You go to Hell for believing some parts of the Bible are bull****, but not others-

You can't condemn Jesus if he accepted slavery, obviously.
See folks, this is what I'm talking about, good moral people like bruce can't simply speak the truth, they are under a spell from Jesus....it's like a hard-core Nixom supporter steadfastly refusing to even acknowledge that Nixon did anything wrong. Their fear and insecurity is very very strong, I'm afraid. I love them, and have a better intellectual solution for them.

 

1. If I was a pedophile, would you condemn me?
2. if Jesus was a pedophile (there's no evidence for that whatsoever, but hypothetically speaking) would you condemn him?

I answer "yes" to both, do you?

- - - Updated - - -

What's dishonest, or at least immoral, is not being able to say "of course I'd condemn jesus if he accepted slavery, because I'm a moral person!"

 

I've already answered the underlying question. Clearly.
You won't confront my post about your tactics.
I would ask why, but I don't really need to.

 

Don't undermine your intellectual superiority by using deceit.
This weakens what you are trying to do.
You see, I would condemn the pedophile Jesus.
Now, what have we learned?
I condemn pedophilia and we have learned absolutely nothing about Jesus.
Why not just ask me if I condemn pedophilia and leave out the smear?
You are your own worst enemy.

 

Excellent! You passed the Test For Fanaticism. Many people on this forum clearly can't pass a test like that.
I admire you for not being so fanatical that you couldn't condemn a "prophet" if they hypothetically did something very immoral. Good job. You are likely less fanatical than Jesus, because for one thing, you'd let Gandhi into "heaven" if you had Jesus' magical mutant-superpowers.

YouLie and Margot2 are still working on passing that test, but given time, I believe they will pass also. However, they are free to disagree with me that not being able to answer a question like the following constitutes fanaticism or not: "if, repeat if, hypothetically speaking, this prophet did __________ (immoral act), would you condemn him?" Or "would you remove that part of your texts?"
I say it DOES constitute religious fanaticism.

 

You DO realize that no Muslim I've ever dealt with is being as moral as you are when they are asked the very same hypothetical is asked about MOHAMMAD, correct? This means they are fanatical, despite them claiming to be "moderate".
Modern Secular Humanism is not fanatical (strident, yes, fanatical, no.)

- - - Updated - - -

We've learned a lot! We've learned that you are not as fanatical as many forum posters who refuse to answer simple questions like that.

Also, seperately, jesus approved of torture, and I'm sure you do not, so Jesus is more fanatical, and far less moral, than you are.

 

Now it's agreed. Yes. Thank you.

You're not a Christian anymore, so it's not surprising that you are not fanatical. But many many Christians clearly are fanatical. Jesus was fanatical, so it's no surprise that his followers are too.

 

Pedophilia is based on new found moral and ethical standards, and in many ways a mostly western concept...though even we once walked this line as well.

"In traditional societies, the age of consent for a sexual union is and was a matter for the family to decide, or a tribal custom. In most cases, this coincided with signs of puberty, menstruation for a woman and pubic hair for a man.[2]

Ancient Greek poet Hesiod in "Works and Days" (c. 700BC) suggests that a man should marry around the age of thirty, and that he should take a wife who is five years past puberty. In Ancient Rome, it was very common for girls to marry and have children shortly after the onset of puberty.[citation needed]

Reliable data for when people would actually marry is very difficult to find. In England for example, the only reliable data on age at marriage in the early modern period comes from records involving only those who left property after their death. Not only were the records relatively rare, but not all bothered to record the participants' ages, and it seemed that the more complete the records are, the more likely they are to reveal young marriages. Additionally, 20th and 21st centuries' historians have sometimes shown reluctance to accept data regarding young ages of marriage, and would instead explain the data away as a misreading by a later copier of the records.[2]

The first recorded age-of-consent law dates to 1275, in England, as part of the rape law, a statute, Westminster 1, made it a misdemeanor to "ravish" a "maiden within age," whether with or without her consent. The phrase "within age" was interpreted by jurist Sir Edward Coke as meaning the age of marriage, which at the time was 12 years of age.[3]

In the 12th century Gratian, the influential founder of Canon law in medieval Europe, accepted age of puberty for marriage to be between 12 and 14 but acknowledged consent to be meaningful if the children were older than 7. There were authorities that said that consent could take place earlier. Marriage would then be valid as long as neither of the two parties annulled the marital agreement before reaching puberty, or if they had already consummated the marriage. It should be noted that Judges honored marriages based on mutual consent at ages younger than 7, in spite of what Gratian had said; there are recorded marriages of 2 and 3 year olds.[2]

The American colonies followed the English tradition, and the law was more of a guide. For example, Mary Hathaway (Virginia, 1689) was only 9 when she was married to William Williams. Sir Edward Coke (England, 17th century) "made it clear that the marriage of girls under 12 was normal, and the age at which a girl who was a wife was eligible for a dower from her husband's estate was 9 even though her husband be only four years old."[2]

In the 16th century, a small number of Italian and German states set the minimum age for sexual intercourse for girls, setting it at 12 years. Towards the end of the 18th century, other European countries also began to enact similar laws. The first French Constitution of 1791 established the minimum age at 11 years. Portugal, Spain, Denmark and the Swiss cantons, initially set the minimum age at 10–12 years"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_consent

Middle Eastern society at the time of Mohammad likely did not consider what he did as anything unordinary....Hell it still goes on there today.

