More mayhem from the religion of peace.

By now you have heard of the terror in Paris as the disciples of ‘the religion of peace’ slaughtered innocent people as they shouted, ahem, ‘allahoo ackbar,’ (intentional)

And WHY such carnage? The alleged prophet was insulted in a newspaper.  I have seen insults on blog sites regarding the true God (oh yeah, even mine) that would curl a bald mans hair, and what is done in return? Nothing.

To those of you who say there is absolutely NO DIFFERENCE between the ‘religions’ of the world, when was the last time a Jewish person went on a killing spree with a machete shouting: ‘may you be damned in the name of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob’s God?’

When was the last time you saw a Christian lopping off somebody’s head, or machine gunning  people ‘in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ?’

If a Jew or Christian WAS to do such a thing, it would be an aberration; when the Amalekites, excuse me, Allaites, commit such carnage, it is to justify their WAY OF LIFE. When a man’s head is severed, the followers of the ‘religion of peace’ applaud.

If this murder and mayhem was done in the name of Christ, true believers would weep. So then by their fruits ye shall know them.

But yeah, no real difference between the murderers in Paris, and the garden variety Christian.  Sure, doncha know ALL religions are the same, and ALL followers are savage murderers.

Advertisements

About ColorStorm

Blending the colorful issues of life with the unapologetic truth of scripture.
Gallery | This entry was posted in Daily news and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

149 Responses to More mayhem from the religion of peace.

  1. tildeb says:

    CS, calm down. Yes, religions are all the same in that all use the same method of taking on board certain claims for the central tenets. Note the emphasis: what is the same is the method, the epistemology, the order in which tenets of the faith are to be assumed to be true first and then applied outwards to ‘explain’ reality and how it works, the way by which faith in those tenets is to be trusted, granted confidence, represent hope, and that this kind of faith is elevated to exempt the central tents from reality’s arbitration of these claims. This is identical in Islam as it is in Jainism and Christianity and Mormonism and Animalism and Hinduism and so forth. It is also the identical methodology used for all kinds of woo – from alternative medicine to climate change denial, from raiki to homeopathy, from the ‘spiritualism’ of voodoo to the ‘supernatural’ exorcisms carried out by ordained priests. There really IS an identical method being used to justify all these variants and so all true believers who support the method are as responsible.

    Now here’s the problem YOU face when it comes to this kind of religiously inspired behaviour: how can you determine that the faith-based beliefs that empower and justify this kind of religious violence are any different in quality and godliness than the faith-based beliefs you use to condemn them?

    Like

    • ColorStorm says:

      This is easy Tildeb-

      Your last question. ‘how can you determine……….are any different……………..?’

      Answer: Is it pure? Is it peaceable? Does it regard life? Is it good? Does it minister grace?

      The word of God clearly addresses your question with the only answer unlike all others. It is an answer of unavoidable truth..

      Liked by 1 person

      • tildeb says:

        It may seem easy but you haven’t answered it.

        You haven’t shown HOW to arrive at this next set of claims (is it pure, is it peaceable, does it regard life, is it good, does it minister grace) nor have you offered any reasons to differentiate them from say, kill the infidel, impose sharia, cut off his head and fingertips, and so on. The words of God, BTW, also is the SAME justification for my list (if it is for your list of purity, peace, regards for life, goodness, grace), which is also supposedly an answer of unavoidable truth. That’s why my question is important: how to differentiate your incompatible and contrary set to mine. After all, ColorStorm, I’ve got 109 verses from scripture dictated by God for my authority…

        Like

        • ColorStorm says:

          Says Tildeb:

          ‘You haven’t shown HOW to arrive at this next set of claims……….nor have you offered any reasons to differentiate…………….’

          Maybe this will help you decide for yourself so i won’t have to:

          Masked gunmen break into a business and slaughter they who have opinions. (free speech kind thing) They
          TERRORIZE every person within, end the lives of many,

          then flee where they are on the loose FREE to further terrorize a city which has given them liberty.

          Now then, is this behavior of the murdering beasts:

          a. pure
          b. peaceable
          c. does it minister grace?

          Why Tildeb do you choose to be so blind, and defend the defenseless, as in your claims that all religions are the same.

          Like

        • tildeb says:

          Again, you’re not answering the question. You’re just repeating yourself. How can you differentiate those who follow god’s commandments from those who follow god’s commandments? Obviously you must have some means at your disposal. I’m asking you what that means is.

          Like

        • ColorStorm says:

          Tildeb-

          I have no interest in addressing your little ‘g,’

          and I will not add to what is already crystal clear.

          Maybe the next post will be easier for ya.

          Like

        • tildeb says:

          This is cop out, CS. It’s not a question of easy for me understanding your post; it’s a question that is obviously too difficult for you to answer coherently… except you seem to me to be to be quite sure you are both able and capable. Divine insight perhaps?

          Like

  2. Wally Fry says:

    ColorStorm

    Murdering and bombing? We don’t have to do all that to be considered villains. Just try supporting the traditional family and see what happens. The reaction to that would be far more vitriolic than if I started shooting.

    Liked by 1 person

    • ColorStorm says:

      Wow. But no, you are not getting another award for this one.

      Great observation, and probably more true than we can imagine.

      Liked by 1 person

    • David says:

      “The reaction to that would be far more vitriolic than if I started shooting.”

      You’re joking, right?

      Like

      • Wally Fry says:

        In what sense? I’m not planning on shooting, if that is what you are asking. Specifically, what I meant was that the reaction I might get if I voiced a view about traditional family would be as negative, or more, than the reaction people have to another violent incident such as the one written about here. Let’s be specific. If i excused such violence by saying, “that’s just how it is over there,” people would just nod and say ok…but If i had the audacity to speak my mind about the Biblical model of family…I might very well lose my livelihood.

        Like

        • tildeb says:

          …the reaction I might get if I voiced a view about traditional family would be as negative, or more, than the reaction people have to another violent incident

          Come on, Wally. Just because you receive criticism about trying to implement a fictitious 1950s TV style family doesn’t mean that criticism is equivalent in intention or actuality to the condemnation for the perpetrators of a mass shooting. You’re letting your feelings get in the way of your judgement.

          Like

        • Wally Fry says:

          Well tildeb…wouldn’t be the first time. Somewhere back in time…I was making a point, it seems to have gotten lost somewhere. Let’s all pull back to the trenches, bury our dead, and recommence hostilities later.

          Like

        • tildeb says:

          Just to be clear, Islam is one of my major targets for criticism at my blog and has been for quite some time. I say this not for traffic but to point out that many theists are unaware of just how much atheist criticism is aimed at Islam and those who follow it. Most theists wouldn’t necessarily know this unless they followed more blogs of atheists.

          Like

        • Wally Fry says:

          Yes. I am aware of that actually, You might be shocked who I follow. You, doobster, siriuzbisinis..even my favorite atheist hit man..arkenaten…I just follow him for the cool spider pics tho.

          Liked by 1 person

        • tildeb says:

          Oh, Ark is pretty mild compared to some (and what’s not to enjoy about ‘up the garden path’) . And I’m glad you’re keeping your toes in the water, so to speak. It helps provide an understanding why so many people do not believe for a wide variety of reasons. Another one of great value you may or may not know about is NeuroLogica. It’s much easier to see the cross-over of the faith-based method in many of its guises and the similar kinds of effects produced.

          Liked by 1 person

        • ColorStorm says:

          Well tildeb,

          There are they who do follow you, and perhaps when they comment, they receive no warm welcome as in ‘tkx’ for stopping by, ‘good point,’ ‘bad point,’ etc, .so, sensing the aloofness, maybe they just disappear.

          Whereas when you and your brethren visit the believer, you are at least given consideration.

          just sayin

          Like

        • tildeb says:

          Quite true, CS. I’m not trying to build a community of like-minded people. I write on my blog only sporadically and to help clarify my thoughts about issues I think are important. But I usually respond to comments in the same vein in which they are written: on the merit of their ideas/criticisms/insights and not for the social value of who is doing the commenting. That’s just my approach and not one widely practiced.

          Like

        • archaeopteryx1 says:

          Whereas when you and your brethren visit the believer, you are at least given consideration.” – Consideration? How many of my comments did you delete?

