Christian Persecution. Is it ok?

[Nort Eurasia]

It's okay if it's consensual.

[Jaunty tunes]

It's okay if it's consensual.

I like that idea to an extent. It appears that Christians want to play victim but I am not too sure they actualy want to be the victim. I think many examples of so called "persecution" where the event is a random one off and involves to mob like numbers and is not routinely reapeated (probably every event of so called chrisitian persecution in the west this century) are only created to rally the christian members.

If you remember the Mohammad drawings from the danish newpaper this is another example of false persecution. I do not want to get into the issue if the Danish newspaper should of published some of these drawings or not. but it did not stop some drawings that were falsely said to have been pulished from appearing in the Middle East. Someone created extra drawings of Mohammad that were the most offensive and falsly claimed they were printed in a Western newspaper. The result was mass rallies. Fact didnt matter but the claim of persecution did.

So the even handed response was of course to call Fatwas and call for the death of the cartoonist

The cries of persecution by Christians in the West are no more than a cleverly devised recruitment and retainment campaign.

[Kayliea]

Well, obviously not. I would like to point out that the most common examples of "evil commited in the name of religion" are really just using religion as an excuse, it was not the main cause.

Nah. The greatest evil is quite possibly the worshipping of evil

That assumes God is evil, an assumption most people would not agree with.

who says? i'd go with that.

You would agree that God is evil? Good for you. I disagree and so would most of the population of the Earth.

"i would never worship a cruel dictator that is worse than adolf hitler. sorry."

God is in no way comparable to Adolf Hitler. Hitler killed at least 11 million people. God personally struck down less than 50,000 people who sacrificed children, committed violent acts on innocent people, and were war-like towards others. That is at least what the Bible says, however if you would like to bring in alternate sources you could. As it is the Bible would be the best source for validating God's crimes if they exist.

condemning untold billions to hell because they've 'disappointed' him doesn't really seem to fit in with the whole 'compassionate god' idea. nor does encouraging hate and oppression towards those who do not follow his code... as i said god is WORSE than hitler. and a giant prick. not that it exists.

[Treznor]

And yet, somehow this "majority" is somehow less influential, not as loud and not seen nearly as much as their dogmatic brethren. I believe that there are Christians who are FOR gay marriage and spoken in DEFENSE of abortion, but I don't buy that they're more common.

Gee, ya mean I need to take out an ad in the New York Times for every single thing that I dislike?

When YOU do the same, THEN you can talk, but until then...

Hmm...I thought I had. So, what organizations do I belong to that I have not been quick to protest when they fuck up?

That's my problem. When you belong to an organization that actively promotes Bad Things^TM and do not stand up to repudiate that policy, you lose your right to separate yourself from them when they're criticized for it. The millions of Americans who approved of Bush's policies when he started two wars, trampled civil rights and so forth? They lost their right to distance themselves from those policies. There's something to be said for eventually coming to your senses, but when you help create the mess you become responsible for helping clean it up.

[Treznor]

These are all lovely rationalizations for genocide, but they're still the actions of a first-class dick. Some of the nations described in the Old Testament who were wiped out did nothing but commit the unforgivable sin of worshiping their own gods. For this the Israelites were commanded to wipe out the women, children and cattle. Morality? Give me a break.

Why can't they provide evidence? Because there's nothing to provide evidence for. All they have is a pastiche set of mythology handed down as tradition, backed by the authority of those whose only purpose is to enforce that tradition.

Religion can have some good ideas in it. Study it, take what's good and ignore the superstition. If you treat religion as a flawed school of philosophy, it makes a lot more sense.

And if some religious dick decides it's appropriate for him to establish a theocracy in my nation and pressure politicians to pass laws to that effect, you're damned right I'm going to claim persecution. I live two hours from Colorado Springs, a haven for religious fanatics who have nothing better to do than pass judgment on me and how I choose to live my life. I refuse to follow the god they follow. He's a total dick.

The Bible says that all of the nations that were wiped out by the Israelites as they entered what was then Caanan sacrificed children to their gods(usually by the name of Ba'al), committed violent crimes towards eachother(according to the Bible), and declared war on the Israelites(which politically might have been smart). Several nations were actually spared if they attempted to make peace and they ceased their evil practices(and many still retained aspects of their own religions). Thus it was not a full-scale genocide. The Israelites were actually related closely to the Caanites and thus most of the conflicts only occurred at key cities which refused to surrender. The Bible does not mention too many battles during the course of the conquest. Thus it is likely that the Israelites did not actually fight that often. The Caanites who ceased sacrifice of children and made peace were always spared, even if the Israelites didn't want to have them in Israel.

