A pig’s ear of an argument
Edit: Some of this post is no longer relevant as the person in question has since changed his blog entry.
Yesterday, Twelve of the Broken Microwave blog wrote about a recent “argument” that he was engaged in with an atheist. (Actually, it was two atheists, but I just want to concentrate on what he said to the alleged less experienced atheist.) Suspiciously, Twelve neglected to link to wherever it was that the said argument had taken place, thus not allowing anybody to see the argument in context.
The atheist is quoted as having said:
Did you know Jesus in the bible killed a herd of pigs? Really. He really did. So much for Gentle Jesus! Matthew 8:32 And he said unto them, Go. And when they were come out, the devils went into the herd of swine: and, behold, the whole herd of swine ran violently down a steep place into the sea, and perished in the waters.
That makes Jesus nastier than the average person. He could have found a much kinder way of doing this. Jesus shows by this one act that he was immoral.
According to Twelve, the atheist was wrong and guilty of doing “no research” when he claimed that Jesus had killed a herd of pigs and when he concluded that this one act caused Jesus to appear quite nasty, not at all kind and without scruples.
A sensible reading of the scriptural verses in question shows that Jesus was indeed culpable in the deaths of the Gadarene swine. There’s just no getting around that, unless you’re a Christian who thinks that God can do no wrong. After all, who was it who permitted the devils to enter the herd of pigs that were feeding nearby? Jesus. The devils sought his permission and he gave it.
Although this is a case of animal cruelty, my main problem with this story is Jesus’s apparent indifference towards the owner of the pigs whose livelihood had perished in the sea and the swineherds who had suddenly found themselves redundant. The latter – upon seeing Jesus’s dubious moral character – fled into the city and told the people about what had happened, to which the “whole city” came out to meet with Jesus and “besought him that he would depart out of their coasts.” Can you blame them? Whose livelihood would be next on the chopping block?
There’s no indication that Jesus offered any recompense to the owner or his employees for the disaster that had befallen them. I concur with what the atheist concluded from this story. Jesus does seem to have an unlikeable side to him. You’d think that as an omnipotent being he could have thought of a better way of dealing with the devils, without impacting adversely on the lives of innocent people.
Twelve responded to the atheist by suddenly talking about a totally different time and situation – the tenth plague that was inflicted upon Egypt by an ever-loving God. I was confused by the jump. After quoting the atheist on his blog, Twelve said, simply:
This just screams, “No research!” so I replied with this:
I concluded that Twelve had left out certain pertinent parts of his argument with the atheist, for reasons that I can only guess at. I couldn’t help but wonder if he was being deliberately vague for some reason and, if so, that might very well explain why he hadn’t linked to where the argument had taken place.
Anyway, the first sentence of Twelve’s reply clearly showed that more had gone on between what the atheist had said and his response to it:
observingworld [the atheist], I know the firstborns didn’t do anything, but Pharaoh was the one who decided the fate of those animals and children, not God. God gave Pharaoh a choice, and he chose to have all of the firstborns killed. That’s not God’s fault. If the cattle died, that’s Pharaoh’s decision. No matter how unfair it was for the firstborns to die for Pharaoh’s mistake, the blame doesn’t fall on God, but Pharaoh.
This appears to be to a response to something else that was said and not to what had been initially said. Twelve seems to be rather disingenuous.
Anyway, I’m continually flabbergasted by Christians like Twelve who try to make a silk purse out of any story from the Bible, no matter how much of a sow’s ear it really is when you discard the believer’s bias.
Notwithstanding that God had hardened the heart of Pharaoh against giving in to his demands, there’s still no way that Pharaoh was to blame for the death of “all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both man and beast”, which resulted in there being not a house where there would not be somebody dead. The holy plague touched every Egyptian family. And, who knows, maybe if God hadn’t messed around with Pharaoh’s heart, this tragedy might never have happened. It’s almost as if God wanted the opportunity to slaughter thousands of people to demonstrate his power.
Imagine that an Islamic hijacker had taken control of an American aeroplane and was demanding that the government release all of the prisoners from Guantanamo Bay or he would blow up the plane on the orders of Allah with all the innocent passengers on board. The US president refused to capitulate and so the hijacker carried out his threat. Is this scenario any different than the dilemma that faced Pharaoh? The central issue in both situations is the use of blackmail as a motivating force in achieving a certain aim, where the lives of innocent people are used as bargaining tools. How moral is that?
