1) Eh, it's a form of extortion, I guess.

2) I don't think Christians are scared of God, and want to worship him, lest he throw them in hell. Most people haven't really thought about hell, so they're just ignorant. But their reason to worship God is not based on fear. I think it's more of an S&M thing really. They like feeling weak.

3) The gory stuff is a "metaphor", apparently. This is how they describe it. I presume I need to look deeper into it, to really understand what smashing a babies head in, really means. I should probably go to church. I'm joking, but most Christians don't take that stuff literally. I wonder why they would take hell and heaven and God literally, as that's more likely to be a metaphor, but hey. That's what they want.

4) God is an idea. It can be anything you want it to be. Loving or not. The one portrayed in the Bible is tyrannical, but the one in most Christians head, which one can argue is the true god, the Bible being outdated, is known to be loving and kind.

And no, I'm not offended, but thanks for asking. :3

Well, to try and clear some things up, I'd like to respond to this, because I frequently see those less familiar with Christianity (and frankly, many within the Christian community as well) make the mistake of simply assuming that we Christians believe salvation is simply guaranteed by the belief in God. That is not the case, not at all. Most major Christian denominations these days, no matter what differences they may have liturgically or theologically, all generally believe the following; that all human beings have had their sins cleansed by God's grace in sending his son Jesus Christ to die for our sins, and that it is only by faith in God alone, along with His grace that we our saved. Now, faith may initially just sound like one simply has to declare a belief in God and that he saved us from our sins, but this is not the case, not at all. I am a Lutheran, and in his writings Martin Luther states that, although good works and remaining faithful and obedient to God's laws do not secure salvation, they are proof of and result from sincere faith in God, that is, good works manifest as a result of faith, so someone who consistently does bad things and yet professes a belief in God cannot truly say that they are sincerely faithful to God since they continue to lead a wicked life. Now when I say consistently bad, I mean they have to be a pretty darn bad person; after all, despite all humans being redeemed by Christ, we are still fallible and sinful creatures, and Christians are no different. The danger is not so much in the continued sinning, for as long as we understand that we are sinful creatures, we can conscientiously strive to, through faith, fulfill God's will. The danger is in professing to always carry out God's will in all of our actions since we profess to be Christians, and through the centuries, Christians have made this mistake, both intentionally and unintentionally, time and time again. It continues to this very day, and while most Christians, at least the ones that I know, would simply tell you, concerning something such as homosexuality, that they simply believe it is wrong, there are still a small fraction who claim to hate homosexuals or other sinners, which is simply not how Christians to act. Instead, we should hate the sin, but love the sinner.

Oh, and concerning the idea that God is some sort of tyrant, I'd just like to clear that up as well. Do Christians believe that God is the Supreme Authority in all of the universe; well, yes, but how can we not when we believe that He created all things, time and space all are derived from Him. He is simply by Nature the ultimate authority in the universe. And yes, if people are aware of God's Word and the promise of salvation that He has made to those who remain faithful in Him, and still refuse to believe in Him, then, sadly, if they still hold those beliefs when they die, even if they were a good person, they are condemned to hell. But after all that God has done to make salvation possible for us, this is hardly tyrannical; instead, it is simply the way things must be. When we were created by God, we were created in His image; that means that we were bestowed with perfect natures and true free will, just as God possesses. We believe that true free will, true freedom, is having the ability to do right and wrong, but always choosing to do what is good. However, when Adam and Eve chose to eat of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, which God had deliberately told them not to, they committed an act of rebellion against God, disobeyed Him, and did what simply was wrong. Since then, we have not truly had free wills; instead, mankind has been a slave to sin and death, which resulted from the first sin, and I think that the record of human history is testament enough to prove that. Being sinful by nature, a rift was made between God and man; by the law of things, there was simply no way that man could truly be saved and dwell with God in heaven, since He is by nature perfect, and man no longer was. But when Christ died, and through his death became the perfect sacrifice to redeem mankind of their sins for all eternity, the shackles of sin were broken, and mankind's path to salvation reopened. But this is no free ticket to heaven; salvation still demands true faith in God in order to be achieved. The only exception that I have ever heard, and this is still debated upon in the Christian community, since there is no explicit passage concerning this in the Bible, is the belief by many that those who never have heard of the Word of God through the ages (i.e. because they lived in distant lands, etc.), and yet were good people, may have been or will be saved. But again, if someone knows of the Word of God, and still chooses not to believe in Him, then they choose sin, and as sin is alien to God, they cannot dwell with Him. Now some may say, well, what about homosexual Christians? I will certainly not tell someone to stop being a Christian if they are homosexual; if anything, I simply would be puzzled, because the Bible is pretty explicit in both OT and NT about God's disapproval of homosexuality, so for someone to think that it is acceptable in God's eyes to be homosexual is more confusing than anything for a Christian. Yet, if they truly remained faithful to God, despite this sin, I believe they would still be saved.