Yes, the Bible might very well be superstitious but some of the events have been validated by past records as far as they are able to be validated. The existence of God is still debateable and many non-religious people believed in some form of a God(Einstein, Thoreau, and Emmerson are just a few examples).

I wouldn't treat anything as a "failed" school because that intrinsically negates in positive aspects that can be garnered from it. You may disagree with ideas but to say it "fails" seems to discredit ideas before you analyze them. That would be like saying capitalism fails, socialism fails, atheism fails, stoicism fails, or epicureanism fails. You should attempt to understand the ideas behind every philosophy with an objective and a subjective opinion. I attempt to do this myself and I can see some merits to atheism or any other ideology even if I disagree with their overall principles.

The mixture of political and religious ideologies you referenced is held by a small minority. If you read the site you posted it will confirm that. Most Christians don't want to force their ideology down your throat. For those of you saying most Christians oppose gay marriage and abortion look at recent polls in America on those issues and elections then compare them to the religious population. More than 70% of the population is avowedly Christian(this does not include any other major religion), however on many issues the votes rule mildly against "Christian" ideas. This suggest that a great number of Christians hold their politics independently of their religion. I agree with you, you can claim oppression if people want to force their religion down your throat. However voting against abortion does not force anything on you unless you are a woman who plans to abort(and then it can be argued you violate the child's right with your action). Gay marriage is a different issue altogether though, that does oppress people. Everyone judges you and you judge everyone else, that's how the world works. You don't have to follow God, he isn't a cosmic rapist(that's a quote from some where). You can continue to claim he's a dick if you want to, but it doesn't really acomplish anything.

The Bible says a lot of things. Why the hell should I believe them when they claim the Amelakites were Bad People who sacrificed their children to pagan gods? Do we have archaeological evidence of such sacrifices? Do we have anyone's word other than the Bible's that the Amelakites were such horrible people? You see, this is why checking for independent verification is helpful. Demonizing enemies, particularly after you won, is a great way to rationalize genocide. Do we really care why anyone seeks to systematically wipe out an entire culture?

What events have been validated within the Bible? How do those events support the supernatural events claimed by the Bible? That the mention Egypt or Babylon only tells us the writers of the Bible were contemporaries of those societies. It doesn't tell us anything else. It's like claiming Harry Potter is true because it talks about London, Paris and other contemporary cities that we know exist. It doesn't prove that there are wizards, dragons or dementors among us. As for the existence of gods, Einstein specifically rejected the notion of a personal god as described in the Bible and instead cautiously embraced the Spinozan concept of God. That's not exactly a ringing endorsement of higher powers.

Why do I call religion a failed school of philosophy? Because it discourages challenge from what it considers to be truth. Every school of philosophy invites challenge to its ideas in order to strengthen them. Religion, particularly Christian and Muslim religions, do not. They prefer to take the conclusions drawn from their rhetoric and find arguments that validate them, rejecting any that don't support them. That's a massive failure in philosophy.

So, Dominionists are a minority? The Constitution Party would like a word with you. And as for the rest, as I just mentioned to Nervun, when you profess membership to an organization and fail to repudiate bad policies, you are tacitly lending your approval to those policies. You lose your right to disassociate yourself from them when they're challenged unless you join in those challenges. There are far more Christians waging war on homosexuals and religious freedom for non-Christians than there are standing up to protect those rights. The ones in the middle are supporting ones who stand in the public eye whether or not they realize it, because of their membership and silence.

[Luciratus]

Well, obviously not. I would like to point out that the most common examples of "evil commited in the name of religion" are really just using religion as an excuse, it was not the main cause.

Nah. The greatest evil is quite possibly the worshipping of evil

That assumes God is evil, an assumption most people would not agree with.

who says? i'd go with that.

You would agree that God is evil? Good for you. I disagree and so would most of the population of the Earth.

"i would never worship a cruel dictator that is worse than adolf hitler. sorry."

God is in no way comparable to Adolf Hitler. Hitler killed at least 11 million people. God personally struck down less than 50,000 people who sacrificed children, committed violent acts on innocent people, and were war-like towards others. That is at least what the Bible says, however if you would like to bring in alternate sources you could. As it is the Bible would be the best source for validating God's crimes if they exist.

condemning untold billions to hell because they've 'disappointed' him doesn't really seem to fit in with the whole 'compassionate god' idea. nor does encouraging hate and oppression towards those who do not follow his code... as i said god is WORSE than hitler. and a giant prick. not that it exists.

