TheExecutioner:
I know it's hard for atheists to grasp the concept of divine wrath,

TheExecutioner:
but I at least expect you guys to be capable of some form basic intelligent reasoning.

TheExecutioner:
What you call genocide in the Bible is nothing more than God manifesting His Divine Wrath and punishing nations for their sins/crimes.

TheExecutioner:

Genocide on the other hand means the killing of a group of people specifically because of their racial attributes or because they practice a particular religion.

TheExecutioner:
As for what you call slavery in the Bible, it was more of indentured servitude. In indentured servitude, it is not the human being who is owned, rather it is his ability to work which belongs to his master and it was usually for the purpose of paying off debts.

TheExecutioner:
As for talking snakes and talking donkeys, the Bible doesn't credit snakes or donkeys with a natural ability to talk, rather the talking snake in the book of Genesis is able to speak because it has been possessed by Satan, while the talking donkey received the ability to talk only for one specific purpose on one specific occasion (to warn his master of imminent death).

TheExecutioner:
There is nowhere in the Bible where it is ever stated that speaking is a natural ability which animals possess like human beings.

TheExecutioner:

As for misogyny in the Bible, please provide me with specific passages from the Bible where God regards women as being inferior to men.

TheExecutioner:
Time, space and matter are the three major components of what we call reality.

Those 3 components could only come into existence at the same instance and not on different occasions.

For example, if only matter exists but you don't have time or space, where would you keep the matter and when would you keep it?

The Bible is the only religious book which recognises that time space and matter came into existence simultaneously.

The very first chapter of the Bible states that time, space and matter came into existence at the same time:

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning(time) God created the heaven(space) and the earth(matter).

In just the first 10 words of the Bible we have God bringing together the 3 elements of reality: time, space and matter together simultaneously.

No other Book or religion other than the Judeo-Christian faith has accomplished this feat.

Tamaratonye1:

I know it's hard for mythology fanboys like you to grasp elementary concepts, but one you should be learning quickly, is that the assertions of your mythology do not constitute fact. The assertion that your cartoon magic man even exists, is one we've been waiting for mythology fanboys like you to support with something resembling proper evidence. And by proper evidence, I do NOT mean regurgitating the very same assertions from your mythology we've been waiting to see supported with evidence, or peddling vacuous and risible apologetic fabrications that you've manifestly extracted from your rectal passage.

Another concept you should be learning quickly, is that a favourite discoursive tool of those of us who paid attention in class, is reductio ad absurdum. Namely, take an assertion presented to us, treat that assertion by hypothesis as purportedly constituting fact, then demonstrating that treating that assertion in said manner leads quickly to internal contradiction, absurdity and paradox. Applying this famous and robust discoursive technique, does NOT imply that we regard your assertions as true, when we subject your assertions to said treatment. Indeed, reductio ad absurdum has been a staple method within the world of pure mathematics for centuries, and as a corollary of having been deployed in that discipline, we are assured of the essential soundness of the technique.

As a further corollary of the above, just because you treat a merely asserted concept from your mythology uncritically as fact, doesn't mean anyone else here shares your strange predilection. Indeed, it's precisely because those of us who paid attention in class, learned the proper rules of discourse, as opposed to the bastardised version thereof adopted by pedlars of apologetics, that we regard all assertions as a free-fire zone for the deployment of discoursive weaponry. We don't care how "sacred" you think your assertions are, or how much they should be shielded from scrutiny, they will all receive the same discoursive artillery bombardment here.

As for your assertion that "divine wrath" is hard for us to grasp, those of us who paid attention in class are already laughing at you. The reasons for this will become apparent shortly.


The irony of being castigated on this matter by a mythology fanboy, is truly delicious to savour.


Except that, oh wait, what we're dealing with here, is the usual piling of assertion upon assertion by mythology fanboys.

First there is the assertion that your magic man even exists, which on its own is seriously problematic. Not least because your magic man is defined in your mythology, as an entity possessing internally contradictory attributes. The likelihood of any entity thus defined actually existing is vanishingly small for obvious reasons. Which on its own points to "sin" being a synthetic, fabricated offence against an imaginary entity.