          Like

        • ColorStorm says:

          Well archx1-

          Of the 224ish you have posted, I have perfect right and just cause to dismiss that which is not related, to the post, blasphemous to the name of Christ, or just all around irrelevant or misleading.

          Have u ever read the comment policy? Your better question should be why I didn’t remove others.

          Like

        • archaeopteryx1 says:

          You’re only demonstrating your own fear, CS – fear that someone might listen to someone besides you.

          Like

      • David says:

        “Why is it that senseless comments full of innuendo, insults and so forth are okay coming from you but let a Christian be even mildly humorous then suddenly we are hiding behind something?”

        Which comment of mine was senseless and full of innuendo?

        Now, insults? Maybe. Is “absurd” an insult if it’s accurate?

        Mildly humorous? Which comment was that? The one that compared speaking about family values to shooting people?

        Were you kidding when you said, “Probably the same word you use to describe anything that comes from the mouth, or keyboard, of any Christian”? If so, than I admit that I misunderstood.

        Like

      • David says:

        Point was…I think it’s absurd to say that would be more vitriol in response to a statement about “family values” than in response to shooting people.

        Like

    • David says:

      “If i excused such violence by saying, “that’s just how it is over there,” people would just nod and say ok.”

      Nonsense.

      Like

    • David says:

      “I’m not planning on shooting, if that is what you are asking.”

      Look at what you wrote. Your exact words were.. “The reaction to that would be far more vitriolic than IF I STARTED SHOOTING.”

      So, you are comparing the vitriol you would receive from promoting “family values” to the vitriol you would receive if you actually shot someone, and you are saying that there would be LESS vitriol IF YOU ACTUALLY SHOT SOMEONE.

      Again, you’re joking, right?

      Like

      • Wally Fry says:

        Yes..yes..yes. Let me say it for the record. I have no plans whatsoever of shooting anyone. None…zero…nada..nicht…nein. Turn the caps off and relax. That was simply hyperbole.

        Like

    • David says:

      “But they would not punish me for saying it.”

      With the respect to the two different examples of speech (family values, sympathy for terrorists), whether or not you’d be punished for either or both would depend on when, where and exactly what you said, your particular livelihood, and the possible effects of your chosen words.

      Such a martyr complex, you have.

      Like

    • David says:

      “I have no plans whatsoever of shooting anyone. None…zero…nada..nicht…nein. Turn the caps off and relax.”

      Yes, yes, I know. I never for an instant thought that you did. You missed my point!

      “That was simply hyperbole.”

      YES! This is what I’m talking about! The hyperbole! THIS is what I was asking about when I said, “You’re kidding, right?” Get it now?

      You say “hyperbole”, but I have another eight letter word for it.

      Like

      • Wally Fry says:

        I’m sure you do, David. Probably the same word you use to describe anything that comes from the mouth, or keyboard, of any Christian. I wonder if a believer wrote a post describing the Sun as round, bright and hot if you would find some fault with that?

        Liked by 1 person

    • David says:

      “Probably the same word you use to describe anything that comes from the mouth, or keyboard, of any Christian.”

      More…”hyperbole?”

      Just stand up and face the facts. Don’t try to hide behind further nonsense about “anything that comes from the mouth, or keyboard, of any Christian.” You know about the first rule to follow when you find yourself in a hole, right?

      Your statement that “supporting the traditional family” would provoke far more vitriol that if you’d started shooting was just absurd.

      Like

      • Wally Fry says:

        LOL…I’m more than happy to face the facts..you got some handy? Why is it that senseless comments full of innuendo, insults and so forth are okay coming from you but let a Christian be even mildly humorous then suddenly we are hiding behind something? What’s good for the goose is good for the gander, David..darn it there I go again. I really must get serious about all of this, mustn’t I?

        Like

      • David says:

        “I’m more than happy to face the facts..you got some handy.”

        Um, maybe the fact that your initial statement about family values and shooting people was a bit more than just “hyperbole”?

        “Why is it that senseless comments full of innuendo, insults and so forth are okay coming from you but let a Christian be even mildly humorous then suddenly we are hiding behind something?”

        Not sure I understand what connections you’re trying to make here.

        Which comment of mine was senseless and full of innuendo? “Senseless” is when you compare a making a statement about family values to shooting people.

        Now, did I insult? Maybe. Is the word “absurd” an insult if it’s accurate?

        Mildly humorous? Which comment was that? The one that compared speaking about family values to shooting people?

        Were you kidding when you said, “Probably the same word you use to describe anything that comes from the mouth, or keyboard, of any Christian”? If so, than I admit that I misunderstood.

        Like

      • David says:

        Wait, wait, I think I got ti.

        When you said…

        “Just try supporting the traditional family and see what happens. The reaction to that would be far more vitriolic than if I started shooting.”

        …you were making a funny.

        Did I figure it out?

        Like

  3. David says:

    Leviticus 24:16

    Whoever blasphemes the name of the Lord shall surely be put to death. All the congregation shall stone him. The sojourner as well as the native, when he blasphemes the Name, shall be put to death.

    Like

    • ColorStorm says:

      Your crucial mistake here. All-ah is not the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, nor is he the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.

      Like

      • David says:

        “All-ah is not the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, nor is he the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.”

        With respect to the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, I suspect that Muslims would disagree with you, and if God is the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, then Christianity is ditheistic.

        In any event, the mistake here is that you misunderstood my reasons for posting Leviticus 24:16.

        Like

        • ColorStorm says:

          No David,

          I merely showed you the contrast to PRESENT day behavior, and I know you we trying to be sarcastic and goadful in alleging the God of the Israelites was a killing machine.

          To people who know the God of scripture, your comment can be dismissed in half a second and without explanation needed..

          Like

      • David says:

        “I merely showed you the contrast to PRESENT day behavior, and I know you we trying to be sarcastic and goadful in alleging the God of the Israelites was a killing machine.”

        Not sure I follow your point.

        Allah is indeed the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and Leviticus still applies in the present day.

        Further, the God of the Israelites was indeed both a killing machine and, specifically, a big proponent of killing blasphemers. This is very well-documented in the scriptures.

        Like

        • ColorStorm says:

          If I may, IF your all-ah WAS the God and Father of the patriarchs, then he would agree with Christ as to the non condemnation of ‘infidels.’

          The mafia of is-lam falls short at every turn. They are religious imposters. God orders NO ONE to kill today under his name.

          So then u are mus-lim?

          Like

      • David says:

        “IF your all-ah WAS the God and Father of the patriarchs, then he would agree with Christ as to the non condemnation of ‘infidels.’”

        How do you know?

        “God orders NO ONE to kill today under his name.”

        How do you know?

        And I notice that you inserted the word “today.” Back in the good old days, killing under his name was cool, right?

        Uh, no. I’m not a Muslim. (What’s up with all the hyphens?)

        Like

        • ColorStorm says:

          David-

          You ask how I know? The same book that you continually dismiss clearly gives the proof.

          God gave specific instructions to the Israelites; ie the ten commandments, then 613 in total.

          They were not given to any other nation. Period.

          The word for the day is G. R. A. C. E.

          The law was given through Moses, BUT, grace and truth came by Jesus Christ. Why do you think God is not raining fire down from heaven?

          He is proving His patience in the midst of an idolatrous world.

          By the way, if all-ah was the true God, his followers would be more like Christ than Satan.

          Liked by 1 person

        • archaeopteryx1 says:

          Why do you think God is not raining fire down from heaven?” – Because imaginary entities are incapable of doing that.

          Like

        • archaeopteryx1 says:

          How do you know?” – I suspect he believes he has his god on speedial.

          Like

      • David says:

        “You ask how I know? The same book that you continually dismiss clearly gives the proof.”

        And how do you know that this book is true or offers proof of anything? Certainly, the Jews would disagree the NT offers the proof of which you speak. I understand that you think that Leviticus doesn’t apply anymore, but if God’s Word is an Unchanging Truth, then it seems to me that it should still be in effect.

        “God gave specific instructions to the Israelites; ie the ten commandments, then 613 in total. They were not given to any other nation. Period.”

        How do you know this only applied to the Israelites? God’s Truth is an eternal Truth, right? So, if God Truth is “kill blasphemers”, then that’s the Truth. When did God specifically say that there would be no more killing of blasphemers? Can you at least acknowledge that back in the good old days, killing under God’s name was cool?