And as a leopard cannot change his spots, so God is continuing to blackmail people into heaven in this day and age. He’s still the monster he’s always been, as is abundantly evident in the Bible, threatening everlasting punishment on those who don’t submit to his demands of obedience.
Curmudgeonly Yours
The Mutt's Nuts 
lol, oops. I used the wrong comment at the beginning.
Twelve
November 25, 2007 at 11:31 pm
hm. I always end up messing up my posts somehow. This time I used the wrong comment. Knew something was wrong with it. I’m just not thinking very clearly lately.
Once I look up the argument again, I’ll repost it. Correctly, this time, hopefully. Thanks for catching that.
I could show you both of the arguments, but that’s up to you.
__________________________________
Yes, God hardened Pharaoh’s heart a few times, but only a couple. Especially not the last time. Reread your Bible. Even though God had hardened Pharaoh’s heart before a time or two, Pharaoh still said no, even when his heart wasn’t hardened. What are the odds that even if God didn’t harden his heart earlier that Pharaoh would let them go then?
Yes! Very different!
Pharaoh was holding the Israelites hostage (God’s children). God threatened Pharaoh to release His children, but Pharaoh refused.
In the your jihad scenario:
Muslim holds people hostage and threatens the US to kill the hostages. US refuses the Muslim’s demands, and the people die.
The REAL jihad scenario for the story of the plagues:
A person holds a Muslim hostage. the muslim’s father threatens to kill the person if the US doesn’t make the person let go. US refuses. The muslim’s father kills the person and takes back his son/daugter.
__________________
God doesn’t threaten the humans. He warns them that if they go the wrong way, they will be tortured eternally, but God isn’t the torturer. He is the father who allows His children to make their own choices and choose life or death. He remains on one side as a bridge to the life, and warns His children that they wouldn’t much enjoy death, which they are headed toward, but some of them go on anyway, thinking that the Father is just a figment of someone’s imagination.
Twelve
November 25, 2007 at 11:48 pm
k. Fixed it, and explained why I changed it. I apologize if that ruins your post, but at least half of your post is still relevant.
Twelve
November 26, 2007 at 12:19 am
Twelve,
***Yes, God hardened Pharaoh’s heart a few times, but only a couple. Especially not the last time.***
So it appears that God doesn’t respect a person’s freedom of choice as I’ve been led to believe by those who call themselves Christians. Or else why would he ever deliberately harden somebody’s heart, if not to bring about a certain desired outcome? Surely such a being cannot be trusted as how would you ever know if he was manipulating you in the same way he manipulated Pharaoh? And if God is in the habit of hardening hearts – there’s justification enough in the Bible to assume so – then I hope he doesn’t punish people for bad decisions that they make while being endangered in such a way because that would be unjust in the extreme.
And people wonder why I find it difficult to see the goodness of God.
Anyway, whether or not Pharaoh’s heart was hardened isn’t really an issue for me, hence my use of the word “notwithstanding” in my blog entry. I think it’s very obvious that God is to blame for the mass murder that happened.
***Yes! Very different!***
Obviously, I disagree. Let me try and be more plain so that you might better understand what I’m saying in my scenario. I have a terrible habit of assuming that people who read what I’m saying will automatically pick up on the implications that I think are easily noticeable in my writing.
The US President (Pharaoh) captures and locks away many muslims in Guantanamo Bay (slavery of the Israelites). This pisses off an Islamic extremist (God) who decides to take matters into his own hands to try and free his familial relations (Israelites’ spiritual connection to God) from the infidel dog (Ex. 11:7 – “the LORD doth put a difference between the Egyptians and Israel”), so he takes control of an aeroplane and sets about blackmailing the President. If the President doesn’t release the prisoners, then he’s going to kill all of the innocent hostages that are on board the plane (tenth plague). Of course, the President refuses to give in to the demands of the terrorist, so the Islamic extremist follows through on his threat (tenth plague realised).
I’m not expecting you to see my logic because of your present paradigm, but it’s clear to me who’s to blame for the mass slaughter.
***God doesn’t threaten the humans. He warns them that if they go the wrong way, they will be tortured eternally, but God isn’t the torturer. He is the father who allows His children to make their own choices and choose life or death.***
I’ll get back to you on that topic. I haven’t got time now.
Curmudgeonly Yours
November 26, 2007 at 7:55 pm
Twelve
You said: God doesn’t threaten the humans. He warns them that if they go the wrong way, they will be tortured eternally, but God isn’t the torturer. He is the father who allows His children to make their own choices and choose life or death.
Ha ha ha ha ha! You must be having a laugh.