Hell is not explicitely mentioned until Revelation. Even then it is described as a "lake of fire" where the serpent suffers. The concept of Hell was principally established by the Catholic Church to scare and fascinate pagans during the Middle Ages. Hell as it was understood by others simply denotes a place removed from the grace of God. This is what causes "agony and a gnashing of teeth", the seperation of God is pain in and of itself, at least according to the Bible. God is compassionate because he sent Christ to give humanity a chance to repent from sins that would otherwise result in this seperation. However people get to choose if they want to live through God or not. You get to choose if you want to go to Hell. Also some sects of Christianity belief that after the coming of Christ those who do not believe are given a chance to change their beliefs after God and Christ have presented themselves. Thus you can continue to believe what you want until firmer evidence is given, according to some accounts. Jesus actually never encouraged oppression and got rid of many of the oppressive codes written in the Old Testament. He said "let he who is blameless throw the first stone", meaning that since all people are sinners and do bad things, you do not have the right to stone oppress somebody for a trivial crime such as adultery or homosexuality(considered a crime by some Christians and the Old Testament). This stopped most persecution that could actually have a firm basis while maintaining the death penalty for murderers and other severe criminals(who would face justice in modern courts). Thus God is not any worse than Hitler, who killed 11 million people for no reason other than he needed a scape goat and picked groups of people he didn't like. Since you were using the Bible to prove God's malevolence we had not yet addressed the existence of God. I'd be happy to debate that but opinions aren't likely to change since proof of his existence or lack their off would be unlikely to surface.

[Luciratus]

And yet, somehow this "majority" is somehow less influential, not as loud and not seen nearly as much as their dogmatic brethren. I believe that there are Christians who are FOR gay marriage and spoken in DEFENSE of abortion, but I don't buy that they're more common.

Gee, ya mean I need to take out an ad in the New York Times for every single thing that I dislike?

When YOU do the same, THEN you can talk, but until then...

Hmm...I thought I had. So, what organizations do I belong to that I have not been quick to protest when they fuck up?

That's my problem. When you belong to an organization that actively promotes Bad Things^TM and do not stand up to repudiate that policy, you lose your right to separate yourself from them when they're criticized for it. The millions of Americans who approved of Bush's policies when he started two wars, trampled civil rights and so forth? They lost their right to distance themselves from those policies. There's something to be said for eventually coming to your senses, but when you help create the mess you become responsible for helping clean it up.

By similar logic all socialists are guilty of Stalin's crimes because they don't conciously condemn them with every breath they take. Every country is responsible for the Holocaust and the people alive at the time are to. Everybody who voted for Obama is responsible for his slow action on the BP spill and his failure to condemn BP before either taking their bribe or forcing them to give the government money. I disagree about condemning Bush for starting the wars but that is a different matter. I do condemn the Patriot Act(although it might have been effective) for stifling freedom. Why do I lose my right to distance myself from policies I disagree with if I didn't know such policies would occur? Many Democrats and Moderates are currently distancing themselves from Obama, do they not have the right? You cannot apply such generalizations to Christians merely because they don't actively condemn the policies and beliefs of extremists, it's not fair and not a good argument. Also even if they did "condemn" extremists some people would still consider them hypocrites and would not take them at their word.

[Treznor]

Hmm...I thought I had. So, what organizations do I belong to that I have not been quick to protest when they fuck up?

That's my problem. When you belong to an organization that actively promotes Bad Things^TM and do not stand up to repudiate that policy, you lose your right to separate yourself from them when they're criticized for it. The millions of Americans who approved of Bush's policies when he started two wars, trampled civil rights and so forth? They lost their right to distance themselves from those policies. There's something to be said for eventually coming to your senses, but when you help create the mess you become responsible for helping clean it up.

By similar logic all socialists are guilty of Stalin's crimes because they don't conciously condemn them with every breath they take. Every country is responsible for the Holocaust and the people alive at the time are to. Everybody who voted for Obama is responsible for his slow action on the BP spill and his failure to condemn BP before either taking their bribe or forcing them to give the government money. I disagree about condemning Bush for starting the wars but that is a different matter. I do condemn the Patriot Act(although it might have been effective) for stifling freedom. Why do I lose my right to distance myself from policies I disagree with if I didn't know such policies would occur? Many Democrats and Moderates are currently distancing themselves from Obama, do they not have the right? You cannot apply such generalizations to Christians merely because they don't actively condemn the policies and beliefs of extremists, it's not fair and not a good argument. Also even if they did "condemn" extremists some people would still consider them hypocrites and would not take them at their word.

Please note the difference between "voting for Bush" and "approving of Bush's policies." All of the things that made Bush a pariah in his second term were the very policies that got him re-elected in the first place. The dismantling of civil rights, the outright lies to send us to war in Iraq, the dismantling of regulatory oversight, the "faith-based initiatives" and "abstinence-only" sex education funding (not only in the US but abroad -- him and the Pope) are all examples of policies that predictably damaged the nation, but were insanely popular. There's still a solid core of people who still feel those were good things and that the consequences of those policies are due to other, unrelated factors.