        “The word for the day is G. R. A. C. E.”

        What grace? God still tortures blasphemers for all eternity. So, grace does not appear to preclude the killing of blasphemers. Killing is person is pretty tame stuff compared with eternal torture. It’s not like God’s gone soft in his old age, right?

        “The law was given through Moses, BUT, grace and truth came by Jesus Christ. Why do you think God is not raining fire down from heaven?”

        I think that the historic Jesus might be a little surprised to find that his followers concluded that the Law was to be thrown out the window. But what can he do?

        Why no fire from heaven? Maybe that’s just not God’s schtick. Maybe this is something that people have chosen to attribute to what they call “God.”

        “By the way, if all-ah was the true God, his followers would be more like Christ than Satan.”

        Yeah, well, you won’t find me defending Islam, but you might want to be careful about painting with a broad brush. Further, the history of Christianity reveals more the a few of Christ’s followers who appear to be more like Satan than Christ. So, if we observe that the followers of Christ are more Satan-like than Christ-like, I guess that means that Jesus Christ is not the true God, right?

        Again, seriously, what’s with the hyphens?

        Like

        • ColorStorm says:

          David-

          As far as the Jews not believing the New Testament? Yep, the good book speaks of the stiff-necked people. Kinda gives it credibility wouldn’t ya say.

          The fact the Is-lam hates Jews and Christians is another indicator that God’s word is true, reliable, and blameless as God himself.

          You are making an unwarranted leap with your lateral observation about Christians who act like Satan.

          We are speaking of murderers in the name of a God. Is-lam promotes this. Christianity does not.

          Like

      • David says:

        “You are making an unwarranted leap with your lateral observation about Christians who act like Satan.”

        You established the criterion. It is through the behavior of the followers that we judge if a given god is the true god. If the followers behave like Satan, then the god they worship is not the true god. I repeat, this was your criterion. According to you, this is how we judge the truth of a given faith and/or identify the true god.

        “We are speaking of murderers in the name of a God. Is-lam promotes this. Christianity does not.”

        Well, again, you won’t find me defending Islam. Just want to point out that Christians have killed plenty for the sin of blasphemy. Must have been something in the Bible that led them to believe that this cool, right?

        Finally, I assume that you will not deny that over a minimum of a thousand year period (and I’m not so sure that Jesus rescinded this), God specifically and clearly directed that blasphemers were to be killed. Bash the buggers heads in with rocks! Good times! You don’t deny this, do you?

        You know, you clearly and definitively direct humans to do something for over a thousand years, and it gets to be a habitat among the humans. They might conclude that this is a universal and eternal truth. They might not want to stop. Maybe telling the humans to kill blasphemers wasn’t such a good idea on God’s part.

        Don’t want to explain the hyphens? Wonder why not.

        Like

        • ColorStorm says:

          David-
          Why do u have trouble following? The issue today is the Paris murderers in the name of their god.

          This is the criteria I am addressing. Where are the Christians who do this TODAY?

          Is-lam is what Christianity is not. It is obvious.

          Examples of stoning? Yea, Stephen the Christian was stoned to death; in fact he was murdered.

          Where IN THE NEW TESTAMENT do u see a Christian stoning someone to death or cutting their heads off? Where do u see the command by Christ or Paul to kill someone in the name of the Lord?

          Is-lam is a monstrous and ugly counterfeit. And atheism is a monstrous and ugly denial of a Creator.

          Like

      • David says:

        Oh, I see. All that matters is TODAY.

        I’ll get to TODAY if you’ll answer the question. Do you deny that over a minimum of a thousand year period, God clearly directed that blasphemer were to be killed? I promise, it’s relevant to TODAY.

        Where in the NT do you see a Christian stoning someone?

        When in the first century did Christians have the political or military power and authority to do this? Christians were in no position to stone anyone. This is the real difference among the Abrahamic religions. At time that the founding documents were written, the leaders of Judaism and Islam had the power to enforce punishment of blasphemer. The founders of Christianity had no power. Not coincidentally, early Christians didn’t stone blasphemes.

        By the way, Stephen was killed by men following God’s sacred and absolutely true command

        Like

        • ColorStorm says:

          Stephen was murdered. You can’t spin this David. The Jews did not ask for ‘approval’ to kill him .

          If the Jews were men of God, they would have received his word gladly. In like manner, if Christians ‘murdered’ anybody, do ya think they would have asked for permission?

          Stephen was killed by men of God? Ah no.

          Like

        • archaeopteryx1 says:

          If the Jews were men of God, they would have received his word gladly.” – Why?

          Like

        • ColorStorm says:

          Please see Acts 7, it is answered quite well.

          Liked by 1 person

        • archaeopteryx1 says:

          Please see Acts 7, it is answered quite well.

          So you mean the chapter where Stephen recounts the history of the Jews through Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Moses, for whom no reputable biblical archaeologist has ever found any evidence? Yes, I’ve read that many times. It was written at the end of the first century CE, or in the early part of the second, by an anonymous author who wasn’t there, who never knew Stephen or Saul/Paul, and is merely relating a story based on hearsay testimony that wouldn’t be permitted in any court of law, embellished by his vivid imagination, and a desire to condemn the Jews for the rejection of Yeshua, who saw as blasphemy the prospect that a homeless preacher was in any way “holy.”

          The Jews who stoned Stephen – IF in fact that isn’t a totally concocted story, designed to turn public opinion against the Jews – would have been misguidedly following the commands of their god, Yahweh, just as you are misguidedly following yours.

          Like

      • David says:

        Stephen was murdered. You can’t spin this David. The Jews did not ask for ‘approval’ to kill him .”

        I don’t know why you’re talking about asking for approval. They had approval. Leviticus 24:16. These men were following the Holy, Perfect, Absolute, Unchanging Word of the One True God. No spin, just the facts. We have God-given system in which humans are told to kill blasphemers, so why is there any surprise or unhappiness or accusations of murder when the humans kill blasphemers? You tell humans to kill blasphemers, so the humans kill blasphemers…what your complaint?

        “In like manner, if Christians ‘murdered’ anybody, do ya think they would have asked for permission?”

        I’ll bet you a nickel to a doughnut that the pious Christians prayed to God for guidance and blessing almost every time they lit the wood under some poor sap tied to a stake, and I’ll bet they were fully convinced that they had approval and permission from God to fire up the barbie.

        By the way, I noticed that you don’t want to answer my question. So again, do you deny that over a minimum of a thousand year period, God clearly directed that blasphemers were to be killed?

        Like

        • ColorStorm says:

          The answer to your first concern David is the truth found when the ‘elders,’ wanting to stone the woman to death, were trapped on the horns of a dilemma.

          They could not being sinners themselves as their conscience proved. And the Lord gave dignity to a sinning woman. Once more, its grace.

          Understanding this, will help u with your thousand year concern as well.

          God is blameless. He is mistake free. All his decisions are perfect. He need not my or your approval to act, nor does he need to explain why he does this or that.

          Like

        • tildeb says:

          And this perfection is so because you say so. My question remains: how do you differentiate this list from some other list?

          Like

        • archaeopteryx1 says:

          …the ‘elders,’ wanting to stone the woman to death, were trapped on the horns of a dilemma. They could not being sinners themselves as their conscience proved. And the Lord gave dignity to a sinning woman.

          You always a bit sloppy, CS, when it comes to accuracy in presenting your material, so as usual, I’ll have to follow along behind and clean up after you, just as I’m sure your mother did, and probably still does.

          It should have read: “When an anonymous author who was never there WROTE that ‘…the elders, wanting to stone the woman to death, were trapped on the horns of a dilemma.'”

          Like

      • David says:

        “They could not being sinners themselves as their conscience proved.”

        Well, first, this was a case involving adultery, not blasphemy.

        Second, if you can’t stone anyone if you’re a sinner, then stonings had always been wrong.

        “Understanding this, will help u with your thousand year concern as well.”

        Nope, didn’t help.

        For a thousand years, God said kill, kill, kill. And you’re surprised when humans kill, kill, kill?

        Like

      • David says:

        “God is blameless. He is mistake free. All his decisions are perfect.”

        Just more assertions.

        Like

      • ColorStorm says:

        You are looking for a nice and manageable answer. God’s word is not Newsweek magazine.

