Yes, I knew that. But, in keeping with the theme of the thread, I don't think it was all that loving for God to cause, or at least allow, a man to suffer with blindness from birth, just so he could send Jesus down here and cure the guy for his own exaltation.

Good points about the languages, Lazarus. You are absolutely correct about the way the KJV, with its archaic English, sounds strange to our modern ears, even though it is English. Here's a good example:

Genesis 25:29

"29 And Jacob sod pottage: and Esau came from the field, and he was faint:"

Jacob "sod pottage."(?!) At first blush, it sounds like Jacob was engaged in some kind of kinky culinary depravity that's probably illegal in some states, but it really just means that he was boiling soup.

Well, I see that Cowboy replied to you while I was replying to him, so we'll see where the conversation goes next. There's no doubt that you are correct that he and I could debate Bible stuff endlessly if we chose to.

So, the first covenant "prophesied it's ending" and the coming of a new? Apparently it realized that it was a barbaric and primitive covenant unworthy of an All-Wise God.

I can't see how you can say that it wasn't a change, though, for it obviously was. A big change. Heck,the very fact that the New Covenant is called the NEW Covenant makes it pretty clear that it is distinct from the old one. For instance, look at how Jeremiah refers to it:

Jeremiah 31:31-34

"31 Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the Lord:33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the Lord: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more."

Yahweh specifically mentions one change right there; that his laws would now be inscribed in hearts, instead of on stone.

Then there was the big issue over a little tissue; circumcision.

Of course, right after you said that it wasn't a change, you said that God used two different covenants, which sure sounds to me like there was a change.

By the way, I understand that you can't really know why Yahweh would choose to employ a defective system for over a thousand years, then initiate its new and improved replacement, instead of initiating the better system right off the bat. I just ask the question to inspire thought. The point is that an All-Knowing and All-Wise God shouldn't do that. I give him more credit than that.



It sure looks to me like you did:



Okay. I agree that it wasn't stated that this applied to all deformities for all time. And, I will take this opportunity to modify something I said earlier. I said that Jesus stated that deformities were the result of sin. In truth, he didn't state it outright in the instance I had in mind; he implied it.

However, in another instance, his disciples directly stated it, and he corrected them. Ironically enough, his statement in that instance provides yet another example of God not being a loving god!

John 9:1-3

"1 And as Jesus passed by, he saw a man which was blind from his birth.2 And his disciples asked him, saying, Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind?3 Jesus answered, Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest in him."

Thanks Yahweh! You're a real pal.You couldn't think of some other way to demonstrate your greatness?



Okay. Well, it is God's judgement that I am criticizing.



I quoted Romans 3:23 merely to demonstrate that, according to "God's Word," everyone sins. And, presumably, everyone always had. Including the aforementioned beautiful priests.
But, if you want OT verses that also say that everyone sins, here you go:

1 Kings 8:46

"46 If they sin against thee, (for there is no man that sinneth not,) and thou be angry with them, and deliver them to the enemy, so that they carry them away captives unto the land of the enemy, far or near;"

Ecclesiastes 7:20

"20 For there is not a just man upon earth, that doeth good, and sinneth not."

So, again, taking the story at face-value, even the Yahweh-approved studly priests were sinners. Therefore, it was unloving of God to discriminate against the disabled sinners.

Well, Lazarus...that's a very deep subject that you've broached there! There are so many different Bible translations. And, each one has its adherents, claiming that it is the TRUE word of God, or the one that is most faithful to the oldest extant manuscripts, while decrying the others as the work of Satan.

It's not surprising, though, if you look at the transliterated passages in an interlinear Bible, one thing that immediately becomes apparent is that translating this book into English is as much an art as a science, due to the vast differences between Hebrew and English, and Greek and English.

All of which underscores something I've said many times before: An All-Knowing, All-Wise God, who ostensibly created us, our brains, our system of communication, including all the different languages, would have known that the written word was not the best medium to employ in transmitting his all-important instruction manual to us. Too many opportunities for misunderstandings.

And, in keeping with the theme of this thread, it wasn't very loving of God to demand that we follow the rules found in his all-important instruction manual, when he presented said manual in a way in which it was ripe for misunderstanding and misinterpretation.

