Top 10 Bible Stories for Children

May 29, 2007 at 4:39 pm 135 comments

Samson Jonah and the Whale Noah and the Ark

1. David and Goliath

In this story, David kills Goliath with a stone and a sling. He then cuts off Goliath’s head with his own sword and parades the head around. Lovely!

2. Samson and Delilah

First, Samson kills 30 men for their belongings and clothes. He then captures 300 foxes and lights their tails on fire. After this he goes on to kill 1,000 men with the jawbone of an ass. And finally, he commits suicide and in the process kills 3,000 men and women. It should be noted that whenever he would kill, it is noted that “the Spirit of the Lord” came on him with power. I did skip the sex and seduction part. I’m not sure the kids could handle that.

3. Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego

These 3 were thrown into a fiery furnace to be burned to death. The fire was so hot that it killed the soldiers who threw them into the furnace. Of course, God spared the lives of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego. By the way, these are the 3 coolest names in the Bible. Too bad more people don’t use them in naming their kids. We have too many Pauls, Peters, Daniels, Johns, etc. Think about how cool it would be to be named Abednego.

4. Noah and the Flood

In this story, God commits the genocides of all genocides. He wipes out all living creatures of the world with a flood (except Noah, his family, and 2 each of the millions of species on the earth). Wikipedia estimates the human population in the third millineum BCE to be around 30 million. Can you imagine the stench of the earth after the flood waters receded? In case you didn’t know, this is how the dinosaurs went extinct. They couldn’t fit into the Ark I guess.

5. Daniel in the Lion’s Den

Daniel is thrown into a den of lions to be eaten alive. After God saved him from the lions, the men who accused him, along with their wives and children were thrown in the den of lions who “overpowered them and crushed all their bones.” Poor kids. What did they do to deserve being eaten by lions?

6. Jonah and the Whale

Jonah gets swallowed by a big fish but survives for 3 days and 3 nights in its belly. This actually is one of the few stories that does not include violence. In fact, God is suddenly compassionate and does not destroy Nineveh as he promised to do, and Jonah gets “angry enough to die” because of this. What a guy!

7. Joshua and the Walls of Jericho

Here Joshua and his army marches around the city of Jericho and the walls fell. They then go into Jericho and commit genocide. They “destroyed with the sword every living thing in it—men and women, young and old, cattle, sheep and donkeys.” Did you know archeologists found the walls of Jericho? :)

8. Moses and the Red Sea

Moses parts the Red Sea and the Children of Israel safely crosses over. He then drowns Pharaoh and his entire army in the sea- which inspired a worship song. Anyone remember singing it? “I will sing unto the Lord for he has thriumphed gloriously, the horse and the rider thrown into the sea.” Wow, I almost want to get up and do the charismatic two-step now. Oh! Archeologists found this spot in the Red Sea also.

9. Lot’s Wife and the City of Sodom and Gomorrah

God reigns down fire and brimstone from heaven on the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah killing everyone there. Lot’s wife looks back at the destruction and dies by becoming a “pillar of salt” (which remained in place for a while so that others could walk by and remember Lot’s wife).

10. The Passion of Christ

No Top Ten would be complete without this story. Here Jesus is supposedly beaten beyond recognition, had a crown of thorns placed on his head, nailed to a cross, and pierced with a sword. Of course, this was necessary because this story is all about the blood.

Moses and the Red Sea Lot’s Wife Jesus on the Cross

- The de-Convert

Entry filed under: The de-Convert. Tags: , , , , , , , , , .

Religion: Natural Phenomenon? Apostasy – it’s not just for Christians anymore

135 Comments Add your own

  • 1. agnosticatheist  |  May 29, 2007 at 4:51 pm

    You need to replace Jonah and the Whale. Nobody died. No blood. No guts. No gore. The kids won’t like that!

    I’ll think of suggestions. Anyone else have any?

    aA

  • 2. Heather  |  May 29, 2007 at 5:44 pm

    Wow. If Disney tried stories like that, in all the lovely details, the same parents who so happily share these stories with their children would have a fit.

  • 3. Mickey  |  May 29, 2007 at 6:35 pm

    Want guts? How about Judas’ suicide?

  • 4. Matt  |  May 29, 2007 at 6:55 pm

    I’d actually include the story how the man offered his daughter to a mob so she could be gang raped instead of his male guest.

  • 5. Karen  |  May 29, 2007 at 7:20 pm

    I did skip the sex and seduction part. I’m not sure the kids could handle that.

    True story: I was in a group called Bible Study Fellowship for about 5 or 6 years. My husband is still a leader in our local men’s BSF group. Our children attended with me for many years.

    This is a very serious and thorough study of the bible, not a “glossing over” out of context. What I found when helping them with their studies is that I was actually censoring some of the most distasteful stuff – like the incest and the worst violence. It was hideous to try to explain all the nitty-gritty to them, because they were just too young.

    That experience should have been a warning sign for me. In fact, now that I think about it, maybe it was! It wasn’t long after that when I first started questioning for myself.

    Anyone remember singing it? “I will sing unto the Lord for he has thriumphed gloriously, the horse and the rider thrown into the sea.”

    Oh, you betcha! Yet it never occurred to me we were “celebrating” a genocide. More of that “fog of belief” stuff, I guess.

    Jonah gets swallowed by a big fish but survives for 3 days and 3 nights in its belly. This actually is one of the few stories that does not include violence. In fact, God is suddenly compassionate and does not destroy Nineveh as he promised to do, and Jonah gets “angry enough to die” because of this. What a guy!

    I remember a sermon once where the pastor claimed he had “evidence” that this was a literal account of an event. I think he even had news clippings of people who’d been inside of whales (?) at least briefly and survived. Very weird.

  • 6. HeIsSailing  |  May 29, 2007 at 7:30 pm

    I had a really great Bible picture book when I was a kid. It was almost like it was made for adults – for some reason my mom took it away from me. It had everything in it – I mean it even included scenes of such obscure figures as Haggai and Zechariah prophecying! Anyway, my favorite stories were never the bloody ones. Just to show you what a nerd I was as a kid, consider these favorities from my childhood:

    1) The Adam and Eve story. I still love it as a piece of mythology. But the wonder of imagining a land of paradise where man did no labor, mists cooled the ground, and snakes talked was great fun for me to think about.

    2) The story of Balaam (Num 22). What is more fun than a talking snake? A talking donkey of course!

    3) Job’s torment (Job 1,2) OK, I guess this is as bloody as it gets. I did love this horrible story for some reason. Maybe replace the Jonah story with this?

    4) The Valley of Dry Bones (Ezek 37) I thought this was a real event when I was a kid! Awesome – an army of undead soldiers!! What more could a boy want? Only later when I read the actual passage did I find out it was a vision to represent the re-emergence of Israel. But no zombies. Bummer.

    5) The Late Great Planet Earth by Hal Lindsay – OK, it is not a Bible story, but it might as well have been when I was growing up. It was my generation’s version of the Left Behind series, where the Antichrist emerges out of the revived Roman Empire and wrecks havoc on planet earth with his one world economy. And an A-Bomb thrown in for good measure! More fun than the Terminator. Awesome Stuff!!

  • 7. beepbeepitsme  |  May 29, 2007 at 8:12 pm

    Bible stories are good old-fashioned family entertainment doncha know..

  • 8. Heather  |  May 29, 2007 at 9:11 pm

    Karen,

    **What I found when helping them with their studies is that I was actually censoring some of the most distasteful stuff – like the incest and the worst violence. It was hideous to try to explain all the nitty-gritty to them, because they were just too young.** That’s really interesting that you’d mention this. I’m sure everyone is familiar with Nichole Nordeman, but she writes a monthly thing for … ‘Christianity Today,’ I believe, and posts them the month after on her website.