        It may be best for u to actually cite your ‘stoning example,’ making it much easier to explain, instead if inferences.

        Like

      • David says:

        OK, so you don’t really want to answer this. That’s fine.

        Like

      • David says:

        Be more specific? I thought that I was being specific. I’ll re-phrase. Leviticus says to stone blasphemers. Was this God-given rule in effect for 1000 or more years?

        Like

        • ColorStorm says:

          God said many things, at different times and for different reasons.

          Show me the text where blasphemers were stoned to death, and I’ll be happy to discuss it.

          You are a borderline believer aren’t you David?

          Like

      • David says:

        Are you suggesting that Leviticus was ignored?

        Like

        • ColorStorm says:

          Do u see why a yes or now is sometimes not appropriate?

          I don’t know David, i wasn’t there, I’m not Jewish, and the New Testament sheds insight into the dynamics of law.

          It was temporary……………..for one thing. You really need to read the New Testament, carefully, slowly. seriously.

          Like

      • David says:

        “God said many things…”

        I think you’re close to saying that the bible can be interpreted however one sees fit and/or saying that the bible is just an indecipherable mess.

        Like

        • ColorStorm says:

          No siree, I’m far from saying that; but be honest with your self here friend.

          If you think there are defects in God’s word, or you think there are issues with God Himself, then your mind is closed to ultimate truth; I am not being ambiguous, that’s just the way it is.

          I can’t open your eyes, but God can. He does that through His word.

          Liked by 1 person

      • David says:

        “I don’t know David, i wasn’t there, I’m not Jewish, and the New Testament sheds insight into the dynamics of law.”

        So, Leviticus doesn’t mean what it says or sometimes it applies and sometimes it doesn’t or God’s Eternal and Unchanging Word is temporary or…..what, exactly?!

        What does Leviticus 24:16 mean? You have no idea?

        You’ve turned the Bible into gibberish. So, why should I read the NT?

        Like

        • ColorStorm says:

          I told u David, every word of God is pure, Leviticus 24.16 says what it says. Since u are interested in accuracy, I asked you to show me WHERE this was carried out, so I can discuss it in context.

          Is that asking too much? Do u want to discuss Dathan and Abiram going underground, as in swallowed up in the first earthquake? Very similar, but different.

          But if you do not believer the scriptures are God’s word, then no answer will help you, but I will ask you this:

          Do you believe that YOU are worthy of NOT being stoned to death by somebody who is perfect?

          Like

        • archaeopteryx1 says:

          Do you believe that YOU are worthy of NOT being stoned to death by somebody who is perfect?” – An impossible scenario, as the desire to stone me to death, would prevent him/her/it from being perfect.

          Like

        • ColorStorm says:

          And you precisely answered why the Lord let her walk away, and the accusers? They crept away, for their own conscience convicted them by a perfect man.

          Thank you for making my point as the lights and perfections of the Lord and scripture.

          The Lord had NO desire to stone her. You are making progress pilgrim.

          Like

        • ColorStorm says:

          4th commandment of blogging: ‘thou shalt not strain at a gnat.’

          5th: ‘thou shalt leave alone misspellings unless the meaning is vague.’ 😉

          Tks for pointing that out tho.

          Like

      • David says:

        If Leviticus says what it says, then God directed humans to stone blasphemers to death, and based on your beliefs about the age of Leviticus, this would have been in force for at least a thousand years. What difference does “context” make? If you cannot acknowledge both the penalty and the period of time this was in effect, then you’ve turned the Bible into meaningless gibberish. It can truly mean whatever you want it to mean.

        Like

        • ColorStorm says:

          David-You are making this far too difficult for yourself.

          The ‘law’ was given to the Israelites as I said, not to ‘humans’ everywhere. It was a ‘schoolmaster.’

          What difference does context make? Sounds like Mrs. Clinton and Benghazi: what difference does it make?

          It makes all the difference.

          Like

      • David says:

        “David-You are making this far too difficult for yourself.”

        Too difficult? All I wanted was a straight answer. The difficulties have been created by you.

        “The ‘law’ was given to the Israelites as I said, not to ‘humans’ everywhere. It was a ‘schoolmaster.’”

        Ok, I’ll restate.

        If Leviticus says what it says, then God directed the Israelites to stone blasphemers to death, and based on your beliefs about the age of Leviticus, this would have been in force for at least a thousand years. If you cannot acknowledge both the penalty and the period of time this was in effect, then you’ve turned the Bible into meaningless gibberish. It can truly mean whatever you want it to mean.

        “What difference does context make? Sounds like Mrs. Clinton and Benghazi: what difference does it make?”

        Oh, great. Benghazi. Well, that’s predictable.

        How does “context” affect either the penalty itself or the duration that the penalty is in effect? Stoning to death is stoning to death, and God’s word is perfect and eternal.

        Like

        • ColorStorm says:

          Isn’t something how the religious leaders had Leviticus in their hands when they dragged the adulterous woman to the Lord and wanted to stone her to death.

          Their dilemma is your dilemma. They cited the scripture: Blasphemer, adulterer, didn’t matter. Stone her!

          I asked you to show me WHERE this was carried out.

          Like

      • David says:

        Ok, we have our answer!

        It’s gibberish.

        That was easy.

        Like

        • ColorStorm says:

          The Tower of Babel was gibberish. Confounding of language.

          This is why the disconnect with Leviticus,
          just sayin. You CANT understand what I’m tellin ya.

          Like

        • tildeb says:

          Thank you, David, for driving this thread bus home to the end of it’s thought route so that all of us can see where divine truth resides: in the interpretive minds of people who allow it to say to them exactly what they want it to say even in spite of what it does say. It seems to be difficult to get believers IN this ever-changing divine truth to recognize and then admit where their belief actually comes from: themselves imposed on scripture and then claimed to come from scripture.

          Well done.

          Like

        • ColorStorm says:

          No tild-

          It is you who are the ultimate hypocrite. Demanding time and answers from people who believe every word, and u believe nothing.

          ANY answer I give is fodder for your charges.You will not admit that. And every answer I gave David was correct

          God is not on trial, YOU are..

          If God commanded the slaughter of the Amalekites (which he did and which they did) you would curse him,

          if He did not, you would say He does NOT exist anyway. WHO is seen for the nonsense? Not God.

          In your warped view of God and scripture, you try at every turn to put believers in a dilemma, and give further excuses for your atheism. Go for it.

          Like

        • tildeb says:

          I no more need an excuse for my atheism as you do not to believe in Martians. This non belief comes with no strings attached. It is deduced from a lack of compelling evidence to justify any confidence in the belief.

          All I do is point out this lack and it is this lack that then undermines the confidence of believers. And it should. The books of Matthew, Mark, and John all report Jesus as upholding the OT as the inspired word of God. Not as a means to justify reinterpreting it, Jesus is reported to uphold it as is. That includes Leviticus. That includes the stoning of blasphemers.

          Yet you yourself point out that Jesus decided for himself which bits to uphold and which bits to discard. He broke the law by not stoning both adulterer and adulteress… but chose, instead to forgive the woman. Clearly, this goes against the law that he said wouldn’t have the slightest correction to it. Of course, you excuse this bit of cherry picking because hey, Jesus was god and so could make up whatever rules and then break whatever rules he saw fit for whatever reasons he thought mattered at the time.

          Now, pointing out this obvious hypocrisy – even divine hypocrisy – has nothing whatsoever to do with me and my atheism. It has everything to do with examining the source material you rely on to justify your confidence in claiming Jesus’ supposed ‘perfection.’ You must assume that inconsistency of character and inconsistency of principles and inconsistency of justifications are all signs of ‘perfection’. I beg to differ because the claim of some unchanging and perfect moral compass attributed to Jesus is clearly not true. He changed his mind just like I do and for reasons similar to my own, namely, based on circumstance and context and intention. That is a very human characteristic and not strong evidence of some elevated divine perfection.

          You claim this understanding I have from studying scripture is ‘warped’ not because it isn’t accurate but because it is! The inconsistencies of Jesus really are written down for anyone to see. That refuse to do so is not a sign of some perceived shortcoming I possess and it’s bizarre that you think it is. The dilemma you face for your confidence in the claim about divine perfection of Jesus belongs to scripture generally and the gospels specifically. Yet these are you source materials.

