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.

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

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!

And congrats for cleaning the crap out of your eyes and joining us in the real world, lol... But I'm still not sure why people are using quotes from the bible to argue against religion/god. I mean the only thing I have to say at this point is, the bible is BS and there is no other piece of 'evidence' that can be logically and conclusively linked to the existence of a higher being. God is just another word for things that we have yet to explain.

Just a few hundred years ago people still thought the earth was flat, we are still an ignorant race of people. We only deem ourselves as intellectuals because we're the smartest that we know of in existence. Humans have been around in our current form for approx. 200,000 years and only 6000 years ago civilization as we know it began so 97% of the existence of our race has been wasted.

We finally get smart and start using nuclear bombs to wipe each other out, this is what we choose to do with our intellect. There's no way an all powerful being made us unless it was to laugh at how incredibly stupid we are. Given a few hundred more years we might start to resemble something that could be loosely compared to intelligent but that's only if we don't kill each other off first or blow through our natural resources (due to our exponential reproduction) before we can advance enough to venture into deep space.

Try not taking things out of context.


Leviticus 21

1 And the Lord said unto Moses, Speak unto the priests the sons of Aaron, and say unto them, There shall none be defiled for the dead among his people:

Remember, people in the Old Covenant were judged on Earth for their sins. Thus Jesus referencing a multitude of different deformities or irregularities in a person eg., 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. These types of people in reference are that way because of their sins, thus they are "defiled". And read even further, these "rules" were not "standard". They were specific to a specific group for a specific reason.

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.

23 Only he shall not go in unto the vail, nor come nigh unto the altar, because he hath a blemish; that he profane not my sanctuaries: for I the Lord do sanctify them.

Hmm, I wonder if your religion will ever revamp the bible with modern day English? At least modern day grammar. I have a decent vocab and above average grammar and the bulk of the bible quotes I see look like pure gibberish. I mean apart from lacking meaning in the first place because they come from an age old children's storybook the grammar is terrible and many of the words used have not been spoken in common tongue for as long as I've been around and I'm 36.

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.

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.

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.

That is why the first covenant prophesied it's ending and the coming a'new. It wasn't a "change", it was a furthering progress. Why he chose specifically too do two different covenants as he did I personally don't know as I'm not God, you would have to ask him when you get the chance.



I claimed no such thing. This specific bit of information from the scriptures that was referenced spoke of such, but never insinuated that was the case for ALL "deformities" to this day. Again is why I even specifically referenced in the old covenant people were judged for this sins on Earth and it even carried into multiple generations at times depending on the situation and God's judgement at that time.



Jumping back and forth between old testament "covenant" and new testament "covenant" won't bring any clear information, as again they are two entirely different covenant "sets of laws" and punishment was different in the old covenant as it is now.

Ya and even the English version is so ancient that it sounds partially foreign to modern day English speakers. It may have even been the same for the original languages at this point. So not only are they having to translate from other languages into English but from a version of those languages that's 2000 years old.

On a side note, I love how CowboyGH stopped responding to my posts altogether. Religious people tend to do that when you back them into a corner, they will get into a hyper-defensive state and revert to an 'I'm right and you're wrong' mentality. He's only continuing the arguement with you because you're playing into his realm of expertise with the bible quotes, he could go back and forth with you all day with that stuff.

lol? I stopped responding to your posts because they are not the topic of the discussion at hand nor the thread in itself. I've included a few of your recent posts in this post as display of my meaning. Not one of them is in reference to if God is a loving God or not.





Which again none are in reference to if God is a loving God or not, just merely on the existence of God, which is not what this thread is about.

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.

He didn't plainly discriminate against the disabled sinners. That is why I said to keep the verses in context. The referenced disabled people in question, were specifically disabled due to sin.

Leviticus 21
1 And the Lord said unto Moses, Speak unto the priests the sons of Aaron, and say unto them, There shall none be defiled for the dead among his people:

2 But for his kin, that is near unto him, that is, for his mother, and for his father, and for his son, and for his daughter, and for his brother.

3 And for his sister a virgin, that is nigh unto him, which hath had no husband; for her may he be defiled.

4 But he shall not defile himself, being a chief man among his people, to profane himself.

He wasn't saying in general that "disabled" people or people of abnormalities were "defiled". Just these specific people in this specific reference for the specific reasoning on what this book is talking about at that moment. Not like it was a law at that time in that covenant.

He demonstrated his greatness a few verses down if you kept reading.

John 9
5 As long as I am in the world, I am the light of the world.

6 When he had thus spoken, he spat on the ground, and made clay of the spittle, and he anointed the eyes of the blind man with the clay,

7 And said unto him, Go, wash in the pool of Siloam, (which is by interpretation, Sent.) He went his way therefore, and washed, and came seeing.

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.

To be fair I am the OP so if I de-rail a bit, that doesn't exactly defeat the purpose of the thread. I never started the thread with a belief that there actually was a god. The point overall is that how can people believe that there actually is a god never-mind that he's a loving one. I mean there's no proof of existence and even less proof of his alleged love and if he doesn't exist he cannot love so there is that to think about as well.
Also this thread is over 3 years old, frankly I'm surprised we're in the same realm of conversation as the OP at this point.

Lol good point about it being 3 years old, it's remarkable the discussion still even resembles the original topic lol.

There is much proof of God and much proof of his love. Science doesn't inform on the creation of the world, yeah couple different theories here and there. But science more revolves around how the planet operates. And that's just studying how God set it up.

There is much proof of his existence. Just people that refuse to believe it due to age, puts in the hearsay level.

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.

Who says God caused the man to be blind? What if it was due to some abnormalities in the parents genes that gave birth to him that in turn caused him to blind in the first place? And why isn't it specifically "loving" for God to have allowed it to happen? That is one of the downfalls of us not being in the paradise any longer, sicknesses, abnormalities, and so forth. This specific person did see shortly after, but that wasn't the case obviously for all who have been born blind. But one day they will see. This life is but temporary and a very short time span in comparison to eternity. He got to experience life not distracted by appearances.