"An eight-year-old Yemeni girl has died of internal bleeding on her wedding night after marrying a man five times her age, a social activist and two local residents said, in a case that has caused an outcry in the media and revived debate about child brides."
"
http://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2013/sep/11/yemen-child-bride-dies-wedding

 

How do you imagine your targets will perceive you when you ignore the point of my post and edit it to pursue a skewed agenda?
Do you think that will turn the trick and have them see the light or simply confirm their opinion of you as deceitful?

 

So everybody reading this post would agree that the Qur'an is wrong, that Mohammad is not the best role model of all time, because TODAY his actions would be immoral, correct?
BTW, it's immoral because it harms the innocent little girl, which Mohammad was not smart enough to realize (so it's very very doubtful that he was divinely inspired by an all-knowing entity - who would have realized the immense problems a pedo-prophet would pose centuries later.)

What do you folks think?

 

You made my case.
You show that we learned nothing about Jesus.
You are killing yourself.

 

They will realize that they are being immoral.

 

You are fanatical.
Everyone with hardcore unshakable beliefs is fanatical.

- - - Updated - - -

Will you?

 

If it can be shown to you that Jesus did accept torture, would you condemn Jesus....if not then apparently you would be willing to sign a petition ALLOWING torture to take place today - since you'd agree with the torture? Which is it? As a modern Secular Humanist I can be consistent, BTW.

- - - Updated - - -

Show me where my beliefs are wrong, and of course I'll change.

 

What is wrong is editing a post down to what you can handle and ignoring what you can't.
When showing where you are wrong, you don't change.
You edit.

 

The bat/bird thing could be dismissed as just ignorance of the time, but what about contradictions that supercede ignorance?

Here are some examples:

Joseph's father:

Fixing numbers:

The color of Jesus' robe for his trial:

A literalist can't possibly believe both. Any honest person would admit that the Bible is full of errors and contradictions. Since this is the case, what does a Christian choose as the truth? I'm sure their answer would be "one just has to have faith".

 

I don't believe I'm wrong, but I do sometimes try to focus down a broad post for my response to it.

 

And ignore the point of it?
You have ceded the moral high ground.
You have reduced yourself to "the ends justify the means".

 

Let me paraphrase: "one just has to ignore the facts".

 

If Jesus was real, and cared about his followers, he'd have cleared this up w/in that last 2000 years, as a service to his "children". Instead, he leaves them twisting in the wind, looking like fools. I bet YOU would clear it up, if the main book about you that your children read (just say) had HUNDREDS of contradictions in it, correct? Of course you would, because you're real and moral, unlike Nazareth's most famous zombie.

Here are dozens more contradictions (click on this link to get the explanation for all 477): http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/by_name.html


Where did Josiah die?

How did King Josiah die?

How long did Jotham reign?

How did Judas die?

Did Judas identify Jesus with a kiss?

To judge or not to judge.

Does Jesus judge people?

Has there ever been a just person?

Is anyone justified?

Was Keturah Abraham's wife or concubine?

To kill or not to kill.

Why did God reject Saul as king?

Who was the father of Kish?

Does God know and see everything?

Who was Korah's father?

Did God burn all of Korah's children to death?

Who was Laban's father?

What were the last words of Jesus?

Should we obey human or divine law?

Is it wrong to lie?

What is the human lifespan?

How many of Lod, Hadid, and Ono's offspring returned from Babylon?

Has the sun ever stood still in the sky for 24 hours?

Who is the Lord of this world?

Was Lot a righteous man?

Should we love or hate our brother?

How many soldiers did Lysias have?

How many of Lysias' footment were killed by the Jews?

Was Mahli the son of Levi?

Will everyone see the majesty of God?

Was David a man of war before he fought Goliath?

Did Elisha receive Elijah's mantle before or after Elijah is taken up into heaven?

Is marriage a good thing?

Was Mary (the mother of Jesus) blessed?

Should Christians be concerned with material things?

Is it OK to eat meat sacrificed to other gods?

Was Moses meek?

Is God merciful?

How many children did Michal have?

Did the Israelites kill every male in Midian?

How many people did God kill for "committing whoredom with the daughters of Moab"?

How did God say the Moabites should be treated?

Did any Moabite enter the congregation of the Lord?

 

The resurrection has contradictions, so it's most likely that Jesus is NOT divine and NOT coming back to see that the non-Christians get what they deserve in "hell". I of course love non-Christians, and I think most forum posters do to, so we are all of course far more moral than the highly immoral Jesus clearly is. Time to leave this immoral invisible super-hero.

 

No, Jesus and Mohammad have because they accepted torture.

 

Jesus/Mohammad are fine with their followers picking whatever they want as the truth....as long as they don't DARE question J/M.

 

And you embrace deceit and manipulation.
Pick your poison.
One ethic the bible emphasizes is that pride is the root of just about all sin.
That is a biblical principle you might want to embrace, rather than sounding like Muhammad Ali just before getting knocked out by Joe Frazier.

 

Apparently my attitude is more vile to you than the zombie's TORTURE OF INNOCENT people. If Jesus will, just say, torture my little niece for using her reason and common sense (and not believing in zombies), do you condemn him in no uncertain terms, bruce? Do you? I do, because I'm far more moral than that.