Welcome to religion and religious thought. Who are you going to believe, your local priest/pastor/bishop or your own lying eyes? People who cheer for discrimination against gays are no different than the people who cheered for segregation fifty years ago. They are part of the problem, and their membership to organizations that push for these policies are directly responsible. You don't get to declare how proud you are to be a White Supremacist and then insist that you shouldn't be judged harshly because you don't believe everything that White Supremacists believe.

[Luciratus]

The Bible says a lot of things. Why the hell should I believe them when they claim the Amelakites were Bad People who sacrificed their children to pagan gods? Do we have archaeological evidence of such sacrifices? Do we have anyone's word other than the Bible's that the Amelakites were such horrible people? You see, this is why checking for independent verification is helpful. Demonizing enemies, particularly after you won, is a great way to rationalize genocide. Do we really care why anyone seeks to systematically wipe out an entire culture?

What events have been validated within the Bible? How do those events support the supernatural events claimed by the Bible? That the mention Egypt or Babylon only tells us the writers of the Bible were contemporaries of those societies. It doesn't tell us anything else. It's like claiming Harry Potter is true because it talks about London, Paris and other contemporary cities that we know exist. It doesn't prove that there are wizards, dragons or dementors among us. As for the existence of gods, Einstein specifically rejected the notion of a personal god as described in the Bible and instead cautiously embraced the Spinozan concept of God. That's not exactly a ringing endorsement of higher powers.

Why do I call religion a failed school of philosophy? Because it discourages challenge from what it considers to be truth. Every school of philosophy invites challenge to its ideas in order to strengthen them. Religion, particularly Christian and Muslim religions, do not. They prefer to take the conclusions drawn from their rhetoric and find arguments that validate them, rejecting any that don't support them. That's a massive failure in philosophy.

So, Dominionists are a minority? The Constitution Party would like a word with you. And as for the rest, as I just mentioned to Nervun, when you profess membership to an organization and fail to repudiate bad policies, you are tacitly lending your approval to those policies. You lose your right to disassociate yourself from them when they're challenged unless you join in those challenges. There are far more Christians waging war on homosexuals and religious freedom for non-Christians than there are standing up to protect those rights. The ones in the middle are supporting ones who stand in the public eye whether or not they realize it, because of their membership and silence.

You were using the Bible to prove that the deity the Bible praises was bad, that's why. Their is evidence suggesting that Syrians peoples in general and their descendants such as the Carthaginians sacrificed children to their gods. There are references made by the Romans and Greeks for none Hebrew statements on the sacrifice of children among the peoples of Levantine descent. The Carthiginians, Sidonians, and Tyrians all make reference to child sacrifice, though this has been interpreted by some to refer to sacrifices of dead children to the goddess Tanit in special graveyards. There is also archaeological evidence such as mass graves of young children, though these are like the prior case up for debate. Thus the only way you could suggest that the Levantine people never sacrificed children would be to presume that all sources are lying. Wiping out a civilization that sacrifices their first born child to Ba'al Hammon or Tanit is a rather nice thing or a least stopping the murder of infants. I already mentioned that most cities did not fight the Israelites, which suggest they were assimilated and not slaughtered. Children and younger people were not killed but forced into indentured servitude for a time.

Harry Potter pertains to real physical characters living in a present world. The Bible refers to people who lived a long time ago and a deity who is transcendent. They are harldy comparable. You were arguing within the context of the Bible to criticise its believes and morality. As with many things events in the Bible are debateable and archeology verifies nothing with absolute certainty. There are traces of an Israeli culture in the Levant and such a culture has been partially verified by archeology and references from other ancient states. There is evidence that has been found as I stated before. I'm not going to go through every artifact ever found and attempt to verify its authenticity as this would be exceedingly long and strenuous.

Actually religion is consistently debated. That is where theology comes in. There are also debates to religion from atheist. The Catholic Church has been changing its doctrines and practices fairly consistenly in modern times as have Protestant Churches. However religions are criticised when they change a practice for "goal-moving"(new word, I heard someone accuse the church of doing it when they changed their position on the possibility of evolution). You are correct about Einstein and I never said he embraced a personal God. He embraced a theistic creator God. Something that gave order and stability to the universe. The primary reason mentioned for Einstein's belief is that he could not reconcile the idea of a personal god with the suffering he witnessed in the world.