Second, there is the assertion that the assorted individuals described as being subject to wholesale slaughter in your mythology, were "deserving" of their fate, an assertion that itself is massively questionable, not least because, if your magic man doesn't actually exist, then the requisite passages of said mythology are nothing more than self-justification propaganda on the part of the raving hordes performing the slaughtering. Even if your magic man does actually exist, your mythology presents two contradictory assertions within its pages, namely [1] that your magic man presented "thou shalt not kill" as a purported "commandment", then followed this by exhorting his raving followers to kill on a large scale. If you cannot recognise this as massively contradictory even on an elementary level, it merely demonstrates that your mythology fanboyism has corrupted and perverted your own reasoning beyond recognition. Then of course, we have the other assertion that mythology fanboys like you are so fond of, namely that your merely asserted magic man is purportedly the source of all morality, an assertion that falls flat on its face the moment said magic man exhorts his followers to commit mass murder.

Returning to the assertion that the victims of said slaughter purportedly "deserved" their fate, well this is both risible and dangerous. Such an assertion can be pressed into duplicitous service by the devious, to "justify" exterminating large numbers of people on the basis of any number of specious pretexts, and indeed, historically, was pressed into this very service by mythology fanboys in the past, frequently for naked personal gain. And indeed, naked personal gain was explicitly dangled in front of the raving followers of your magic man, according to easily referenced assertions in your mythology.

Which all, of course, pales into insignificance alongside the massive and blatant disconnect, between asserting that such behaviours are inexcusably criminal for humans to pursue, but purportedly "righteous" when ordered by your magic man, a hideously obscene piece of special pleading that should be obvious to a five year old.

If anything, the requisite assertions in your mythology point to the enormous dangers inherent, in allowing any entity to act as judge, jury and executioner simultaneously. But we're familiar here with the manner in which mythology fanboys erect convoluted apologetic fabrications, in an attempt to paint a fake veneer of "respectability" to the blatant manufacturing of synthetic excuses to hand-wave away entirely proper objections to the travesty of discourse, that is the entirely arbitrary declaration of special, "privileged" status for your magic man, on the basis of nothing more than mythological fiat. Because, at bottom, that's all you have - blind assertion to the effect that your magic man purported possesses the special, "privileged" status exempting said magic man from the same constraints which are simultaneously asserted to be proper to apply to us. This is nothing more than "one law for the powerful, another for the powerless" writ large. And your inability to recognise, this, points rather to your failure of basic intelligent reasoning.


The latter, of course, being one of the assertions presented in your mythology - namely, that the victims of this gleefully pursued mass murder, were subject to said slaughter because they dared to have a religion other than that of their murderers. You didn't think this through very hard, did you?


A specious and mendacious fabricated sophistical elision, to try and hand-wave away the hideous reality of the situation of the slaves in question. Numerous historical examples can be pointed to, demonstrating that hideous reality, which in some cases involved kidnapping, and in many cases lethally brutal exploitation. But I'm aware of the manner in which mythology fanboys like you ignore inconvenient historical facts that destroy your apologetics.


Either way, the assertions are risible. Oh wait a moment, there is NO mention at all of the "Satan" character in Genesis, and indeed, the earliest explicit reference to such an entity doesn't appear until 1 Chronicles 21:1, so I'm tempted to treat this as another mythology fanboy ex recto fabrication.


Oh really? So why was the snake in the Genesis fairy tale not explicitly described therein as having found its voice in accordance with your apologetic assertion? For that matter, why is there NO explicit mention of the "Satan" character until we reach 1 Chronicles 21:1?


Oh this is going to be fun ...