          Said another way, if source materials in, say, a purely secular historical claim revealed the same inconsistencies over a core assertion as we find in the Bible for the same events, you would reasonably expect the historians supporting one version over another to mitigate the level of absolute confidence in that support. And this is exactly what we find in biblical scholarship. Historical claims with inconsistent source material from the Bible is presented as of reasonably questionable accuracy that reflects on the various levels of confidence in each of the books named as Gospels. What we don’t find are historians of academic repute pretending there is only one right claim because this would indicate an UNreasonable emphasis on only personally selected bits of source material.

          If there is any warping going on here, it resides with those who exercise an unreasonable cherry picking of certain scriptural bits to use as evidence while ignoring contrary scriptural bits in order to present a false and vastly inflated case of confidence. That describes what you are doing and not what I am doing.

          Liked by 1 person

        • ColorStorm says:

          Cherry pick? Now THAT is amusing.

          You think that THE flood was a fable, all of a sudden you are concerned with ‘stoning?’ Really?

          If both accounts are true, we are making progress. If neither is true, then why do you care? Me? Both are true. What say ye? Is truth your interest?

          Did the Red sea part? Were their a plaque of frogs? Did an iron head float?

          It is YOU who are on trial, the identical way the religious men brought the woman to the Lord. They neither knew the law, nor the law giver. That sin of hers revealed what was in THEIR heart.

          This is what the LAW does, IT MAGNIFIES SIN.
          (Romans Galatians, Hebrews)

          This is about YOU, not the stoning of a blasphemer. If you do not believe God’s word is perfect in every way, and that God is perfect in every way, who are YOU you to judge Him or Christ who not only upheld the law, but FULFILLED it?

          If I said there was no man named Jonah who lived, Paul the apostle had six wives, Gamaliel was an atheist, Christ didn’t live, this does not relieve YOU of your responsibility to repent and believe the gospel.

          If a person loved God and loved man, he would not need one of 613 laws. he would not need to be told it is wrong to steal his neighbors cow.

          You are at a disadvantage for neither knowing God, His ways, grace, and law.

          Like

        • tildeb says:

          This reads like you’re having a seizure. When it abates perhaps you’ll want to point out how conflicting accounts all deserve full confidence… unless that brings on another seizure.

          Like

        • ColorStorm says:

          Abates, nice word. Flood perhaps? The flood of Noah?

          Hey, Tild, did u ever wonder WHY Noah did not have 613 such laws? Hmmmm?

          I’ve just given u a huge gift with this question. But the ruling on the field stands: YOU are on trial, not God.

          For you to try to find inconsistencies in His word, you may as well try to make the sun hotter with a match.

          In spite of all your baseless and petty assertions, there is a God in heaven who sees your kicking, and still offers you what Noah’s friends denied: His grace.

          Like

        • tildeb says:

          What you call ‘baseless and petty assertions’ I call scripture. That is my source. What’s yours?

          Like

        • ColorStorm says:

          Do u believe there is a God in heaven?
          Do u believe Adam lived , and that he was made from dust?
          Do u believe God created the rainbow?
          Do u believe His covenant of the rainbow?
          Do u believe sin caused death?
          Do you believe the law was given trough Moses?
          Do u believe in the Lord Jesus Christ?
          Do u believe He brought grace and truth?
          Do u believe He died for the sins of the world?
          Do u believe He rose, was seen, ascended, and is seated?
          Do u believe ALL are sinners?
          Do you believe YOU are sinner?

          That’s my source, and that is the truth. If you do not believe it, why do you punish yourself trying to disprove a ‘fable?’

          Do u have any clue Tild how u appear, as trying to understand or interpret that which you find fraudulent?

          Like

        • archaeopteryx1 says:

          Do u believe….” – No, to all —

          Like

        • tildeb says:

          Long comment, I know, but rather explanatory, I think.

          When we use our faith-based beliefs to justify our confidence in our faith-based beliefs, we use a method guaranteed to fool ourselves and, to quote Feynman, we are the easiest people in the world to fool. No one is immune from the seductiveness of this approach.

          Thinking about how these claims are produced and what effect believing false claims can yield, we must apply some intellectual discipline to our wishful thinking and beliefs if we want to avoid being foolish. What I do is ask what I think are the right questions:

          Are these faith-based beliefs (that you present here as questions) actually true? If so, how do you know? How <i.can we know? Show me why and how I can believe as you do so that I may defend these beliefs from the charges that they are simply self produced yet believed foolishness.

          I’ve asked these ‘How do you know, how can you know?’ questions of you multiple times to no avail. I ask it to try to get you to be honest, that you ‘know’ these claims to be true because you believe these claims to be true. Your belief is based on your belief. Anything other than accepting these beliefs on your word alone – and in spite of contrary and compelling evidence from reality (that has no horse in this race, so to speak, and could quite easily align compelling evidence from itself for these claims… if true) – you either condemn or dismiss.

          This is nothing more than a defensive dodge – a typical tactic of believers – to avoid facing what’s actually true: that you are fooling yourself because you have no means at your disposal to defend your beliefs from the charges that they are simply self produced foolishness.

          Your trust and confidence in the truth value of your beliefs is, I think, entirely misplaced. That makes these kinds of beliefs very brittle… as in unable to incorporate new and useful information. This brittleness is usually advertised as ‘unchanging’ and ‘permanent’… as if these were virtues rather than vices deserving of even greater confidence for this feature. Yet it seems to me that this confidence is powered solely by what can best be described as an unreasonable arrogance in the certainty that your beliefs are true.

          Why does this matter?

          Well, there is no qualitative difference between this method of assigning truth value on the basis of belief in spite of contrary and compelling evidence from reality and what powers the schizophrenic’s certainty in the truth value of his or her delusions in spite of contrary and compelling evidence from reality. None!

          This remarkable similarity should concern you… if you value what is true and what can be known.

          Once you reject reality’s role to arbitrate claims made about it as you so obviously do with unsubstantiated claims from reality about global floods and a single human paring for our ancestry and the parting of seas for an Exodus story and so on, you give up any claim of exercising intellectual integrity about wanting to find out what’s true from reality in order to respect what’s true about reality; what you really want is respect to be shown to what you believe should be true.

          Think about that observation.

          That other believers do not hold you as I do to the same high standard of adhering to an honest, reality-based intellectual integrity is not a character flaw of mine… in spite of your dire warnings about me being on trial and so on and so forth. It is your intellectual integrity that is at question here by you claiming to value what’s true aboutt his reality we share. This blanket agreement offered so often by other believers to you and your beliefs is an appeasement and capitulation by all of respecting what’s true about reality… as well as a blanket rejection of the importance of the means by which we can understand how reality operates in the case of these god-as-some-causal-and-interactive-agency claims. And I think what’s true about reality and how we can come to understand it – be it claims about god or how to land a spacecraft on a distant comet or figuring out a means to capture evidence of the Higgs boson – matters far, far more than does obsequious mewlings aimed at demonstrating respect for someone’s beliefs about what’s true about reality based only on beliefs imposed on it… and expecting it to be conformed to and complied with through pious commandment. To me, that kind of believer in belief is very arrogant as well as very foolish. Those who follow such arrogance and foolishness are in even worse shape.

          Both conditions – arrogance and foolishness – can be successfully treated… but it starts with being willing to allow reality arbitrate claims made about it. That’s it. That’s the turning point to learning how to be less foolish, less arrogant, less pious and more intellectually honest, more able to admit one doesn’t know and that’s okay, more willing to learn from reality and bring beliefs and reality into their proper alignment.

          Your claims simply cannot bear the burden of proof independent of the confidence you place in them or you would produce this compelling evidence and show how you arrive at trusting these claims before you invest confidence and trust in them. How you arrive at trusting these claims you make is by fiat… without any reasonable basis independent of your confidence in these belief claims, which is why you cannot show how else this may happen. Your beliefs are not deduced or adduced from reality at all so how can anyone reasonably expect such beliefs to accurately describe it? Again, only be more belief in belief. That is clear because you don’t respect reality enough to let it inform your beliefs about it.

