Can Atheists be Moral?

[anynameyouwish]

ok....

murder and theft....

after that....what ya got?

what EVERLASTING morals and principles?

If you eat the flesh of unclean creatures that do not ruminate you will be defiled and contaminated, their flesh is vile and loathsome.

In other words if you swallow the teachings of people who do not think deeply without thinking at all, that vile and loathsome teaching will defile and contaminate your mind and you will become an unclean creature incapable of thinking deeply and you will say and do stupid things that injure yourself and the people you love, sometimes for decades, sometimes for the rest of your life.

This has always been and will always be true.

To sum up kosher law, Stand guard over the purity of your own mind, the seat of your consciousness and entire experience of life. Learn to differentiate between clean and unclean teaching. If you don't, you will fuck up your mind and your life.

When was this or will this ever be irrelevant? Will there ever come a time when adopting irrational beliefs into your thought processes will make you a rational person?

"In other words if you swallow the teachings of people who do not think deeply without thinking at all, that vile and loathsome teaching will defile and contaminate your mind and you will become an unclean creature incapable of thinking deeply and you will say and do stupid things that injure yourself and the people you love, sometimes for decades, sometimes for the rest of your life."




I got it!

I should NOT listen to people who quote the bible because they are NOT deep thinkers and are only regurgitating nonsense that they NEVER questioned!

Thank you for that advice!

Excellent. Just one minor correction.

"I should NOT listen to people who take the bible literally because they are NOT deep thinkers and are only regurgitating nonsense that they NEVER questioned!"

You still get an A for effort!

Do I get a gold star, too?

Better than that.

I will give you a name.

Kosher creature aka, KC, Son of Meanie. Now go find the jawbone of an ass and slaughter some philistines!

I shall bear it with pride!

it's much better than "devil worshipping, god hating, commy traitor"!

 

[hobelim]

If you eat the flesh of unclean creatures that do not ruminate you will be defiled and contaminated, their flesh is vile and loathsome.

In other words if you swallow the teachings of people who do not think deeply without thinking at all, that vile and loathsome teaching will defile and contaminate your mind and you will become an unclean creature incapable of thinking deeply and you will say and do stupid things that injure yourself and the people you love, sometimes for decades, sometimes for the rest of your life.

This has always been and will always be true.

To sum up kosher law, Stand guard over the purity of your own mind, the seat of your consciousness and entire experience of life. Learn to differentiate between clean and unclean teaching. If you don't, you will fuck up your mind and your life.

When was this or will this ever be irrelevant? Will there ever come a time when adopting irrational beliefs into your thought processes will make you a rational person?

"In other words if you swallow the teachings of people who do not think deeply without thinking at all, that vile and loathsome teaching will defile and contaminate your mind and you will become an unclean creature incapable of thinking deeply and you will say and do stupid things that injure yourself and the people you love, sometimes for decades, sometimes for the rest of your life."




I got it!

I should NOT listen to people who quote the bible because they are NOT deep thinkers and are only regurgitating nonsense that they NEVER questioned!

Thank you for that advice!

Excellent. Just one minor correction.

"I should NOT listen to people who take the bible literally because they are NOT deep thinkers and are only regurgitating nonsense that they NEVER questioned!"

You still get an A for effort!

Do I get a gold star, too?

Better than that.

I will give you a name.

Kosher creature aka, KC, Son of Meanie. Now go find the jawbone of an ass and slaughter some philistines!

I shall bear it with pride!

it's much better than "devil worshipping, god hating, commy traitor"!

Fear not! With vorpel sword firmly in hand the jabberwocky's days are numbered.

 

[MedfordMan]

ok....

murder and theft....

after that....what ya got?

what EVERLASTING morals and principles?

If you eat the flesh of unclean creatures that do not ruminate you will be defiled and contaminated, their flesh is vile and loathsome.

In other words if you swallow the teachings of people who do not think deeply without thinking at all, that vile and loathsome teaching will defile and contaminate your mind and you will become an unclean creature incapable of thinking deeply and you will say and do stupid things that injure yourself and the people you love, sometimes for decades, sometimes for the rest of your life.

This has always been and will always be true.

To sum up kosher law, Stand guard over the purity of your own mind, the seat of your consciousness and entire experience of life. Learn to differentiate between clean and unclean teaching. If you don't, you will fuck up your mind and your life.

When was this or will this ever be irrelevant? Will there ever come a time when adopting irrational beliefs into your thought processes will make you a rational person?

