Some hard truths

[Guest Guest]

If you have the courage, just watch this.

Then, without getting defensive, think about how important it is.

[Guest Guest]

If you have the courage, just watch this.

Then, without getting defensive, think about how important it is.

Wow! When you read what's actually in the Bible, you realize it's actually wrong to believe it. No wonder things are so messed up.

[Guest Thinker]

To paraphrase Hemingway, all thinkers are atheists.

[Guest Guest]

To paraphrase Hemingway, all thinkers are atheists.

Not a peep of defense from the self-proclaimed Christian literalists posting here.

The Bible commands us to stone everyone who works on Sunday. So why aren't we doing that?

[Guest Kearny Republican]

Not a peep of defense from the self-proclaimed Christian literalists posting here.

The Bible commands us to stone everyone who works on Sunday. So why aren't we doing that?

You just discovered the Bible, congratulations.

[Bryan]

Not a peep of defense from the self-proclaimed Christian literalists posting here.

The Bible commands us to stone everyone who works on Sunday. So why aren't we doing that?

First of all because the Sabbath is Saturday.

The post was too stupid to warrant a reply. Anyone who thinks Sunday is the biblical sabbath while making a biblical argument is likely to be a waste of time.

[Guest Guest]

First of all because the Sabbath is Saturday.

The post was too stupid to warrant a reply. Anyone who thinks Sunday is the biblical sabbath while making a biblical argument is likely to be a waste of time.

So two questions:

1. If God commands us not to work on Saturday, and to worship on Saturday, why are nearly all the Bible-thumping Christians going to church on Sunday? Remember, now, this is a command of God. Why are you disobeying it?

2. Now that you, in your superior wisdom and erudition, have corrected us, why aren't good Christians stoning everyone who works on Saturday?

[Guest Guest]

First of all because the Sabbath is Saturday.

The post was too stupid to warrant a reply.

But you replied, stupid.

[Guest Guest]

So two questions:

1. If God commands us not to work on Saturday, and to worship on Saturday, why are nearly all the Bible-thumping Christians going to church on Sunday? Remember, now, this is a command of God. Why are you disobeying it?

2. Now that you, in your superior wisdom and erudition, have corrected us, why aren't good Christians stoning everyone who works on Saturday?

"Six days may work be done; but in the seventh is the sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD: whosoever doeth any work in the sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death." (Exodus 31:15)

Now there's a commandment for all time. The people who wrote it didn't foresee the day of WalMart, gas stations and restaurants, let alone radio and television. How might this have read if they had known that would happen? And what does it tell you that it wasn't foreseen? It tells you that the writing is not divinely inspired.

Bible-thumpers have a choice. They can live by God's law, if that's what this, or they can on the sabbath (whether Saturday or Sunday), shop on the sabbath, eat out on the sabbath, and watch TV on the sabbath. And of course every time they do any of that they either break God's law, meriting death, or help someone else break it. Either way, they offend God.

The Bible-thumpers say they believe in their version of God. But it's obvious they don't, because if they did, they wouldn't work on the sabbath and they wouldn't encourage others to do so, since this is so offensive to God.

Do you Bible-thumpers have the courage to face the truth of your own hypocrisy?

Do you have the courage to face the fact that you don't take this nonsense any more seriously than an atheist does?

[Bryan]

So two questions:

1. If God commands us not to work on Saturday, and to worship on Saturday, why are nearly all the Bible-thumping Christians going to church on Sunday? Remember, now, this is a command of God. Why are you disobeying it?

Did you ever think of reading the New Testament?

2. Now that you, in your superior wisdom and erudition, have corrected us, why aren't good Christians stoning everyone who works on Saturday?

Because they've probably read the New Testament, silly.

But you replied, stupid.

I have not, nor shall I ever reply to the post to which I referred. Your fallacy of equivocation is noted, stupid.

[Guest Guest]

Did you ever think of reading the New Testament?

Because they've probably read the New Testament, silly.

I have not, nor shall I ever reply to the post to which I referred. Your fallacy of equivocation is noted, stupid.

You won't reply because you can't. As on another page, you can't even think of something stupid to say this time.

The New Covenant deal won't wash. Either God's laws are perfect, or they are not. If they are, then there's no reason to change them. If they are not, then your entire theology is a farce.

Game, set, match.

[Guest Guest]

Did you ever think of reading the New Testament?

Because they've probably read the New Testament, silly.

I have not, nor shall I ever reply to the post to which I referred. Your fallacy of equivocation is noted, stupid.

"I will not ordinarily address any posts by anonymous guests until further notice."

lol

[Guest Leave Bryan alooooone!]

QUOTE (Bryan @ Mar 22 2008, 10:37 AM)

Did you ever think of reading the New Testament?