          In addition, you don’t respect scripture as an independent source when it reveals evidence contrary to your beliefs about it; instead, you continue to pronounce that it is your god that you believe in who produces your beliefs about it rather than you imposing your beliefs about your god on god! Your god and you sound to me to be identical and you offer me no means to differentiate between them… because I don’t think there is any difference between them at all. You are one and the same. It seems quite evident to me that your god is created from your beliefs about it and exists wholly only in the minds of those who agree to believe as you do… not by arriving at this belief but from accepting it as if true and maintaining it even when it’s not. That’s not a way to deny the connection with delusion.

          Like

        • ColorStorm says:

          Because I believe God’s word, and do not meet tildebs criteria for justifying my reasons, He says, and I quote:

          I have ‘a self produced foolishness’

          ‘my trust and truth is misplaced’,
          ‘I have an unreasonable arrogance’

          I have a ‘defensive dodge,typical tactic of believers,’
          There is ‘contrary and compelling evidence from reality.’

          ‘it is your intellectual integrity is at question here, about the reality we share’

          My ‘arrogance and foolishness can be successfully treated’

          ‘I don’t respect scripture.’

          ‘I deny the connection with delusion.’ (end)

          These are simply a few from my stellar portfolio of defects, according to tildeb. Well sir, some may agree with you, but I’m still going with the flood of Noah, which you deny.

          On the strength of this point alone, your entire comment here is empty, for it appears I do respect scripture, unlike you who mocks it.

          It is laughable how you can with a straight face accuse a believer of shortcomings regarding truth in a book which you despise.

          If I cursed God to His face, His word would lose none of its lustre, God would still be God, and you still would have no excuse.

          You have gone lower than you usually do with your caustic inferences and insults. We don’t answer to you tildeb, but you need to ask yourself why you spend so much time and resources trying to disprove a book of ‘fables.’

          Oh by the way Tildeb, Christ Himself would not meet your criteria for believing the scriptures, nor would Abraham, Daniel, Esther, Paul the apostle nor any person alive.

          Like

        • tildeb says:

          I don’t mock the Bible. I don’t despise it. But I do recognize myth when I see it and I recognize the paucity of literalism when applied to it. (In contrast to your assertions, I have learned much wisdom from myth.) This is what you’re doing with the Flood; you are confusing the symbolic with the historical and believing yourself correct because you believe it.

          I can only hope my comment stirs you up enough to consider the points I raise because I have hope you can learn and change. It’s just my sunny disposition, donchaknow.

          It’s okay to be wrong, ColorStorm. It’s okay to change your mind. It’s okay to be foolish… as long as you don’t accept the condition that makes one susceptible to gullibility and credulity as permanent… which I think you are in danger of allowing. It’s okay to be unreasonably fond of your wishes and hopes and it’s okay to partake of supernatural thinking on occasion. But it’s also important to realize why these conditions should not be fixed and then held with pride and arrogance. All of us exercise a lack of intellectual integrity when it comes to our biases and prejudices; the trick is to recognize them and then mitigate their effects by reduing confidence and trust in them. The lack of integrity is the clue that what is being exercised might not be able to withstand criticism on merit. This predicament can be used to recognize when one’s position is in need of reexamination. And all of this, too, is okay. The sky won’t fall and the world won’t end. Learning is a process that comes full of diversions and all of us fall for them from time to time. And that’s to be expected.

          But you shortchange yourself when you summarily dismiss any and all criticism of beliefs you favour that do not – can not – stand on their own merit. That is a huge red flag of warning that you are not engaging in seeking what’s true – through critical learning – but are avoiding the means to do so. And that should worry anyone who thinks their beliefs are really important, that what the beliefs represent really are true on their own merit and can be shown to be. Believing on the basis and strength of belief that refuse reality to arbitrate claims made about it is non critical thinking that will divert you from finding out what’s true. And I think that’s a shame. I don;t think you need all this belief when the real world is such a fascinating place ripe with opportunities to learn about it. Your beliefs won’t help you undertake this heroic quest nor arm you with the tools you will need to succeed.

          Just sayin’.

          Like

        • archaeopteryx1 says:

          I can only hope my comment stirs you up enough to consider the points I raise because I have hope you can learn and change.” – Never gonna happen —

          Like

        • ColorStorm says:

          The flood is a small point to be made when you deny that you mock the scriptures Tildeb- You said: ‘All of us exercise a lack of intellectual integrity when it comes to our biases and prejudices.’

          Let’s see if you can now use your own intellectual integrity with the following:

          The Lord spoke matter of factly about the ‘flood of Noah’ to His disciples, an event that was clearly not challenged. Not one person said ‘whoa, hold the fort here, you don’t believe THAT do you?’ It obviously was common knowledge. It was no myth to them.

          You tildeb are calling into veracity the testimony of the son of God. He used that truth, that event in the history of man as a springboard to teach the exact certainty of later things. Will you challenge the Lord’s integrity? Was He part of a grand theft of delusion which he was happy to promote?

          The apostle Peter wrote of the flood, and included information not written in Genesis. Gee, wonder where he got that information. Are you questioning his intellectual integrity?

          The Hebrew writer spoke of Noah, his house, the ark, and the flood, and wrote with just as much crediblity as Joseph giving instructions where he should be buried. There is no reason for either of them not to be literal. No conspiracy.

          You see tildeb, there is more at stake that simply believing the world that then was perished. There is the word of men, whose character you are challenging as dubious, as if they ALL were part of a master plan to delude.

          So yes, call me delusional, but you do so at the risk of your own credibility, not mine. You have to deal with your bias, not mine. The Lord is the TRUTH, in addition to the way, and the Life, kinda important that he spoke the truth, wouldn’t ya think?

          You may not agree with this, but anybody who says there ‘was no flood,’ is pretty much calling the Lord a liar. And ‘its ok to change your mind’.

          Like

        • tildeb says:

          CS, the flood is straight out of epic story of Gilgamesh, more than 1500 years earlier than when Genesis was written. The story is typical of many such stories that involves some god being angry and destroying civilization. The problem isn’t with many people from Jesus’ time believing it to be historical; the problem is that reality doesn’t back it up. No such event ever took place or it would leave evidence behind. This does not reflect on the character of people unable to utilize reality to tell them about factual geological history, but it does reflect on the intellectual integrity of people who can call on this knowledge but refuse to do so. Moreover, what does it say about the intellectual integrity of people who simply reject reality’s role to arbitrate and adjudicate claims made about in favour of imposing some preferred but incompatible belief… but who say they are interested and respectful of what’s true? Furthermore, what does it say about those who steadfastly refuse to indicate HOW they supposedly ‘know’ what’s true… other than adding more belief to the claims?

          You can avoid these criticisms by explaining how you ‘know’ better than, say all the geologists and geographers employed by resource extraction companies who invest trillions of dollars and still make additional profit by accepting and utilizing the explanatory model that oh-by-the-way fails to yield any compelling evidence of the veracity of your beliefs about some global catastrophic flood? (And as a heads up for you, I studied hydrology at university and know a lot about how water operates in the world. I also spent two summers working on ice core samples from the Antarctic so don’t presume I am clueless about what the geological evidence should possess if your claim were true.) How can this explanatory model that does not have any catastrophic flood be so accurate if your beliefs are, in fact, true?

          Look, the scope of your denialism about the role evidence from reality plays in establishing levels of confidence in these claims indicates the depth of abject poverty of your intellectual integrity here. As the Electric Company singers used to sing, “One of these things just doesn’t belong here.” And clearly what doesn’t belong is your dual claim that you respect what’s true and respect your beliefs. These are simply incompatible. The Flood story is a perfect microcosm of how your beliefs don;t connect to the reality you think they describe. You have fooled yourself utterly.

          Like

        • ColorStorm says:

          Slightly off topic tildeb, but not really.

          The flood account, an iron head that floated, a plaque of frogs, a man calming the raging seas with a word, a blind gent given sight, a donkey ridden into the city, these are nothing compared to HOW God can justify miscreants such as you and I.

          That’s the miracle. This is much harder to believe.

          Like

        • archaeopteryx1 says:

          (EDITORS NOTE: This comment by archx1 is interesting for the aspersion it casts on three, count them three men of scripture and their word,
          hence their character, one of whom is ahem, the son of God Himself, the Lord Jesus Christ. In addition, I suggest any body interested read the link below. It is hilarious, as it is a pure perversion of the Genesis narrative. The counterfeit never ceases to amuse) -CS

          The Lord spoke matter of factly about the ‘flood of Noah’ to His disciples, an event that was clearly not challenged. Not one person said ‘whoa, hold the fort here, you don’t believe THAT do you?’ It obviously was common knowledge. It was no myth to them.