This for starters
Misogynistic - a person who dislikes, despises, or is strongly prejudiced against women.
Genesis 3:16
Exodus 21:7
Numbers 3:15,28
Exodus 23:17
Exodus 20:17
Judges 1:12–13
Leviticus 6:14–18
Numbers 5:15–31
Jeremiah 8:9–10
Exodus 22:29–31
Leviticus 12:1–5
Judges 8:30–31
Leviticus 27:1–7
Nahum 3:4–6
Numbers 36:8–12
2 Samuel 12:11
Deuteronomy 22:20–21
Numbers 31:17–18
Numbers 30:1–8,16
Numbers 31:25–35
Deuteronomy 24:1—4
Judges 5:30
Job 25:4
Ezekiel 36:16–17
Job 14:1–4
Lamentations 1:8–9
Isaiah 19:16
Hosea 9:1

Infanticidal - the act of killing an infant; the practice of killing newborn infants; a person who kills infants.
Isaiah 13:18
Hosea 13:16
1 Samuel 15:2–3
1 Samuel 22:19
Psalm 137:8–9
Isaiah 13:11–18
Numbers 31:17
Jeremiah 13:14
Deuteronomy 13:6–11
Jeremiah 19:3–9
Deuteronomy 28:53
Deuteronomy 3:3–6
Deuteronomy 2:31–34
Hosea 9:11–16
Ezekiel 9:4–6
2 Kings 2:23–24
Exodus 12:29
Leviticus 26:21–22
2 Samuel 12:13–18

Genocidal - relating to or involving the deliberate killing of a large group of people of a particular nation or ethnic group.
Deuteronomy 20:16–17
Deuteronomy 2:32–34
Genesis 6:6–8
Deuteronomy 7:1–2
Numbers 21:2–3
Deuteronomy 2:32–34
Deuteronomy 20:10–19
Deuteronomy 3:3–6
Judges 18:1–28
1 Samuel 15:7–8
1 Samuel 15:2–3
Numbers 31:7–40
Joshua 8:25–28
Joshua 11:12
Joshua 6:21
Joshua 11:16–20
Joshua 11:21–22
Joshua 11:10–11
Judges 1:22–26
Deuteronomy 13:12–15
1 Samuel 27:8–9
Deuteronomy 7:16
Joshua 10:28–40
Jeremiah 50:21

Now let me guess...."Oh but context": "It's a metaphor" "It doesn't really mean that" " Hang on , let me get my Hermenutic goggles and give you several references from random places that contradict that verse...a bit..."

Dear oh dear...someone else can carry the slavery bag....

At the end of the day, your issue is not so much about what atheists fail to grasp about your concept of a god, as much as about what you fail to understand about atheists and how they think and rationalise.

Tamaratonye1:

I know it's hard for mythology fanboys like you to grasp elementary concepts, but one you should be learning quickly, is that the assertions of your mythology do not constitute fact. The assertion that your cartoon magic man even exists, is one we've been waiting for mythology fanboys like you to support with something resembling proper evidence. And by proper evidence, I do NOT mean regurgitating the very same assertions from your mythology we've been waiting to see supported with evidence, or peddling vacuous and risible apologetic fabrications that you've manifestly extracted from your rectal passage.

Another concept you should be learning quickly, is that a favourite discoursive tool of those of us who paid attention in class, is reductio ad absurdum. Namely, take an assertion presented to us, treat that assertion by hypothesis as purportedly constituting fact, then demonstrating that treating that assertion in said manner leads quickly to internal contradiction, absurdity and paradox. Applying this famous and robust discoursive technique, does NOT imply that we regard your assertions as true, when we subject your assertions to said treatment. Indeed, reductio ad absurdum has been a staple method within the world of pure mathematics for centuries, and as a corollary of having been deployed in that discipline, we are assured of the essential soundness of the technique.

As a further corollary of the above, just because you treat a merely asserted concept from your mythology uncritically as fact, doesn't mean anyone else here shares your strange predilection. Indeed, it's precisely because those of us who paid attention in class, learned the proper rules of discourse, as opposed to the bastardised version thereof adopted by pedlars of apologetics, that we regard all assertions as a free-fire zone for the deployment of discoursive weaponry. We don't care how "sacred" you think your assertions are, or how much they should be shielded from scrutiny, they will all receive the same discoursive artillery bombardment here.

As for your assertion that "divine wrath" is hard for us to grasp, those of us who paid attention in class are already laughing at you. The reasons for this will become apparent shortly.


