Old School Atheist Watching: my visit tof Debuncing Christianity blog (2 of 2)

I am going back to the elevated standard of intellectual discussion, but I really ant to show one of the denizens of DC. They had no arguments at all. I said moderate stuff and this is what I got:

I said something about I want discussions that are based upon a standard of reason.

sir_russ

So that I understand you clearly, Joe, you consider yourself to be the standard by which reason and rationality are to be judged? Do I have that right?

You, who claims to accept on one hand that humans evolved, while on the other you accept as a true state of the world that every one of those same evolved humans somehow became infected with Original Sin after two of said humans were induced to being naughty by a talking snake, are the standard of reason and rationality? Seriously? And, now you imagine that the thing that created that is imagined to have created the whole Original Sin clusterfuck to begin with, including the inciting talking snake, had an effective plan to deal with that Original Sin: conduct a fake sacrifice of himself to himself to save all of humankind from himself?

From this we should accept you as a reliable adjudicator of what is reason and rationality?

Metacrock sin nature is the result of anxiety stemming from self transcendence and memory, consult Loftus for Lowdown on Reinhold Niebuhr and St. Augustine. So sin is inherent in being corporeal. We could not refrain from it regardless of what we did. God also gave us the cure. He could not create flesh and blood beings without risking that they would fall, unless they were not free to choose and wanted free creatures to willingly chose the good.
sir_russ

"And, now you imagine that the thing that created that is imagined to have created the whole Original Sin clusterfuck to begin with, including the inciting talking snake, had an effective plan to deal with that Original Sin: conduct a fake sacrifice of himself to himself to save all of humankind from himself?"

Metacrock now, that's an inadequate understanding of doctrine. Original sin is not original guilt its merely the capacity to sin which is part of human nature. Adam and Eve are not the first humans they are merely metaphors.

sir_russ

"Religion has nothing to recommend it intellectually, Joe. Religions are wholly human-manufactured constructs existing in bubbles independent from what is real and what is true."

MetacrockI was an atheist from 16 to 23. I've been a Christian for 36 years. I've been an intellectual since 6th grade. So Obviously not true. Through Loftus's words back at him "Joe Hinman is the real deal" meaning an intellectual.

"Your version of a religion might have lots of participants, but intellectually it is no different from Scientology, or Russianity, the religion with me as its Supreme Being."

Metacrockyou don't even know what it is. you think all of Christianity is fundamentalism.. Apparently you have never heard of liberal theology. That is sheer ignorance. Moreover you could study and learn but you would rather mock and ridicule study so that proves you have no idea what being an intellectual is, That prove my point atheism is for the ignorant it's a hate group.

"All of humanity suffers as a direct consequence of the competing truth claims of the religious."

MetacrockEmpirically disproved projecting your personal experiences.Here are 300 empirical studies that show religion is good for you. they don't allow links here. you are being isolated from knowledge so you can't unlearn your brain washing.Doxa > Theology > what is supernatural > 300 studies

If your party one had any truth to it you would be making arguments instead of bromides. [Notice the make no attempt to back anything up]

You assert there is a standard. What is it? Show us that by its consistent application it is even worthy to be considered a standard. Your PhD-ness in God-Stuff should be useful for at least that

[I told him the standard is logic--latter in the rhubarb when I said Adam and Eve are Metaphors he said:]

And, Bible is a metaphor for bullshit. Joe, there is NO adequate understanding of "doctrine." To claim otherwise makes you a liar, pure and simple. Doctrine is whatever you make up or what you accept that someone else has made up. Doctrine is completely arbitrary. Gods do not exist to mind the doctrinal store, so every religious group concocts doctrine to suit themselves. The 40,000 Christianities attest to exactly that.

