God screwed Adam and Eve

[Riverwolf]

Reading the bible period is fruitless, unless your reading about new ways to be cruel and immoral.

Prove it by showing me that everybody who reads the Bible, including myself, is cruel and immoral.

The point stands, this shows this god's unethcial charracter, regaurdless of how one reads it.

Then why did this stance not prevent the Tanakh from standing the test of time as it has? Obviously others have had it, and still do. Why, then, does it continue to be half of the most popular book in the Western world?

 

[Watchmen]

So it looks like no ones trying to defend god and his shappy treatment of adam and eve anymore.

Or perhaps watchmen wishes to continue, if he had a more 'respectful' opponent, dispite the ironic use or curse words in his posts.

The moral of this story: This god's an evil character.

I'll take that as a no. I offered...twice...and was even respectful my second time.

 

[Watchmen]

The point stands, this shows this god's unethcial charracter, regaurdless of how one reads it.

You don't get to claim victory when you failed my challenge and offer.

 

[OmarKhayyam]

Since when is ANYONE required to show any "respect" whatever for someone else's mythological based delusions?

You got a god? Bring him around for a chat. Failing that you got nothing but self serving mythology.

 

[Watchmen]

Since when is ANYONE required to show any "respect" whatever for someone else's mythological based delusions?

You got a god? Bring him around for a chat. Failing that you got nothing but self serving mythology.

The respect I ask for is in the discourse - the interaction between us. I admit I've fallin' short. I asked for a do-over and was rejected...twice.

 

[OmarKhayyam]

The respect I ask for is in the discourse - the interaction between us. I admit I've fallin' short. I asked for a do-over and was rejected...twice.

Bah! Man up.

 

[dorsk188]

Reading the bible period is fruitless, unless your reading about new ways to be cruel and immoral.

Prove it by showing me that everybody who reads the Bible, including myself, is cruel and immoral.

WARNING: NON SEQUITUR ALERT

I'll take that as a no. I offered...twice...and was even respectful my second time.

Protip: Demanding to "start over" or an apology to continue the conversation is making you look overly proud and petty.

The respect I ask for is in the discourse - the interaction between us. I admit I've fallin' short. I asked for a do-over and was rejected...twice.

And yet no one has demanded that you apologize or have a "do-over". You're the only one here who's creating arbitrary barriers to halt the conversation.

Not that I understand what "do-over" even means in this context. Does that nullify his previously stated objections to the story?

 

[Riverwolf]

WARNING: NON SEQUITUR ALERT

I don't get it.

Protip: Demanding to "start over" or an apology to continue the conversation is making you look overly proud and petty.

I think it's perfectly reasonable to request a "start over" when a debate, which by nature is supposed to be polite and respectful, turns into an argument, which by nature is basically fighting with words instead of fists.

And yet no one has demanded that you apologize or have a "do-over". You're the only one here who's creating arbitrary barriers to halt the conversation.

What conversation? It's turned into an argument.

Not that I understand what "do-over" even means in this context. Does that nullify his previously stated objections to the story?

No. It's a request that they be reworded to be more respectful and polite, which I think is reasonable.

After all, whatever you do or however you act to someone else, you give them permission to do likewise to you.

 

[dorsk188]

I don't get it.

Just because you are reading of new ways to be cruel and immoral does not mean that you are yourself cruel and immoral. And demanding evidence that every Bible reader is cruel and immoral is even further afield of his original claim.

I think it's perfectly reasonable to request a "start over" when a debate, which by nature is supposed to be polite and respectful, turns into an argument, which by nature is basically fighting with words instead of fists.

I couldn't agree more. When I first joined RF in '05, I jumped into a thread on Mormonism, was very "clever" and loose with the facts. I didn't have my facts straight on many points, and began to assail the BoM based on its grammar. After a few posts, I backtracked, apologized and proposed that we start over. I took full responsibility (because it was completely my fault). We remained civil, but ran into continued difficulty on the merits of certain arguments. The experience taught me to be more careful in how I address people on the forum, and be sure I say what I want to say.

In this case, though, I don't understand what Watchmen wants. He accused me of comparing God to Hitler (something I didn't do), and called me something that holds scented vinegar solutions. Then he wants to start over. Why should we start over when I'm not offended and I don't feel I've offended him? (I've given up on the discussion with Watchmen since then.) It seems to me that the mature thing to do, if he wants to continue a constructive conversation is provide his "answer" and go forward from there. If he doesn't want to, then he should say so. This "do-over" seems... petty to me. Just an opinion.

No. It's a request that they be reworded to be more respectful and polite, which I think is reasonable.

Respect and politeness are all great, and I try to be both. But if someone genuinely believes the God of the Bible is a genocidal maniac above and beyond Hitler (a defensible claim), then Watchmen would accuse him of being disrespectful, regardless of how polite he is.

We should be respectful of each other as persons, and respectful of the right we have to hold whatever beliefs we want. But those ideas themselves don't necessarily deserve to be respected.

 

[Watchmen]

In this case, though, I don't understand what Watchmen wants. He accused me of comparing God to Hitler (something I didn't do), and called me something that holds scented vinegar solutions. Then he wants to start over. Why should we start over when I'm not offended and I don't feel I've offended him? (I've given up on the discussion with Watchmen since then.) It seems to me that the mature thing to do, if he wants to continue a constructive conversation is provide his "answer" and go forward from there. If he doesn't want to, then he should say so. This "do-over" seems... petty to me. Just an opinion.