I addressed this in another post. No the majority still do not propogate Dominonism. That's an assumption with very little support. Gay Rights is at a 50-50 draw at current in the U.S. from what I've been hearing. That can't be reconciled with the 85% religious-15% atheist/agnostic number can it? For atheist to claim oppression would be just as silly as Christians claiming oppression. Since when have you been suppressed by the U.S. government(discounting gay marriage if you are gay)? Atheist have not been purposefully suppressed in a while and any claim to the contrary without evidence doesn't make it so.

[Luciratus]

Please note the difference between "voting for Bush" and "approving of Bush's policies." All of the things that made Bush a pariah in his second term were the very policies that got him re-elected in the first place. The dismantling of civil rights, the outright lies to send us to war in Iraq, the dismantling of regulatory oversight, the "faith-based initiatives" and "abstinence-only" sex education funding (not only in the US but abroad -- him and the Pope) are all examples of policies that predictably damaged the nation, but were insanely popular. There's still a solid core of people who still feel those were good things and that the consequences of those policies are due to other, unrelated factors.

Welcome to religion and religious thought. Who are you going to believe, your local priest/pastor/bishop or your own lying eyes? People who cheer for discrimination against gays are no different than the people who cheered for segregation fifty years ago. They are part of the problem, and their membership to organizations that push for these policies are directly responsible. You don't get to declare how proud you are to be a White Supremacist and then insist that you shouldn't be judged harshly because you don't believe everything that White Supremacists believe.

I disagree with dismantling Civil Rights. The War was not started on the basis of lies but on what was unknown at the time and what was possible. The UN said that it was possible for Saddam to have weapons and if he had them or used them Bush would have been codemned. Saddam should have been stopped by the UN after his massacre of the Kurds. Osama bin-Laden and his cronies were based in Afghanistan, that's why we went there. What is wrong with abstinence? You blame Bush for that when nothing was actually his fault on that policy. Any negative effects were based on other people's decissions. He was popular because of the early successes his presidency enjoyed, he didn't mess up until his second term and that was primarily the economy. None of those things was neccesarily a bad thing and the people who support them can still rationalize why they support them.

God can't be seen with eyes so that point is rather mute. True except that they are modern and they aren't calling black people by bad names. They are part of the solution eventually. True, however I've also talked with many atheist and agnostics who oppose gay marriage because it's "yucky", religion is a better reason but not the best. While I don't think gay marriage is right, I don't think you should infringe upon the rights of homosexuals it's their choice of who to love, let them love that person. So religious people are not the only people who have yet to join in the solution. White Supremacy is far different from religion. Christianity and White Supremacy are completely different philosophies. That is a straw man comparison. Couldn't I say atheism is like White Supremacy because some atheists consider Christians their inferiors? No, that would be wrong, untrue, and a weak argument.

[Treznor]

The Bible says a lot of things. Why the hell should I believe them when they claim the Amelakites were Bad People who sacrificed their children to pagan gods? Do we have archaeological evidence of such sacrifices? Do we have anyone's word other than the Bible's that the Amelakites were such horrible people? You see, this is why checking for independent verification is helpful. Demonizing enemies, particularly after you won, is a great way to rationalize genocide. Do we really care why anyone seeks to systematically wipe out an entire culture?

What events have been validated within the Bible? How do those events support the supernatural events claimed by the Bible? That the mention Egypt or Babylon only tells us the writers of the Bible were contemporaries of those societies. It doesn't tell us anything else. It's like claiming Harry Potter is true because it talks about London, Paris and other contemporary cities that we know exist. It doesn't prove that there are wizards, dragons or dementors among us. As for the existence of gods, Einstein specifically rejected the notion of a personal god as described in the Bible and instead cautiously embraced the Spinozan concept of God. That's not exactly a ringing endorsement of higher powers.

Why do I call religion a failed school of philosophy? Because it discourages challenge from what it considers to be truth. Every school of philosophy invites challenge to its ideas in order to strengthen them. Religion, particularly Christian and Muslim religions, do not. They prefer to take the conclusions drawn from their rhetoric and find arguments that validate them, rejecting any that don't support them. That's a massive failure in philosophy.

So, Dominionists are a minority? The Constitution Party would like a word with you. And as for the rest, as I just mentioned to Nervun, when you profess membership to an organization and fail to repudiate bad policies, you are tacitly lending your approval to those policies. You lose your right to disassociate yourself from them when they're challenged unless you join in those challenges. There are far more Christians waging war on homosexuals and religious freedom for non-Christians than there are standing up to protect those rights. The ones in the middle are supporting ones who stand in the public eye whether or not they realize it, because of their membership and silence.