By your reckoning, if I put a gun to your head and tell you that I’ll shoot you if you don’t give me your wallet, I’m just warning you rather than threatening you. And if you refuse to hand over your wallet and I blow your brains out, I won’t be the killer, you will. Because you will have chosen to be killed rather than give me what I want.
So God “warns” people: Do what I tell you or I’ll arrange for you to be tortured forever. Nice God, huh? To believe that the being you worship could even consider for one moment devising a place of endless torment and sending his own children there simply for not doing what he tells them is just grotesque.
I wish you would just stop and think about some of the things you are saying in defence of your god, because you are depicting him as a horrible monster and, worst of all, you appear to be making excuses for his deplorable behaviour!
islaskye
November 26, 2007 at 8:37 pm
I still wonder. You didn’t pay attention to my comment at all.
God hardened Pharaoh’s heart once or twice, but in the end, Pharaoh’s heart was not hardened, yet he still chose to let the firstborns be killed.
As do I, yet it isn’t the best idea.
Too bad you got it wrong. The Israelites were God’s children. The US president enslaved the muslim’s children, so the muslim threatens to kill the people on the plane if the president doesn’t release the muslim’s children. The president refuses, and the people die.
That doesn’t sound like the muslim’s fault to me at all. Was he supposed to just let his children be taken and enslaved? If he simply allowed the president to steal and enslave his children, would you consider him a good father?
____________________________________________
islaskye,
Oh, I see. You have the misconception that God is the one who tortures. No, He is not. God isn’t holding a gun to our heads. He is watching us head in the wrong direction, trying to stop us without being unjust. He can’t just force us into Heaven, especially if we don’t want to go.
GOD DOES NOT ARRANGE FOR US TO BE TORTURED. Get over it. We were created for the exact opposite reason, contrary to popular belief. We were created to be with Him, but we were given a choice, and we chose wrong, He made up for it, and now we have a choice to be with Him or not.
Hope that clarified enough.
Likewise. You appear to be trying very hard to twist my words and make God the villain.
________
Anyway, I hope I am not offending anyone, and I apologize if I am/do.
Twelve
November 28, 2007 at 12:26 am
Twelve,
***You didn’t pay attention to my comment at all. God hardened Pharaoh’s heart once or twice, but in the end, Pharaoh’s heart was not hardened, yet he still chose to let the firstborns be killed.***
Poppycock. I adequately expressed my opinions on that issue. Reread my post, and try to understand it this time around.
***Too bad you got it wrong.***
And it’s too bad that you can’t see beyond your indoctrination.
***The US president enslaved the muslim’s children, so the muslim threatens to kill the people on the plane if the president doesn’t release the muslim’s children. The president refuses, and the people die.
That doesn’t sound like the muslim’s fault to me at all. Was he supposed to just let his children be taken and enslaved?***
I can understand now why you find it preposterous to view God as blameworthy for the Egyptian massacre – you can actually justify the slaughter of innocent people. Where you’re concerned, ends justify the means, even when innocent blood has to be spilt.
Curmudgeonly Yours
November 29, 2007 at 11:35 pm
Still don’t see your point. I have refuted that part in the jihadist analogy.
*sigh* It wasn’t innocent blood. Although they weren’t the ones making the choice, those who marked their door would be left alone, even the Egyptians, unless you can find a verse that says that only the Israelites and not the Egyptian natives could save themselves.
Another thing to consider is the fact that in the Bible, there is an afterlife, and that life is eternal, therefore losing the first life is not nearly as bad as losing the second, and if the Egyptian natives chose to follow God before they died, either they would have marked the door or died and gone to Paradise (which is different than Heaven,but that’s another explanation for another time.), which, by the way, is worth losing this life for.
Twelve
November 30, 2007 at 1:17 am
So, when are you going to correct your post?
Twelve
November 30, 2007 at 1:17 am
Twelve,
***Still don’t see your point. I have refuted that part in the jihadist analogy.***
What are you talking about? In another reply, you accused me of not paying attention to your comment. Initially, I wasn’t sure what comment you had reference to, but I decided that it must be the stuff about Pharaoh’s heart, as you saw fit to treat me to a rerun of it immediately after your unfounded accusation. Consequently, I told you that I’d “adequately expressed my opinions on that issue”, hoping to put it to the side because my disgust of the Egyptian slaughter never hung on whether or not God had hardened Pharaoh’s heart, but now you’re telling me that you’ve “refuted that part” in the scenario that I posed. Which is strange, as I didn’t incorporate the issue of Pharaoh’s heart into the scenario, so I have no idea about what you think it is that you’ve refuted.