    Anyway, she mentioned that she wanted to get started on her son’s (two year old) faith as soon as possible, and so pulled out Old Testament stories … and ran into a problem, because of all the violence and incest and just overall nasty stuff in there. She eventually read him a train story, instead.

    I was always puzzled as to why she saw no difficulties with it, though. If she was bothered by telling stories like that to her son, shouldn’t that be a warning sign?

  • 9. Bryan  |  May 29, 2007 at 11:07 pm

    Samson did not commit suicide. He was a Martyr.

  • 10. HeIsSailing  |  May 29, 2007 at 11:23 pm

    Karen sez:
    “What I found when helping them with their studies is that I was actually censoring some of the most distasteful stuff – like the incest and the worst violence.”

    I did the same thing with Bible studies with my wife shen she expressed an interest to learn more about the Bible. I caught myself steering clear of embarrassing passages – and that is also when I knew there was a real problem.

  • 11. agnosticatheist  |  May 29, 2007 at 11:35 pm

    Bryan,

    I guess Samson would be a Martyr if you also consider suicide bombers martyrs. There are many who view this as terrorism. I guess you can say that Samson was a model for radical religious terrorists.

    aA

  • 12. agnosticatheist  |  May 29, 2007 at 11:41 pm

    HIS,

    Job should definitely make the list. Great story. Nothing like the cosmic battle between God and Satan where God allowed Satan to kill Job’s kids. No biggie though, God would blessed with more. Hmmm… Not sure that logic would work on anyone here…

    Just as an aside, I believe Job’s 10 kids are the only people Satan killed in the entire Bible but God is listed as killing millions. Interesting to think about that, isn’t it?

    aA

  • 13. agnosticatheist  |  May 29, 2007 at 11:55 pm

    Matt,

    I’d actually include the story how the man offered his daughter to a mob so she could be gang raped instead of his male guest.

    I recently discovered that this was such a great story that it’s repeated twice in the Bible.

    Lot & the angels

    and again in Judges:

    Concubine raped, abused, killed, then cut into 12 pieces
    aA

  • 14. Mothandrust  |  May 30, 2007 at 6:07 am

    How about Jael pluggin the guy in the head with a tent peg. That was a fun camping story and empowering girly stuff… like Buffy the Vampire slayer.

  • 15. HeIsSailing  |  May 30, 2007 at 7:03 am

    Aa sez:
    “Just as an aside, I believe Job’s 10 kids are the only people Satan killed in the entire Bible but God is listed as killing millions.”

    As Ed McMahon used to say, You are correct, sir!

  • 16. storbakken  |  May 30, 2007 at 10:01 pm

    I understand it’d be kinda boring to talk solely about atheism without religion providing the context but I have to ask, is this blog dedicated to exploring atheism and agnosticisim or to explicitly propagating antiChristian sentiments? Just wonderin’.

  • 17. agnosticatheist  |  May 31, 2007 at 12:31 am

    storbakken,
    Hey now! HIS addressed Islam in his blog today. Equal opportunity sentiments.
    If you read the little Welcome notice on the sidebar, here’s what it says:

    We cannot prove there isn’t a God but we do know that the God of Judaism, Christianity, & Islam is based on the perceptions of a nomadic ancient Middle Eastern tribe and should be viewed critically – as should the holy books of these religions. This blog attempts to critically, but respectfully, address issues with religious ideologies, especially Christianity, while introducing our readers to atheism. If you are a deconverted or skeptical Christian, you may find these discussions interesting.

    In believe essence this blog is more about de-converting from religion (primarily Christianity).

    For me personally, I am very open to God. Anytime God wants to have a chat w/me, I’m right here. It’s pretty simple. I’m just not interested in taking the word of ancient cultures…. Bring me my burning bush – my talking snake, talking donkey, thundering voice from a mountain, manna from heaven, pillar of fire by night, miracles (such as amputated legs growing back)…. I’m ready! Are you?

  • 18. agnosticatheist  |  May 31, 2007 at 12:32 am

    BTW, Can you point out any glaring errors in this post? I believe The de-Convert stayed pretty true to the text. Don’t you think? Maybe he’s being used by God, in spite of his unbelief, to spread the Word. Isn’t that a possibility?

  • 19. RandomChristian  |  May 31, 2007 at 8:47 am

    You cannot simply list the actual accounts of these stories without also including the context in which they were set. God has a higher purpose for all things and it is many times beyond our understanding. Our finite minds cannot comprehend God. His ways are not our ways. His thoughts are not our thoughts.

    This blog is a great example of humans trying to figure out God. You will fail and you will ramble on about things you do not comprehend.

    RC

  • 20. HeIsSailing  |  May 31, 2007 at 1:52 pm

    A Random Christian sez:
    “You cannot simply list the actual accounts of these stories without also including the context in which they were set. God has a higher purpose for all things and it is many times beyond our understanding.”

    OK. Can you take some of the stories listed above, and put them in their proper context so that they make some sense? I listed Balaam’s talking donkey, which is obviously mythological, but any of the stories listed above will do. In what contextual setting do we place, for instance, the talking donkey story so that it makes sense? Please illuminate. My mind is open.

  • 21. Tava  |  May 31, 2007 at 1:57 pm

    HellSail, you’re mind is not open. You said you believe it is obviously mythological. How can your mind be open after you have already come to a conclusion?

  • 22. Radec  |  May 31, 2007 at 2:04 pm

    **Tava said – Hellsail, your mind is not open…**

    HellSail? I wondering if this was intentional. :)

  • 23. HeIsSailing  |  May 31, 2007 at 2:06 pm

    Tava asks:
    “HellSail, you’re mind is not open. You said you believe it is obviously mythological. How can your mind be open after you have already come to a conclusion?”

    Tava, how do I know it is mythological?
    Because it has a *talking donkey* in it.

    Assuming you are a Christian, your job is to show, not only that God could and would make a donkey talk, but show *why* would God do this? Why would God do this in the culture and climate of Numbers, but not in our 21st century world? Taken on it own, this story makes little sense. But this is where context comes in.

    I am certain about many things in life, but I am also wise enough to know I don’t know everything. I will change my mind about these things if I have good reason to do so. And in that sense, my mind is open.

  • 24. Heather  |  May 31, 2007 at 2:34 pm

    **Tava, how do I know it is mythological?
    Because it has a *talking donkey* in it.**

    I would agree with this. If we saw a talking donkey in any other context, we would immediatly conclude that the story is a fairy tale, fable, or myth — to sum up, it was fabricated. If we read the talking donkey story without ever learning it was in the Bible, we’d reach the same conclusion.

    ** it is many times beyond our understanding** That would seem odd, given that Jesus uses parables, which would engage the understanding. Plus, if it’s beyond our understanding that much, why bother reading it? How can you know what to believe unless there’s a firm grasp of the subject matter.

  • 25. Anonymous  |  May 31, 2007 at 6:07 pm

    Atheism—Because atheistic humanism falsely seeks man and human glory and rejects God, atheism is a grave sin (CCC 2125). It is a sin against the virtue of religion. St. Paul tells us, “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all unholiness and injustice of those men that detain the truth of God in injustice” (Romans 1:18).

  • 26. Rhonda  |  September 5, 2007 at 2:34 pm

    I also think Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego are cool names. We had a mother cat have kittens under some brush, but we didn’t know it. We had started a bonfire and heard meows. A friend of ours got the kittens out. There were 3 of them and we named them Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego.

  • 27. Drew  |  May 11, 2008 at 6:20 pm

    Seems fitting given the presence of fire :)

  • 28. Burning Books « R.W. Ridley  |  June 7, 2008 at 6:17 pm

    [...] is “Gross, Gore, Evil, Blood, Guts…,” but I’m pretty sure you could say the same of the Bible.  Don’t get me wrong, The Oz Chronicles is not a religious or Christian series.  It’s a just [...]