You were using the Bible to prove that the deity the Bible praises was bad, that's why. Their is evidence suggesting that Syrians peoples in general and their descendants such as the Carthaginians sacrificed children to their gods. There are references made by the Romans and Greeks for none Hebrew statements on the sacrifice of children among the peoples of Levantine descent. The Carthiginians, Sidonians, and Tyrians all make reference to child sacrifice, though this has been interpreted by some to refer to sacrifices of dead children to the goddess Tanit in special graveyards. There is also archaeological evidence such as mass graves of young children, though these are like the prior case up for debate. Thus the only way you could suggest that the Levantine people never sacrificed children would be to presume that all sources are lying. Wiping out a civilization that sacrifices their first born child to Ba'al Hammon or Tanit is a rather nice thing or a least stopping the murder of infants. I already mentioned that most cities did not fight the Israelites, which suggest they were assimilated and not slaughtered. Children and younger people were not killed but forced into indentured servitude for a time.

Harry Potter pertains to real physical characters living in a present world. The Bible refers to people who lived a long time ago and a deity who is transcendent. They are harldy comparable. You were arguing within the context of the Bible to criticise its believes and morality. As with many things events in the Bible are debateable and archeology verifies nothing with absolute certainty. There are traces of an Israeli culture in the Levant and such a culture has been partially verified by archeology and references from other ancient states. There is evidence that has been found as I stated before. I'm not going to go through every artifact ever found and attempt to verify its authenticity as this would be exceedingly long and strenuous.

Actually religion is consistently debated. That is where theology comes in. There are also debates to religion from atheist. The Catholic Church has been changing its doctrines and practices fairly consistenly in modern times as have Protestant Churches. However religions are criticised when they change a practice for "goal-moving"(new word, I heard someone accuse the church of doing it when they changed their position on the possibility of evolution). You are correct about Einstein and I never said he embraced a personal God. He embraced a theistic creator God. Something that gave order and stability to the universe. The primary reason mentioned for Einstein's belief is that he could not reconcile the idea of a personal god with the suffering he witnessed in the world.

I addressed this in another post. No the majority still do not propogate Dominonism. That's an assumption with very little support. Gay Rights is at a 50-50 draw at current in the U.S. from what I've been hearing. That can't be reconciled with the 85% religious-15% atheist/agnostic number can it? For atheist to claim oppression would be just as silly as Christians claiming oppression. Since when have you been suppressed by the U.S. government(discounting gay marriage if you are gay)? Atheist have not been purposefully suppressed in a while and any claim to the contrary without evidence doesn't make it so.

I mention the Bible to demonstrate the deity's cruelty because the Bible gleefully points it out. The Amelekites in particular weren't baby-sacrificing cannibals, and neither were most of the other people that were slaughtered or subjugated. Most of them were simply in the way. But those are the smallest examples of a God gleefully condemning people to death or slavery for the simple crime of being human. Oh, some of them were just assimilated, as though slavery is any better? From a human rights standpoint, the Hebrew/Christian God is positively psychopathic. I mention this because the Bible mentions them, and leaves the reader to rationalize how they demonstrate a just and loving God. Well, no. I don't particularly care to sing the praises of any deity just for the dubious privilege of not getting turned to salt or having one of God's holy warriors shove something sharp into my gut.

Harry Potter references fictional characters in a comtemporary world setting. The Bible tells us of fictional characters in a contemporary world setting. They're very comparable, especially with regard to their descriptions of magic and the supernatural. Taking the Bible at its word for anything -- history, morality, etc. -- is a huge mistake. Read it as you would a Harry Potter novel, with a big grain of salt and take from it whatever entertainment or wisdom you can glean from it. As a moral guideline, both of them leave a great deal to be desired, and that's the whole problem with the Bible: people use it to justify their beliefs and their morality, but they can't give a reason why the Bible should be used for such a hideous purpose other than the fact that they believe. Morality is, according to a significant number of religious moralists, divinely inspired, and we learn of the divine plan by studying the Bible. Well, I find the Bible to be appalling, and I've described several reasons why.

Theology is debated only so far as we're allowed to discuss what specific concepts or scriptures mean. When it comes to actually debating the core principles of theology -- the existence of gods, the divine imperatives, the concept of morality as derived from god -- there is no debate. Challenge your religious leaders on these ideas and you'll find yourself exiled pretty quickly. Why do we criticize churches for moving goalposts? Because they fought so hard against so many ideas that form the basis for contemporary philosophical and scientific understanding. Only when they look like they're losing support for those positions do they grudgingly concede, "okay, maybe your ideas have some validity, but we still insist it's all part of God's plan!" They go from claiming God created everything in six days before resting on the seventh to "okay, maybe cosmology is closer to what scientists are saying, but that just means God was behind it!"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalposts

I will now just laugh at your insistence that the Dominionists are not supported -- even implicitly -- by the religious communities in the US. They wouldn't even be on the ballots for national elections if they weren't. It's like telling me I can safely ignore Libertarians and their demands to remove government oversight over businesses because they're in the minority. Yes they are, but that doesn't mean they don't have their own influence and support, and that their ideas aren't constantly popping up in more mainstream discussions.

