor God on good behavior ? Or would you shrink away in shame and disgrace at some of the things seen ?

I don't feel my life has placed me in a position to sit the Almighy down at my feet and school God on what is the ultimate righteous way.

I don't know how God our Creator could invest something into his creatures which He Himself did not have to give. I do not know how the effect of created man could end up being superior to the Cause of the creating God.

So if, as you suggest, there were undeserving victims in the Jericho event, I believe that Abraham's concept will be fulfilled in the eternal scheme of things.

In the eternal scheme, the larger consequences that God Almighty is privy to but you, me, and Abraham may not be cognizant of - "the righteous should not be as the wicked" in every sense, in the ultimate sense. Though they both may have died at Jericho, in the larger sphere, they may not be reckoned as the same.

Man has limitation in this sphere whereas God does not.

The US dropped an atomic bomb on Hiroshima. Perhaps there were some Japanese down there who even were sympathetic to the United States and disagreed with thier own Japanese government. Now we human beings have no such ability to right that situation. They are gone forever as far as what man can do.

But when God of resurrection and eternity kills, dealings with that person are not over. He may not tell you and I what other experiences await that one. Jericho was a severe judgment. But it was not the last judgment.

I go on reading the Bible and not choke to a stop at Joshua's conquest of Jericho. Here is what the same God told the prophet Jonah about another society poised ready to be judged:

"And Jehovah said [to His reluctant propet Jonah] You had pity on the tree that you did not labor for nor cause to grow, which came into being overnight and perished overnight;

And I, should I not have pity on Nineveh, the great city, in which are more than a hundred and twenty thousand people who cannot discern between their right nad and their left, and many cattle ? " (Johah 4:11)

So while Richard Dawkins may be hunting for outrages to choke on so that he may nuture his unbelief in God, I am reading on to notice indications of God's goodness, pity, fairness, and justness to encourage my faith.

And there are many many other instances in the OT of God's love. This was the same God. This was not a different Person. So I am encouraged that the Jericho account is a pained but necessary glimps into His ways. It is not the only window. He had pity on Ninaveh and detailed knowed down to the specific number of people who were not worthy to be destroyed.

Originally posted by jaywill
[b]==============================
yes, david did murder someone. and what was his punishment? his child had to die in his place? really? under god's just law i can die at any moment if my father, grandfather decides a life of crime would be fun?
========================================

You should familiarize yourself with the life of Dav ...[text shortened]... specific number of people who were not worthy to be destroyed.[/b]

So while Richard Dawkins may be hunting for outrages to choke on so that he may nuture his unbelief in God, I am reading on to notice indications of God's goodness, pity, fairness, and justness to encourage my faith.

yes, exactly. there are examples that portray god as kind and just. to these justify the criminal and gruesome decisions before? don't these contradict them?

what would you rather have, the kind and just god that refrained from killing the people of niniveh? or the murderous bastard that killed job's family to prove satan (or whoever that was) that job can take it like a [righteous] man? you cannot have both, that would be as scary as a bipolar god.

as a result i choose to think that god is kind and good and that the bastards who claimed god killed the people of jericho, of sodom and gomorrah, of the world before the flood were simply lying for their own means. that some men, not god, are wicked.


understand this: good doesn't entitle you to do evil. you cannot be deemed benevolent just because you abstain from killing people all the time. either you stop trusting the bible 100% or stop claiming god is benevolent.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
So while Richard Dawkins may be hunting for outrages to choke on so that he may nuture his unbelief in God, I am reading on to notice indications of God's goodness, pity, fairness, and justness to encourage my faith.

yes, exactly. there are examples that portray god as kind and just. to these justify the criminal and gruesome decisions before? don't the le all the time. either you stop trusting the bible 100% or stop claiming god is benevolent.

understand this: good doesn't entitle you to do evil. you cannot be deemed benevolent just because you abstain from killing people all the time. either you stop trusting the bible 100% or stop claiming god is benevolent.

You underestimate the power of fundamentalist double-think. Logic just doesn't work! 😉

Originally posted by Agerg
[b]understand this: good doesn't entitle you to do evil. you cannot be deemed benevolent just because you abstain from killing people all the time. either you stop trusting the bible 100% or stop claiming god is benevolent.