The irony of being castigated on this matter by a mythology fanboy, is truly delicious to savour.


Except that, oh wait, what we're dealing with here, is the usual piling of assertion upon assertion by mythology fanboys.

First there is the assertion that your magic man even exists, which on its own is seriously problematic. Not least because your magic man is defined in your mythology, as an entity possessing internally contradictory attributes. The likelihood of any entity thus defined actually existing is vanishingly small for obvious reasons. Which on its own points to "sin" being a synthetic, fabricated offence against an imaginary entity.

Second, there is the assertion that the assorted individuals described as being subject to wholesale slaughter in your mythology, were "deserving" of their fate, an assertion that itself is massively questionable, not least because, if your magic man doesn't actually exist, then the requisite passages of said mythology are nothing more than self-justification propaganda on the part of the raving hordes performing the slaughtering. Even if your magic man does actually exist, your mythology presents two contradictory assertions within its pages, namely [1] that your magic man presented "thou shalt not kill" as a purported "commandment", then followed this by exhorting his raving followers to kill on a large scale. If you cannot recognise this as massively contradictory even on an elementary level, it merely demonstrates that your mythology fanboyism has corrupted and perverted your own reasoning beyond recognition. Then of course, we have the other assertion that mythology fanboys like you are so fond of, namely that your merely asserted magic man is purportedly the source of all morality, an assertion that falls flat on its face the moment said magic man exhorts his followers to commit mass murder.

Returning to the assertion that the victims of said slaughter purportedly "deserved" their fate, well this is both risible and dangerous. Such an assertion can be pressed into duplicitous service by the devious, to "justify" exterminating large numbers of people on the basis of any number of specious pretexts, and indeed, historically, was pressed into this very service by mythology fanboys in the past, frequently for naked personal gain. And indeed, naked personal gain was explicitly dangled in front of the raving followers of your magic man, according to easily referenced assertions in your mythology.

Which all, of course, pales into insignificance alongside the massive and blatant disconnect, between asserting that such behaviours are inexcusably criminal for humans to pursue, but purportedly "righteous" when ordered by your magic man, a hideously obscene piece of special pleading that should be obvious to a five year old.

If anything, the requisite assertions in your mythology point to the enormous dangers inherent, in allowing any entity to act as judge, jury and executioner simultaneously. But we're familiar here with the manner in which mythology fanboys erect convoluted apologetic fabrications, in an attempt to paint a fake veneer of "respectability" to the blatant manufacturing of synthetic excuses to hand-wave away entirely proper objections to the travesty of discourse, that is the entirely arbitrary declaration of special, "privileged" status for your magic man, on the basis of nothing more than mythological fiat. Because, at bottom, that's all you have - blind assertion to the effect that your magic man purported possesses the special, "privileged" status exempting said magic man from the same constraints which are simultaneously asserted to be proper to apply to us. This is nothing more than "one law for the powerful, another for the powerless" writ large. And your inability to recognise, this, points rather to your failure of basic intelligent reasoning.


The latter, of course, being one of the assertions presented in your mythology - namely, that the victims of this gleefully pursued mass murder, were subject to said slaughter because they dared to have a religion other than that of their murderers. You didn't think this through very hard, did you?


A specious and mendacious fabricated sophistical elision, to try and hand-wave away the hideous reality of the situation of the slaves in question. Numerous historical examples can be pointed to, demonstrating that hideous reality, which in some cases involved kidnapping, and in many cases lethally brutal exploitation. But I'm aware of the manner in which mythology fanboys like you ignore inconvenient historical facts that destroy your apologetics.


Either way, the assertions are risible. Oh wait a moment, there is NO mention at all of the "Satan" character in Genesis, and indeed, the earliest explicit reference to such an entity doesn't appear until 1 Chronicles 21:1, so I'm tempted to treat this as another mythology fanboy ex recto fabrication.


Oh really? So why was the snake in the Genesis fairy tale not explicitly described therein as having found its voice in accordance with your apologetic assertion? For that matter, why is there NO explicit mention of the "Satan" character until we reach 1 Chronicles 21:1?