But to wrap up, I just want to say, as a Christian, I do find it sad what so many people think that free will means. Sinful free will, that which suggests you are free to do whatever you want, is not truly free; for if one gives into sin, one will inevitably be drawn time and again back to sin, and so be a slave to sin. True freedom is having the free will to do right and wrong, but choose to do what is right every time. Now, since we are still sinful by nature, is this at all possible? No, even the most faithful Christian will stumble every once in awhile, for we have not been born with the perfect natures that God created Adam and Eve with, as ours have been tainted by sin. But, through true faith in God, the shackles of sin can be broken, the true Christian can live a godly life, and after passing away from this world, experience salvation in heaven for all eternity. So, as you can see, God is not the tyrant; sinfulness is the tyrant, God is the liberator. I hope this has helped to clear up any misconceptions you might have had about Christianity; I know that it is easy to be frustrated with Christians, since too many in our community, even if it is still a very small fraction, do not reflect Christian principles in their actions. But believe me, as I hope this post has made clear, there are very good and well-thought reasons for the beliefs that we hold as true. Hope you have a pleasant evening buddy! God bless! /)

P.S. Noticed something I didn't see the first time when going back through your post. You claimed that the Bible promotes hate, rape, slavery, sexism, etc. I've read the Bible extensively throughout my life, and I can safely say that it doesn't promote any of these things. Are rape and slavery frequently mentioned, yes, but these were realities of the sinful ancient world that the Israelites lived in; they are not condoned as right by God. And many confuse promotion of non-association with groups such as homosexuals, or even just sinners, with hate, and that's simply not the case. As I explained in my first post, Christians believe that God is perfect by nature, and so it is simply impossible for Him to hate, it is alien to His nature. However, being the ultimate authority in the universe, He is also Supreme Judge, and has the authority to pass judgment on sinners in a sinful world as He pleases; heck, if He had wanted to, and in the Flood He almost did, God simply could've just wiped mankind out after the fall of man and started all over. But He didn't, and instead decided to execute a plan to lawfully re-open a path to salvation through the ultimate sacrifice of His son Jesus Christ. That is how deep His love for mankind goes! Again, I hope this helped clear some things up for you. Have a great evening friend!

Ok, I should write a more serious point.

My biggest shtick with religion, it claims knowledge with no basis. and by no basis I mean you can have as only footing is a single holy book which was written in very barbaric times for a very barbaric people.

They make baseless claims and wild assumptions with the reasoning "This is the inspired word of God." How many inspired tales have there been of dieties? We have the Old testament, the New testament, The Qu'ran, the entirity of Greek, Roman, Norse Mayan, and Egyptian mythology. We have Hinduism, voodooism, Buddhism, Shintoism...

All of these are just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to different tales telling different stories. All claiming to have all the answers neatly summarized within very few words.

The very idea, the very notion disgust me, and how it claims to have authority over things like morality, justice, and other things. It's just so horrible and unimaginative.