[Geniasis]

I will say that I think Christians did some of their better work in the days when the Empire did persecute them, raising up more humble saints and martyrs. I'm not advocating persecution by any means, but all the corruption of Christ's message did seem to start when the Church took over the Empire (or the Empire took over the Church, it's hard to tell who took over whom).

Let's face it, everyone does their best work as an underdog. The minute they start calling their own shots... things go to shit.

[Luciratus]

I mention the Bible to demonstrate the deity's cruelty because the Bible gleefully points it out. The Amelekites in particular weren't baby-sacrificing cannibals, and neither were most of the other people that were slaughtered or subjugated. Most of them were simply in the way. But those are the smallest examples of a God gleefully condemning people to death or slavery for the simple crime of being human. Oh, some of them were just assimilated, as though slavery is any better? From a human rights standpoint, the Hebrew/Christian God is positively psychopathic. I mention this because the Bible mentions them, and leaves the reader to rationalize how they demonstrate a just and loving God. Well, no. I don't particularly care to sing the praises of any deity just for the dubious privilege of not getting turned to salt or having one of God's holy warriors shove something sharp into my gut.

Harry Potter references fictional characters in a comtemporary world setting. The Bible tells us of fictional characters in a contemporary world setting. They're very comparable, especially with regard to their descriptions of magic and the supernatural. Taking the Bible at its word for anything -- history, morality, etc. -- is a huge mistake. Read it as you would a Harry Potter novel, with a big grain of salt and take from it whatever entertainment or wisdom you can glean from it. As a moral guideline, both of them leave a great deal to be desired, and that's the whole problem with the Bible: people use it to justify their beliefs and their morality, but they can't give a reason why the Bible should be used for such a hideous purpose other than the fact that they believe. Morality is, according to a significant number of religious moralists, divinely inspired, and we learn of the divine plan by studying the Bible. Well, I find the Bible to be appalling, and I've described several reasons why.

Theology is debated only so far as we're allowed to discuss what specific concepts or scriptures mean. When it comes to actually debating the core principles of theology -- the existence of gods, the divine imperatives, the concept of morality as derived from god -- there is no debate. Challenge your religious leaders on these ideas and you'll find yourself exiled pretty quickly. Why do we criticize churches for moving goalposts? Because they fought so hard against so many ideas that form the basis for contemporary philosophical and scientific understanding. Only when they look like they're losing support for those positions do they grudgingly concede, "okay, maybe your ideas have some validity, but we still insist it's all part of God's plan!" They go from claiming God created everything in six days before resting on the seventh to "okay, maybe cosmology is closer to what scientists are saying, but that just means God was behind it!"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalposts

I will now just laugh at your insistence that the Dominionists are not supported -- even implicitly -- by the religious communities in the US. They wouldn't even be on the ballots for national elections if they weren't. It's like telling me I can safely ignore Libertarians and their demands to remove government oversight over businesses because they're in the minority. Yes they are, but that doesn't mean they don't have their own influence and support, and that their ideas aren't constantly popping up in more mainstream discussions.

I pointed out examples that proved that the Syrians did in fact sacrifice infants, unless you discount all historical sources as propoganda and go for the second option. The Israelites only practiced indentured servitude. All servants were debtors or those defeated in war. They were all released every seven years according to the Bible. The Bible does not mention atrocities but divine justice. If you reference the Bible to prove something, you should at least insure that it supports your point completely.

The Bible points to possible historic figures. Harry Potter fictional figures. There is some evidence to suggest that biblical figures such as Jesus, Jacob, and Joshua existed. In all cases you cannot disprove their existence. Harry Potter was written as a work of fiction and thus according to its author it is not a true story. God mentioned in the Bible is neither supernatural or magic, merely omnipotent. In fact he condemns the use of magic as evil. If the Bible is considered true why not do what God wants you to? I, understand that approach and why many Christians take it. I personally use the Bible like a guide, just like any other philosophy but with more reverence. There is nothing wrong with basing your morality on a book. Many people do take portions of their morals from books and philosophies.

Changing the meaning of the text allows you to change the beliefs of the entire religion. Also you did not address the fact that Christians and Atheists debate the topics of morality and the existence of God in an ever self-perpetuating cycle. We are doing it at current. I have debated with church leaders. Some will just tell you that you are wrong. Others will actually address concerns. Don't generalize people. The actual approach of Catholics towards the Adam and Eve story was to consider symbolism in the Bible. God does not live in human days but in divine days. They did not merely say "your ideas are valid, but we are right regardless."