[This moron who knows nothing about doctrine is not even attesting discussion. Apparently he is afraid to do any real thinking--what's the point of attempting discussion with stupid people who have no intension of thinking about what you say. This guy actually said if you claim to have an understanding of doctrine you are lyinjg--has hevever read anby?] Metacrock Joe: >>> sin nature is the result of anxiety stemming from self transcendence and memory, consult Loftus for Lowdown on Reinhold Niebuhr and St. Augustine. So sin is inherent in being corporeal. We could not refrain from it regardless of what we did. God also gave us the cure. He could not create flesh and blood beings without risking that they would fall, unless they were not free to choose and wanted free creatures to willingly chose the good.

More of Joe Hinman's bullshit which would be contradicted by lots of other theologically-trained(not educated) Christians.

[getting the point? the guy's a dunce and he has no desire to learn anythinjg]

Atheists Battle Their Super Egos

I have often accused atheists of only being able to understand the big man in the sky rather than more expansive views of God, such as process theology or Existential ontology. But I've slowly begun to realize that they really are using "God of the Bible" as a means of venting in a cathartic process of battling their own super egos. Look at the way they sound when they rant about how evil God is, they sound like teenagers who have just moved out of the house becuase they an't stand their father. One such prime example is that of a poster on carm:Roarian

Indeed, I would put him straight in the category of malevolent and elitist : he doesn't care one bit about what you did with your life or what you believed, but merely what you did not believe : if you weren't a part of his posse, you're out forever.

Can't you just hear a pot smoking kid of the 60s saying 'Dad doesn't care about me?' not that I mean to belittle this guy's feelings by saying that. Most guys my age have been there, even with the pot smoking. The fear that God is only concerned with penalizing you for believing wrong things rather than with how good you may be because you believe a few right things, this is not only a tortured understanding of the Gospel, but also reminds me so deeply of a wounded kid in a struggle with his/her father.

Instead of giving all people an equal and fair chance at getting it right, he makes an imperfect world that is extraordinarily bad for getting 'good souls' if you will : he knows beforehand that billions upon billions will never even hear of him, and billions of others will be brought up in opposing beliefs, which are in this world equally unsupported by any evidence.

Such complaints are fraught with misunderstandings. As Christians we look at the wonderful love of Jesus dying on the cross for your sins and at the parables of Shepard chasing down lost sheep out of pure love. The atheist is the wounded inner soul who looks at the fear that he's being held accountable for getting it wrong. No attempt to reason about the nature of theodicy. Of course there are plenty of theories one could support, C.S. Lewis the Problem of Pain, or dare I say in the same breath (not to compare) My own Soteriolgoical Drama. Which I think covers the bases pretty effectively. The issues of billions and billions who will never know Jesus existed (where do these guy's live?) going to hell because they are in the wrong religion is merely an outright misunderstanding of the Gospels which is countered by Paul himself in two different books.

He then expects everyone to just go on faith that this particular religion among thousands is correct. He has his instructions penned down and translated several times, many of which incorrectly, in a tome some 2000 years ago in a sparsely populated area of the world.

The atheist's special vehement hatred of the Bible must be brought into it because its one of the few concrete pieces of data they actually have that's not just opinion. The understanding what we are to do in spreading the Gospel is of course totally inadequacy since it assumed the wrong translation of the Great commission* and does not come to terms with the concept of being a witness or spreading the love of God. These unhappy creatures who can't find their creator because they want to look in the right way think that it's all a matter of just spouting the right cods; we as Christians let them down when we fail to show by example that its not about bringing belief to the world but bringing God's' love to the world.

He then sits around and billions continue to die without ever being able to even known Christianity, while the bible writers sit around waiting to be inspired, finally in 300 AD or such resulting in the Bible.

But of cousre this view that God is "sitting around" rather than working every moment to draw people to himself is indicative of their lack of receptivity and their own refusal to respond. Of cousre he must mix it with the hatred of the Bible because that's really their own tangible piece of evidence, which is largely based upon poor reading skills.