Your arguments are about as attractive as a two week holiday in Afghanistan.
***It wasn’t innocent blood.***
The firstborns who were murdered, which no doubt included many newborn babes, toddlers and infants, and the families who suffered excruciating heartbreak as a result had no part to play in Pharaoh’s stubborn determination to “not let the children of Israel go out of his land”, therefore I don’t accept your view that they weren’t innocent.
How you can approve of the killing of little children is so far beyond my understanding that I’m actually finding it difficult to discuss this issue with you sensibly, so much so that I almost can’t resist calling you an horse’s ass.
***Although they weren’t the ones making the choice, those who marked their door would be left alone,…***
I find it incredible how easy it is for you to dismiss through justification a biblical atrocity. “Oh well. Tuff shit, Egyptians. If you had put blood on your homes you wouldn’t be in such a pickle. God is merciful. So what happens in Exodus 13?” You just move on, praising the goodness of God.
***…even the Egyptians, unless you can find a verse that says that only the Israelites and not the Egyptian natives could save themselves.***
Does it soothe your conscience to think that, despite the fact that verse 3 of Exodus 12 talks of God telling Moses to speak specifically to “all the congregation of Israel” and no verse that suggests that the Egyptians were also given the opportunity to mark their houses with the blood of a sacrificial lamb if they so wished?
In fact, Ex. 11:5 says that the Lord states: “And all the firstborn in the land of Egypt shall die, from the firstborn of Pharaoh that sitteth upon his throne, even unto the firstborn of the maidservant that is behind the mill; and all the firstborn of beasts.” So, even before God had given Moses his instructions, the slaughter of all the Egyptian firstborns had been premeditated, there was no chance that any of them would escape or God would be made a liar. Therefore, actually, contrary to what you think, the “Egyptian natives” couldn’t save themselves.
***Another thing to consider is the fact that in the Bible, there is an afterlife, and that life is eternal, therefore losing the first life is not nearly as bad as losing the second, and if the Egyptian natives chose to follow God before they died, either they would have marked the door or died and gone to Paradise…which, by the way, is worth losing this life for.***
Blah, blah, blah…and there are fairies that live at the bottom of my garden!
Curmudgeonly Yours
November 30, 2007 at 7:11 pm
Twelve
You said:
I think I must have misunderstood your beliefs about God. Do you believe he created hell? (If not, who did?) If God created hell, did he understand that a good proportion of the people he created would eventually end up there? Why do you think he created a place where many of the human beings he created would be tortured forever, just for not accepting him? Couldn’t he have devised a place of learning and rehabilitation rather than one of appalling punishment?
If the Christian God created hell, he knew it was a place of torture for those who didn’t accept Christianity. And he knew that there would be many people who would not accept Christianity for whatever reason. He devised a punishment for those people and set up the means for it to be carried out. So how can you say that God does not arrange for us to be tortured, when he has put all the arrangements in place for that very situation to occur?
You made the point:
I would liken this to the following situation:
You live in a country where the supreme ruler decrees that everyone should convert to Islam in order to enjoy peace and happiness in his presence. He also warns that he has built an enomous prison, where those who don’t convert will be incarcerated and tortured for the rest of their lives. However, he does arrange for most of his people to be taught about Islam (although others living in far-flung parts of his kingdom miss out on hearing of Islam and carry on worshipping their own gods in ignorance).
You are one of the fortunate ones who receives instruction in Islam and learns of its merits. However, as a committed Christian, you can’t bring yourself to believe the Muslim faith. It just doesn’t feel right to you. And you don’t want to abandon your God and all your Christian beliefs for something that you really don’t believe in. You live a good, honest, decent life, working hard and trying to be kind and compassionate to your fellow human beings. In spite of this, because at the appointed day you don’t adopt Islam as your faith, you are thrown into prison and continually tortured for years until you die.
Was that ruler fair? Yes, he allowed most of his people to learn about the religion he wanted them to adopt. He gave them a choice as to whether they would convert to Islam or not. But he was severe in his punishment of those who would not go against their conscience and convert to his ways and, in effect, demonstrate that they did not wish to live with him. Would you be happy with your treatment under that regime?
The ruler in my story is the equivalent of your God. He wants the best for his people and tries to ensure that most (but not all) people get to at least hear of his religion. He’s created a hell of torment and warned people of their fate if they don’t convert. Then he gives them time to decide what to do – to choose between Christianity and their own deeply-held beliefs. Inevitably, many people will believe in other religions and won’t want to give them up. Still others have no faith, but can’t bring themselves to accept Christianity when it just doesn’t make sense to them. So, in the end, all the people who don’t convert are thrown into hell, where they’re tortured eternally.