Because they've probably read the New Testament, silly.

I have not, nor shall I ever reply to the post to which I referred. Your fallacy of equivocation is noted, stupid.

"I will not ordinarily address any posts by anonymous guests until further notice."

lol

Ah, but extraordinary times call for extraordinary measures. Some men are born great, others achieve greatness, others have greatness thhrrrusttt upon them!

Oh, Bryan, what would we ever do without you?! By the way, what do you ingest to get that full of hot gas?

[Guest Guest]

You won't reply because you can't. As on another page, you can't even think of something stupid to say this time.

The New Covenant deal won't wash. Either God's laws are perfect, or they are not. If they are, then there's no reason to change them. If they are not, then your entire theology is a farce.

Game, set, match.

So, which is it? Are God's laws perfect, eternal and unchanging, or not?

Gee, no answer from the Babble-Thumpers. I wonder why not.

[Guest Truthteller]

You won't reply because you can't. As on another page, you can't even think of something stupid to say this time.

The New Covenant deal won't wash. Either God's laws are perfect, or they are not. If they are, then there's no reason to change them. If they are not, then your entire theology is a farce.

Game, set, match.

Oh please. A new law was needed because the Jews weren't following God's plan. So He took away their gifts and gave them to the world. It wasn't about the Law, it was about the people.

Try again, athiest.

[Guest Guest]

Oh please. A new law was needed because the Jews weren't following God's plan. So He took away their gifts and gave them to the world. It wasn't about the Law, it was about the people.

Try again, athiest.

Athiest? Is that someone who is the most athi?

An all-knowing God would know that the Jews wouldn't follow his rules. Therefore, an all-knowing and perfect God wouldn't do such an exercise in futility. Therefore, the all-knowing god you worship isn't this guy. You worship a false god.

[Guest Guest]

Oh please. A new law was needed because the Jews weren't following God's plan. So He took away their gifts and gave them to the world. It wasn't about the Law, it was about the people.

Try again, athiest.

Why, of course. How silly of me.

So, now, let me get this straight. God forbids working on the sabbath. According to the Bible, he did then, and he does now. Before Jesus' time, the punishment for working on the sabbath was death. So, OK now, let's follow your logic carefully: the Jews weren't obeying the law, so God said "OK, OK, you don't have to be stoned for it. You broke the law, so I'm going to take away your gifts by saying you don't have to be put to death for breaking that law any more."

Why would God do that? He makes a law, it's serious enough to merit death to anyone who breaks it, they break it, and then God keeps the law but "repeals" the punishment.

What purpose did putting people to death for this serve in the first place? If the law was important enough to merit death for a violation before, why isn't it serious enough now? Do you think maybe this was written by primitive men in a brutal time? Do you think maybe that makes more sense than saying that God changed a rule that used to be important enough to merit execution?

And somehow that has something to do with taking away the Jews' gifts and giving them to the world? Maybe you can explain that statement. I know they fill your head with these idiotic statements, but could you at least try to connect them to something? What "gifts" are you referring to, and what does that have to do with working on the sabbath meriting death before, but not now?

[Guest Keith]

Why, of course. How silly of me.

So, now, let me get this straight. God forbids working on the sabbath. According to the Bible, he did then, and he does now. Before Jesus' time, the punishment for working on the sabbath was death. So, OK now, let's follow your logic carefully: the Jews weren't obeying the law, so God said "OK, OK, you don't have to be stoned for it. You broke the law, so I'm going to take away your gifts by saying you don't have to be put to death for breaking that law any more."

Why would God do that? He makes a law, it's serious enough to merit death to anyone who breaks it, they break it, and then God keeps the law but "repeals" the punishment.

What purpose did putting people to death for this serve in the first place? If the law was important enough to merit death for a violation before, why isn't it serious enough now? Do you think maybe this was written by primitive men in a brutal time? Do you think maybe that makes more sense than saying that God changed a rule that used to be important enough to merit execution?

And somehow that has something to do with taking away the Jews' gifts and giving them to the world? Maybe you can explain that statement. I know they fill your head with these idiotic statements, but could you at least try to connect them to something? What "gifts" are you referring to, and what does that have to do with working on the sabbath meriting death before, but not now?

I wonder if the physical act of stoning someone to death could be classified as work? If so don't do it on the Sabbath.

[Guest Guest]

Oh please. A new law was needed because the Jews weren't following God's plan. So He took away their gifts and gave them to the world. It wasn't about the Law, it was about the people.

Try again, athiest.

Nice set-up. Most people didn't appreciate that you were pulling our leg.

The idea that God would treat the Jews any differently from anyone else is another perfect and complete reason why we KNOW the Bible is false. We know it for a fact. According to the Bible:

On the one hand, God created everybody and loves everybody.

