exceptionally unsettling fundy experience

[bilby]

Your gnostic theology, is a different belief, that I don't hold to, therefore the believer of your version, the "lying tyrannical c***", would be a misrepresentation.

That's rather like saying that you don't hold to the belief that Romeo and Juliet loved each other.

I mean, they're fictional characters, so I guess you can make up any shit you like, but the original play makes clear that they were in love, so it's kinda bizarre to believe otherwise.

I wasn't making a theological statement, I am just giving you a precis of the God character as he appears in Genesis, in which he is a lying tyrannical cunt.

That's what the book describes; If you don't like it, take it up with the authors.

 

[steve_bank]

Doing god's work battling with us non believers must be burdensome. Lie carrying a cross?

 

[Learner]

Your gnostic theology, is a different belief, that I don't hold to, therefore the believer of your version, the "lying tyrannical c***", would be a misrepresentation.

That's rather like saying that you don't hold to the belief that Romeo and Juliet loved each other.

I mean, they're fictional characters, so I guess you can make up any shit you like, but the original play makes clear that they were in love, so it's kinda bizarre to believe otherwise.

(responding in no particular order, will get to you Southern)

I think that's where you kinda got lost. You didn't know which was the original play.

I wasn't making a theological statement, I am just giving you a precis of the God character as he appears in Genesis, in which he is a lying tyrannical cunt.

You made the statement because you didn't like my previous response. The misrepresentation I mean here, was regarding your implied suggestion, that I too would also be a lying tyrannical cucumber, if it was, that I did believe in your gnostic narrative.

That's what the book describes; If you don't like it, take it up with the authors.

I'll leave your gnostic narrative to you.

 

[bilby]

Your gnostic theology, is a different belief, that I don't hold to, therefore the believer of your version, the "lying tyrannical c***", would be a misrepresentation.

That's rather like saying that you don't hold to the belief that Romeo and Juliet loved each other.

I mean, they're fictional characters, so I guess you can make up any shit you like, but the original play makes clear that they were in love, so it's kinda bizarre to believe otherwise.

(responding in no particular order, will get to you Southern)

I think that's where you kinda got lost. You didn't know which was the original play.

I wasn't making a theological statement, I am just giving you a precis of the God character as he appears in Genesis, in which he is a lying tyrannical cunt.

You made the statement because you didn't like my previous response. The misrepresentation I mean here, was regarding your implied suggestion, that I too would also be a lying tyrannical cucumber, if it was, that I did believe in your gnostic narrative.

That's what the book describes; If you don't like it, take it up with the authors.

I'll leave your gnostic narrative to you.

I implied nothing whatsoever about you, and I certainly never call anything other than a cucumber a cucumber.

There really isn't another way to interpret the relationship between Romeo and Juliet as described by Shakespeare, nor the relationship between God and his creation as described in Genesis.

God lies, makes stupid and/or unreasonable demands, and generally acts like a complete cunt, while demanding that everyone worship and respect him. He's a classic antihero, and has few if any redeeming qualities.

 

[James Brown]

I for one would not agree to live under such conditions in the Garden of Eden. Constant surveillance, vague constraints, unspecified threats, and if I seek out something out of curiosity's sake, I'll be sentenced to death. No thank you.

There's a reason that loving parents don't store a box of rat poison in their children's nursery. Can you think of what that reason is, Learner?

 

[Learner]

I for one would not agree to live under such conditions in the Garden of Eden. Constant surveillance, vague constraints, unspecified threats, and if I seek out something out of curiosity's sake, I'll be sentenced to death. No thank you.

I see.. as we step back and look at the modern world, "everyone is doing ok". "I get it"

There's a reason that loving parents don't store a box of rat poison in their children's nursery. Can you think of what that reason is, Learner?

Yeah sure... and young teenagers (still children), have access and vulnerabilities to pretty much anything these days in the modern world.

 

[James Brown]

I don't understand your response.

I'll ask again. Why don't loving parents store boxes of rat poison in their children's bedrooms? Would firmly telling their children not to play with the rat poison or else be a demonstration of parental love?

 

[Learner]

I don't understand your response.

The sarcasm fits your distorted view of the bible.
(I'd say more , I'm using phone)

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I don't understand your response.

I'll ask again. Why don't loving parents store boxes of rat poison in their children's bedrooms? Would firmly telling their children not to play with the rat poison or else be a demonstration of parental love?

You're not going to get a straight answer.

 

[James Brown]

I don't understand your response.

I'll ask again. Why don't loving parents store boxes of rat poison in their children's bedrooms? Would firmly telling their children not to play with the rat poison or else be a demonstration of parental love?

You're not going to get a straight answer.

Well dang.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I don't understand your response.

I'll ask again. Why don't loving parents store boxes of rat poison in their children's bedrooms? Would firmly telling their children not to play with the rat poison or else be a demonstration of parental love?

You're not going to get a straight answer.

You can expect only another exercise in semantics.

You also forgot to ask why the parents made the rat poison looks just like the children's food. And why did the parents allow a friendly person into the bedroom to talk to the children and tell them they should eat the rat poison?

Clearly we have a barbaric tale written in a barbaric time, at least if we wish to interpret it in this light. It is clearly propaganda in support of authoritarianism and uses terror to enforce authoritarian rule.

 

[atrib]

I don't understand your response.

I'll ask again. Why don't loving parents store boxes of rat poison in their children's bedrooms? Would firmly telling their children not to play with the rat poison or else be a demonstration of parental love?

You're not going to get a straight answer.

Ain't that right. TrueChristians don't do straight answers when the answers contradict their claims.

 

[atrib]

I don't understand your response.