"In other words if you swallow the teachings of people who do not think deeply without thinking at all, that vile and loathsome teaching will defile and contaminate your mind and you will become an unclean creature incapable of thinking deeply and you will say and do stupid things that injure yourself and the people you love, sometimes for decades, sometimes for the rest of your life."




I got it!

I should NOT listen to people who quote the bible because they are NOT deep thinkers and are only regurgitating nonsense that they NEVER questioned!

Thank you for that advice!

Anynameyouwish,

I did not give that advice (but you know that)

Thank you for illustrating the twisted illogic of the selfish sin nature.

 

[MedfordMan]

Objective: Not influenced by personal feelings.

God has feelings. He is Loving, Jealous, Angry, disappointed, vengeful.

God's opinions are free to change, or God does not have free will.

Morality based on God would be subjective, God being the subject.

Morality based on human suffering is measurable, and these empirical measurements exist in spite of bias.

A moral system based on human suffering is far less subjective than one based on a God that experiences emotions and a preference for an outcome. Gods morality is even less objective when you consider the Laws he gave to Moses, vs. the moral disposition of Jesus. There was a change there, and a change is in conflict with moral objectivism based on a God.

Your argument misrepresents God, but it perfectly sums up the underlying argument of everyone who doesn't believe in God.

God is not human. God does not have feelings. Human feelings are one of the ways we experience the world of which God is the creator.

God does not change.

God does not need free will, as he operates outside the space time continuum. He sees the past, present and future simultaneously, so his will and plan is perfect.The

Still, it's your post modernist argument that each person's subjective experience is more valid than that of an entity so powerful it created the universe and everything in it.

You see unbelief comes down to a very simple choice. Do I submit to something greater than myself or do I seek to elevate myself, so I don't have to submit to anything and I can act in accordance with my selfish and base desires.

It's the latter choice which is the source of all human suffering.

You didnt answer the objection succinctly - the bible uses specific adjectives to describe God's emotions, and you just denied it based on you said so.

Second, I didnt apply subjectivism based on any 1 human individual, so that wasn't pertinent but was a strawman. I appealed to measured human suffering, something concrete as opposed to God who is 1 subject that has emotions, whose morals at least described in the Bible DID change and his adjective of being "un changing" is just another Biblical contradiction ~ and it also causes more logical issues than it resolves.

Well there is a long history of biblical scholarship that addresses these issues, but since I doubt that you want to educate yourself on it, I thought I'd provide the cliffs notes version for you.

I believe the use of Human emotions to explain God's behavior represents a challenge in translating God to us. The use of emotions is less about God's state of mind and more about we as limited beings understand how and why God moves.

Your whole argument was subjective although you artfully tried to dress it up as something else.

Human suffering is far from concrete (as the 21st century has proven), but it is easier to understand than a super natural entity powerful enough to create the universe and everything in it.

Ironically, that is why Jesus is such an important part of the Bible story. Through Jesus, God became a man, to show us that he fully understands us though we continue to struggle to understand God.

Now you're just special pleading. You want to explain away God's described emotions by saying they were simple place-holders, and a function of a misunderstanding ~ but you did not establish that as fact it's just a claim. Decoder ring fallacy.

The problem is scale.

you're still thinking of God as a super powerful humanoid with a white beard sitting on a cloud.

Like Bible translators, science and philosophy are limited by human understanding.

Imagine that God is the proton, the neutron, the electrons and the nuclear glue holding them together. Imagine God is both energy and matter.

what science experiments could be designed to prove or disprove such a God?

What philosophic argument could prove or disprove, such a God?

 

[G.T.]

Objective: Not influenced by personal feelings.

God has feelings. He is Loving, Jealous, Angry, disappointed, vengeful.

God's opinions are free to change, or God does not have free will.

Morality based on God would be subjective, God being the subject.

Morality based on human suffering is measurable, and these empirical measurements exist in spite of bias.

A moral system based on human suffering is far less subjective than one based on a God that experiences emotions and a preference for an outcome. Gods morality is even less objective when you consider the Laws he gave to Moses, vs. the moral disposition of Jesus. There was a change there, and a change is in conflict with moral objectivism based on a God.

Your argument misrepresents God, but it perfectly sums up the underlying argument of everyone who doesn't believe in God.

God is not human. God does not have feelings. Human feelings are one of the ways we experience the world of which God is the creator.

God does not change.