This book is so poorly written that it is then misinterpreted and used as an excuse for hatred,

Poorly written. Has he ever ever read it? It's written in Greek and Hebrew you know. Most likely he's only a translation so he really don't know how it's written. Since he probably doesn't read it daily but relies upon atheist message boards to spread his venom and only cares about finding contradictions not finding value in it he really has no room to talk. Sure enough he has no argument to make as these are nothing more than platitudes he's mouthing.

and millions head to hell because of internal strife between different factions of his one chosen people, sending millions more to hell because nobody can agree on the correct religion and wars and dark ages break out. This all goes on for about 1700 years, ultimately ending up today, where a guy called Metacrock would call him omni-benevolent.

Of course it's only going on in his imagination because he's making fundamentalist assumptions instead of seeking to truly understand the Gospels.

Popular misconceptions of the nature of the Gospel.

"Gospel" means "Good News." The Good News is not that people are going to hell. The Good News is that God cares and provides a way to orient our lives toward him so that we can know him in this life, and in the world to come.

Are there really well meaning people?

"All have sinned and fallen short of the Glory of God." From a human perspective, relatively speaking from one human to another there are, of course, well meaning people. There are good people all around us, from a human perspective. Relative to the Divine however, no one is good, no one is capable of meriting salvation. We all have our sins, we all have our human frailties. We are all caught up in "height" (our ability through the image of God in which we were created to move beyond our human finitude and seek the good) and "depth" (our nature burdened in the sinful wickedness to human deceit).

These are Augustinian terms and they basically mean that we are both, good and bad, saint and sinner. God knows the heart, He Knows what we truly seek. God is merciful and is able to forgive our trespasses. But, if we are really well meaning toward God we will seek the truth. If we are seeking the truth than God will make it plan to us.

Other Religions

Paul said "To those who through persistence seek glory, honor and mortality he will give eternal life.But for those who are self-seeking and who reject the good and follow evil there will be wrath and anger...first for the Jew and then for the gentile; but glory honor and peace for everyone who does good. For God does not show favoritism. All who sin apart from the law will perish apart form the law and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law. For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God's sight, it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous.

Indeed when Gentiles who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves even though they do not have the law, since they show that the requirement of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences bearing witness and their hearts now accusing, now even defending them..." (Romans 2:7-15). New American Standard and other translations say "their hearts accusing, now excusing them..." Most Christians are afraid of this conclusion and they down play this verse. Often Evangelicals will come back and say "he makes it clear in the next passage that no one can really follow the law on their hearts." Well, if they can't, than they can't. But if they can, and do, than God will excuse them. God knows the heart, we do not. The verse clearly opens the door to the possibility of salvation (although by Jesus) through a de facto arrangement in which one is seeking the good without knowing the object one is seeking (Jesus). In other words, it is possible that people in other cultures who follow the moral law written on the heart know Jesus de facto even if they don't know him overtly. Paul backs up this conclusion in Acts 17:22 Paul goes to Athens as is asked by the Athenian philosophers to explain his ideas to them.

These were pagan followers of another religion. Paul stood up and said to them, "Men of Athens, I see that in every way you are very religious for as I walked around and observed your objects of worship I even found an alter with this inscription 'TO AN UNKNOWN GOD' Now what you worship as something unknown I am going to proclaim to you."He basically says that they are worshiping God, they just don't know who he is. That's why he says "I will make it known to you." He doesn't say "you have the wrong idea completely." Most Evangelicals dismiss this as a neat rhetorical trick. But if we assume that Paul would not lie or distort his beliefs for the sake of cheap tricks, we must consider that he did not say "you are all a bunch of pagans and you are going to hell!" He essentially told them, "God is working in your culture, you do know God, but you don't know who God is. You seek him, without knowing the one you seek. He goes on,(v27)"God did this [created humanity and scattered them into different cultures] so that men would seek him and perhaps reach out and find him though he is not far form each one of us." This implies that God not only wants to work in other cultures, but that it is actually his paln to do things in this way. Perhaps through a diversity of insights we might come to know God better. Perhaps it means that through spreading the Gospel people would come to contemplate better the meaning of God's love.