The worst part is, it keeps itself blind from the truth, from scrutiny. it doesn't hold up in any scientific circles to the level of scrutiny any other theory has to. Yet religion claims truth through faith and not evidence.

I'm sorry, but I need evidence, I need scrutiny, I want to understand, I don't want to be told. Not a shred of of religious belief actually makes any sense.

I want to end with saying, we owe our modernized world not to religion, but to science. Through evidence and through research, the best religion can give is the Dark Ages.

Well, you see, Eljordo... I actually recent wrote a story about this very point.

God isn't someone who wantonly throws people into Hell. You don't accidentally end up Hell, you have to make a sincere effort to get there.

Now, we live for, on average, 80 years. That is about 2,522,880,000 seconds. Now, it takes a lifetime to guarantee Hell, and seconds to guarantee Heaven. That's not something you can accidentally screw up.

The story I wrote highlighted the fact that the nature of vices is never constructive, and leads to destroying the lives of the person committing the act and those around them. Hell is not waiting for us, we make it ourselves. Meh, the story tells it better than I do.

God isn't someone who wantonly throws people into Hell. You don't accidentally end up Hell, you have to make a sincere effort to get there.

So I have to make an effort to get to hell? So, as an atheist, I'll go to heaven?

Sweet.

Here I go...

I'm a christian, and whoever said you get thrown in hell doesn't make sense.

Revelations: "And so he was cast into the brick hellfire" or something like that.

That was Satan. Now, why the fuck would a christian say that they would go to hell? That's Satan's lair, and our religion even states that God loves all his children no matter what, A.K.A. us.

..I'll stop now...

So, let's go on to your outlook.

1) The Bible didn't promote Rape or Slavery. Rape and Slavery had occured in the times before Noah, mainly Rape did. And slavery was the crime of the people who rebelled against God, not the followers of him. Even so, the stated idea of bashing gays wasn't in there, either. Yes, it's not right, but it's not stated to hate them for their decision, for as I have said, "God loves all his children."

Now, I'm not trying to make this seem as an insult to you, but God is not tyrannical. He is in your opinion, but you REALLY gotta take time to sit down and read the Bible. Not the translated version, not the New World version, but the King James. You know what, I'll just shut up. If you've read this, you're probably just already annoyed by it.

I get really deep in when someone mentions tyranny...

Here I go...

 

I'm a christian, and whoever said you get thrown in hell doesn't make sense.

Revelations: "And so he was cast into the brick hellfire" or something like that.

That was Satan. Now, why the fuck would a christian say that they would go to hell? That's Satan's lair, and our religion even states that God loves all his children no matter what, A.K.A. us..

I've had Christians tell me straight to my face that I am a heathen and I will burn forever for being an Atheist. I know most Christians don't act like that, but that kind of behavior is not acceptable. You may blow them off as 'a few bad apples', but how many people need to be doing this before it becomes a real issue?

My point is, there are plenty of radical Christians out there.

So, let's go on to your outlook.

1) The Bible didn't promote Rape or Slavery. Rape and Slavery had occured in the times before Noah, mainly Rape did. And slavery was the crime of the people who rebelled against God, not the followers of him. Even so, the stated idea of bashing gays wasn't in there, either. Yes, it's not right, but it's not stated to hate them for their decision, for as I have said, "God loves all his children."

Slavery:

Leviticus 25:44-46: However, you may purchase male and female slaves from among the nations around you. You may also purchase the children of temporary residents who live among you, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat them as slaves, but you must never treat your fellow Israelites this way.

Rape:

Deuteronomy 22:28-29: If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.

Murder, Rape & pillage:

Deuteronomy 20:10-14: As you approach a town to attack it, first offer its people terms for peace. If they accept your terms and open the gates to you, then all the people inside will serve you in forced labor. But if they refuse to make peace and prepare to fight, you must attack the town. When the LORD your God hands it over to you, kill every man in the town. But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder. You may enjoy the spoils of your enemies that the LORD your God has given you.

So yeah, there's that...