God does not need free will, as he operates outside the space time continuum. He sees the past, present and future simultaneously, so his will and plan is perfect.The

Still, it's your post modernist argument that each person's subjective experience is more valid than that of an entity so powerful it created the universe and everything in it.

You see unbelief comes down to a very simple choice. Do I submit to something greater than myself or do I seek to elevate myself, so I don't have to submit to anything and I can act in accordance with my selfish and base desires.

It's the latter choice which is the source of all human suffering.

You didnt answer the objection succinctly - the bible uses specific adjectives to describe God's emotions, and you just denied it based on you said so.

Second, I didnt apply subjectivism based on any 1 human individual, so that wasn't pertinent but was a strawman. I appealed to measured human suffering, something concrete as opposed to God who is 1 subject that has emotions, whose morals at least described in the Bible DID change and his adjective of being "un changing" is just another Biblical contradiction ~ and it also causes more logical issues than it resolves.

Well there is a long history of biblical scholarship that addresses these issues, but since I doubt that you want to educate yourself on it, I thought I'd provide the cliffs notes version for you.

I believe the use of Human emotions to explain God's behavior represents a challenge in translating God to us. The use of emotions is less about God's state of mind and more about we as limited beings understand how and why God moves.

Your whole argument was subjective although you artfully tried to dress it up as something else.

Human suffering is far from concrete (as the 21st century has proven), but it is easier to understand than a super natural entity powerful enough to create the universe and everything in it.

Ironically, that is why Jesus is such an important part of the Bible story. Through Jesus, God became a man, to show us that he fully understands us though we continue to struggle to understand God.

Now you're just special pleading. You want to explain away God's described emotions by saying they were simple place-holders, and a function of a misunderstanding ~ but you did not establish that as fact it's just a claim. Decoder ring fallacy.

The problem is scale.

you're still thinking of God as a super powerful humanoid with a white beard sitting on a cloud.

Like Bible translators, science and philosophy are limited by human understanding.

Imagine that God is the proton, the neutron, the electrons and the nuclear glue holding them together. Imagine God is both energy and matter.

Thats just more special pleading.

The Bible says what it says - if you believe it is in error on ascribing adjectives to God, then it seems you have a bit of a problem on your hands.

 

[anynameyouwish]

ok....

murder and theft....

after that....what ya got?

what EVERLASTING morals and principles?

If you eat the flesh of unclean creatures that do not ruminate you will be defiled and contaminated, their flesh is vile and loathsome.

In other words if you swallow the teachings of people who do not think deeply without thinking at all, that vile and loathsome teaching will defile and contaminate your mind and you will become an unclean creature incapable of thinking deeply and you will say and do stupid things that injure yourself and the people you love, sometimes for decades, sometimes for the rest of your life.

This has always been and will always be true.

To sum up kosher law, Stand guard over the purity of your own mind, the seat of your consciousness and entire experience of life. Learn to differentiate between clean and unclean teaching. If you don't, you will fuck up your mind and your life.

When was this or will this ever be irrelevant? Will there ever come a time when adopting irrational beliefs into your thought processes will make you a rational person?

"In other words if you swallow the teachings of people who do not think deeply without thinking at all, that vile and loathsome teaching will defile and contaminate your mind and you will become an unclean creature incapable of thinking deeply and you will say and do stupid things that injure yourself and the people you love, sometimes for decades, sometimes for the rest of your life."




I got it!

I should NOT listen to people who quote the bible because they are NOT deep thinkers and are only regurgitating nonsense that they NEVER questioned!

Thank you for that advice!

Anynameyouwish,

I did not give that advice (but you know that)

Thank you for illustrating the twisted illogic of the selfish sin nature.

Thank YOU for proving that people who do NOT question the lunacies of the bible should NOT be listened to!

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The real problem with atheism is that it has no solid basis for objective morality.

Utter nonsense. For one, religion has no such objective basis. It is madeup by men amd interpreted by men. That's why your morals are different than a christian living in the year 1500, despite both of you possessing the same "instruction manual". Furthermore, magical, divine ideas will supplant your reason and incredulity, making it possible that you will commit immoral acts because "the Bible says so".

Atheists are unburdened by these iron age fairy tales. They devise morals based on the well being of humans in THIS life, with no mind paid to the magical nonsense of the afterlife. Atheists can devise morality and ethics via reason amd first principles. This is far superior to the complete lack of this process, which is what occurs when a person simply defers to divine orders.

And you didn't get your morals from your religion, anyway. Your morals chiefly arise from the genetic accident of where and when you were born.