In any case, it does mean that God is working in other cultures, and that God is in the hearts of all people drawing them to himself. Of their worship of idols, Paul said "in past times God overlooked such ignorance but now he commands all people everywhere to repent" (v30). Now what can this mean? God never overlooks idolatry or paganism, in the OT he's always commanding the Israelite to wipe them out and expressly forbidding idolatry. It means that on an individual basis when God judges the hearts of people, he looks at their desire to seek him, to seek the good. That their status as individuals in a pagan culture does not negate the good they have done, and their ignorance of idolatry does not discount their desire to seek the good or the truth. IT means that they are following Jesus if they live in the moral life, even though they follow him as something unknown to them. IT also means that all of us should come into the truth, we should seek to know God fully, and when we do that we find that it is Jesus all along.

Justice of Punishment.*

Jesus himself never speaks directly of hell, but always in parables. The other statements of Hell are mainly in euphemistic passages or in apocalyptic passages such as the book of Revelation. But I suggest that for some crimes hell is deserved. The slaughter of innocent people, the disruption of thousands of lives, the Hitlers of the world, and those who rationalize the deeds through "following orders" deserve to suffer the consequences of their actions. Evil has consequences, and those who commit evil should suffer the consequences, and they will.I have no direct knowledge of what hell is. It is based upon the Greek mythological concept of Tartarus which got into Hebrew thinking through Hellenization. There is no "hell" in the Tennach or the Pentateuch ("OT"). In the Hebrew scriptures there is only mention of Sheol, or the "the grave" to which everyone goes. But in the books of Revelation it does speak of those who work inequity being "outside the Kingdom of God." I don't' believe that hell is littoral fire and brimstone, I do believe it is some state of anxiety or desperation from God.

Knowing God.

Heb. 8:10-12 "...I will put my laws in their minds and write them on their hearts I will be their God and they will be my people. No longer will a man say to his neighbor 'know the Lord' for they will all know me from the least of them to the greatest. For I will forgive their wickedness and remember their sins no more." This passage promises a "personal religion ship with God."The word for "to Know" is the Greek Term ginosko, which means personal expirential knowledge. To give one's life to Jesus means to develop a personal relationship with Jesus. Jesus said (John) "My sheep know my voice..." Personal relationship means that it is more than a set of rules, more than an ideology or a belief system, but a matter of the heart, the emotions, religious affections. IT may not be through dramatic miraculous effects (although I do believe that that is open to all Christians) but it is deeper than mere rule keeping, and does make for a satisfaction nothing else can match.God acts upon the heart. Salvation is a matter of "knowing God" not of mere intellectual assent. What does it mean to know God? It means that being a Christian is a matter of experiencing God's love in the heart and of loving God and others. It is also a matter of being "led" by God through impressions upon the heart, and not merely a set of rules or a list of beliefs that one must check off. IT is the development of "religious affections."The excitement of knowing God is unequaled by anything else in this life.

There are so many misconceptions to disabuse them of, but I really put the blame on myself and other Christians. We have to show them the love of God. This is the only way we are going to correct these misconceptions.


*This was one of the first articles I put on Doxa years ago. At that time I still had a sort of Hell light idea, with some form of separation but not the big fire stuff. Now I don't believe in hell at all. I do believe that those who reject God and die in their sins will cease to exist and perhaps they will before doing so realize what they did wrong. But I also believe that God is love, so I don't know if even this much hell is real. I know God is mercy and I also know that atheists expect to cease existing so they really complain about it too much if that's the case. what I don't believe is that God will torture people becuase they believe the wrong thing. That idea is childish and it was never what the Bible said.


*The right translation of the great commission should say "where ever you happen to be going" not "go ye." It's not in the imperative so it's not a command.