  • 29. Sandy Ruiz  |  February 23, 2009 at 2:10 pm

    Whoever wrote this has taken what they want from these stories and destryed the whole meaning of it. Thre was good and bad things that happened in the bible but to mock these stories is a disgrace and may God have mercy on you fro doing so.

  • 30. Josh (guitarstrummr)  |  February 23, 2009 at 2:35 pm

    Seems to me that God is not child-friendly. Can we G rate these stories or do we have to actually communicate what they actually say?

  • 31. LeoPardus  |  February 23, 2009 at 2:45 pm

    Sandy:

    It does your case no good for you to fail to proofread your own postings. “Thre was good and bad things that happened in the bible ” You missed an ‘e'; Bible is supposed to be capitalized; ‘was’ is singular, ‘things’ is plural. Three glaring errors in one sentence fragment. Now if you have been diagnosed with dyslexia, or if English is a foreign language for you, then you have some excuse. Otherwise this sort of sloppy, lazy, lousy writing just tends to confirm in the mind of all who read your writing, that Christians are stupid and unthinking.

    Of course we all assume that this was just a ‘drive by and shoot’ post anyway, so we won’t even get an angry flame back from you.

  • 32. LeoPardus  |  February 23, 2009 at 2:48 pm

    Say!!!! The story of Onan needs to be put in more children’s books.

    and how about when David took a city and then started sawing and cooking the citizens?

    And don’t forget to include the tribe of Benjamin (I think it was Benjamin) stealing wives.

    There are so many great-for-children stories.

  • 33. SnugglyBuffalo  |  February 23, 2009 at 2:54 pm

    I love it when people say you’re taking things like this out of context. In what context is the murder of innocent children not considered absolutely vile?

  • 34. orDover  |  February 23, 2009 at 4:31 pm

    This reminds me of something I made not too long ago:

    Aw. You gotta love ole pumpkin-head.

  • 35. LeoPardus  |  February 23, 2009 at 5:57 pm

    You know those Bible stories are supposed to be there to teach us things right? So here are some more great stories for kiddies from the Bible, and the morals are spelled right out for ya kids!!!
    ————————————-
    Elijah, a wise man, yet one cursed with advanced baldness, was was minding his own business one day when he was beset by a band of children who teased him with names like “bald head.” Well Elijah was having none of this. He turned ’round and cursed them in the name of the Lord, and instantly two bears emerged from a nearby woods and mauled 42 children.
    The moral of this story? Don’t make fun of bald people. I think this serves as an excellent lesson for children who think baldness is something to be made fun of.
    ——————————————
    God slew Judah’s son Er for some reason or other, so Judah, the head of the clan gave Onan (Er’s brother) the right, nay the duty, to have sex with his dead brother’s wife. Onan, a bit apprehensively, agrees to go through with this bizarre scheme to create a ‘true heir’ for Er. He begins to have sex with the girl, but then decides to pull out and “spill his seed upon the ground.” God is so irked he decides to kill Onan too, and thus nobody gets an heir.
    The moral of this story? In the words of Monty Python, “Every sperm is sacred. Every sperm is great. If a sperm is wasted, God will be irate.”
    ————————————–
    David desperately wants to marry Saul’s daughter Michal and offers Saul anything he wants to let him marry her. What could Saul possibly want? Money? A vow of love? No. Saul wants foreskins. 100 to be exact. Why? Who cares. If you want my daughter, you’re going to have to find 100 foreskins by tomorrow. David finds this odd, but then again this girl is hot, so he goes out and kills 200 men, and collects their foreskins. It’s only then he remembers that he only needs 100 foreskins. Oops. Oh well, maybe if he hands over twice as many foreskins, Saul will be doubly as impressed. Indeed he is and duly hands over his daughter to David.
    The moral of this story? Never be ashamed to do crazy things for love.
    ———————————————–
    Jesus is walking along the road and he’s feeling a bit hungry. He comes up to a fig tree and looks for some fruit on it. Unfortunately it’s the off season for figs, so the tree is barren. Annoyed, Jesus, in an act of uncharacteristic rashness, curses the fig tree and causes it to whither. OK, so he’s hungry, and we all get a little cranky when hungry, but come on, the fig tree had done nothing wrong. This seems like abuse of powers to me.
    The moral of this story? Don’t disobey Jesus, even if you’re an inanimate tree.

  • 36. SnugglyBuffalo  |  February 23, 2009 at 7:10 pm

    Seems like a good time to link a couple of Bob the Angry Flower comics:

    http://www.angryflower.com/bibjud.html

    http://www.angryflower.com/bibbal.html

  • 37. The de-Convert  |  February 23, 2009 at 10:11 pm

    Here’s one of my many unfinished projects:

    http://literalbible.blogspot.com/

  • 38. paleale  |  February 24, 2009 at 2:13 am

    Looks like Josh’s summary of the Bible got some folks attention.

    Nice.

    I remember my Sunday school teacher, who was a bit reminiscent of Mrs. Gulch from the Wizard of Oz, laughing her head off at the foolishness of any of those slain by God for being stupid enough to get in his way. She actually thought it was funny! And this is when I was, say… 9 or so? Crazy.

  • 39. Ubi Dubium  |  February 24, 2009 at 8:14 am

    Also looks like a good place to link to one of my favorites: The Brick Testament
    It’s the bible, especially all the nasty bloody parts, illustrated in Legos. It’s great fun!

  • 40. Josh (guitarstrummr)  |  February 24, 2009 at 12:27 pm

    “Looks like Josh’s summary of the Bible got some folks attention. ”

    Bring it.
    :)

  • 41. SRK  |  February 24, 2009 at 12:53 pm

    How about the story of fat King Eglon who was stabbed by Ehud and his fat enveloped the sword? Ehud was then able to escape because Eglon’s attendants thought he was relieving himself and they didn’t want to disturb him. It’s my personal favorite. Of course no one read that to me until I was much older.

  • 42. Josh (guitarstrummr)  |  February 24, 2009 at 12:56 pm

    My personal favorites include – but are not limited to – when Jesus kills Jezebel – and her babies (in Revelation). Ew!

    Or how about the one where the man after God’s own heart has fun sleeping with a hot chick who was married, then kills her husband when she gets pregnant, and then God – instead of punishing that man – kills the baby instead! Ew!

    Or what about the guy who took the woman who had been raped and sends her body parts to every tribe in Israel? Ew!

  • 43. LeoPardus  |  February 24, 2009 at 1:05 pm

    And don’t forget when god told the Israelites to kill all the Midianites but keep the virgins. WeeeeHawww!

  • 44. Yurka  |  February 24, 2009 at 2:44 pm

    Some laws deal with situations that it would be inappropriate to describe to children (such as murder, rape, etc.)

    Therefore, all laws should be abolished.

    Or perhaps I’ve missed the point of this post. If you can dig up a verse saying the Bible is actually a transcript of Romper Room, then I’d say you’ve finally found some genuine contradictions.

    “But you’ve missed the point! We never said that!”. Uh-huh. Fine. What is the point?

  • 45. SnugglyBuffalo  |  February 24, 2009 at 2:52 pm

    Are you really going to compare laws that prohibit violence with Bible verses that condone it? C’mon, Yurka, you’re not even trying anymore.

  • 46. Josh (guitarstrummr)  |  February 24, 2009 at 3:26 pm

    Yurka,

    God says children should not be punished for the sins of their fathers, which every single one of us de-converts agrees is a good principle (can I hear an “amen”, skeptics?).

    Then God kills the baby of David and Bathsheba as punishment for David’s sin.