I wonder how you would feel if the scenario I’ve proposed above actually happened in real life? Would you feel that the ruler was acting like a despot, or be satisfied that he had acted fairly in giving people the choice to convert, even if it went against all their long-cherished beliefs? Do you think the people in that scenario were free to choose and that their punishment was just, merely for wanting to be true to themselves and the things they believed in?
I suspect you would answer “Yes” because you are happy for your God to act in that way. But I would not, and I hope that you can have some inkling of why I feel like that.
islaskye
December 1, 2007 at 9:23 am
Did you write that before or after you change the look of the website?
I don’t think I would want to grow up around that time, would you? I wouldn’t. Actually, spending an eternity in Paradise sounds much more appealing, especially considering this world is nothing to be proud of. This is a Gilded Earth. Age doesn’t matter. I realize now that I would rather die as an infant than suffer through this life on this earth for a hundred years. Assuming heaven exists for a moment, would you rather live forever on earth or die on earth and live forever in Heaven? If you’d rather live in Heaven, when would you want to die? At the age of 1 or 100? As for me, I’d rather die at the age of one, but considering I was kept alive thus far, I know that I have a purpose to fulfill here, so although I can’t wait to get to Heaven, I still want to finish whatever purpose I have here.
Oh, they could save themselves. Weren’t the Israelites in Egypt too? God simply knew that none of the Egyptians would listen to any of the Israelites, who, if the Egyptians were as innocent as you say, were extremely likely to tell the native Egyptians what Moses had just told them.
That’ll win an argument.
Blah blah blah…and my garden came from a bunch of nothing (that nothing sure is explosive).
How easily you dismiss that which you don’t want to understand. You know, it is my theory that humans have grown less intelligent over time, and especially in this day and age, considering no one cares to think about anything that is really important. Everyone just wants scientific evidence, because they’re too lazy to figure it out themselves using logic.
_________________
I don’t recall God creating hell as a place of torment. Let’s see….First, Satan betrayed God, and Satan was thrown from Heaven. God knew that Satan had no place to go, so He created a place for Satan to go, and once Satan saw that God had created humans, Satan made hell into a place of torture, possibly to get back at God, possibly because he was just evil, anyway.
No, he really wasn’t.
I have no time to explain at the moment, so I will have to explain it another time, but no, your ruler is FAR from God. Think about it. Maybe you’ll see. Start from the beginning, when God created humans.
Twelve
December 10, 2007 at 3:22 am
Twelve,
***I don’t think I would want to grow up around that time, would you? I wouldn’t. Actually, spending an eternity in Paradise sounds much more appealing,…***
Never-never land is supposed be more appealing, so I’m not at all surprised that you feel that way.
***Age doesn’t matter.***
I get the message – killing little babies is acceptable. And the intense suffering caused to families as a result of one of God’s killing sprees is just unfortunate.
***Assuming heaven exists for a moment, would you rather live forever on earth or die on earth and live forever in Heaven? If you’d rather live in Heaven, when would you want to die?***
Considering that I find the thought of having a gallstone lodged in the neck of my gallbladder preferable to the idea of spending an eternity in heaven with smug Christians and a super-being that I don’t have a liking for, I would have to go with living on earth, though I would like it to be for a limited period only. I don’t find “forever” at all appealing.
***As for me, I’d rather die at the age of one, but considering I was kept alive thus far, I know that I have a purpose to fulfill here, so although I can’t wait to get to Heaven, I still want to finish whatever purpose I have here.***
You “know” that you have a predestined purpose to fulfill on earth simply because you didn’t die as a child. So this, of course, makes you feel all warm and snug as your astounding logic not only firmly establishes the existence of God in your mind, but implies an actual special relationship between yourself and the Creator. You remind me of the child who upon seeing the many gifts under the tree on a Christmas morning assumes the certainty of Santa’s existence. Jesus said become “as” little children, but I don’t think that he meant in intellect and reasoning you should be childish.
***That’ll win an argument.***
I had a feeling that the point I was trying to make would be lost on you. And I’m not trying to win an argument.
***How easily you dismiss that which you don’t want to understand. You know, it is my theory that humans have grown less intelligent over time, and especially in this day and age, considering no one cares to think about anything that is really important.***
Don’t presume to know me. You have no idea about my life.