A Typical Atheist Hate minute

this is the only way they can deal with the facts when they disprove their world view. The issue is Lourdes. They are demanding that miracles can't happen. Present evidence of Lorudes of course they have to crush that immediately. They begin demanding that it has to be bad evidence and pretending that it's all Vatican sources when in reality it's fro reporters.

this is with Steve Smith the idiot I debated who publishes the rag Berminham Free Press and who has written so many hate males to my blog. He's now going under "Blondie" because he was banned, but he also put up a page on me calling my mother a whore. He's really such a brilliant mature adult thinker.

CARM, today, no 11

Meta:

Here is my description of what's going to happen:

here's the little mocking ridicule. instead of examining the facts and argument logically.

first they insist it has to be wrong because otherwise they would be wrong so that cant' be true. then they start ridiculing the opponent he's so stupid that he can't see that have to be right.

the meantime the opponent who they ridicule for being so stupid has presented a huge amount of data proving his point and they just laugh at it and call it names and then they tell themselves this makes them thinkers!

so now what do we see:


Originally Posted by Metacrock

guy's dying. his lung's ravaged by TB. he's prayed for , his lungs grow back over night. That's totally inexplicable by any natural means.

Bull Shitter Smith

explain it then if you disagree.

I would love to get some evidence for this. The same kind of evidence one would expect from any extraordinary claim. Not some conspiracy theory about how the medical community is hiding all this evidence of miracles like the government is hiding all the UFO evidence.

Just some regular proof.

he says he wants "regular proof" so what does he do when he get's it:

Meta:

just to prove that I didn't make up the existence of the case there was documentation for it. it's not on the site anymoer but if you really wont to prove it you an get the way back machine and prove it.

Society for the Little Flower (Website) FAQ (visited 6/3/01)
St. Theresse of Lisieux

http://www.littleflower.org/therese/faq.html#4

"Regarding St. Therese, in 1923 the Church approved of two spontaneous cures unexplained by medical treatment. Sister Louise of St. Germain was cured of the stomach ulcers she had between 1913 and 1916. The second cure involved Charles Anne, a 23 year old seminarian who was dying from advanced pulmonary tuberculosis. The night he thought he was dying, Charles prayed to Therese. Afterward, the examining doctor testified, "The destroyed and ravaged lungs had been replaced by new lungs, carrying out their normal functions and about to revive the entire organism. A slight emaciation persists, which will disappear within a few days under a regularly assimilated diet." These two miracles resulted in Therese becoming beatified."

"Once she was declared Blessed, it took only two years for the necessary next two miracles to be approved. In 1925, two cures had been investigated and judged to be supernatural, through the intercession of St. Therese. The first involved Gabrielle Trimusi from Parma, Italy. Gabrielle had suffered from arthritis of the knee and tubercular lesions on the vertebrae. The final cure involved Maria Pellemans of Schaerbeck, Belgium. Maria suffered from pulmonary tuberculosis which had spread, as Therese's illness had, to the intestines. The diagnosis of pulmonary and intestinal tuberculosis was made by a Dr. Vandensteene, who also examined Maria after she came back from visiting Therese's grave. The doctor testified, "I found Miss Pellemans literally transformed. This young woman, out of breath from the least movement, moves about without fatigue; she eats everything given to her, with a very good appetite. The abdomen presents no tender point, when formerly the least pressure produced severe pain. All symptoms of tubercular ulceration of the intestine have disappeared." In reports predating Maria's return to health, two other physicians confirmed Dr. Vandensteen's diagnosis of pulmonary and intestinal tuberculosis. On May 17, 1925, Therese was officially declared a Saint by Pope Pius XI."


I know that's not as good as having the X-Ray. The next best thing is that I spoke with someone who has seen it and knows it's true.

MODERN MIRACLES HAVE STRICT RULES

BY DAVID VAN BIEMA


"The paradox of human miracle assessment is that the only way to discern whether a phenomenon is supernatural is by having trained rationalists testify that it outstrips their training. Since most wonders admitted by the modern church are medical cures, it consults with doctors. Di Ruberto has access to a pool of 60 - "We've got all the medical branches covered," says his colleague, Dr. Ennio Ensoli - and assigns each purported miracle to two specialists on the vanquished ailment.