The sarcasm fits your distorted view of the bible.
(I'd say more , I'm using phone)

It's not sarcasm, its a simple question that exposes the flaws in your arguments. And I believe you know that, but like to pretend that you don't understand English when it suits you. How does Jesus feel about intellectual integrity?

 

[steve_bank]

Learner

What in the OT is god's wys by your ekoning? That which should be emulated?

 

[Learner]

I don't understand your response.

The sarcasm fits your distorted view of the bible.
(I'd say more , I'm using phone)

It's not sarcasm, its a simple question that exposes the flaws in your arguments. And I believe you know that, but like to pretend that you don't understand English when it suits you. How does Jesus feel about intellectual integrity?

It's not sarcasm? With your famous words... 'can you (plural) give me an example' from any post I've made that indicates where I 'hold' the 'view' of the bible, in the direction as Bilby's gnostic notion or James browns alternative version of the bible? Because your petty argument won't work here, exposing the flaw in your logic....
These distorted views I don't recognise as the bible... hence not worthy arguments!

 

[Learner]

I don't understand your response.

I'll ask again. Why don't loving parents store boxes of rat poison in their children's bedrooms?

Ok, by popular demand.

They don't store boxes of rat poison in children's bedrooms because it's very dangerous to kids.

Would firmly telling their children not to play with the rat poison or else be a demonstration of parental love?

Firmly telling their children, demonstrates parental love.

And so..?

(This can be an analogy for both the theist, or an example for the atheist 'depending' on who's 'context' you go with.)

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Firmly telling their children, demonstrates parental love.

Sure you don't mean parental neglect?

Place rat poison in their room, make it look like candy, put a friend in there to tell them how good the candy is and then expect the children to not act like children. I am 100% certain your defense of such parents would not survive adjudication by responsible adults. But of course, you are not seeking to illuminate responsibility, reasonableness and love. You are arguing for blind obedience and loyalty.

So these kids eat the rat poison and die and your parents are happy as larks because they did their religious duty. You may wish to ask yourself who the child is in your primitive religious world of blind obedience.

 

[southernhybrid]

I think it's just sad that a lot of people take an old book of mythology so literally. It's so obvious that these stories are myths, sometimes with a little moral lesson in them, but they should never be taken literally. I get that humans are attracted to myths, but they shouldn't be taken as the literal truth. When you do that, it's very hard not to suffer from cognitive dissonance.

The story of the forbidden fruit tells me that god doesn't want humans to have knowledge. I assume that's because if we think too much, we realize that gods don't exist, but they are made up to control people's actions as well as setting up divisive groups that sometimes end up killing each other. Just look at the White Christian Nationalists movement in the US today, as an example of how religious mythology can be taken literally and end up leading to hatred and division. I'm not claiming that religion is always a bad thing. Sometimes it promotes charity and love, but it's hard to determine if it's more positive or more negative when you put all of its influences in perspective.

We atheists don't have all the answers and we often change our minds about a lot of things, since science changes as new evidence is presented. That makes a lot more sense than clinging to the myths presented in an ancient book, which contradicts itself frequently. I know I'm getting away from the rat poison discussion, but it reminded me of how myths can cause harm if taken literally.

 

[Learner]

Firmly telling their children, demonstrates parental love.

Sure you don't mean parental neglect?

Place rat poison in their room, make it look like candy, put a friend in there to tell them how good the candy is and then expect the children to not act like children. I am 100% certain your defense of such parents would not survive adjudication by responsible adults. But of course, you are not seeking to illuminate responsibility, reasonableness and love. You are arguing for blind obedience and loyalty.

"In their room"? Hmmm, 'framing' your posts like these, aims for a particular answer in context.

Do you think parents are responsible adults for having guns, medicine cabinets, cleaning chemicals, knives, and dangerous tools, in the house?

So these kids eat the rat poison and die and your parents are happy as larks because they did their religious duty. You may wish to ask yourself who the child is in your primitive religious world of blind obedience.

Entertaining your idea. 'Dying instantly, being killed' is comparable to 'growing old until you're dead'. Yes I see what some of you are getting at. "They're..um.. the same thing".

 

[Rhea]

The eden story goes:

• Yahweh is a loving guardian.
• Yahwah places ignorant-and-happy-and-immortal humans in a garden
• Yahweh also places in the garden a “fruit,” that, if “eaten,” will destroy the happiness and end the life. (Was immortal, now will die (plus all the other bad things like painful childbirth))
• Yahweh tells the humans not to eat the incredibly dangerous fruit that he put into their garden.
• Yahwek places in the garden a deceiver (serpent) that tries to tempt the adoringly loved by Yahweh humans into eating this fruit.
• Yahweh watches without comment as the decevier that he put into the garden introduces his beloved humans to the dangerous fruit that he put in the garden.
• Yahweh punishes the humans with pain, disease, suffering and death for being curious - the way he made them - and succumbing to the deceiver - that he made - and eating the dangerous fruit - that he made and put into their community.
• This is True Love (tm)

That is what is being placed next to an analogy of a human parent

• placing a dangerous item in their kids’ room
• placing a deceiver in there with them to entice them to use the dangerous item
• And being called loving

This is not a trick or a gotcha. It’s not sarcasm or mal intent.

This is a Very Serious Moral Flaw in the bible story that makes people recoil wth horror. And we are interested in how you believe it to be true or moral.

We ask you a direct question; this is what it looks like to us. How does it not look that way to you?
-> now you will decide whether you answer it with honest intent, whether you dodge and pretend it’s a joke that you don’t have to address, or whether you just clam up and refuse to address it.


It’s a big deal, Learner. You can joke and obfuscate all you want, but the horror of the story to us is incredibly real: we deal with fellow humans who believe this story is a Moral Good, and it concerns us to share the planet with such people, especially when they want t pass laws based on morals like this one.