 

[hobelim]

The real problem with atheism is that it has no solid basis for objective morality.

Utter nonsense. For one, religion has no such objective basis. It is madeup by men amd interpreted by men. That's why your morals are different than a christian living in the year 1500, despite both of you possessing the same "instruction manual". Furthermore, magical, divine ideas will supplant your reason and incredulity, making it possible that you will commit immoral acts because "the Bible says so".

Atheists are unburdened by these iron age fairy tales. They devise morals based on the well being of humans in THIS life, with no mind paid to the magical nonsense of the afterlife. Atheists can devise morality and ethics via reason amd first principles. This is far superior to the complete lack of this process, which is what occurs when a person simply defers to divine orders.

And you didn't get your morals from your religion, anyway. Your morals chiefly arise from the genetic accident of where and when you were born.

Do you think that if you were born in 12th century Europe and people were peddling the flesh of God for a nominal service charge you wouldn't come to the same conclusions as you have now that they were full of it?

If you were born in a tenement slum 12 years ago and never went to college would you arrive at any other conclusion?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The real problem with atheism is that it has no solid basis for objective morality.

Utter nonsense. For one, religion has no such objective basis. It is madeup by men amd interpreted by men. That's why your morals are different than a christian living in the year 1500, despite both of you possessing the same "instruction manual". Furthermore, magical, divine ideas will supplant your reason and incredulity, making it possible that you will commit immoral acts because "the Bible says so".

Atheists are unburdened by these iron age fairy tales. They devise morals based on the well being of humans in THIS life, with no mind paid to the magical nonsense of the afterlife. Atheists can devise morality and ethics via reason amd first principles. This is far superior to the complete lack of this process, which is what occurs when a person simply defers to divine orders.

And you didn't get your morals from your religion, anyway. Your morals chiefly arise from the genetic accident of where and when you were born.

Do you think that if you were born in 12th century Europe and people were peddling the flesh of God for a nominal service charge you wouldn't come to the same conclusions as you have now that they were full of it?

Of course it is possible, but you would more likely operate from your existing, cultural basis. And you would also operate from a position of abject ignorange about the human race and the world, compared to someone living in western society today.

It would have been helpful,had the ignorant, lying charlatan prophets who wrote the bible mentioned that humans are all nearly genetically identical, race is an illusion, and therefore blacks are not subhumans. But, since they were not actually prophets with a conduit to God's mind, they operated and wrote from their existing cultural and intellectual basis.

 

[hobelim]

The real problem with atheism is that it has no solid basis for objective morality.

Utter nonsense. For one, religion has no such objective basis. It is madeup by men amd interpreted by men. That's why your morals are different than a christian living in the year 1500, despite both of you possessing the same "instruction manual". Furthermore, magical, divine ideas will supplant your reason and incredulity, making it possible that you will commit immoral acts because "the Bible says so".

Atheists are unburdened by these iron age fairy tales. They devise morals based on the well being of humans in THIS life, with no mind paid to the magical nonsense of the afterlife. Atheists can devise morality and ethics via reason amd first principles. This is far superior to the complete lack of this process, which is what occurs when a person simply defers to divine orders.

And you didn't get your morals from your religion, anyway. Your morals chiefly arise from the genetic accident of where and when you were born.

Do you think that if you were born in 12th century Europe and people were peddling the flesh of God for a nominal service charge you wouldn't come to the same conclusions as you have now that they were full of it?

Of course it is possible, but you would more likely operate from your existing, cultural basis. And you would also operate from a position of abject ignorange about the human race and the world, compared to someone living in western society today.

It would have been helpful,had the ignorant, lying charlatan prophets who wrote the bible mentioned that humans are all nearly genetically identical, race is an illusion, and therefore blacks are not subhumans. But, since they were not actually prophets with a conduit to God's mind, they operated and wrote from their existing cultural and intellectual basis.

Ok but I am not talking about just anybody, I'm talking about you.


Knowing yourself and how you have responded in this life can you picture yourself living during any place or period in history where you wouldn't object to someone trying to sell you a bullshit story?

Don't you know people who have come from the same place and time as you and have lived under similar circumstances who have bought into it?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Ok but I am not talking about just anybody, I'm talking about you.

The same would have been true of me. I would also be operating from abject ignorance and my cultural basis.

I wasn't born incredulous. It's a skill i developed.

 

[hobelim]

Ok but I am not talking about just anybody, I'm talking about you.