You underestimate the power of fundamentalist double-think. Logic just doesn't work! 😉[/b]

i do understand that. that is why i start to reduce on the number of issues presented at once. i try to present the matters as simple as i can. i give few examples at a time so as not to overload them (and because jaywill feels the need to create walls of text on even the simplests of matters).

i know they can't ever bring themselves to question god. i just try to emphasize the fact that i am not questioning god, i am questioning the barbaric bronze age morons that told those lies. in my view, god is not all those things dawkins said. humans are. at most, god can be accused of being a little callous or indiferent by not intervening to stop all those horrors. which is still preferable to intervening to maim and kill on a whim.

i can't understand them fundamentalists. the carrobie actually said with a straight face that innocent people may be punished for someone else's transgression and still calls himself a christian. i as a christian am offended by that. i as a christian cannot accept that a god who will send his son to suffer and bring salvation to human animals would condemn an entire city to oblivion. that the god that said "turn the other cheek and love thy enemy would actually tell one single people to kill another people, take their land and live guilt free. i cannot believe that the god who would say that salvation is for everyone would deem someone "evil beyond and undeserving of redemption".




in conclusion, i know i can't reach jaywill and the carrobie and the josephw. (i exclude vishva from this group because he is a WAY different piece of beef).
i try and argue as logically as i can not for their benefit but for the atheists that consider religion to be mind numbing.

for those atheists that looks at vishva and jaywill and the carrobie and wonders what the benefit of religion is since vishva considers those that don't agree with him definite fools, since vishva considers that it is a sin to eat meat but it is not a sin to keep your growing child on rabbit food (or whatever else he deems unsinful), since carrobie justifies genocide and the punishment of innocents for another's transgression.

for those atheists looking for some spirituality but are afraid of psychopaths.

for the religious people full of doubt, that cannot reconcile the differences between the holy texts and modern science.


i believe you can be a rational human being and still allow for some degree of spirituality in your life, be it refering to love and justice and compassion by the name of jesus (or allah or buddha) or an impersonal moral code based on the same things.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
So while Richard Dawkins may be hunting for outrages to choke on so that he may nuture his unbelief in God, I am reading on to notice indications of God's goodness, pity, fairness, and justness to encourage my faith.

yes, exactly. there are examples that portray god as kind and just. to these justify the criminal and gruesome decisions before? don't the le all the time. either you stop trusting the bible 100% or stop claiming god is benevolent.

================================
So while Richard Dawkins may be hunting for outrages to choke on so that he may nuture his unbelief in God, I am reading on to notice indications of God's goodness, pity, fairness, and justness to encourage my faith.

yes, exactly. there are examples that portray god as kind and just. to these justify the criminal and gruesome decisions before? don't these contradict them?
=====================================

Dawkins' list to me is ridiculous. Now that is my honest reaction.

But I think a man has a few choices here (not necesarily the only ones):

1.) We can assume that God does not exist and that the fictions invented on behald of God are really bad, (ie. conquest of Canaan). So obviously this fiction does not persuade that such a Being is real.

2.) We can assume that God exists. But what He created is superior to Himself. So if every last thing the Bible says of God does not meet our immediate approval, we should forget about God. Go it alone without this Being. Or perhaps enroll God in our school to get Him up to speed with us, His creations.

3.) We can assume that God exists and that out of the multitude of actions the Bible records of Him, SOME of them we don't like or understand.


I guess you have to place me in the third group. I will not say I like or can explain every action of God without one exception in the Bible. Somethings I have to place on the back burner.

I am a little willing to take it on the chin about some instances of harsh dealings. I am NOT willing to throw out belief in God because there are simply too many other instances revealing a superhuman and supernatural love, compassion, longsuffering, understanding, forgiveness, and justice.

If you want to call me biased, I will accept that charge. I have met this God since that day I called upon the name of Jesus. He is my Daddy, my Heavenly Father. I am biased.

And He has built up a kind of record or resume of approvedness in my life. I can look back and say "SURELY goodness and mercy shall follow me all the days of my life" . That does not mean I had no disappointmentsm, no problems, no dicsciplines from His hand, or no unhappinesses in my life with God.

But by and large when I turn around and look at the last decades I can clearly see goodness and mercy have followed me up to this day. I have confidence that goodness and mercy from God will follow me all the days of my life.

I did not like some things. And I did not always receive what I wanted. I always received what I needed. And if I had one hundred lives to live again, I would not like to waste ONE of them living without Jesus Christ my Lord and Savior.


====================================
what would you rather have, the kind and just god that refrained from killing the people of niniveh? or the murderous bastard that killed job's family to prove satan (or whoever that was) that job can take it like a [righteous] man? you cannot have both, that would be as scary as a bipolar god.
=======================================

I am glad that the record of the Bible includes God's dealings with man over a period of about 1600 years. I am glad that in many varied situations with varied nuances we get a good look at how God handled varied situations.

My Bible is not just the book of Joshua. Nor is my Bible just the book of Jonah. My Bible has 66 books showing God branching over all manner of obstacles to His will.

Lastly, my Bible does not end with the last book in the Old Testament. The center and centrality of the divine revelation is the Godman Jesus Christ. If anyone had the ground to criticize the God of the Old Testament it was Jesus. I do not see Him doing so. Rather He called His Father "Righteous Father, the world has not known You. But I have known You.