    Conclusion?

    God is a hypocrite.

    Or

    God is invented.

    The point of this post (if I get it correctly) is just to highlight how silly these stories are when compared to what Christians today actually believe, therefore highlighting that the source of Christian morals is actually more depraved than the average Christian today. This is demonstrated by showing that Christians do not teach their children the Bible, they teach them modern principles and then claim they come from the Bible. Which is only half the story…

  • 47. Josh (guitarstrummr)  |  February 24, 2009 at 3:27 pm

    Yurka,

    I truly hope the light pops on for you one of these days.

  • 48. LeoPardus  |  February 24, 2009 at 3:30 pm

    Yurka :: master of the non sequitur

  • 49. Josh (guitarstrummr)  |  February 24, 2009 at 3:43 pm

    LeoPardus,

    There has to be a spiritual gift for brilliant sarcasm like yours.

  • 50. BigHouse  |  February 24, 2009 at 4:25 pm

    Yurka,

    God says children should not be punished for the sins of their fathers, which every single one of us de-converts agrees is a good principle (can I hear an “amen”, skeptics?).

    Then God kills the baby of David and Bathsheba as punishment for David’s sin.

    Conclusion?

    God is a hypocrite.

    Or

    God is invented.

    An even more stark example of this, Josh, is EVERY MAN is guilty of Adam and Eve’s orignal sin.

  • 51. LeoPardus  |  February 24, 2009 at 5:32 pm

    Josh:

    Maybe it’s a gift… or maybe it’s the result of long and patient nurturing…. plus practice, practice, practice :)

  • 52. Josh (guitarstrummr)  |  February 24, 2009 at 5:37 pm

    “Maybe it’s a gift… or maybe it’s the result of long and patient nurturing…. plus practice, practice, practice”

    From what I’ve seen in churches…. what’s the difference?

  • 53. paleale  |  February 24, 2009 at 6:19 pm

    From what I’ve seen in churches…. what’s the difference?

    ba ZING! ba da BOW!

    Concerning God killing David’s son and his desire to not punish the children for the sins of the father, I had never put those two together. That’s a silver bullet if I ever saw one. Not to mention how we’re ALL punished for the sins of Adam and Eve.

  • 54. paleale  |  February 24, 2009 at 6:35 pm

    Yurka, do you have kids? If not then you probably shouldn’t.

    Being a parent myself, I feel pretty protective of my 9 year old, as any parent should. I keep a very close eye on what he takes in from TV or the internet. No violence, etc. But when I think back to what I was exposed as a child from the Bible it would seem like utter insanity to expose a child to the ‘morals’ which are displayed in the stories listed above and in subsequent posts. I mean, this is GRUESOME STUFF that I was taught from the time that I was 5 years old, maybe younger. And what we think of as despicable from any man on earth, we’re taught to give license to God. Genocide, murder, torture are all legal for him simply because he owns the place. We put people in jail for torturing their pets. And I can only assume that you don’t condone child abuse. Yet for those who believe we are all ‘God’s children’ he is given permission to commit child abuse on a cosmic scale. And then you claim to get your ‘morality’ from God.

    Yurka, open your freaking eyes. The God of Christianity is just another invented deity that possesses the same brutal traits of his inventors– bronze age, desert dwelling, middle-eastern tribesmen that believed the earth was flat and the sky was made of metal.

  • 55. Jeffrey  |  February 24, 2009 at 7:25 pm

    >EVERY MAN is guilty of Adam and Eve’s orignal sin.

    What? Adam is my representative? I didn’t vote for him. I’d think that if I can be punished eternally for things he did wrong, I should at least get a vote. When is he up for re-election? I’d like to vote for the other guy or maybe even third party. I guess it just figures that the politicians in the spiritual realm are every bit as horrid as the politicians down here.

    (Thomas Paine(?) paraphrased – if anyone knows the real quote, I’ve been looking for it for a while.)

  • 56. Josh (guitarstrummr)  |  February 24, 2009 at 8:00 pm

    Oh my. What a good conversation. I just thought of something.

    Growing up my mom always espoused the “remove temptation” concept.

    Is it not ironic that God opened up this massive source of temptation in the garden for Adam?

    What if God had told Adam what my mom wisely told me as a child: “Hey Adam buddy, in order to avoid sinning you should remove the source of temptation.”

    Why didn’t Adam just cut the damn tree down? That would have saved us all this cursing and bloodshed crap. No. Instead God was a good father and planted a temptation right in front of Adam’s freaking eyes and did not give him advice for how to flee it. None of this at all. What a good father God is.

    Then he LETS the freaking serpent into the garden.

    Unbelievable.

  • 57. Yurka  |  February 24, 2009 at 8:47 pm

    I’m glad it’s clarified – this thread isn’t about suitability for children (as some of the points hinted at), but about the fact that you think God behaves immorally.

    You are all forgetting that you cannot judge God according to your perspective since he a) knows more than you about factual data (what X would do in particular circumstances, what Y has done but kept secret, etc), b) has an uncorrupted sense of justice and righteousness, c) has the prerogatives of being your creator. Hence when he makes certain decisions, it doesn’t make sense to go on as if he must act from the same knowledge and privilege that you have.

    #56 Adam wasn’t some pathetic weak willed lardball who has to hide the cookies. Why do you think he needed to play these pathetic games with himself? If he thought it best to eat of the tree, he eats from it. If not, he’d obey. He along with Eve evidently believed the serpent’s lie.

    And remember last of all, the fact that there is brutality in the bible is really indicative of how utterly depraved people are. It does not at all reflect on God’s character.

  • 58. Yurka  |  February 24, 2009 at 9:02 pm

    #46 You are horrified at David’s son, yet if God exists, he measures out everyone’s life, and has been since Adam. Why is this one example so offensive? The only difference is that here God gives special revelation as to what is going on in this one instance.

  • 59. guitarstrummr  |  February 24, 2009 at 9:24 pm

    “You are all forgetting that you cannot judge God according to your perspective since he a) knows more than you about factual data”

    Yurka, okay, seriously, Just stop. You are completely ignoring everything we say and even I (with more patience than most on here) am getting completely fed up with it. Start thinking or go find somewhere else to spout your nonsense.

    Deal seriously with the issues or stop thinking completely.

  • 60. paleale  |  February 24, 2009 at 9:30 pm

    Yurka, the stories are unsuitable for children BECAUSE of the immorality of god and his unrestrained brutality as depicted in the bible. Way to put 2 and 2 together buddy. I think you came up with the imaginary number ‘threeve’.

    As far as God’s uncorrupted sense of justice and righteousness goes, how is that Moses was able to plead with God and get him to change his mind when he had already determined (according to his uncorrupted sense of justice and righteousness) that the Jews should all be killed?

    RE: 58 please tell us all why you don’t find the idea of God admittedly killing someone’s baby as punishment for a crime offensive. ARE YOU FREAKING KIDDING ME? You’re really starting to scare me, Yurka. I hope you don’t live on my street.

  • 61. paleale  |  February 24, 2009 at 9:33 pm

    Just in case the 2nd paragraph was a bit too vague,

    If Moses argued and won against God’s decision, it means that either A: God’s original judgment was corrupted and Moses steered him onto the right track or B: Moses himself corrupted God’s judgment with his plea. Which is it, Yurka?

  • 62. Jeffrey  |  February 24, 2009 at 10:02 pm

    >And remember last of all, the fact that there is brutality in the bible is really indicative of how utterly depraved people are. It does not at all reflect on God’s character.

    If you’re talking about stuff like Lot’s sin, sure. But a lot of the brutal stuff we are talking about is stuff God ordered people to do. As LeoPardus mentioned in 43, in Numbers 31 God tells Moses to commit genocide. This very much does reflect on God’s character.