The same would have been true of me. I would also be operating from abject ignorance and my cultural basis.

I wasn't born incredulous. It's a skill i developed.

Yes, but wouldn't you have developed that same skill after finding out the amulet you just bought was worthless?

Wouldn't you have already known since you could walk that serpents don't talk, except for the human sort?

 

[G.T.]

Ok but I am not talking about just anybody, I'm talking about you.

The same would have been true of me. I would also be operating from abject ignorance and my cultural basis.

I wasn't born incredulous. It's a skill i developed.

Yes, but wouldn't you have developed that same skill after finding out the amulet you just bought was worthless?

Wouldn't you have already known since you could walk that serpents don't talk?

your scenario of folks back then considering the bible as just a full work of fiction, and yet not speaking as much freely and as often as they felt like......makes your hypothesis really Dogmatic and unreasonable.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Yes, but wouldn't you have developed that same skill after finding out the amulet you just bought was worthless?

Ot as well refined, no. I would not have had the benefit of the scientific enlightenment, or classical liberalism, etc. More likely I would have thought the magic amulet was real and *I* was flawed.

And also i would have been more likely to believe that some serpents can and do talk. Because I would have had virtually no understandong aboit the natural world. That is why we know that the people who wrote those stories did,in fact, believe there was a talkong serpent.

 

[hobelim]

Ok but I am not talking about just anybody, I'm talking about you.

The same would have been true of me. I would also be operating from abject ignorance and my cultural basis.

I wasn't born incredulous. It's a skill i developed.

Yes, but wouldn't you have developed that same skill after finding out the amulet you just bought was worthless?

Wouldn't you have already known since you could walk that serpents don't talk?

your scenario of folks back then considering the bible as just a full work of fiction, and yet not speaking as much freely and as often as they felt like......makes your hypothesis really Dogmatic and unreasonable.

Scripture was written by oppressed people for oppressed people during brutal times when there was no such thing as freedom of expression and people were maimed and killed on a daily basis for trivial reasons by irrational violent and superstitious people who could not grasp sophisticated metaphors like talking serpents or the seditious teaching in the divine menu to refrain from the flesh of swine

 

[G.T.]

Ok but I am not talking about just anybody, I'm talking about you.

The same would have been true of me. I would also be operating from abject ignorance and my cultural basis.

I wasn't born incredulous. It's a skill i developed.

Yes, but wouldn't you have developed that same skill after finding out the amulet you just bought was worthless?

Wouldn't you have already known since you could walk that serpents don't talk?

your scenario of folks back then considering the bible as just a full work of fiction, and yet not speaking as much freely and as often as they felt like......makes your hypothesis really Dogmatic and unreasonable.

Scripture was written by oppressed people for oppressed people during brutal times when there was no such thing as freedom of expression and people were maimed and killed on a daily basis for trivial reasons by irrational violent and superstitious people who could not grasp sophisticated metaphors like talking serpents or the seditious teaching in the divine menu to refrain from the flesh of swine

Thats a real fuckin stretch.

Christians dont call themselves Christians and profess worship for all these Centuries in Church and in lifestyle....because they think their book is a work of fiction just like Snow White fans dont call themselves Disneyians.

You're being an apologist. Its evident through their own testimony what they believed.

 

[hobelim]

Yes, but wouldn't you have developed that same skill after finding out the amulet you just bought was worthless?

Ot as well refined, no. I would not have had the benefit of the scientific enlightenment, or classical liberalism, etc. More likely I would have thought the magic amulet was real and *I* was flawed.

And also i would have been more likely to believe that some serpents can and do talk. Because I would have had virtually no understandong aboit the natural world. That is why we know that the people who wrote those stories did,in fact, believe there was a talkong serpent.

They were more intimately acquainted with the natural world than you ever were living nomadic lives in tents in desert regions. They didn't need to go to college to know that snakes are poisonous and can kill you with a bite and they would have known that only humans can talk ever since their mommy read them their very first fairy tale.

You can take any 4 year old kid living in the desert southwest who can't read, doesn't know the first thing about science, never went to college, and has no real understanding of the natural world and ask them if snakes can talk and they would ask you if you were an idiot.

 

[G.T.]

Yes, but wouldn't you have developed that same skill after finding out the amulet you just bought was worthless?

Ot as well refined, no. I would not have had the benefit of the scientific enlightenment, or classical liberalism, etc. More likely I would have thought the magic amulet was real and *I* was flawed.

