Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> """
> Just because the same word, "slave", is used, doesn't automatically mean the 
> situations were comparable.
> """
> OK, so you're of the feeling that slavery *can* be good and moral.

  Assuming you understand what "slavery" means in the bible. It has little
to do with the slavery that happened eg. in the US in the past.

> Now, how 
> about the genocide, rape and pillage attacks, and murder of thousands of 
> innocent babies?  :-)

  How about death penalty in the US? Is it good and moral?

  I don't know your stance on that subject (and you don't have to answer),
but moral codes are different for different people. If we assume that God
did indeed exist, then it may be plausible that *his* moral code may be
slightly different than ours. If God indeed created us, then he basically
owns us, and can do whatever he wants with us. You might not agree with it,
in the same way as the child doesn't agree with his father about what he
wants.

  Also, just because God has the right to do whatever he pleases, that
doesn't mean *we* also have the right, without his express permission.

  The "murder of innocent babies" might sound horrible to you, but consider
these two completely hypothetical situations (assuming God did indeed exist):

  1) These babies are born to a depraved society where they may be raised
to hate, rape and kill people. (Usually when the bible tells about the
eradication of some people, it gives an indication of *why*.)

  2) These babies go to heaven before seeing or learning anything bad, and
are happy everafter.

  Maybe from your point of view situation #1 is preferable, but it might be
plausible that God considers situation #2 even more preferable, or at least
not that bad of an alternative.

  And no, this still doesn't give anybody permission to murder anybody.
No person can be the judge of who deserves to live.

> """
> And what kind of evidence do you want?
> """
> So, Jesus brings people back from the dead, cures illness, has a lecture 
> with thousands of people in attendance, and then comes back from the dead 
> himself. Yet none of the scholars and historians of the day mention him, the 
> head priest of the town where he overturns the tables of the money lenders 
> mentions the event, and in the whole of historical documents, there's maybe 
> one sentence that could be interpreted as a reference to Jesus, maybe.

  Do you have any estimate of how much of humanity's history has been lost
forever? Written history is very fragile and gets destroyed very easily
(by accidents, by deterioration and by vandalism).

  It's not completely implausible that only few records have survived.

> """
> Question #9: Why would Jesus want you to eat his body and drink his blood?

> I can't believe how fast these "questions" are degrading in quality.

> What do you not understand about symbolism? Do you have some kind of 
> difficulty in understanding metaphors?
> """

> Maybe you missed this story, wherein a student takes a piece of bread, and 
> the priest is as upset as if Jesus himself was kidnapped:

  I don't want to badmouth the Catholic church here, but suffice to say
that I don't agree with them, nor consider their intepretations of the
bible completely correct. (Which shouldn't be too surprising, as I'm from
a protestant country. Not that I consider myself "protestant" per se.)

> Just be glad you don't live in the religious nuthouse that's America these 
> days. When the religious leaders don't understand the metaphor, and are 
> ready to shoot at you for kidnapping Jesus himself, then this question makes 
> complete sense.

  It doesn't make any sense when it's presented as an argument that God is
imaginary (rather than that some christians are crazy).

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message