    The word “justice” has meaning. It’s not putty that can be bend however you want. One thing “justice” doesn’t mean is to intentionally kill kids for their parents’ sins. If God sends people to hell for refusing to use the word “justice” to describe things that do not fall under the definition of justice, then to hell I must go.

  • 63. Luke  |  February 24, 2009 at 11:44 pm

    @Yurka,

    if we cannot judge God because he’s a b & c, okay got that but what makes Yurka so sure that God’s a he in the first place? if God is a he, does he have a penis? and if so, when does he use it?

  • 64. orDover  |  February 25, 2009 at 3:46 am

    More importantly, if we cannot judge God, or evaluate his actions, how are we supposed to decide that he is real, loving, and thus worthy of our faith and worship?

  • 65. Yurka  |  February 25, 2009 at 9:47 am

    #60,61how is that Moses was able to plead with God and get him to change his mind when he had already determined (according to his uncorrupted sense of justice and righteousness) that the Jews should all be killed?

    I believe Moses is acting here as a type of Christ. His intercession is the means by which God’s mercy comes to the unworthy Israelites, who deserved death as we deserve hell. And God intended this from the beginning. The way to read this (not the Open theist) is that this is a narrative passage – it describes the situation as it appeared to Moses. But prophetic passages (like Is 46:10) whose purpose is to describe God state that he”s omniscient. So God’s original judgment can be correct (they deserved death), but God knew what Moses would do, it was to test Moses (as with Isaac) so Moses didn’t corrupt him.

    RE: 58 please tell us all why you don’t find the idea of God admittedly killing someone’s baby as punishment for a crime offensive.
    Of course it is monstrous if humans do it, since we have no right. We did not create the baby’s soul. But you seem to imply that given the facts of this world, it is a priori impossible to believe in God, since God decrees all deaths (or at least allows them when he can prevent them), including infant deaths. Given God’s perspective, their might be morally sufficient reasons, the child might be better off. Even the fact david feasted afterwards suggestted he had assurance God took him to heaven. Of course it would be pastorally callous to say this to someone who’s grieving, but in the long run this is the only view that gives comfort.

    #63,64 I don’t think God’s justice is as alien as that – I mean we can’t judge him the same way that if a primitive man were given an innoculation that made him feel slightly ill for a time, he can’t judge the doctor as evil. One thing that always convinces me of God’s justice – I don’t know how I or any of us would behave in other circumstances. I might be the depraved baby killing Canaanite, southern kidnapping slaver, Nazi. Who knows what could happen if we were conditioned in evil situations like that? People are naturally evil. It is only from the borrowed capital of the Judeo-Christian tradition (such as William Wilberforce) that humanity has risen above this (Dinesh D’Souza gives excellent argumetns for this).

  • 66. Ubi Dubium  |  February 25, 2009 at 9:59 am

    Did Yurka just say “Dinesh D’Souza” and “excellent” in the same sentence?” And that sentence did not include the word “not”?? I think that about sums up the level he is arguing at. I recommend ignoring him.

  • 67. Josh (guitarstrummr)  |  February 25, 2009 at 10:35 am

    Yurka: “I believe Moses is acting here…”

    Yurka, what tools do we use to validate your belief here? Truth is not one gives a rats little toe (I restrained myself, guys) what you “believe”. Honestly, who cares? Your beliefs do not necessarily reflect reality.

    To what common source do you appeal to validate your “belief” that Moses is acting as a type of Christ? How do we know you didn’t just make this up?

    We care about whether a person’s claims are true or not, not how faithful you are to them.

  • 68. Josh (guitarstrummr)  |  February 25, 2009 at 10:39 am

    Yurka,

    Listen. I’ve given you plenty of time. I’ve taken hours out of my day to respond to you. All I ask is that you back up the things you say like a good student does on his papers in grade school. If you are unwilling to do this then I – with Ubi – see no reason to talk to you at all.

    We are all willing to back up our claims. You are not. This demonstrates that we are willing to learn. You are not. End of story.

  • 69. Yurka  |  February 25, 2009 at 11:34 am

    67 -Yurka, what tools do we use to validate your belief here?

    I didn’t mean by belief I was just making it up -I don’t do that. Liberals do. This is the standard way to approach this – the typology approach. Matthew Henry said almost the exact same thing and I’d never even read that commentary of his before.
    There is precedent for this in the NT – Heb 9:11-14 ( OT sacrifices were a ‘type’ of Christ), Jn 3:12 (brazen serpent a type of Christ) – this isn’t alien, ‘free association’ hermeneutics foisted on the bible.

  • 70. Josh (guitarstrummr)  |  February 25, 2009 at 11:47 am

    “This is the standard way to approach this – the typology approach.”

    How is this the standard way? Can you demonstrate why this standard is accurate?

  • 71. LeoPardus  |  February 25, 2009 at 11:52 am

    It is in some measure good to see that many of the rest of the regs here are getting as sick of Mr Shit-for-brains as I have been for some time.
    About the only good purpose to his existence is that he probably helps as many people out of the faith as all of us do together.

  • 72. Josh (guitarstrummr)  |  February 25, 2009 at 12:21 pm

    Yeah, I probably have too much patience, honestly. I figured people are willing to learn to think but I guess I’m wrong.

  • 73. SnugglyBuffalo  |  February 25, 2009 at 1:02 pm

    I didn’t mean by belief I was just making it up -I don’t do that. Liberals do.

    ZING! Seriously, though, can we avoid nonsense like this? I’ve seen the same kind of argument across the sociopolitical spectrum. Making shit up is not the sole purview of liberals, conservatives, or moderates.

    Also, the fact that the NT talks about things in the OT as “types of Christ” means nothing if you aren’t first presupposing the Bible’s truth.

    As for God’s baby-killin’ he doesn’t give us any morally justifiable reasons for what he does. He didn’t say he killed David’s baby because the child was better off dead. The only reason God gives us is punishment for David – any supposition that there may have been other, morally acceptable reasons is completely baseless, and shows that even you, Yurka, can’t accept the reasons God, himself, gave and have to try to invent new ones so that your god remains palatable.

  • 74. orDover  |  February 25, 2009 at 1:24 pm

    One thing that always convinces me of God’s justice – I don’t know how I or any of us would behave in other circumstances. I might be the depraved baby killing Canaanite, southern kidnapping slaver, Nazi. Who knows what could happen if we were conditioned in evil situations like that? People are naturally evil.

    What about the fact that the vast majority of people do not do evil things, even if they have never heard of the Christian God? There are plenty examples of Native Peoples who lived both without the Christian God and without killing babies or being Nazis. What about all of the moral atheists that populate counties like the Netherlands and Sweden, which both have very low crime rates?

  • 75. Luke  |  February 25, 2009 at 1:26 pm

    did you seriously just quote Matthew Henry? you’re dealing with a dead god in a box, yurka. have fun with that.

  • 76. paleale  |  February 25, 2009 at 2:20 pm

    I believe Moses is acting here as a type of Christ. His intercession is the means by which God’s mercy comes to the unworthy Israelites, who deserved death as we deserve hell. And God intended this from the beginning. The way to read this (not the Open theist) is that this is a narrative passage – it describes the situation as it appeared to Moses. But prophetic passages (like Is 46:10) whose purpose is to describe God state that he’’s omniscient. So God’s original judgment can be correct (they deserved death), but God knew what Moses would do, it was to test Moses (as with Isaac) so Moses didn’t corrupt him.

    I believe that Yurka, here is acting as a type of athlete. His mental gymnastic prowess is the means by which he completely avoids coming anywhere near the dangers of seeing this passage objectively. The way to read the above quote is to imagine an obstacle course consisting of a single hurdle, and Yurka flipping and vaulting, somersaulting, handspringing and pirouetting his way around it without ever actually jumping over the hurdle.