Now, I'm not trying to make this seem as an insult to you, but God is not tyrannical. He is in your opinion, but you REALLY gotta take time to sit down and read the Bible. Not the translated version, not the New World version, but the King James. You know what, I'll just shut up. If you've read this, you're probably just already annoyed by it.

 

I get really deep in when someone mentions tyranny...

No offense taken. I have read the bible, I may not be a Christian myself, but I come from a family of devout Christians.

Even if I haven't however, It really wouldn't do anything for me, considering I don't believe the guy even exists at all.

And no, this doesn't annoy me at all. You weren't taking personal shots at me. I write blogs to encourage debate, so for that I thank you.

Well, you see, Eljordo... I actually recent wrote a story about this very point.

 

God isn't someone who wantonly throws people into Hell. You don't accidentally end up Hell, you have to make a sincere effort to get there.

 

Now, we live for, on average, 80 years. That is about 2,522,880,000 seconds. Now, it takes a lifetime to guarantee Hell, and seconds to guarantee Heaven. That's not something you can accidentally screw up.

 

The story I wrote highlighted the fact that the nature of vices is never constructive, and leads to destroying the lives of the person committing the act and those around them. Hell is not waiting for us, we make it ourselves. Meh, the story tells it better than I do.

That'a all well and good, but there's a problem with that. This goes back to my original point; How can God condemn a good man simply for not believing in him?

As an Atheist myself, I don't believe that I am making an effort to subject myself to hellfire; I don't believe in heaven or hell at all.

I see God as a perfect father and a perfect king. The traits I think are present in a perfect father and perfect king which in my opinion would be one who does not desire worship or praise but to only enlighten his children.

I do not know if this is applicable to the Christian God but it's what I think. Wanting people to praise and worship you does not sound befitting to a truly righteous God

 

 

I've had Christians tell me straight to my face that I am a heathen and I will burn forever for being an Atheist. I know most Christians don't act like that, but that kind of behavior is not acceptable. You may blow them off as 'a few bad apples', but how many people need to be doing this before it becomes a real issue?

 

My point is, there are plenty of radical Christians out there.

 

 

Slavery:

 

Leviticus 25:44-46: However, you may purchase male and female slaves from among the nations around you. You may also purchase the children of temporary residents who live among you, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat them as slaves, but you must never treat your fellow Israelites this way.

 

Rape:

 

Deuteronomy 22:28-29: If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.

 

Murder, Rape & pillage:

 

Deuteronomy 20:10-14: As you approach a town to attack it, first offer its people terms for peace. If they accept your terms and open the gates to you, then all the people inside will serve you in forced labor. But if they refuse to make peace and prepare to fight, you must attack the town. When the LORD your God hands it over to you, kill every man in the town. But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder. You may enjoy the spoils of your enemies that the LORD your God has given you.

 

 

So yeah, there's that...

No arguing there on that first point, but what does that have to do with the Bible? Some Christians sadly choose to be extremists and radical, but the Bible doesn't encourage them to act that way.

The first passage you quote is, again, not God condoning slavery; rather, it is simply setting down a law (which is further expanded upon) to help the children of Israel deal with the realities of slavery in the ancient world. Notice, unlike other countries, where anyone of any nationality could be enslaved, the Israelites were given a strict stipulation that no Israelites were to be enslaved, reinforcing the bonds between countrymen. They were also encouraged not to dwell with that many foreigners in the first place, since their pagan worship could compromise the community, so it wasn't expected that they'd have that many slaves in the first place. Finally, you failed to include the aforementioned expansions of these laws concerning slavery which stipulate that the Israelites are to treat slaves humanely, especially compared to how any of their neighbors in the ancient world would have treated slaves. Again, I'm not condoning slavery, nor is this passage, but it was a reality of the economy of the ancient world; God knew this, and so set down laws that would encourage the Israelites to (1) treat slaves as humanely as possible, and (2) not own that many slaves in the first place.