First off, why the need for an "old" covenant, and a "new" covenant. I reject the whole idea. Why? Because, once again, I (The atheist.) give All-Knowing, All-Wise God credit for being just that. In other words, I trust that he would have had the wisdom and foresight (Especially since he can see into the future and all.) to come up with the right solution, i.e. the "new" covenant, in the first place, rather than piddle-assing around for thousands of years with a defective system.

Second, you claim that anyone with a deformity is that way because of sin, and that that was why they were rejected for the priestly duties in question. I realize that you have to believe this, since the Jesus character is depicted as saying that, but really...
That's disgusting, to be frank.Assuming that any of this stuff actually happened, I'm sure that there were many people with deformities who would have been very sincere and dedicated in carrying out these duties. Unlike Eli's studly sons, who were approved to be priests, yet abused their positions by banging lots of women who showed up at the Tabernacle. (2 Samuel 2:22)

That said, I'll play along...

Romans 3:23

"23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;"

According to that, even the priests who were Tom Selleck look-a-likes were sinners, too. Yet, they were Yahweh-approved. Well, I guess someone had to carry out the services, and Yahweh wanted only beautiful people doing it.

I still say that it wasn't very loving of him.

Thanks, Lazarus. It's great to be here! Everything makes so much better sense now. I agree with you on everything you said, and I would add that, just like belief in ancient superstitions, even the belief in a flat Earth has survived. I recently encountered a fellow who argued with me about the subject. But, like you said, hopefully at some future point we will evolve beyond such things.
I can only speak for myself obviously, but I can tell you that the reason I quote the Bible in these debates is because I know that though I don't believe that it is anything other than the product of man, to the apologists it is the word of God. (And yet, many of these same apologists aren't all that familiar with what it actually says!) So, I use it as evidence. Showing the horrible stuff in it and the contradictions and inconsistencies can be useful when dealing with someone who will only accept what the Bible says.

And, proving once again that God is NOT a loving god:

Leviticus 21:17-21

"17 Speak unto Aaron, saying, Whosoever he be of thy seed in their generations that hath any blemish, let him not approach to offer the bread of his God.18 For whatsoever man he be that hath a blemish, he shall not approach: a blind man, or a lame, or he that hath a flat nose, or any thing superfluous,19 Or a man that is brokenfooted, or brokenhanded,20 Or crookbackt, or a dwarf, or that hath a blemish in his eye, or be scurvy, or scabbed, or hath his stones broken;21 No man that hath a blemish of the seed of Aaron the priest shall come nigh to offer the offerings of the Lord made by fire: he hath a blemish; he shall not come nigh to offer the bread of his God."

On top of everything else, God discriminates against disabled people.

Jeez, Yahweh! That's not very PC. You probably didn't even have a wheelchair ramp at the tabernacle, did you? You're lucky there was no Jews with Disabilities Act on the books. For crying out loud, haven't these poor people suffered enough already without you rejecting them? Especially the guy with crushed balls!

Have you any thoughts on the "42 little bags of Purina Bear Chow" story?

Are you sure it never brought him pleasure?

Numbers 18:17

"17 But the firstling of a cow, or the firstling of a sheep, or the firstling of a goat, thou shalt not redeem; they are holy: thou shalt sprinkle their blood upon the altar, and shalt burn their fat for an offering made by fire, for a sweet savour unto the Lord."

That aside, it sure seems to me that an All-Knowing, All-Wise god wouldn't have "suffered" through over a thousand years of animal sacrifices, that he didn't want, instead of getting to the propitiatory sacrifice of his son (A ridiculous paradigm in itself, as I explained earlier.) a whole lot sooner.




I wasn't referring to the sacrificial value of the animals. Recall that my original assertion was that it was unloving of God to drown a bunch of animals because he was pissed at some humans. To which you replied, in essence, that the animals didn't matter because they are just soulless commodities for us.

I started off by pointing out that Yahweh at times told his drones to show compassion for the animals, and that if the animals were really just commodities, I don't think he would have bothered to do that. It wouldn't have mattered, anyway.

I quoted the verse in Jonah because the conversation between Yahweh and Jonah was about compassion and forgiveness. And, Yahweh rhetorically asked Jonah, in essence, "Hey, come on, Jonah...shouldn't I spare those poor dolts? And the animals, too?" To me, in that passage, Yahweh was showing compassion to the animals, too.