In my personal walk I came to the Old Testament through Christ and the New. It was a gradual process. I realized that if the OT was good enough for Jesus then it must be OK.

In the Son of God - one sacrifice, one life of obedience, one act of obedience, one selfless live lived unto His Father, one atoning death on behalf of sinners, is extended to clear eternally all transgressions of all mankind past, present, and future.

This is a blank check from God given in which we can fill in any amount of money. One sacrifice on His cross in which He was made sin on our behalf. Though I may not know HOW God will work this all out. I understand that He is the Lamb which atones for the sins of the whole world in all human history - one life, one act of obedience.

Some were judged and even killed in the OT. But as to their eternal standing before God - ONE life is able to atone for the sins of all created human beings.

It is astounding to me. And the flood of Noah, the conquest of Canaan, the judgment of Sodom, the expulsion of the Jews into Babylonia, and whatever other acts of discipline you may submit from the Bible, all are outweighed by the redemptive death and resurrection of Jesus Christ for eternal justification.

We had to see that God HATED sin in order to appreciation that in His Son, He placed all the sins of mankind to be judged together in one act.

If you want to run with Richard Dawkins and his fault finding, you go ahead. I am going to run with the center Person of the Bible - Christ the Son of the living God, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world.

You go ahead and put your trust in Dick Dawkins. See how it turns out.
I am going to put my trust in Christ.

===================================
as a result i choose to think that god is kind and good and that the bastards who claimed god killed the people of jericho, of sodom and gomorrah, of the world before the flood were simply lying for their own means. that some men, not god, are wicked.
===================================

In other words the Bible that you would not be suspicious of is the Bible which contains nothing of which you would not like.

There is nothing that God could do of which you would have ever any deficiency or understanding or perhaps disapprove of.

But if there were anyone who ever lived whose daily practical life qualified to be with no disharmony between Himself and God, I think that person is Jesus.

I am pretty sure that Ultimate Goodness is not continuously displayed either in your life or my own. Probably, our lives reveal that we would not always be in agreement with a perfect Being.

I would expect that given our life's testimony, we should expect that we do not always agree with the highest righteousness that could be.

==============================
understand this: good doesn't entitle you to do evil. you cannot be deemed benevolent just because you abstain from killing people all the time. either you stop trusting the bible 100% or stop claiming god is benevolent
================================

That is stupid. I am in the process of growing. Someday there will be no more lack of understanding.

That is what it means in Revelation, that the saints stand upon the sea of glass. Everything is at last crystal clear about God's judgments over the earth.

And why does your aimless, goaless, Darwinian universe CARE anyway ? Isn't your universe goaless ?

Originally posted by jaywill
[b]================================
So while Richard Dawkins may be hunting for outrages to choke on so that he may nuture his unbelief in God, I am reading on to notice indications of God's goodness, pity, fairness, and justness to encourage my faith.

yes, exactly. there are examples that portray god as kind and just. to these justify the criminal ...[text shortened]... ur aimless, goaless, Darwinian universe CARE anyway ? Isn't your universe goaless ?

darwinian universe😀


some people just don't get it. some atheists believe theists are nothing but brain dead people who still believe the world was created in 6 days or the earth is flat.
while some fundamentalits believe atheists worship darwin and evolution theory, that evolution means a blind universe and atheists are a bunch of godless immoral monsters anyway.


i do not believe the universe is goal-less. i believe in god and jesus. i believe they are both nice dudes. i don't believe these nice dudes would obliterate humanity from the face of the earth(noah) or even a so called evil city.


"I am NOT willing to throw out belief in God because there are simply too many other instances revealing a superhuman and supernatural love, compassion, longsuffering, understanding, forgiveness, and justice."
this is it? believe the bible is 100% true or fuk you, you are a godless jerk who is going to burn in hell?
i do not throw away my belief in god. i however use the reason god provided and say "god, this is some crazy shaite you supposedly did, i choose not to believe it"

understanding evolution and seeing its merits doesn't make you an atheist, how many times must one tell you that?

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
darwinian universe😀


some people just don't get it. some atheists believe theists are nothing but brain dead people who still believe the world was created in 6 days or the earth is flat.
while some fundamentalits believe atheists worship darwin and evolution theory, that evolution means a blind universe and atheists are a bunch of godless immoral mon and seeing its merits doesn't make you an atheist, how many times must one tell you that?

==============================
some people just don't get it. some atheists believe theists are nothing but brain dead people who still believe the world was created in 6 days or the earth is flat.
while some fundamentalits believe atheists worship darwin and evolution theory, that evolution means a blind universe and atheists are a bunch of godless immoral monsters anyway.
==============================

Well you champion Dawkins so you get the assumption that you agree with Dawkins and his Blind Watchmaker universe.