The second passage that you mentioned is not condoning rape at all!!!!! Rather, it is setting a down a very stiff penalty for rape. In the ancient world, if a woman had been raped by a man before she was married, she would have been viewed as tainted, and unfit to be married to anybody else. So instead of letting a man get off scott-free, this law requires him to, in the event of raping some woman, take responsibility and marry her, since no one else ever will, giving her the chance to raise a family and carry on her family's name. Heck, the man could not even divorce her!!! So that right there is a stiff penalty, for the man in question might've been, say, a wealthy man who raped a woman from a poor family, and so he then would've been forced to marry into a family far less wealthy than his own, or maybe he would've been a poor man who could not afford the penalty to the family; so really, the law more than anything is especially designed to prevent men from raping women in the Israelite community in the first place, since, no matter what the penalty, rape is still a terrible crime, and is recognized here as such.

The final passage first of all says nothing about rape; it says that women will be taken as plunder, but this implies nothing about rape. Many times in the ancient world, even if a city surrendered right away, the attacking nation, especially if it was a power such as the Assyrians, might've simply slain all the men, or even children, still anyway! You have to understand, when the Mosaic Law was formulated, the Israelites were preparing to conquer Canaan, since God had promised it centuries earlier to Abraham. Even after they conquered it, they were a still a small fry compared to many of the other Mesopotamian and North African nations around them, particularly Egypt, Assyria, and later on, Babylon. War was inevitably going to be a part of life in Israel, and here, God is simply trying to set down a set of laws designed to ensure that the Israelites remain firm but humane in warfare. First of all, the passage ends with "the Lord your God has given you". This may not seem like much, but it's actually a very telling passage; the Israelites were to only war when God gave them the go-ahead. This mostly applies to the Conquest of the Canaan and any of the pagan peoples there, for this was the inheritance that God promised His people, or during defensive wars, and then, victory was only guaranteed when the people of Israel turned back to God, for defensive wars were usually brought about after the Israelites had been disobedient to God for a significant period of time, usually a generation or so. Heck, this is certainly not a guarantee of success in war even; the Israelites needed God's go ahead to wage war, and if they decided to go to war without God's help, then usually defeat awaited them. As I mentioned earlier, for many communities, simply being put into forced labor after surrendering was usually a more merciful punishment than what many nations at the time did to conquered inhabitants, but as for the punishment to those towns that were conquered after choosing to fight, that was simply what almost everyone did in the ancient world after conquering a town. Now, this is certainly the hardest passage to make sense of, and I'm not sure I'm doing the best job, since I'm not altogether that familiar with this area of theology (i.e. Augustine's "just war theory" which I'm not even sure has to do with OT warfare, but rather, warfare in the NT period); and really, many Christians have a hard time making sense of these passages still. I will say, one thing we have to keep in mind still, as I've said quite a few times in this post, is that this was about 3,500 years ago. The world was very different back then, people lived and fought wars very differently, and God, when He set down the Mosaic Law, had to establish a law that would help His children remain both faithful and obedient to Him but at the same time capable of living in a sinful world around sinful neighbors.

No arguing there on that first point, but what does that have to do with the Bible? Some Christians sadly choose to be extremists and radical, but the Bible doesn't encourage them to act that way.

I'm not blaming the bible for that, I'm blaming self righteous assholes who think they know everything because they read the bible. The actual book didn't do anything, it's just how some people take it.

Now there isn't much we can really do about that, some people just have an obsession with thinking they have all the answers.

The first passage you quote is, again, not God condoning slavery; rather, it is simply setting down a law (which is further expanded upon) to help the children of Israel deal with the realities of slavery in the ancient world. Notice, unlike other countries, where anyone of any nationality could be enslaved, the Israelites were given a strict stipulation that no Israelites were to be enslaved, reinforcing the bonds between countrymen. They were also encouraged not to dwell with that many foreigners in the first place, since their pagan worship could compromise the community, so it wasn't expected that they'd have that many slaves in the first place. Finally, you failed to include the aforementioned expansions of these laws concerning slavery which stipulate that the Israelites are to treat slaves humanely, especially compared to how any of their neighbors in the ancient world would have treated slaves. Again, I'm not condoning slavery, nor is this passage, but it was a reality of the economy of the ancient world; God knew this, and so set down laws that would encourage the Israelites to (1) treat slaves as humanely as possible, and (2) not own that many slaves in the first place.