They apply criteria established in the 1700s by Pope Benedict XIV: among them, that the disease was serious; that there was objective proof of its existence; that other treatments failed; and that the cure was rapid and lasting. Any one can be a stumbling block. Pain, explains Ensoli, means little: "Someone might say he feels bad, but how do you measure that?" Leukemia remissions are not considered until they have lasted a decade. A cure attributable to human effort, however prayed for, is insufficient. "Sometimes we have cases that you could call exceptional, but that's not enough." says Ensoli. "Exceptional doesn't mean inexplicable."

"Inexplicable," or inspiegabile, is the happy label that Di Ruberto, the doctors and several other clerics in the Vatican's "medical conference" give to a case if it survives their scrutiny. It then passes to a panel of theologians, who must determine whether the inexplicable resulted from prayer. If so, the miracle is usually approved by a caucus of Cardinals and the Pope.

Some find the process all too rigorous. Says Father Paolino Rossi, whose job, in effect, is lobbying for would-be saints from his own Capuchin order: "It's pretty disappointing when you work for years and years and then see the miracle get rejected." But others suggest it could be stricter still.

There is another major miracle-validating body in the Catholic world: the International Medical Committee for the shrine at Lourdes. Since miracles at Lourdes are all ascribed to the intercession of the Virgin Mary, it is not caught up in the saint-making process, which some believe the Pope has running overtime. Roger Pilon, the head of Lourdes' committee, notes that he and his colleagues have not approved a miracle since 1989, while the Vatican recommended 12 in 1994 alone. "Are we too severe?" he wonders out loud. "Are they really using the same criteria?"

try to follow an issue for more than a few sentences. this quote says that the medical guys are good and they follow the rules, which are good.

Leadership

Franco Balzaretti

Vice Presidente Nazionale -
Associazione Medici Cattolici Italiani (AMCI)
Membre du Comité Médical International de Lourdes (CMIL)

http://www.leadershipmedica.com/scie...10balzaing.htm

"And therefore, in this case it will be possible to close the medical report supporting a “certain and medically unexplainable” recovery, only when:

1) The diagnostics and authenticity of the disease has been preliminarily and perfectly assessed;

2) The prognosis provides for an impending or short-term fatal outcome;

3) The recovery is sudden, without convalesce, and absolutely complete and final;

4) The prescribed treatment cannot be deemed to have resulted in a recovery or in any case could have been propitiatory for the purposes of recovery itself. These criteria are still in use nowadays, in view of their highly logical, accurate and pertinent nature.

They undoubtedly and straightforwardly set out the standard features of an unexpected recovery and have actually made it impossible to put forward any objection to any form of lack of scientific exactitude on the part of the medical practitioners belonging to the Bureau and to the LIMC. The rigour of the Lourdes medical practitioners, whose scrupulousness throughout the years has been centering on the suddenness of recoveries, on the relative effectiveness of the therapies administered, on the objective evidence of the disease found, or on the shorter or longer length of the monitoring period (depending on the disease), has always been exemplary and appreciated by all the Diocesan Canonical Committees that have been called to express their opinion.

Compliance to such criteria has corroborated the seriousness and objectivity of the former Bureau des Constatations and, today, it continues to guide the Comité Médical International de Lourdes, whose conclusions have always represented an indispensable expert’s piece of evidence generating and motivating any further canonical judgements required to acknowledge the real Miracles amongst the thousands of recoveries ascribed to the intercession of Our Lady of Lourdes."

Bull Shitter Smith:

Do you have any idea what qualifies as an objective source?

he linked to some ridiculous page about shape shiting Lizzards. Does he show why source is Bad of course not. He assumes it's Vatican but it's not. Van Beama is not. He's assuming anyone supporting my position has to be wrong. It's a reporter and a major guy on the medical committee. He also ignores the fact that the medical committee is independent of the Vatican and that they have skeptics on the committee. He's just arguign from incredulity.