Well...I thought that there was some confusion about that since you said earlier-


Now, it sounds like you're agreeing with me that "offing" some unruly humans was-


Oh, well. We can debate the potential theological nuances of the story until the worthless, good-for-nothing-but-food-or-sacrificing cows come home, but I still maintain that it was unloving of Yahweh to needlessly kill a bunch of animals in the flood because, as I said before:
Animals feel pain.
Animals show fear.
Animals suffer.
Animals did not cause all the wickedness that Yahweh was in a snit about in the story. Humans, and "sons of God," did.

You never know!
How about it, Rooster? Are you legit, or trolling?
Also...follow up question...since you didn't attribute that quote to the Bible yourself, were you trying to pass those words off as your own?
Or, did you just not feel like mentioning that it was a Bible quote?

Sorry, Sir, but you are incorrect. I do not choose to close my eyes to the evidence of God's existence. On the contrary, I have examined the evidence my whole life. I spent the first forty years of my life as a Christian. I spent many a year as an apologist, so I know well the position you are in as regards trying to defend the indefensible.

At this point in my life, I simply choose to examine any evidence I see on the subject with logic and common sense.

All right, then. I'll take your word for it. I will now explain.
In your previous post, you quoted part of one of my statements where I said:
"Again, if I was trying to sell you on worshiping Ra..." and you replied, "Who's "selling" anything? We're here for the discussions at hand. Not trying to convert you or make you believe my friend. Just expressing details/information(s) on the discussion at hand."

I suppose it's my fault for wording it that way, but that wasn't even the point. I know that you're not trying to convert me, any more than I'm trying to "unconvert" you. We are just having a discussion. I realize that.
Allow me to rephrase the Ra illustration, and hopefully the point will now be clear:

If we were debating the historical accuracy of the stories about Ra, and I was arguing in favor of accepting these stories as being factual based on flimsy evidence, spin, and special pleading like you have at times throughout our discussion thus far, you would call me on it. You would examine the evidence that I put forward with logic and common sense, because you wouldn't be biased in favor of the Ra stories. Quite the opposite, actually. And, this would be true regardless of which deity (Other than Jesus and Yahweh, of course.) we were discussing. I just picked Ra at random.

While I am not trying to talk you out of your belief, I would hope that at some point you would at least realize how weak the evidence you have offered throughout this debate really is. That's what I've been demonstrating.

More semantics. Trying to muddy the water. I know from reading your posts that you possess the intelligence to grasp the point of my Ra illustration.

You know, you just did EXACTLY what Lazarus predicted you would do. You quoted the Bible!

Romans 1:20

"20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:"

(*Gasp!*) Lazarus must be a prophet!

There are many Bible passages that depict Yahweh as instructing humans to treat animals kindly (Even though he also required scads of animal sacrifice. D.I.D. Yahweh strikes again!), so it isn't as cut-and-dry as you claim. For, if animals are just "for our use," there would have been no need for Yahweh to say things like this:

Jonah 4:11

"11 And should not I spare Nineveh, that great city, wherein are more than sixscore thousand persons that cannot discern between their right hand and their left hand; and also much cattle?"

Within the context of forgiving the Ninevites' sins, which is what Yahweh and Jonah are here discussing, the cattle should not have even been a consideration, according to your assertion above.

But, all that aside, consider this:
Animals feel pain.
Animals show fear.
Animals suffer.
Animals did not cause all the wickedness that Yahweh was in a snit about in the story. Humans, and "sons of God," did.

So, regardless of what you might claim animals' purpose is, it was unloving of God to NEEDLESSLY drown all of the animals who didn't get a boarding ticket for the floating shoe-box.

As for why Yahweh brought the flood, Genesis says this:
Genesis 6:5-7

"5 And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. 6 And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.7 And the Lord said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them."

Sure sounds like he wanted to "off" a bunch of unruly humans to me. Particularly since, after the whole horrid affair was concluded, he said this:

Genesis 8:21

"21 And the Lord smelled a sweet savour; and the Lord said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake; for the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth; neither will I again smite any more every thing living, as I have done."