Slavery is slavery. Treating your slaves humanely is one thing, but you're still a slave.

Imagine if I had you locked up in my house, forced to clean my mess and cook me dinner. I don't allow you to leave and I don't pay you. You are my property. That is no way for any human to live.

Sure it could be worse, at least I'm not beating you or starving you, but a slave is a slave.

Now it clearly states in the passage that you may still purchase slaves from surrounding nations. Just because they aren't your own countrymen doesn't make it any better. That's just like saying it was perfectly alright for the Americans to enslave the blacks. They weren't fellow white Americans, so it was totally justified right? Not really.

Now I know times were different back then, but my point still stands.

The second passage that you mentioned is not condoning rape at all!!!!! Rather, it is setting a down a very stiff penalty for rape. In the ancient world, if a woman had been raped by a man before she was married, she would have been viewed as tainted, and unfit to be married to anybody else. So instead of letting a man get off scott-free, this law requires him to, in the event of raping some woman, take responsibility and marry her, since no one else ever will, giving her the chance to raise a family and carry on her family's name. Heck, the man could not even divorce her!!! So that right there is a stiff penalty, for the man in question might've been, say, a wealthy man who raped a woman from a poor family, and so he then would've been forced to marry into a family far less wealthy than his own, or maybe he would've been a poor man who could not afford the penalty to the family; so really, the law more than anything is especially designed to prevent men from raping women in the Israelite community in the first place, since, no matter what the penalty, rape is still a terrible crime, and is recognized here as such.

Ah yes, those poor Rapists. They are forced to marry the victims they violate and pay a small fee?! heaven forbid.

That is hardly a punishment at all, it's more of a punishment for the rape victim than the rapist. Could you imagine going through that terrible experience then being forced to marry your tormentor? That is inexcusable. Of course, back then women were nothing but property; treated somewhere between 'human being' and 'cattle'.

Back then it would have been easy for any sick bastard to find a wife. Want a woman to pleasure yourself with, clean your house and bare your children? Just rape some unlucky girl, and she'll be forced to marry you! Not really a punishment at all.

And let's just assume it's a situation where the man actually doesn't want to marry the woman, but has no choice. That is going to be one broken ass home. The rape victim (and possibly her future children) would most likely suffer abuse on a daily basis from that creep.

Of course that is irrelevant, considering women are property in the biblical dark ages.

The final passage first of all says nothing about rape; it says that women will be taken as plunder, but this implies nothing about rape.

Don't be Nieve, you seem like an intelligent guy. Women taken as 'plunder' pretty much only means one thing; rape and slavery. Especially in ancient times. This passage is basically telling soldiers that the women, children and plunder are there's to do with what they wish, that they may enjoy the spoils 'God' has given them.

God may not be saying; 'Go ahead and rape those women guys', but he's basically giving horny soldiers with weapons free rein to do with the women what they like. Big shocker what usually happens.

As for the rest, not much to really argue with; other than the fact that religious wars are pretty much the biggest waste of human life ever.

Slavery is slavery. Treating your slaves humanely is one thing, but you're still a slave.

 

Imagine if I had you locked up in my house, forced to clean my mess and cook me dinner. I don't allow you to leave and I don't pay you. You are my property. That is no way for any human to live.

 

Sure it could be worse, at least I'm not beating you or starving you, but a slave is a slave.

 

Now it clearly states in the passage that you may still purchase slaves from surrounding nations. Just because they aren't your own countrymen doesn't make it any better. That's just like saying it was perfectly alright for the Americans to enslave the b