=============================
i do not believe the universe is goal-less. i believe in god and jesus. i believe they are both nice dudes. i don't believe these nice dudes would obliterate humanity from the face of the earth(noah) or even a so called evil city.
===============================

Why would you call Someone who put Himself forward as God incarnate a "nice dude" if it were a delusion or a lie ?

I didn't read that all humanity was obliterated. I read that eight souls were saved and God had a new start.

I think that perhaps your view of God is that He is not just and forgives in a sloppy, sentimental, permissive way. Perhaps the God you envision is not righteous. Perhaps you do not realize that there can be forms of forgiveness which are not right.

Perhaps you do not appreciate that some forms of forgiveness may just encourage the offender to be more bold to do wrong. Afterall, justice is a sissy who will permissively and liberally excuse anything - "I know you really didn't mean it. Just don't do it next time."

Perhaps the God you believe in is unrighteously good according to some super permissive and ultra idealism you have.

Perhaps you think God should not hate wrong doing and should not demonstrate to the world that such a hatred for sin accompanies His love for man.

And your comments below this have concluded our exchanges. Argument by filthy language wins again. Great intellectual display there. Filthy profane expressions to bulster up a weak case.

I don't have to read that.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
i do understand that. that is why i start to reduce on the number of issues presented at once. i try to present the matters as simple as i can. i give few examples at a time so as not to overload them (and because jaywill feels the need to create walls of text on even the simplests of matters).

i know they can't ever bring themselves to question god. i ame of jesus (or allah or buddha) or an impersonal moral code based on the same things.

It's refreshing to actually read the points of view of a moderate Christian to be honest; this board seems to have no shortage of the fundies - so it's good that you're here to vindicate the point that not all theists are irrational :]

That said, as far as my atheism goes (not speaking for all atheists) I still don't see myself ever being able to accept the god you believe in since, for all it's superiority over the comic-book fundy god, it is still one particular god of many (and I have a number of issues with certain things said to be true about it); and so, in my opinion, the proposition that you hold belief in the correct god just doesn't strike me as plausible.
For me the more attributes one strips away from a god, the more things left undefined/unmentioned, the set of gods that can fulfill the criteria to be identified with that god gets larger - taken to the extreme, when one strips away all attributes from this god entity and leaves it completely undefined then it becomes less a case that this god is implausible and more the case that I simply don't and cannot know whether it exists. I'll simply find out one way or the other when I die.

The real irony however is that "God™'s chosen followers" the ones who adhere to a 100% infallible interpretation of the Bible are precisely the ones who would drive people with a less skeptical mindset away!

Originally posted by Agerg
It's refreshing to actually read the points of view of a moderate Christian to be honest; this board seems to have no shortage of the fundies - so it's good that you're here to vindicate the point that not all theists are irrational :]

That said, as far as my atheism goes (not speaking for all atheists) I still don't see myself being able to accept the god ...[text shortened]... and cannot know whether it exists. I'll simply find out one way or the other when I die.

in my view you and other atheists already believe in god. you believe in love, justice, compassion. you try to give meaning to your life by leaving something behind. by not wasting it. you strive to achieve knowledge and build something with that knowledge. (well, good atheists anyway)

i simply choose to personify this love. i give it a name and decree it conscious and caring of my well being. i say it cares whether i do good or bad in life, that is glad when i succeed and sad when i don't. and that death is just the begining of a new path in existance. perhaps not even the last of beginings but simply another fork in the road.

i do not miss anything you have. i just choose to add new information in the equation, information that by scientific laws isn't necessary. then again though, neither is love, not anymore. we have reached a point in our existance as a species where we do not need to love, where we can survive as a species simply on logic. yet we don't give up on love, it nurtures us, makes us happy.

Originally posted by jaywill
[b]==============================
some people just don't get it. some atheists believe theists are nothing but brain dead people who still believe the world was created in 6 days or the earth is flat.
while some fundamentalits believe atheists worship darwin and evolution theory, that evolution means a blind universe and atheists are a bunch of godl ...[text shortened]... ilthy profane expressions to bulster up a weak case.

I don't have to read that.

i do not champion dawkins. i say he is an arrogant bastard. however i listened to what he said (the quote that started this thread), disregarding my feelings for him. and the point is, if we accept bible to be 100% true, then god really is a jerk.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
i do not champion dawkins. i say he is an arrogant bastard. however i listened to what he said (the quote that started this thread), disregarding my feelings for him. and the point is, if we accept bible to be 100% true, then god really is a jerk.

Okay. I got it.

You're not lock step with Dawkins.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
i do not champion dawkins. i say he is an arrogant bastard. however i listened to what he said (the quote that started this thread), disregarding my feelings for him. and the point is, if we accept bible to be 100% true, then god really is a jerk.

no way our God shall evah be subject to the imperfect meanderings of mere humans, prone to aberration and limited in experience!