Unless I'm mistaken, my responses that you reference were directed at Humanistheart - not you.

 

[dorsk188]

OK - looks like you can't be respectful either.
Is that the new trend around here? To register with the RF these days you've got to be a douche-bag?

I've asked for the reasons. You called me a douche-bag. You have an interesting definition of "respect".

You you use words like "mindless" and compare my God to Hitler then I'm going to get ****** off and disengage.

Shall we start over or continue the name-calling? I don't deny I called you a douche-bag, but I'm willing to try again.

Look, I don't really care about it. I'm not demanding an apology or a start over. I stand by what I wrote. My words reflect my point of view, which is that your religion is false, and clearly so.

Even though I didn't compare your God to Hitler, I wouldn't bat an eye doing so. If you believe the story of Noah or the Jews' exodus from Egypt are historically accurate, then God has certainly committed genocide. If you can't handle that assertion, I don't know what to say. Many atheists (and others) don't respect your concept of God or your religious tradition. We are irreverent in the truest sense of the word. But that is not itself personal disrespect.

We are talking about ideas. And no idea inherently deserves respect.

 

[Humanistheart]

I'll take that as a no. I offered...twice...and was even respectful my second time.

You've been reading too many of clear's posts. It seems you now confuse cursing with proper debate style. Oh well, I'm sure your imaginary god would aprove of you cursing at your enimies, since he has no problem slaughtering them.

 

[Watchmen]

Look, I don't really care about it. I'm not demanding an apology or a start over. I stand by what I wrote. My words reflect my point of view, which is that your religion is false, and clearly so.

Even though I didn't compare your God to Hitler, I wouldn't bat an eye doing so. If you believe the story of Noah or the Jews' exodus from Egypt are historically accurate, then God has certainly committed genocide. If you can't handle that assertion, I don't know what to say. Many atheists (and others) don't respect your concept of God or your religious tradition. We are irreverent in the truest sense of the word. But that is not itself personal disrespect.

We are talking about ideas. And no idea inherently deserves respect.

My mistake. I confused you for someone else and, even though you're not demanding it, I do apologize.

If you compare God to Hitler in the context of the exodus then I think we have a basis for discussion. However, I got the impression that the other poster was just name-calling.

 

[Watchmen]

You've been reading too many of clear's posts. It seems you now confuse cursing with proper debate style. Oh well, I'm sure your imaginary god would aprove of you cursing at your enimies, since he has no problem slaughtering them.

Post #179 was free of "cursing" and you failed to take me up on my offer.

 

[Gemma Cusack]

Hang on...has anyone thought about the prospect that God is testing us maybe? Possibly God's Great Plan as the theory says, involves Adam and Eve and God testing them. I can see why you say that but God (if he exists) happens to possibly have a way of weeding out the weak. Maybe this is a representation of God's Plan for Humanity.

 

[Watchmen]

Hang on...has anyone thought about the prospect that God is testing us maybe? Possibly God's Great Plan as the theory says, involves Adam and Eve and God testing them. I can see why you say that but God (if he exists) happens to possibly have a way of weeding out the weak. Maybe this is a representation of God's Plan for Humanity.

I proposed that this was all part of God's Plan for us to become like Him......that proposition was rejected by the masses.

 

[Humanistheart]

Post #179 was free of "cursing" and you failed to take me up on my offer.

Oh wow, one whole post without cursing, your doing so well.

What offer? You never gave a counter argument to the last post I made before you got all butt hurt and starting cursing at people.

Go back, read the last relevant post when we were still 'debating' and give an answer (without resorting to your petty insults and cursing in the style I can onlys assume you picked up from clear) and we can proceed. The burden of proofs been on you for a while watchmen, don't try to put it on anyone else.

Of course, as you already stated, your theory's been rejected by the masses.

 

[Watchmen]

Oh wow, one whole post without cursing, your doing so well.

What offer? You never gave a counter argument to the last post I made before you got all butt hurt and starting cursing at people.

Go back, read the last relevant post when we were still 'debating' and give an answer (without resorting to your petty insults and cursing in the style I can onlys assume you picked up from clear) and we can proceed. The burden of proofs been on you for a while watchmen, don't try to put it on anyone else.

Of course, as you already stated, your theory's been rejected by the masses.

The offer was to start over and be respectful. If you don't want to start over then I will go to your last point and rebut it. But first, I'll need a commitment that you will be respectful. And I commit to you that I will be respectful and not name call or curse (as I have done my last few posts to you).

 

[Humanistheart]

The offer was to start over and be respectful. If you don't want to start over then I will go to your last point and rebut it. But first, I'll need a commitment that you will be respectful. And I commit to you that I will be respectful and not name call or curse (as I have done my last few posts to you).

The problem with this is that as far as I can tell no one was being disrespectful before. No one had cursed at you, or twisted your words, but you read posts you couldn't defend against and decided to call them disrespectful. It's hard to take your word that this simply wont happen again.

Still, trying to put that asside, you can start the debate over or continue from the last point. Either way, assuming you don't curse again in which case you might just be the 2nd person to be put on ignore, I will continue to debate and debunk your claims. What opening argument would you care to use?

 

[Humanistheart]

I'm sorry, I must go for now. I'm literally choking on my own rage and disguist from the last post you quoted, on a seperate thread.