And also i would have been more likely to believe that some serpents can and do talk. Because I would have had virtually no understandong aboit the natural world. That is why we know that the people who wrote those stories did,in fact, believe there was a talkong serpent.

They were more intimately acquainted with the natural world than you ever were living nomadic lives in tents in desert regions. They didn't need to go to college to know that snakes are poisonous and can kill you with a bite and they would have known that only humans can talk after their mommy read them their very first fairy tale.

You can take any 4 year old kid living in the desert southwest who can't read, doesn't know the first thing about science, never went to college, and has no real understanding of the natural world and ask them if snakes can talk and they would ask you if you were an idiot.

You can take a 4 year old desert dweller and convince him of a sky daddy, because theyre still being convinced to this day. Your nobody is this gullible argument is disproven by the mere testimony of folks who DO believe these things.

Poor folks in that age especially, it was likely written to placate them and oops, it spread like a cancer.

 

[hobelim]

Yes, but wouldn't you have developed that same skill after finding out the amulet you just bought was worthless?

Ot as well refined, no. I would not have had the benefit of the scientific enlightenment, or classical liberalism, etc. More likely I would have thought the magic amulet was real and *I* was flawed.

And also i would have been more likely to believe that some serpents can and do talk. Because I would have had virtually no understandong aboit the natural world. That is why we know that the people who wrote those stories did,in fact, believe there was a talkong serpent.

They were more intimately acquainted with the natural world than you ever were living nomadic lives in tents in desert regions. They didn't need to go to college to know that snakes are poisonous and can kill you with a bite and they would have known that only humans can talk after their mommy read them their very first fairy tale.

You can take any 4 year old kid living in the desert southwest who can't read, doesn't know the first thing about science, never went to college, and has no real understanding of the natural world and ask them if snakes can talk and they would ask you if you were an idiot.

You can take a 4 year old desert dweller and convince him of a sky daddy, because theyre still being convinced to this day. Your nobody is this gullible argument is disproven by the mere testimony of folks who DO believe these things.

Poor folks in that age especially, it was likely written to placate them and oops, it spread like a cancer.

These stories were written by Jews for Jews who understood the torah was instruction ,not history. The problems arose whenever their superstitious, irrational, and violent enemies tried to usurp authority over those writings without having the slightest clue about figurative language, metaphors, analogies, similes, homonyms, hyperbole, etc., or that the subjects were hidden and not necessarily directly connected to the literal meanings of the words used.


Maimonides openly wrote about these subjects in the 12th century. You are way behind. Smarten up.

 

[G.T.]

Yes, but wouldn't you have developed that same skill after finding out the amulet you just bought was worthless?

Ot as well refined, no. I would not have had the benefit of the scientific enlightenment, or classical liberalism, etc. More likely I would have thought the magic amulet was real and *I* was flawed.

And also i would have been more likely to believe that some serpents can and do talk. Because I would have had virtually no understandong aboit the natural world. That is why we know that the people who wrote those stories did,in fact, believe there was a talkong serpent.

They were more intimately acquainted with the natural world than you ever were living nomadic lives in tents in desert regions. They didn't need to go to college to know that snakes are poisonous and can kill you with a bite and they would have known that only humans can talk after their mommy read them their very first fairy tale.

You can take any 4 year old kid living in the desert southwest who can't read, doesn't know the first thing about science, never went to college, and has no real understanding of the natural world and ask them if snakes can talk and they would ask you if you were an idiot.

You can take a 4 year old desert dweller and convince him of a sky daddy, because theyre still being convinced to this day. Your nobody is this gullible argument is disproven by the mere testimony of folks who DO believe these things.

Poor folks in that age especially, it was likely written to placate them and oops, it spread like a cancer.

These stories were written by Jews for Jews who understood the torah was instruction ,not history. The problems arose whenever their superstitious, irrational, and violent enemies tried to usurp authority over those writings without having the slightest clue about figurative language or that the subjects were hidden and not necessarily directly connected to the literal meanings of the words used.

Ohhh so I cannot find Jewish folks who believe in the God of the Bible..


ahhhhkayyyyyy


You're just being an apologist because you found a few things in the Bible and youre incapable of reconciling them.

#1. Allegories that convey common sense wisdom.

#2. Direct commandments to worship a God.

#3. Ridiculous contradictions.


And in order for you to reconcile all of that, you use a presupposed apologetic that it all falls under #1, which it doesnt and thats established based on the History and testimony.