arguments are based more in reactive emotion rather than logic.
#1 how could the author, claiming to be so thoroughly educated in Christianity, not understand the concept of "solids" and "baby food", so much so that he equates all of the bible as appropriate to be taught to children. Trying to solve a problem that has already been addressed without acknowledging that it ever was addressed screams ignorance to me.
#2 There is a difference between disagreement and provocative attacks. This book is obviously a non-constructive attack rather than a logical argument; which seems to me that his arguments are based more in reactive emotion rather than logic. Either way, would this not be the equivalent of idiots like the 700 club that describe "athiests" like they are a cult trying to steal your soul?
Inquisition perhaps?Surely a result of those.
I think the point of the thread is that when one considers the true consequences of actions attributed to God, like the she-bears incident, that one has to wonder at how a loving God would actually take an active part in commiting such atrocities as killing "innocent" children by eating them alive. As I recall, their only "crime" was to tease or taunt the prophet, surely a great sin worthy of death-by-bear.
but but but but... that's the OLD testament!!!Jesus totally changed all that. Ya know by preaching love and such, he totally fixed that whole "destroy other nations and rape their daughters" clause.
Quote from: Whirlingdervish(Q2C) on November 18, 2009, 01:04:34 PMbut but but but... that's the OLD testament!!!Jesus totally changed all that. Ya know by preaching love and such, he totally fixed that whole "destroy other nations and rape their daughters" clause.Yeah, if only he hadn't also (a) introduced the lovingly merciful concept of eternal punishment in the afterlife, which never existed in the old testament; and (b) said things like Matthew 5, 17-18: Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.So... the Old Testament laws stand! Go Leviticus!!
There is a huge difference between taking on a subject because you are interested in understanding it, and taking on a subject because you are interested in defaming it. From the non-sensical notion that depicting some of the taboo passages in the Bible by using kids story style art exposes those passages as inappropriate is just plain silly.
The Disney version of Cinderella doesn't include partial dismemberment. Maybe a Disney style movie about the atrocities carried out by the feudal system is the appropriate response?
The point is that it is a silly attempt to be provocative for the sake of being provocative. He may make arguments, but the original gimmick overrides any of that.
and the sunday sermons that don't stray too far from the themes covered in the traditional storybooks.