I think they’re making a general statement about all the crazy shit in the old testament, not basing their whole point on that one interpretation. What do you think about the other stuff they mentioned?
“Trust me, I could totally answer your question and it would blow your mind and totally convert you. I won’t, but trust me I could if I cared to.”
Seems like the bible says you’re not a very good Christian in that case:
1 Peter 3:15
15But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect.
Sure, but we’re not in a gentleness and respect situation here. There’s me, and there’s a bunch of rabid fundamentalist atheists present. And no doubt some calm and rational ones too, but they’re not making themselves known at the moment. For example just look at the strawman (the bit between quotes) and judgmentalism (the prefix to your bible quote) in your own post. I think a good debater could and would avoid both those potholes.
Not my quote but I like it nonetheless: when asking WWJD, remember that turning over tables and chasing everyone round with a whip is an option.
I’d probably DuckDuckGo it. I based that comment on the use of the words “what” and “about”.
/me visits DDG…
Eh, maybe it’s the wrong word. This sort of reminds me of a discussion I saw on YT a few months ago between a Christian taking the eye argument, and Prof Dawkins giving his best response: lots of mights, maybes, could’ves, topped off with billions of years, which doesn’t appear to satisfy the former who then follows up with “what about…” I can’t remember what, but I do remember the gist of Dawkins’ response which was something along the lines of: you led with your best; I answered that; I’m not going round in circles at this point. So I’m with Dawkins now (and in fact as a Christian I actually agree with a lot of what he says. We do need to think things through and not take them on blind faith.)
So in other words I’ve given a sound explanation for the dashing babies on a rock question and I’m going to leave it there.
OK fine, you won’t have it any other way. Judgment.
We see prophets actually work. Jonah didn’t want to go to Nineveh, he wanted to jump straight to 6, but God had other plans. When God finally got him to go to Nineveh, the people listened, repented, and judgment was avoided. The reason Jonah didn’t want to go is that he thought there was a strong possibility of that outcome and he wanted the Ninevites to suffer judgment.
Hmm… just noticed the sidebar. This defence of the OT probably violates Rule 1. Forget the above, yay God, what a dick, punishing people for being evil!
I think they’re making a general statement about all the crazy shit in the old testament, not basing their whole point on that one interpretation. What do you think about the other stuff they mentioned?
Whataboutism is a game we can all play, but I can’t be arsed at the moment.
“Trust me, I could totally answer your question and it would blow your mind and totally convert you. I won’t, but trust me I could if I cared to.”
Seems like the bible says you’re not a very good Christian in that case:
1 Peter 3:15
15But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect.
Sure, but we’re not in a gentleness and respect situation here. There’s me, and there’s a bunch of rabid fundamentalist atheists present. And no doubt some calm and rational ones too, but they’re not making themselves known at the moment. For example just look at the strawman (the bit between quotes) and judgmentalism (the prefix to your bible quote) in your own post. I think a good debater could and would avoid both those potholes.
Not my quote but I like it nonetheless: when asking WWJD, remember that turning over tables and chasing everyone round with a whip is an option.
What do you think whataboutism means?
I’d probably DuckDuckGo it. I based that comment on the use of the words “what” and “about”.
/me visits DDG…
Eh, maybe it’s the wrong word. This sort of reminds me of a discussion I saw on YT a few months ago between a Christian taking the eye argument, and Prof Dawkins giving his best response: lots of mights, maybes, could’ves, topped off with billions of years, which doesn’t appear to satisfy the former who then follows up with “what about…” I can’t remember what, but I do remember the gist of Dawkins’ response which was something along the lines of: you led with your best; I answered that; I’m not going round in circles at this point. So I’m with Dawkins now (and in fact as a Christian I actually agree with a lot of what he says. We do need to think things through and not take them on blind faith.)
So in other words I’ve given a sound explanation for the dashing babies on a rock question and I’m going to leave it there.
Right but God does so much cruel stuff in the old testament that it’s weird to miss and dispute that overall point.
Sure. But there’s a process.
We see prophets actually work. Jonah didn’t want to go to Nineveh, he wanted to jump straight to 6, but God had other plans. When God finally got him to go to Nineveh, the people listened, repented, and judgment was avoided. The reason Jonah didn’t want to go is that he thought there was a strong possibility of that outcome and he wanted the Ninevites to suffer judgment.
Hmm… just noticed the sidebar. This defence of the OT probably violates Rule 1. Forget the above, yay God, what a dick, punishing people for being evil!