Raf

God: If you pick up sticks on the wrong day of the week, I will f-ing kill you. Raf: We are more moral than Yahweh. Bolshevik: By what standard? Did I say we are more moral than Yahweh because of nature? No. But your bulls--- strawman argument makes it seem as though that's my position. It is a lie, and you really need to present my position honestly if you expect not to be called on it. Nature didn't force Yahweh to institute laws that are brutal and violent and morally indefensible. He did that on his own (supposedly).

Is there an "end game" that justifies executions for trivial offenses? Is there an "end game" that justifies having a woman marry the man who raped her as his punishment for rape? You guys are better than that. You know you are. Your objections are hollow.

Pretty sure the only waybrain here is the one who moves the goalposts, changes definitions of commonly accepted words while expecting everyone else tl adopt his definitions despite their inaccuracy. You want to talk about a hateful insult? Your hypocrisy has now joined your incapacity to comprehend what you read on the list of things that should embarrass you but for some reason don't.

Subject repeatedly refuses to acknowledge that his fantasy of a made up God does not resemble the character of Yahweh which is the subject of this discussion. Engages in amateur psychoanaltsis that is insulting to the core while hypocritically accusing his "debate" opponent of being hateful. Prescription: Grade school education.

No. You're not talking about Yahweh. Thanks for playing. NEXT!

Are You stoned?

I think we can agree that everyone would disagree with it. However, that does not mean we excuse whatever he does come up with. Well, shoot, executing someone for sabbath breaking is a problem now? Next you'll have a problem with stoning homosexuals and slaughtering all the Midianite men women and babies. You just can't please some people! I don't know for sure what a perfect law would look like, but anyone who thinks killing sabbath breakers is not a deal-breaker is probably a sociopath.

And the day I start a thread called "Are you more moral than their view of God," feel free to weigh in with these relentlessly irrelevant observations.

Exactly. And seeing as He does not change, He is also the God of the New Testament, and we can reason that He has not changed because He said He does not. Arguing that He has changed argues with the scriptural account, and thus is a different God. P.S. I have not just been talking about the Law. I've been talking about the acts attributed to Him as well. The Law is just the easiest place to find His will recorded. (Allegedly).

"The apparent harshness of the temporary law is not to be taken to hyperbole"? Where do you get this stuff? Yahweh personally ordered the execution of a man for Sabbath breaking. He demanded executions for investigating other religions. This isn't "apparent harshness," and it's an insult to the language to say it is. And that poor guy who got stoned to death would like to thank you for reminding the rock throwers that they weren't supposed to be doing what Yahweh explicitly ordered them to do! Again with the "evolutionary perspective." Yahweh does not change. It seems implausible, to be polite, to suggest that God (who, let's remind you, is "all-powerful") could not conceive of a way to "look out for our eternal well-being" without ordering capricious executions for minor wrongdoing, that He could not have done so without authorizing slavery, that He could not have done so without making marriage to the raped woman a penalty for the commission of rape. There is no scripture that says God represents the process goal from an evolutionary perspective. You are not talking about Yahweh.

I never said anything about knowing God's intentions. His attributes are another story.

I've made no such claim. Be honest.

No. I've laid out a Biblical presentation of Yahweh and claimed we're better than that. And we are. And I've done so without advocating a single genocide. Or even murder. Or the wedding of a woman to her rapist. Or the killing of a man for picking up sticks on the wrong day of the week. Or the killing of a kid for considering another religion. or...

For those wondering what Vince F is up to... http://lhim.org/

No. it's a non sequitur. Believing Yahweh was a vicious vindictive tribal war God prone to excessive violence does not lead to the behaviors you claim. Believing he is morally perfect DOES lead to extremism andc excusing moral atrocities, as we've demonstrated on this very thread with you saying "so what" to killing a man for picking up sticks. Or the guy who spent a few pages defending slavery. To be clear, atheists have committed some horrible atrocities, as have theists, statists (especially statists), abortion rights opponents and self-hating gays. But to claim that there's a causal relationship between recognizing you are more moral than Yahweh and "opening yourself up to all manner of atrocity in the name of reaction to extremism" is logically fallacious. You can cite coincidence, but you cannot cite causation. You ARE more moral than Yahweh. That's not going to cause you, me or anyone else to kill Christians.

You have nothing to support that assertion.

How convenient. You get to make up whatever characteristics of God you want in order to win the argument. Would that my opponent were bound to a book. The only assumption i made is that the Bible is the most authoritative Source on the characteristics of Yahweh. When the Bible says he does not change, and someone comes along and says he does change, I have to go with the Bible

If you reject the notion that you are more moral now than Yahweh, then you will open yourself up to accepting all manner of atrocity in the name of religion.

My presentation of Yahweh is coming straight from the Bible. i've cited chapter and verse. Where are your chapters and verses?

The thing is, you are proving my point, but you are not proving my assertions or assumptions are false. Rather, you are demonstrating precisely why I am correct, but phrasing it in a way to make it seem like you're disproving my points. You are not disproving my points. You are proving them. If you are so committed to disagreeing with me that you can't even see that. You think your evolving God undermines my argument. Your evolving God makes my argument.

No assumptions. I have simply presented Yahweh as the Bible does.

$10 to anyone who correctly guesses my response.

Stories that contain propaganda can have tremendous staying power. Ask the average Muslim. Staying power doesn't prove a story true, not does it prove the story is not propaganda at heart.

The moment we say "God changes," we admit that man created God and not vice versa. Or that God is not perfect and can become better over time. Neither premise is supposed to be true of Yahweh as portrayed in the Bible.

Yes, but that would not be on Yahweh. Or Superman.