          That simply means that your “Lord,” your “Son of god,” knew no more about the flood than the anonymous, scientifically-ignorant Bronze Age men who invented it, and says a LOT about him.

          The apostle Peter wrote of the flood, and included information not written in Genesis. Gee, wonder where he got that information.” – From his imagination.

          The Hebrew writer spoke of Noah, his house, the ark, and the flood, and wrote with just as much crediblity as Joseph giving instructions where he should be buried. There is no reason for either of them not to be literal. No conspiracy.” – Absolutely no conspiracy – ignorance.

          So yes, call me delusional” – Without the slightest doubt.

          …anybody who says there ‘was no flood,’ is pretty much calling the Lord a liar.” – Yeah, well, that would be nearly everyone except fundamentalist theists, i.e., all reputable biblical scholars and archaeologists. I realize that it’s not the Bible, but you might consider reading this:

          Like

        • tildeb says:

          You believe in the Genesis account of the Flood. In all seriousness, why do you think our shared geography and geology utterly fail to produce compelling evidence for this catastrophic event when it so easily could?

          Like

        • ColorStorm says:

          Compelling evidence?

          I guess you never heard of the fountains of the deep, or the windows of heaven eh? That would explain your reluctance to consider that which you deny.

          Believing in a global flood is easy. How God could forgive miscreants such as you and I, now that’s hard to believe.

          Like

        • ColorStorm says:

          Hmmm, Why would any intelligent person…..

          When you can make a man from dirt, dirt that you cannot borrow, then maybe you will be on the short list of they who do not need repentance……..

          Until then……………Intelligent? Yea ok arch, the sun and moon just so happened to appear to give light, and to give light for darkness. What?

          What is light?

          What is darkness?

          The light was DIVIDED from the darkness, Hmmm, wonder how that happened. Oh yea, in your intelligent nothingness, it just so happened.

          Like

      • David says:

        You CANT understand what I’m tellin ya.”

        Thar she blows! The emperor’s new clothes again!

        Like

      • David says:

        “In your warped view of God and scripture, you try at every turn to put believers in a dilemma.”

        Yes, there are “dilemmas” here. They really, truly exist. They are not an “excuse” for atheist. And I think that deep down, you know this. Hence, the bobbing and ducking and gibberish.

        “Is truth your interest?”

        Given that you believe the global flood myth, I think that I’M the one should be asking if truth YOUR interest.

        Like

        • ColorStorm says:

          David-

          If you were on ‘the couch,’ you would be asked:

          ‘why do you care to spend your time and resources regarding a book in which you do not believe, to call into question the character of they who do believe it,

          THEN try to explain or interpret that which you think is fraudulent…..you do have some splainen to do, but not to me.

          Meebots are quite illuminating, and can be very helpful.

          Like

      • David says:

        I believe that it’s spelled “splainin.”

        Meebots. Now there’s another word that means whatever you want it to mean. Honestly, even after reading your posts and the numerous comments on the subject, I can’t figure out what this means or even if it’s a bad thing or a good thing. In the end, I think it’s just a way for you to label others so that you can feel good about yourself. (Maybe you should join me on that shrink’s couch.)

        Flood didn’t happen, ColorStorm. All the wishing in the world won’t change that.

        Like

        • ColorStorm says:

          You have justified a further response by your time and attention:

          A meebot can be good or bad. Good if one recognizes the inherent danger of such a creature, left unattended and under no authority.

          Bad if left alone having no need to answer to anybody. Pride is the father of meebottery. Recognizing this is good.

          Everybody has been, or still is a victim of the ‘bots.’

          Flood? Oh yea, I’m going with God who created water.

          I’m guessing He would know.Did u ever look at that ice calving vid? In reference to ‘the deep?’

          Like

        • Wally Fry says:

          Splainin……I’ve seen that word somewhere!

          Liked by 1 person

        • ColorStorm says:

          Yea, David busted me spelling it wrong.

          May have to fix it.

          😉

          Like

        • Wally Fry says:

          Actually…I did a post…Lucy you got some splainin to do…lol.

          Liked by 1 person

      • David says:

        Sorry, still don’t get the meebot thing. Too vague. “Inherent danger?” “Everybody has been, or still is a victim of the ‘bots.’”? What? Seems to me that any dissenter could be seen as a meebot.

        “Oh yea, I’m going with God who created water.”

        I see that you’re still confusing deism with Abrahamic theism.

        “Did u ever look at that ice calving vid? In reference to ‘the deep?’”

        Yeah, I did. You’ll have to be a whole clearer about why this shows anything related to a global flood.

        Like

      • David says:

        Do you believe in spelling the word “you?” Here’s a friendly suggestion. Avoid using “u”. Makes you seem like a bubble-headed teenager.

        Like

      • David says:

        I guess you never heard of the fountains of the deep, or the windows of heaven eh? ”

        Yeah, I asked you about the “fountains of the deep.” As I recall, this was not a productive line of inquiry.

        Like

      • ColorStorm says:

        Sorry David that you think the fountains of the deep is not ‘useful information.’

        Is the ocean floor irrelevant since you cannot see it? Is beneath the ocean floor irrelevant since you cannot see it?

        Are the peaks of the highest mountains irrelevant because man has not seen them?

        Perhaps you can see the relevance of meebottery now..

        Like

        • David says:

          “Is the ocean floor irrelevant since you cannot see it? Is beneath the ocean floor irrelevant since you cannot see it? Are the peaks of the highest mountains irrelevant because man has not seen them?”

          I’m thoroughly confused. Of course all of these things are very relevant to any discussion of flood “geology.” That’s why I asked about them! But you had no answers!

          The problem with your fountains of the deep references is that this is the sum total of what you said about them. “Fountains of the deep.” That’s it. That’s all you can say about it. That’s why this was not a productive line of inquiry.

          “Perhaps you can see the relevance of meebottery now..”

          What I see it that you’re feeling very proud of yourself for having made up, and now overused, some meaningless, craptastic word. What were you saying about pride being the father of meebottery?

          Like

        • David says:

          You are being stubborn, I told you I was not there, I’m certain Noah did not see the ‘fountains broken either,’ the door was shut by God!

          Yes, yes, this is what I’m talking about ! You can’t say anything about the fountains of the deep That’s why this is an unproductive line of inquiry and why waving your hands and saying “fountains of the deep” is worthless.

          “I know that the same way I know he built the ark, and the same way you believe in things not seen: by faith.”

          Ugh. Now you’re twisting the meaning of the word “faith.” More gibberish.

          What more do you want? If you didn’t see the connection with the ‘ice calving’ the size of Manhattan, and what was happening BELOW, I can’t help you.

          Of course you can help me. You can explain the connection that you had in mind. You simply chose not to explain it. This is your M.O. Speak gibberish, fail to explain, blame the confused listener for the lack of understanding.

          Like

        • ColorStorm says:

          The answers you get are not satisfactory to you. I’ve said this a dozen times.

          I cannot prove God’s word to you, nor can anybody else. It is self proving, and that has to be revealed to you. I do know, that faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

          I thought the ice calving was evident, and that you would have been able to make the connection. It gives in a way (since I have not seen it) a great image of the massive pressure ‘beneath,’ as the audio suggested, and well as the visual.

          It certainly was a ‘breaking up,’ and the fact that it was the size of a huge city, and moved upward so quickly was impressive.

          What was beneath the calving? Who the heck knows, there were no cameras. Imagine that on a larger scale, and a huge flood seems rather easy to believe.

          Then there is the water above…………..

          Then again, there is always the Genesis account.

          Liked by 1 person

        • David says:

          “What was beneath the calving? Who the heck knows, there were no cameras. ”

          I’ll bet you that the people who study glaciers have some pretty good ideas about what was beneath the calving. Maybe you should try asking them instead of taking pleasure in ignorance. This isn’t bloody magic!

          “The answers you get are not satisfactory to you. I’ve said this a dozen times.”

          You provide lousy answers, and you expect me to be satisfied?