On the other hand, God favors one race of people over another.

Multiple choice time. The Bible was written by:

(A) Space aliens

( People from all over the world

© George Hamilton

(D) Jews who lived in the Middle East from approximately 3,500 to 1,700 years ago

According to the Bible, God's chosen people are:

(A) No one. God favors everyone equally.

( The New York Yankees

© Hard-line right-wing Republicans in the United States from 1980-present

(D) The Jews

(If you answered "D" to both questions so far, ding! ding! ding! you are correct.)

Hebrews writing a collection of books that favor - Hebrews! Wow. Coincidence, you say? I don't think so!

Now, final question. Get this one right and you can get rid of your ridiculous ideas about the Bible forever.

Given who wrote the Bible and what the Bible says about a chosen people, the Bible's source(s) of authorship was/were:

(A) Francis Bacon

( Stephen King

© Self-interested, tribally-oriented Jews who lived in the Middle East from 3,500 to 1,700 years ago

(D) God

If you chose "D" this time, then you are not paying attention. The correct answer is "C". The Bible was written by self-interested, tribally-oriented Jews who lived in the Middle East from 3,500 to 1,700 years ago. We know that for a fact, and everything in the writing reflects it, from their ignorance of things outside their frame of reference to the self-serving content of the texts. All the biases, imperfections and incorrect statements are products of their culture; there is nothing in the Bible to suggest divine authorship. Exactly the opposite: the Bible is its own disproof. It is obviously the imperfect product of the imperfect, self-interested people who wrote it. This is as obvious and as undeniable as seeing cookie crumbs on your two-year-old's chin and knowing she got into the cookie jar.

Do you have the courage to face the facts? If you do, a wonderful surprise awaits you.

Give the real world a chance. It really is a beautiful place. And it would be even more beautiful if people would just wake up to it and accept it for what it is.

[Bryan]

You won't reply because you can't. As on another page, you can't even think of something stupid to say this time.

I can trust you to fill in for me when it comes to saying something stupid.

The New Covenant deal won't wash.

Why not?

Either God's laws are perfect, or they are not.

Quite right. Why is it impossible in principle for a law to be perfect for one time and not perfect for another time?

If they are, then there's no reason to change them.

Non sequitur, unless by "perfect" you mean absolutely perfect for all people in all time and in all places. But I don't see where that was ever claimed for the Sabbath law in question. Ball in your court on that one, brave anonymous guest.

If they are not, then your entire theology is a farce.

As noted above, that doesn't follow.

Game, set, match.

I was going to give you a chance to reframe the argument without the fallacy. But if you wish to concede I guess that's your call ...

[Guest Melanie]

Why is it impossible in principle for a law to be perfect for one time and not perfect for another time?

Taken in a vacuum, that's possible, so now you must consider the case.

What happened between the time Exodus was written and the time Jesus supposedly lived to change the merits of stoning people to death for working on the sabbath?

[Bryan]

Taken in a vacuum, that's possible,

I'm sure that "Guest" will be overjoyed that you concur that the argument was fallacious.

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...t&pid=84184

Relative of yours, perchance?

so now you must consider the case.

Obviously I already considered the case, which is why I pointed out the fallacy.

What happened between the time Exodus was written and the time Jesus supposedly lived to change the merits of stoning people to death for working on the sabbath?

Millions of things have changed. Can you think of any that might make a difference or do you insist that I take "Guest" by the hand and lead him/her step by step through the reasoning process?

[Guest Truth Squad]

Millions of things have changed. Can you think of any that might make a difference or do you insist that I take "Guest" by the hand and lead him/her step by step through the reasoning process?

In other words, nothing happened in those intervening years that supports your argument, i.e., explains why working on the sabbath should have been punishable by stoning in 3,500 B.C.E., but not in 200 C.E.

[Guest Truth Squad]

In other words, nothing happened in those intervening years that supports your argument, i.e., explains why working on the sabbath should have been punishable by stoning in 3,500 B.C.E., but not in 200 C.E.

OK, so make that 1,500 B.C.E. But you can take it back to 3,500 B.C.E. if you think that will help you. It won't, so I'll give you an extra 2,000 years.

[Bryan]

In other words, nothing happened in those intervening years that supports your argument, i.e., explains why working on the sabbath should have been punishable by stoning in 3,500 B.C.E., but not in 200 C.E.

I'm not terrifically surprised that you came up with another fallacious argument (argumentum ad ignorantiam: since Bryan provides no reason for X therefore there is no reason for X).

http://skepdic.com/ignorance.html

You're allowed to keep trying to come up with non-fallacious arguments. I'll be waiting.