  • 77. Josh (guitarstrummr)  |  February 25, 2009 at 3:34 pm

    “…and Yurka flipping and vaulting, somersaulting, handspringing and pirouetting his way around it without ever actually jumping over the hurdle…”

    And then falling flat on his face and getting up and honestly not realizing he fell at all.

    Some people tell jokes. Their jokes bomb but they keep laughing. These people are not funny.

    Yurka tries logic…

  • 78. paleale  |  February 25, 2009 at 4:14 pm

    Some people tell jokes. Their jokes bomb but they keep laughing. These people are not funny.

    Yurka tries logic…

    Yeah, but Yurka’s logic is way funnier than a bad joke.

  • 79. ArchangelChuck  |  February 25, 2009 at 8:17 pm

    (suspended disbelief)

    If our morals are in line with God’s — which they are, unless you happen to think that acts like mass-murder, rape, and theft are morally acceptable — then yes, we can judge God.

    The rap sheet is long, and the verdict isn’t looking so good…

    (disbelief resumed)

  • 80. Josh (guitarstrummr)  |  February 25, 2009 at 9:06 pm

    Good point ArchangelChuck.

    If God tells us to do something, and then does that same thing himself, is he not a hypocrite by definition of the word?

    And is it not being an accomplice to God’s bad behavior if one tries to defend his actions by saying that God is “beyond our comprehension” and we cannot know his “true” motives?

    I do not want to be an accomplice to genocide, so I – for now – sit in judgment of the Hebrew God.

  • 81. Yurka  |  February 26, 2009 at 9:23 am

    79,80 can I at least suggest an alternative way of looking at the matter? We are like criminals in the prison yard. We have to behave orderly with respect to each other, we can defend ourselves if another inmate tries to kill us, but we don’t really have the right to judge others as more sinful than us and we don’t have the right to kill others. The judge does however. He has the right to sentence criminals to imprisonment or death, and it is simply incorrect of us to judge the judge as being immoral. This point is often lost in today’s morally relativistic world.

  • 82. Yurka  |  February 26, 2009 at 9:26 am

    And I don’t even have to bring in original sin to say we are criminals. All adults *have* sinned (it’s a done deal), and God knows the sins that infants would have committed.

  • 83. Josh (guitarstrummr)  |  February 26, 2009 at 10:47 am

    Yurka, your prison warden is invisible and imaginary.

    On the other hand, there are wardens who actually exist on this forum. They are visible and not imaginary.

    And if I were one of them, I would probably ban you until you came back and posted something intelligent.

    You are a troll.

  • 84. Josh (guitarstrummr)  |  February 26, 2009 at 11:34 am

    I honestly cannot believe. It is beyond my comprehension, that Yurka is defending the murder of a child because the baby “would have had it coming.” How sick.

  • 85. Quester  |  February 26, 2009 at 12:09 pm

    Josh,

    If you conclude that someone is a troll, the best thing to do is stop responding to that person, and keep from even referring to them in the third person. Yurka’s been commenting on this blog at least as long as I have, I think. He still hasn’t figured out the purpose of this blog- let alone learn anything- and has yet to come up with anything worth saying (indeed, from time to time I’ve wondered if he’s been posing as a theist as part of someone’s long-running joke). But he’s good at chasing away other would-be evangelists by explaining to them that they are not actually ‘true’ Christians who have received the obvious truths about God that he has. Indeed, I’ve noticed that when he disappears for a few weeks, the number of thoughtless theistical commenters increases painfully. He’s sort of like our scarecrow, in that way (which may go some distance to explaining all his strawman arguments).

    I freely admit that I haven’t actually compiled the statistics and may be suffering from some sort of confirmation bias, so feel free to read through the comments to past posts on this blog and test for yourself.

    Leo, hadn’t you written a post about how not to respond to trolls? I can’t seem to find it now.

  • 86. paleale  |  February 26, 2009 at 12:11 pm

    It’s because his faith is so precariously balanced, like a poorly played Jenga game, that if one block is nudged then the whole structure collapses. He can’t allow himself to consider another alternative because it would mean the destruction of his entire system of belief.

    If I believed there was a God, I would pray for Yurka.

  • 87. Josh (guitarstrummr)  |  February 26, 2009 at 12:47 pm

    “If you conclude that someone is a troll, the best thing to do is stop responding to that person, and keep from even referring to them in the third person.”

    Yes, I agree. I honestly did not “notice” Yurka until he started posting within the last several weeks and at first I thought he was genuinely interested in discussion, so it has taken me a few weeks to notice his trollish attitude (which I did not really see until the last few days).

    Feel free to call me out if I’m feeding trolls!

  • 88. paleale  |  February 26, 2009 at 12:56 pm

    You know, I’ve honestly wondered about the ‘long-running joke’ theory myself, but didn’t want to say anything. Nice pick-up on the scarecrow/strawman connection.

  • 89. Josh (guitarstrummr)  |  February 26, 2009 at 1:14 pm

    Oh my. If Jurka is a long-running joke that is the funniest shit I’ve ever seen.

  • 90. LeoPardus  |  February 26, 2009 at 4:14 pm

    Quester:

    scarecrow/strawman… Thanks for the chuckle. :)

    My old troll post was pulled down so as to put it back up fresh some other day should trolls get really out of hand again.

    I wonder.. could he really be a long running joke? Hmmmm….

  • 91. BigHouse  |  February 26, 2009 at 8:11 pm

    If Yurka’s judge/inmate analogy had any more holes in it, it’d be invisible.

    Long-running joke is as good a theory as any…

  • 92. Quester  |  February 27, 2009 at 4:21 pm

    I mean, seriously, he’s got Grumpy Smurf as an avatar. This has to be self-aware parody.

  • 93. jason  |  April 14, 2009 at 12:20 pm

    okay leah, i miss you loads.
    but the least you can do is
    tell me if u loove me or not
    .. :/ ino you want to have
    the baby but do u really
    think its the best thinng tbh
    i lOV33 yoou loooooads !!

  • 94. SupaDupaTroll  |  January 16, 2010 at 10:02 am

    I disagree.

    I was writing a rant but felt it was not worth posting.

    I think you are looking at some of this too shallowly, I know most will just do the quick out arguments so, oh well, my opinion.

    God Bless

  • 95. SupaDupaTroll  |  January 16, 2010 at 10:08 am

    Karen its Exodus 15:1 that you are remembering, and BING led me here because of your post :(

  • 96. CheezChoc  |  January 16, 2010 at 4:15 pm

    And let’s not leave out those uplifting verses about how parents should beat the you-know-what out of their kids to make them less wicked and more holy. Comforting words for the tykes, eh?

  • 97. Joe  |  January 19, 2010 at 7:54 pm

    CheezChoc—

    You mean these?

    He who spares the rod hates his son,
    but he who loves him is careful to discipline him. (13:24)

    Do not withhold discipline from a child;
    if you punish him with the rod, he will not die. (23:13)

    They’re not saying to beath the “you know what” out of your kids—-it’s saying if you love them you WILL discipline them. The phrase “the rod” can imply a physical correction, but it is mostly implying that you don’t leave your kids to their own devices—-he who does that inflicts more evil upon them than you could ever do with a paddle.

  • 98. CheezChoc  |  January 20, 2010 at 9:39 pm

    Well, you’ll have to go around the whole Internet and clarify this to the thousands who think inflicting bruises and welts on the kiddos will save them from perdition.

  • 99. BigHouse  |  January 21, 2010 at 9:20 pm

    Cheez, of course to many readers “the rod” is pretty plainly used literally in these verses. Proverbs 23:14 in the KJV states “Thou shalt beat him with the rod, and shalt deliver his soul from hell.”