          I’ve tried to explain to you “a dozen times,” that local geological event such as a calving of a ice berg or a local flood is not relevant to a discussion of the types or the scale of the massive, massive, massive near-simultaneous geological changes that would be required as part of a global flood.

          Try this. Calculate the proportion of the Earth’s surface that is covered by an ice berg the size of Manhattan. Here’s a hint. There are a lot of zeros to the right of the decimal place.

          Like

        • ColorStorm says:

          This thread began with the ‘religion of peace.’

          Murder and mayhem as opposed to grace and truth.

          And remember, for 120 years God was gracious while the ark was a preparing.

          Same God today ministering grace via dolorosa.
          The savage butchers do their beastly acts in the name of oh, lets see, themselves.

          Like

        • archaeopteryx1 says:

          The savage butchers do their beastly acts in the name of oh, lets see, themselves.” – No, they did what they did in the name of the god of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, in whom they believe as strongly as you do, and killed those they believed were blasphemers, as Leviticus demands that they do. They were fundamentalists, and the very definition of that term, is that everyone should believe as they do.

          Like

        • ColorStorm says:

          Archx1-

          You are a broken record. When was the last time a ‘christian’ threatened your life if you didn’t convert?

          You are 100% incorrect as to your idea that the savages were somehow acting in the name of the true God.

          Ever heard of grace arch?? If you do not want to believe, thats your business, but no christian will threaten you or your family.

          And if a mus-lim does not want to believe in the true God, no christian will hold him at gunpoint either.

          If you cant see the difference, please do not waste your time responding.

          Like

        • archaeopteryx1 says:

          And if a mus-lim does not want to believe in the true God, no christian will hold him at gunpoint either.” – Are you honestly admitting that in your ignorance of history, you have never heard of the Crusades?

          Like

        • ColorStorm says:

          Draw your own conclusions. But what about YOU. TODAY?

          Nice try to deflect your responsibility to the God of heaven. What will YOU do with Your sins? What think ye of Christ?

          Like

        • ColorStorm says:

          David-

          Without the word of God, nothing will ever make sense to you, and you will continue to have one question after endless question, all unanswered and none of which can satisfy.

          Only the water of life can quench an insatiable thirst.

          Like

        • David says:

          Ok.

          Guess you don’t want to do any math.

          Like

        • ColorStorm says:

          Yeah math,

          There’s a good one, WHO invented arithmetic?

          Maybe u can address it on another thread.

          Like

        • David says:

          “There’s a good one, WHO invented arithmetic? Maybe u can address it on another thread.”

          And maybe you could demonstrate that you understand the difference between appeals to deism and the theism of the Abrahamic religions.

          Like

        • ColorStorm says:

          You brought up math, just lobbing the tennis ball back to ya.

          It would be kind of nice to set the table with WHERE the genius of math came from eh.

          And once you figure that out, the flood will be much easier. But I’m finished here.

          Like

        • David says:

          And once you figure that out, the flood will be much easier. ”

          Ok, I see that you don’t understand the basics of theology. Given that, yes, it’s best that this is finished.

          Like

        • archaeopteryx1 says:

          There’s a good one, WHO invented arithmetic?” – That’s easy, Muslims, from whom we get Arabic numerals, as well as the concept of zero – they were having their Golden Age, that involved minds of all faiths, including atheists, while Europe was engulfed in the Dark Ages, due primarily to the restrictions of the Christian religion.

          But then, you don’t read history books, do you? Only the Bible —

          Like

        • ColorStorm says:

          archx11-

          It took me a couple hours to stop laughing. Mus-limns invented arithmetic.
          Final answer?

          Liked by 1 person

        • archaeopteryx1 says:

          Muslims invented Arabic numerals (which we all use today), as well as the concept of zero – I’m sure I’ve mentioned this before, but, read a book besides the Bible, you’d be surprised at what you could learn!

          Liked by 1 person

        • Citizen Tom says:

          The invention of math predates Islam. Arabic numerals probably came from India via Muslim traders.

          Like

        • archaeopteryx1 says:

          Then again, there is always the Genesis account.” – Which, as I’ve already explained to you, was plagiarized from and embellished upon “The Epic of Gilgamesh,” written 200 years before the alleged flood, and 2000 years before the flood story was ever penned to papyrus.

          Like

        • David says:

          Let me do this again with quotes to delineate your statements.

          “You are being stubborn, I told you I was not there, I’m certain Noah did not see the ‘fountains broken either,’ the door was shut by God!”

          Yes, yes, this is what I’m talking about! You can’t say anything about the fountains of the deep That’s why this is an unproductive line of inquiry and why waving your hands and saying “fountains of the deep” is worthless.

          “I know that the same way I know he built the ark, and the same way you believe in things not seen: by faith.”

          Ugh. Now you’re twisting the meaning of the word “faith.” More gibberish.

          “What more do you want? If you didn’t see the connection with the ‘ice calving’ the size of Manhattan, and what was happening BELOW, I can’t help you.”

          Of course you can help me. You can explain the connection that you had in mind. You simply chose not to explain it. This is your M.O. Speak gibberish, fail to explain, blame the confused listener for the lack of understanding.

          Like

      • ColorStorm says:

        You are being stubborn, I told you I was not there, I’m certain Noah did not see the ‘fountains broken either,’ the door was shut by God!

        I know that the same way I know he built the ark, and the same way you believe in things not seen: by faith.

        What more do you want? If you didn’t see the connection with the ‘ice calving’ the size of Manhattan, and what was happening BELOW, I can’t help you.

        Like

      • David says:

        Thought you were “finished here”, ColorStorm.

        Anyway…

        “This comment by archx1 is interesting for the aspersion it casts on three, count them three men of scripture and their word.”

        I think that tildeb summed it up very nicely by saying “the problem isn’t with many people from Jesus’ time believing it to be historical; the problem is that reality doesn’t back it up.” Understand? I don’t believe that anyone is attacking the character of Jesus or any other “men of scripture.” He just didn’t know what we know today.

        By the way, every time you say “men of scripture,” it makes me think of that old Budweiser ad campaign…”real men of genius.” Makes me laugh.

        Like

  4. archaeopteryx1 says:

    …when was the last time a Jewish person went on a killing spree with a machete shouting: ‘may you be damned in the name of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob’s God?’” – Well, I can’t say it was the LAST time, but the Book of Joshua is certainly full of it!

    Well, the whole book is full of it, but in this instance, I’m referring to genocide.

    Like

    • ColorStorm says:

      Who didn’t see your reference coming? Right on schedule too. Proof enough that God is NOT commanding such things today.

      You see, there is this thing called the age of grace, that you should be thankful for. Did u ever wonder WHY the Lord did NOTHING when the greatest prophet born of women had his head severed? How many legions of angels could he have summoned….

      Answer this correctly, and you will have no further questions, and you may humbly submit to the all knowing and gracious God who grants you your next breath.

      Liked by 2 people

      • archaeopteryx1 says:

        How many legions of angels could he have summoned….” – Zero.

        Like

        • ColorStorm says:

          Do u get paid for each comment arch?

          You may have reached an all time low with this one.

          I have a post coming tomorrow u may want to look at regarding blindness to the person of Christ.

          Liked by 1 person

        • archaeopteryx1 says:

          You may reached an all time low with this one.” – I’m sorry if you believe that fictitious entities can summon other fictitious entities – genuinely sorry.

          Like

  5. Citizen Tom says:

    If you read the read Bible with some care, you will find it contains a puzzling euphemism, “passing through the fire.”

    There was a reason God wanted the Israelites to drive the Canaanites out of the Promised Land. The gods they worshiped were evil. “Passing through the fire” refers to the Canaanite practice of sacrificing children (their own) to the god Moloch. They have even found the remains of children sacrificed to this god in Carthage. Fortunately, the Romans destroyed Carthage. For some reason, the Romans, a relatively virtuous bunch, wanted nothing to do with such people (see OF TWISTED WORDS => SECULAR on my blog).

    Anyway, here is a post I think some of you will find especially relevant to this discussion.
    http://citizentom.com/2010/09/14/the-bible-and-the-koran-have-parallel-texts/

    Since ColorStorm blocks posts with more than one link (a reasonable practice to filter out spam), I only listed one.

    Like

Comments are closed.