It really is a waste of time talking with you.
Curmudgeonly Yours
December 17, 2007 at 6:55 pm
Assuming the Bible is true, it would only be logical to say that going to Paradise (Heaven wasn’t “invented” yet) is better than staying on earth.
It was their choice. You can make it sound bad by saying “killing little babies,” but when you think about it, they wouldn’t have the life you do. Then, in Egypt, it wasn’t exactly the kind of place you would want to spend “a two week holiday.” As a matter of fact it’d be worse than a two-week holiday in Afghanistan today.
Well, if you don’t want to go to Heaven, then don’t, but you can only go to one of two places, and considering you haven’t a clue as to what Christians are really like, I don’t expect you to convert to Christianity, that is until you drop your arrogance and open your mind long enough to actually consider the possibility that Christianity might actually be true.
Yeah, pretty much. Prove the Bible and you can basically reach that conclusion that way.
Absolutely not.
Quick! Look up! There goes that concept, flying right over your head.
Look, I don’t find Christianity any more intellectually appealing than you, but I have enough intelligence to figure things out for myself. To do this, you just need to know one thing: You exist. If you use logic from that point, you will find out that the Bible makes a ton more sense than the world coming from..well, nothing (so says atheism. Excuse me, atheism says “I don’t know, but I won’t consider YOUR ideas.”).
Speaking of, when He said to become as little children, He was saying that children are innocent, and therefore, if they die as innocent children, they don’t have any sins to pay for, unlike us, the not-so-innocent-yet-childish people.
Didn’t say you were. I was simply pointing out your arrogance.
I don’t/didn’t/won’t.
Nor you mine.
So you’d think.
I’m just here to defend my religion, and while I do so, I point out the flaws in humans. For instance: Age really doesn’t matter. Innocent children are less childish than many humans on this earth. Innocent children don’t provoke violence to the point of killing each other, a concept we call war. Perhaps Jesus did mean to be as children intellectually, to a degree.
Twelve
December 17, 2007 at 11:50 pm
Twelve,
***…and considering you haven’t a clue as to what Christians are really like, I don’t expect you to convert to Christianity, that is until you drop your arrogance and open your mind long enough to actually consider the possibility that Christianity might actually be true.***
I don’t know what makes you appear so incredibly stupid but it really works. Don’t try and tell me that I can’t judge the likeableness of Christians. I’m familiar with many of them and their mindset. Earlier I referred to a certain type of Christian – those that are smug in their beliefs – who would make the idea of going to heaven less than desirable for me. I didn’t say that all Christians are smug, so I don’t appreciate your blanket statement. And actually, there are some Christians that I do like for a variety of reasons. Though you don’t seem to be one of them. Of course, I’m only judging you by the words that you use and the way you come across to me.
***Look, I don’t find Christianity any more intellectually appealing than you, but I have enough intelligence to figure things out for myself. To do this, you just need to know one thing: You exist. If you use logic from that point, you will find out that the Bible makes a ton more sense than the world coming from..well, nothing (so says atheism…)***
You need to understand that your approach to finding God doesn’t work for all people. People come to belief in many different ways and for reasons that are too numerous to mention.
***Excuse me, atheism says “I don’t know, but I won’t consider YOUR ideas.”***
Admittedly, I do brush off your ideas, but that’s only because I’ve considered them already. In fact, I did my very best to conform my life according to the Bible, in order to find God. If the scriptures said something that I wasn’t doing, then I would adjust my life to fit in with the “revealed word”. I can’t speak for other atheists, but I have considered you ideas. And found them wanting.
***Didn’t say you were. I was simply pointing out your arrogance.***
The words pot, kettle and black come to mind.
In this instance, I wasn’t being arrogant, though I don’t expect you to move from that opinion of me. And, to be perfectly honest, I don’t actually care what you think of me. My “blah, blah, blah…and there are fairies that live at the bottom of my garden!” remark was simply my way of expressing disbelief at some of the things that you come out with. I was telling you something about myself, so that you might consider who it is that you’re talking to. I wasn’t saying that your views are not correct, as they could be, but I was trying to give you a taste of how small I view the likelihood that the Bible is true or that there’s an afterlife.
***I don’t/didn’t/won’t.***
You won’t presume to know me? Really? In the post that I’m replying to you’ve said or implied that I’m arrogant, close-minded, not as intelligent as you and that I haven’t a clue as to what Christians are really like, among other things. Should I assume from this that you’re a liar?
Curmudgeonly Yours
December 22, 2007 at 7:35 pm