    Of course if one is allowed to view the rod figuratively here, it’d be great to get the super secret decoder ring to know when you can do it and when you cannot. In my experience, people do it to make their presupposed beliefs feel better to them.

  • 100. Joe  |  January 22, 2010 at 12:02 pm

    I would point out that the verse is both literal and figurative—it is talking about discipline in general. There is no doubt it is talking about physical discipline. Where the problem lies is in the way the verse has been translated.

    In the old King James is says “beat him”, but almost every other modern translation will use “punish him” or “discipline” him with the rod. The word “beat” nowadays infers punishment for punishment’s sake—-and that is not what the verse is describing.

    It is a “punishmnet” given because one loves someone enough to correct them. A mother might spank her 5 year old for starting to walk across the street alone. The child remembers the spanking and doesn’t attempt the walk again—the spanking didn’t cause the child to die—-but the child could die if one witheld the discipline—as a child needs direction, and one to tell them what is right and wrong for their own good.

  • 101. Frreal  |  January 22, 2010 at 4:25 pm

    Has it already been 2 weeks Joe? Time sure flies……

    Why don’t you address Lot offering to let the mob outside gang rape his virgin daughters if only they would not molest the male angels. The sick morality of offering your daughters aside… why would Lot feel the need to protect what I assume to be very powerful entities. Wouldn’t he most likely be begging the supernatural beings to SAVE his family from the scary mob?

    Also please feel free to reconcile the fact that so many verses applaud Lot for being a righteous man.

  • 102. Joe  |  January 22, 2010 at 6:37 pm

    “sock” it to me! :)

  • 103. Joe  |  January 22, 2010 at 6:43 pm

    Not sure how we went from Proverbs and discipline to Lot and his daughters. I’m sure there must be some understandable connection. That reminds me, since we are on the subject, did you hear how much Conan O’Brien is getting paid? Lot would roll in his grave, and so would the writer of Proverbs.

  • 104. CheezChoc  |  January 22, 2010 at 6:47 pm

    I assume that Frreal is pointing out how confusing it is to figure out if we are supposed to take a verse literally or figuratively, how to interpret it, how to translate it, whether we take it out of context or it’s supposed to be timeless wisdom, etc. (Frreal, correct me if I’m wrong. Just don’t hit me. :) )

    That said, there are still a great many literalists who hang on every word uttered by people like James beat-your-kids-with-sticks-for-minor-infractions-and-squeeze-their-trapezoid-muscles-when-they’re-not-obeying Dobson—for just one example.

  • 105. Joe  |  January 22, 2010 at 8:12 pm

    Cheez-Choc—

    Yeah–you’re right. There are a lot of people who do that. But then there are those who completely over-react, call discipline evil, and let their kids run the house. :)

  • 106. Joe  |  January 22, 2010 at 8:35 pm

    By the way Cheez, I don’t think Frreal is speaking about Lot in the discussion about taking things literally or figuratively—he just finds the story of Lot very distasteful—-which it is. Lot made a couple of exceedingly huge mistakes in his life right after another. But how does one judge a man? For two very bad decisions within a short time frame, or for his whole life?

    When the Bible says “righteous Lot” it is talking about his whole life—and even in his bad decisions his motivation may have been righteous. Many people have made very poor decisions while at the same time having the right motivation.

    What Lot did was horrendous—-but at the same time he was trying to protect holy beings. Thankfully he did not do what he suggested—-but his offering of his daughters was a terrible thing for sure.

  • 107. Frreal  |  January 22, 2010 at 8:49 pm

    Why would supernatural holy beings capable of destroying cities need to be “protected” by mere mortals? Really?

    It doesn’t say anywhere that Lot did bad things or made bad decisions. It doesn’t say offering your daughters to gang rapers was bad. YOU are forced to draw those conclusions based on a perception of God you can feel comfortable worshipping.

    Volunteering an innocent human being to be brutalized is not a “very bad mistake” . It is evil. That you cannot see that is sad.

  • 108. Joe  |  January 23, 2010 at 2:28 pm

    Frreal—

    Oh, I see it is evil for sure. But again, we are talking about motivation. I’ll give you an example. A Jehovah’s witness is motivated to “honor God”. In the Jehovah’s Witness’s religion receiving a blood transfusion is against God’s law. So they turn down a blood transfusion for their child—the child dies. That is a horrible evil. But their motivation was not to let a child die, but to honor their god. So in their motivation to do “good” they wind up doing evil. Do you understand what I am saying? Lot may not have known these beings could completely defend themselves. He knew they were of God and that men were attempting to rape them. He reasoned that he would rather see his daughters raped than holy angels.

    It was very poor reasoning to say the least, and yes, was an “evil” thing to think to do. There are many things that happen in the Bible that men do that it never says God “approves” of. That is where many make mistakes when interpreting. They think that because the person did it God must approve of it, because later in the Bible it calls the person “righteous”. That is simply not the case. Many called “righteous” for their lives did horrendous “acts” at one time or another——David being the premier example—-he had a man killed to get his wife. He later repents greatly for what he has done. And with God there is forgiveness for David—and for Lot also.

  • 109. Frreal  |  January 23, 2010 at 5:37 pm

    It’s just so frustrating to be on the outside of the cognitive dissonance bubble.

    It must be nice to feel comfortable equating the refusal of a blood transfusion to offering your child up for gang rape. I couldn’t do it…. I guess that makes me worthy of Hell.

  • 110. Frreal  |  January 23, 2010 at 5:39 pm

    Don’t bother responding Joe. You make me sick.

  • 111. Anonymous  |  January 23, 2010 at 6:06 pm

    Frreal—

    Seriously, what’s your problem? You come out of nowhere again with this really bad attitude. No wonder so many people have stopped posting. You, Josh and Bighouse have a habit of ganging up and attacking anyone whose opinion you don’t liike. That’s why I have felt that it might all be the same person. The reason being that when one of these “characters” doesn’t like someone, the rest don’t either.

    Don’t worry Frreal—-this is my last response to you. I keep trying to be civil and explain where I am coming from, and you come back with “you make me sick”. Well, I’m sick of that type of attitude. I was able to discuss things with Quester and others with no problem. You turn everything into personal attacks. I really do not know what your problem is—but something is REALLY bugging you and you seem to take it out on others. Oh well. See ya.

  • 112. Joe  |  January 23, 2010 at 6:15 pm

    The “anonymous” post is mine–forgot to reset after shutting down.

  • 113. BigHouse  |  January 24, 2010 at 3:29 pm

    Frreal, cognitive dissonance is very powerful. I can’t believe the things I believed without thinking about the consequences and inconsistencies they propagated.

    One thing I’ve learned is that you can’t talk someone invested in this dissonance out of it, they have to seek the truth themselves. That’s why I don’t bang my head against those walls anymore.

  • 114. Frreal  |  January 24, 2010 at 9:16 pm

    I know BigHouse. Sometimes I think its fruitless to engage and than other times I think I’m not necessarily speaking to Joe but to the anonymous truth seekers out there struggling with their own doubts.

    Joe provides the opportunity to expose the bizarre rationalization that takes place where one must justify immorality in order to believe that he is still moral. For me that was deconversion trigger. I couldn’t defend the immoral.

  • 115. BigHouse  |  January 25, 2010 at 9:50 am

    Frreal, you are absolutely right, just focus your energy on the argument for the benefit of those others reading. It is clear that the specific poster you are directing the posts to isn’t interested in the debate, and that is why he frustrates and angers people. Don’t let that frustration swallow up the crux of the arguments.

  • 116. Joe  |  January 25, 2010 at 2:19 pm

    I really enjoy banter intended to appear as real conversation.