Oh this is going to be fun ...

This for starters
Misogynistic - a person who dislikes, despises, or is strongly prejudiced against women.
Genesis 3:16
Exodus 21:7
Numbers 3:15,28
Exodus 23:17
Exodus 20:17
Judges 1:12–13
Leviticus 6:14–18
Numbers 5:15–31
Jeremiah 8:9–10
Exodus 22:29–31
Leviticus 12:1–5
Judges 8:30–31
Leviticus 27:1–7
Nahum 3:4–6
Numbers 36:8–12
2 Samuel 12:11
Deuteronomy 22:20–21
Numbers 31:17–18
Numbers 30:1–8,16
Numbers 31:25–35
Deuteronomy 24:1—4
Judges 5:30
Job 25:4
Ezekiel 36:16–17
Job 14:1–4
Lamentations 1:8–9
Isaiah 19:16
Hosea 9:1

Infanticidal - the act of killing an infant; the practice of killing newborn infants; a person who kills infants.
Isaiah 13:18
Hosea 13:16
1 Samuel 15:2–3
1 Samuel 22:19
Psalm 137:8–9
Isaiah 13:11–18
Numbers 31:17
Jeremiah 13:14
Deuteronomy 13:6–11
Jeremiah 19:3–9
Deuteronomy 28:53
Deuteronomy 3:3–6
Deuteronomy 2:31–34
Hosea 9:11–16
Ezekiel 9:4–6
2 Kings 2:23–24
Exodus 12:29
Leviticus 26:21–22
2 Samuel 12:13–18

Genocidal - relating to or involving the deliberate killing of a large group of people of a particular nation or ethnic group.
Deuteronomy 20:16–17
Deuteronomy 2:32–34
Genesis 6:6–8
Deuteronomy 7:1–2
Numbers 21:2–3
Deuteronomy 2:32–34
Deuteronomy 20:10–19
Deuteronomy 3:3–6
Judges 18:1–28
1 Samuel 15:7–8
1 Samuel 15:2–3
Numbers 31:7–40
Joshua 8:25–28
Joshua 11:12
Joshua 6:21
Joshua 11:16–20
Joshua 11:21–22
Joshua 11:10–11
Judges 1:22–26
Deuteronomy 13:12–15
1 Samuel 27:8–9
Deuteronomy 7:16
Joshua 10:28–40
Jeremiah 50:21

Now let me guess...."Oh but context": "It's a metaphor" "It doesn't really mean that" " Hang on , let me get my Hermenutic goggles and give you several references from random places that contradict that verse...a bit..."

Dear oh dear...someone else can carry the slavery bag....

At the end of the day, your issue is not so much about what atheists fail to grasp about your concept of a god, as much as about what you fail to understand about atheists and how they think and rationalise.

RandomGuy48:

That video is also misleading and selective in what it presents. For example, it mentions a study about NDEs in which cards bearing numbers and images were placed in hospital rooms where patients couldn't see them from the bed, but could see them if they had an out of body experience. It then says that no one who had an out of body experience during the duration of the study saw the cards. What the video (conveniently) doesn't mention is that the handful of patients who reported the out of body experiences did so in rooms that didn't have the cards set up, so the fact they didn't see them means absolutely nothing.

TheExecutioner:
Someone who exists before time, space and matter does not need a creator.

hopefulLandlord:
doesn't the word "Before" imply time?

TheExecutioner:
Not in this context.

Vic2Ree:
LoL. Christians thrive on special pleading. Everything must have a cause, except their God

hopefulLandlord:


Explain how "Before" doesn't imply time in that context

TheExecutioner:
When used in this context, it simply refers to a pre-existing state.

Gideon97:


"What the video (conveniently) doesn't mention is that the handful of patients who reported the out of body experiences did so in rooms that didn't have the cards set up, so the fact they didn't see them means absolutely nothing."

Do you have any source for these claims? Because the studies say they take account of only those that had the cards in the room.

hopefulLandlord:
"Pre" is simply "Before". Bro, stop digging your own grave

Deicide:
abi i lie

Mizwisdom:



Lol who created your brain?