Notice the parallel? The human heart hadn't changed. Humans were still "evil" according to Yahweh. So, apparently Yahweh brought the flood specifically to "off" the unruly humans who were infesting the place at that time.
Otherwise, one must conclude that he went to all the trouble of bringing the flood for nothing, as he knew that the whole process would just begin again, anyway.

Furthermore, it is strange to consider that an All-Wise God would do something so monstrous, and then afterwords conclude that it was not a good idea. After all, he said afterwards that he would never do anything like that again. (I.E. "Curse the ground any more for man's sake.")
Hey...come to think of it...maybe THAT was when he constructed the Ananias and Sapphira Death Beam! So he wouldn't have to wipe out EVERYTHING again. He could just pick off the ******* humans he didn't like.
I may be onto something there...

At any rate, in keeping with the whole point of this entire thread, bringing the flood wasn't very loving.

It wasn't very loving of God to dispatch two of his Hitbears to maul forty-two kids for acting like kids (Proverbs 22:15) by mocking Elisha:

2 Kings 2:23-24

"23 And he went up from thence unto Bethel: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head.24 And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the Lord. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them."

OUCH! That's gonna' leave a mark! The final score is: Bears-42, Kids-0.
Jeez. I guess a time-out, or even a spanking was out of the question.

Perhaps you could share your evidence for that assertion on one of the other threads dealing with that question.

You're welcome, Peggy.

Thanks. I wasn't happy about it, either, let me tell you...

Again, I agree with everything you said. You are a smart cookie.
And I'm glad that things worked out for your friend.

Hello Peggy. :)
I like the way you think. You obviously have a good head on your shoulders. (Where do you live again? Anywhere near Plainfield, Indiana? )

I agree that no one generally rattles off a laundry list of everything he/she is looking for every time the topic is discussed.Certainly there are some presumptions about it. And, as another poster said, we are all basically looking for a very similar set of qualities in a lover, regardless of our gender or sexual orientation.

I was just sharing my experience in order to offer you one man's perspective on your question. And, in fact, while we're talking about my experience, I can offer you a personal anecdote that supports some of your statements in your OP:
Over the course of my last relationship, my ex told me at different times that I met every one of your bullet points above. Particularly number two. (No brag. Just fact.) And, we got along really well, and had a lot of fun together. Yet, she ended up breaking up with me. When she ended the relationship, she told me: "You're a wonderful guy. You've been nothing but good to me, and I'll always love you as a friend. But...you're just not the ONE. And, I'm not willing to settle for second best."
Obviously, I was heartbroken. I was devastated. But, I got it. It's just like you said, there are so many complex factors that go into making a lasting relationship; so many personality traits (For instance.) that must be compatible. And, of course, there has to be that spark.
So, yeah, there is a whole lot more to it than just being a "nice guy."

Still, even though I get that, it is sometimes befuddling to have a woman tell me that she's looking for a guy who very much sounds like her description of me, yet she won't even give me a chance! ;)

But,don't think I'm picking on women here, for I agree with you that men do the same thing. I don't deny that for a minute. I've seen it too many times! I think we can all think of examples of guys we have known who have a female friend that he really likes, maybe even really loves, and she is a really loving, compassionate, Top Notch lady, yet he just can't seem to bring himself to make a commitment to her because he is too busy chasing after every big-boobed blonde bimbo that crosses his field of vision. (*See footnote.)

I think that what we are demonstrating here is that all of us, women or men:
1. Want the best that we can get in everything.
2. Don't always use sound judgement, particularly when it comes to relationships.
3. Finding another individual human being, regardless of gender, who is compatible enough with oneself in order to forge a life-long relationship, makes finding the proverbial needle-in-a-haystack stunningly easy by comparison.

Again, I like the way you think, and I don't disagree with you. I was just trying to offer at least a partial answer to your question. :-)

*Footnote-
1.I'm not saying that all blondes with big boobs are bimbos. (Like you said, many beautiful people are wonderful people.) But, some are.
2. Please forgive my goofy tangent here, but it's just the way my mind works. When I read the phrase "big-boobed blonde bimbo," I immediately think that it sounds like a page out of the Dr. Seuss's ABC Book for Adults.
"Big B...Little b. What begins with b? Big-boobed blonde bimbo. B,b,B."