  • 117. Joe 2  |  January 25, 2010 at 2:19 pm

    Me too

  • 118. DSimon  |  January 25, 2010 at 3:19 pm

    Joe, listen up. I feel that you should continue to be welcome here. You write intelligently and you don’t behave nastily any more than is appropriate (or, any more than anybody else does). Personally, I generally like having you around.

    However, you are really being a major jerk about this sockpuppet thing. It’s a serious accusation; you’re saying that the people you’re talking with are fraudulent, and that you don’t trust them enough even to represent their own existence honestly.

    I have no idea why you think this accusation is warranted, especially since it has been pointed out to you by a site admin that their traffic doesn’t show a sockpuppet-like pattern, but whatever, you’re certainly entitled to your own assessment of the situation.

    My question is this: Why do you continue talking to people who you believe to be lying to your face? Why do you keep accusing them over and over?

    Imagine if you were playing cards. Suddenly, you stand up and accuse the other people at the table of cheating. They insist that they are not cheating and even show you their sleeves. Instead of accepting their claim of innocence, or rejecting it and going to another table, you keep on repeatedly accusing your opponents of cheating while you continue to play. This is passive-aggressive BS.

    Make up your mind. Accept that the people you’re talking with are actually people and treat them as such, or stop talking to them. Trying to straddle both positions is jerk behavior.

  • 119. Joe 2  |  January 25, 2010 at 4:36 pm

    Dsimon—

    You’re absolutely correct. I didn’t realize a site administrator had confirmed it. The reason I became upset is because everyone else here is very cordial. Frreal became very nasty by saying “don’t even respond, you make me sick”. I will just refrain from addressing the people who seem to go into attack mode against what I post. There are (3) of them, which seem to always make almost the same comments—and they always seem to appear on the board together. This is what has led to the sock-puppet inference.

    You are correct though—it is unfair—-and instead of just ingnoring these posters I have reacted the same way they react to me. It is “jerk behavior” and I will desist from any more accusations, or inferences to “sock-puppets”. Thank you for the constructive criticism—it is well founded.

  • 120. Joe 2  |  January 25, 2010 at 7:16 pm

    By the way DSimon, very good analogy using the card playing. Everyone needs a kick in the rear from time to time—-I was due one.

  • 121. BigHouse  |  January 25, 2010 at 7:58 pm

    Notice in 2 posts from Joe, not one apology for the heinous and unfounded accusations he’s levied against several members here. And we’re the non-cordial ones. Right.

  • 122. Joe  |  January 25, 2010 at 8:28 pm

    BigHouse—

    DSimon allowed me the right to hold my own opinion regarding this by saying but “…whatever, you’re certainly entitled to your own assessment of the situation”.

    And that is exactly what I am doing–holding onto my own assessment. I did however agree that it is unfair and that I would cease and desist from making any more statements about sockpuppets. I’ve apologized many times on the board for a variety of things. In this case I will just cease and desist, for that is all that is needed. I will not address your posts from now on.

  • 123. Blue  |  January 25, 2010 at 8:52 pm

    A buck says he can’t resist to post again.

    I’ve lost the respect I had for Joe’s return to posting. He ignores what is said and instead tries to pick fights because someone on the internet doesn’t like him.

    But I’m sure I’m a sock puppet as well.

  • 124. BigHouse  |  January 25, 2010 at 9:41 pm

    First of all, DSimon’s awesome post aside, I’m not sure what standing he has to “allow” you to do anything.

    So, you either:

    1.) Still believe your sockpuppet theory, in light of all the evidence to the contrary. Incidentally, this reminds me of your theism.

    2.) Realize you were mistaken but can’t conjure the strength to apologize for it. This doesn’t speak well of you either.

    Either way, your latest posting efforts certainly weren’t worth breaking my igonring of you for, so shame on me for that. I’ll try not to make that mistake again.

  • 125. Joe  |  January 26, 2010 at 12:29 pm

    Blue—-(123)

    Actually, I didn’t say I wouldn’t post again. I just won’t address certain people on the board. If you go back and read my posts you will see that the only problem I have had is with a couple of posters who like to make personal attacks. Everyone else has been quite civil and respectful and willing to discuss issues. I have absolutely no problems with anyone else on the board.

    I have to disagree with you—I do not “pick fights” and you will not see that reflected in my posts at all. And I do not “ignore” what people say at all–on the contrary, I have responded to it in an intelligent manner. Thank you for your post, and if I have lost your respect, hopefully I can regain it again. I have no “beef” with anyone, and will respect the request made by DSimon, as it was well stated and without malice.

  • 126. 4riozs  |  January 26, 2010 at 10:12 pm

    Happy someone brought up child abuse. I lived with a family that practiced what was taught in “Shepherding a Child’s Heart”, it was sickening. The kid was spanked everyday. Sometimes on the way to school. I hate being around Christian parents. They are always hitting their kids for the stupidest things.

    My dad always told me, when I was a kid, we don’t hit you or your brother because we believe in talking to our kids. He was from the old school and his dad would beat the crap out of him. The teachers too. I never disrespected my dad. I plan to raise my kids the same way he raised me.

    Christians forget about Gardner’s multiple intelligence and completly ignores the existence of personality and temperment.

  • 127. atimetorend  |  January 27, 2010 at 4:52 pm

    4riozs: We started parenting heavily indoctrinated into the “Shepherding a Child’s Heart” school and I very much regret every having followed it. Glad to see you learned a better way.

  • 128. 4riozs  |  January 28, 2010 at 3:37 am

    Honestly I don’t have any children yet. I lived with people that were doing this and it seemed horrible. I’m an education major and think about these kinds of things for when I have kids and also for when I begin to teach in case I have to work with kids.

  • 129. CheezChoc  |  January 28, 2010 at 12:07 pm

    Thanks–others clarified the points I had attempted to make earlier.

    BTW, Joe, I do agree that kids should not be running the household or allowed to get away with everything. Parents of such miscreants do them a disservice by doing nothing. But my point still stands about those who swing in the other extreme direction and hit kids all the time because they think it is a righteous thing to do, having been told so by Tripp, Dobson, et al.

  • 130. Joe  |  January 28, 2010 at 12:12 pm

    Cheez- (129)

    I agree with you there for sure. It is not “righteous” to beat one’s kids. There is a wise way to discipline–it is needed at times–but you’re right, many misinterpret that and become bullies. Not good.

  • 131. Norman  |  March 9, 2010 at 10:40 pm

    Perefct. de-conversion.com is the shit.

  • 132. Constance  |  March 13, 2010 at 11:33 pm

    How do you do it, de-conveersion.com?

    http://hopperssweetsop.blogspot.com/2010/03/beady-hoppers-videos.html

  • 133. jake  |  March 8, 2011 at 11:06 pm

    All of you have issues

  • 134. CheezChoc  |  March 12, 2011 at 4:06 pm

    Ok, Jake, I’ll bite. What are they?

  • 135. Mark  |  January 22, 2013 at 6:05 am

    Hi, just wondering if its ok If we can used this article and create an infographic based on the list and post it on our website with credits and backlinks to your website.

    Best Regards,
    Mark

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Trackback this post  |  Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed


Attention Christian Readers

Just in case you were wondering who we are and why we de-converted.

de-conversion wager

Whether or not you believe in God, you should live your life with love, kindness, compassion, mercy and tolerance while trying to make the world a better place. If there is no God, you have lost nothing and will have made a positive impact on those around you. If there is a benevolent God reviewing your life, you will be judged on your actions and not just on your ability to blindly believe in creeds- when there is a significant lack of evidence on how to define God or if he/she even exists.

Twitter

Archives

Blog Stats

  • 2,030,647 hits since March 2007

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 203 other followers