Originally Posted by blondie For one thing I didn't ask about Lourdes. Secondly, do you

have any idea what even qualifies as evidence?

I have stated many times as an example, the most widely documented miracle in the history of the world is the Hindu Milk Miracle.

that's stupid to say he didn't ask about Lourdes. that's my evidence. he asked for evidence. Hindu Milk miracle is fallacy of guilt by association. there's no basis for thinking that becasue one thing is a fraud that all things like it are. this is the typical sort of piss poor logic they use.


then the little bugger says:

Originally Posted by blondie

Where is this evidence of the guy growing his lung back overnight?

up at the top stupid. that's proof they don't read the material. I put it up but of course they don't need to read it because whatever it says they are just going to deny it.

atheists can't think they are argue from incredulity and that's all they do. who the hell would want to be part of that dumb person's convention?

Atheist Watch is having a good effect

Back in 2007 when I first did Atheist watch 1, I found thousands of websites where atheists used the notion of burning churches and wished hey could burn churches and talked about it and so on. Now I find none. I did an article about it and mentioned it several times and now it's gone.

Since I began talking about atheism as a hate group I've seen many sites where atheists explore that question. Never have the admitted it but I have seen them try to deny plenty. I have seen a rise in anti-atheist sties, which you see linked in the side bar. I see more and more people waking up to how atheists have been and saying "we have had enough."

I think atheist watch is doing a valuable thing and that it is having a good effect. It's making atheists think about their attitudes. Even though they are still in denial I think it has caused a few of them to think about how they act.

It has also caused me to search myself and reflect upon my inability to forgive. We should be learning from each other. we should value each other as dialogue partners and try to help each other explore life rather than indulging in ranker and belittling. No one should ever be belittled regardless of that persons outlook.

The things atheists say about hte Bible are hateful

from carm of cousre

Quote:
Originally Posted by JesusL View Post
Atheists, we all know that you don't like the Old Testament very much. A Jew seems to think that this is because of Christianity.

blowfly
Well it's because there's a lot of genocide, throwing hissy fits, killing people, and not very nice stuff.


Quote:
How do you think Christianity makes the Old Testament seem worse?
Well because the New Testament is a lot nicer than the Old Testament. It offers contrast.


Quote:
Does the New Testament affect your view of the Old Testament? If there was no concept of "Hell", would you be more accepting of it?

Hell doesn't hold me up from believing in the New Testament, any more than the appeal of 70+ virgins motivates me to believe in Islam.

this guy Apostae abe is asked what he thinks of the NT he doesn't even bother to report on that. He just begins ranting about how evil the OT is:

The Old Testament is thoroughly violent, primitive and backward, regardless of any comparison or relation to the New Testament. That is why Ultra-Orthodox Jews are so much more disagreeable than Fundamentalist Christians. But, if we are speaking about God, then Robert Ingersoll said it best:

As a last answer, as a final excuse, the worshipers of Jehovah
said that all these horrible things happened under the "old
dispensation" of unyielding law, and absolute justice, but that now
under the "new dispensation," all had been changed -- the sword of
justice had been sheathed and love enthroned. In the Old Testament,
they said. God is the judge -- but in the New, Christ is the
merciful. As a matter of fact, the New Testament is infinitely
worse than the Old. In the Old there is no threat of eternal pain.
Jehovah had no eternal prison -- no everlasting fire. His hatred
ended at the grave. His revenge was satisfied when his enemy was
dead.

If it were not Hell, and if it were not for its encouragement for belief in the Old Testament, the New Testament would not seem that bad. Christianity would be just another ideology that requires evidence.

they have totally blinded themselves to anything but the evil stinking scum of hte OT they can't see anything else. They could not find a decent passage of nice anything anywhere ever. This kind of hatred is being prouder out on thousands of message board every day. it's just the typical stereotype of athirst hatred that Christians are evil because they read this evil book and there's not one single decent thing in it.