I never claimed Dominionist didn't have support, merely that they were not the majority. Lots of people recieve support. The U.S. has a Nazi party and a Communist party. That doesn't mean they will win an election. In what ways does the Christian community at large support Dominionist when the majority actually opposes such radical beliefs?

[Treznor]

Please note the difference between "voting for Bush" and "approving of Bush's policies." All of the things that made Bush a pariah in his second term were the very policies that got him re-elected in the first place. The dismantling of civil rights, the outright lies to send us to war in Iraq, the dismantling of regulatory oversight, the "faith-based initiatives" and "abstinence-only" sex education funding (not only in the US but abroad -- him and the Pope) are all examples of policies that predictably damaged the nation, but were insanely popular. There's still a solid core of people who still feel those were good things and that the consequences of those policies are due to other, unrelated factors.

Welcome to religion and religious thought. Who are you going to believe, your local priest/pastor/bishop or your own lying eyes? People who cheer for discrimination against gays are no different than the people who cheered for segregation fifty years ago. They are part of the problem, and their membership to organizations that push for these policies are directly responsible. You don't get to declare how proud you are to be a White Supremacist and then insist that you shouldn't be judged harshly because you don't believe everything that White Supremacists believe.

I disagree with dismantling Civil Rights. The War was not started on the basis of lies but on what was unknown at the time and what was possible. The UN said that it was possible for Saddam to have weapons and if he had them or used them Bush would have been codemned. Saddam should have been stopped by the UN after his massacre of the Kurds. Osama bin-Laden and his cronies were based in Afghanistan, that's why we went there. What is wrong with abstinence? You blame Bush for that when nothing was actually his fault on that policy. Any negative effects were based on other people's decissions. He was popular because of the early successes his presidency enjoyed, he didn't mess up until his second term and that was primarily the economy. None of those things was neccesarily a bad thing and the people who support them can still rationalize why they support them.

Yes, of course. We had no way of knowing that the Iraq War was based on lies, or that four years later Americans would still believe a connection between Hussein and 9/11. Yes, what is wrong with abstinence-only sex education? And what happens when you remove the specter of government oversight from business? People make decisions on that basis.

Consider yourself ridiculed.

God can't be seen with eyes so that point is rather mute. True except that they are modern and they aren't calling black people by bad names. They are part of the solution eventually. True, however I've also talked with many atheist and agnostics who oppose gay marriage because it's "yucky", religion is a better reason but not the best. While I don't think gay marriage is right, I don't think you should infringe upon the rights of homosexuals it's their choice of who to love, let them love that person. So religious people are not the only people who have yet to join in the solution. White Supremacy is far different from religion. Christianity and White Supremacy are completely different philosophies. That is a straw man comparison. Couldn't I say atheism is like White Supremacy because some atheists consider Christians their inferiors? No, that would be wrong, untrue, and a weak argument.

Oh, it's more than the fact that God can't be seen with the eyes. God can't be seen with the eyes, heard with the ears, felt with our fingers, smelt with our noses or tasted with our tongues. God can't be measured, tested, challenged or in any way validated or invalidated. In any other aspect of our lives when we encounter a hypothesis that simply defies any means of validation, we reject it as a bad hypothesis. But not for God! God is a sacred institution, a tradition handed down from our forebears and incontestable. That's what makes religion a failed philosophy. Any philosophy that clings to a concept that fails challenge is rejected, except religion.

So, who are these atheists and agnostics who oppose gay marriage because it's "yucky?" I'm genuinely curious to learn who these nutjobs are. I have yet to hear an argument against gay marriage that wasn't ultimately grounded in religious terms.

White Supremacy goes hand in hand with religion. White Supremacy is an obvious evil, which makes it a useful analogy. No one envisions a sweet, loving White Supremacist (except maybe other White Supremacists) because we've seen what White Supremacists do when they get the upper hand. Well, this is me standing outside of religion reminding people what religionists do when they get the upper hand. Gallup recently posted a new survey entitled, "Americans' Opposition to Gay Marriage Eases Slightly." Think about that a moment. "Eases Slightly." Why have Americans been so opposed to gay marriage for so long? Here's a hint: the reason rhymes with "stygian," and I don't mean the witches.

We're going to spend generations recovering from the damage religion causes our societies. Yay, some religions seek to benefit communities, but so did the genocidal psychotics throughout history. Germans have the honor of being one of the oldest Western societies with universal health care, but that didn't stop them from committing atrocities. Shall we ignore that part of history because they were so good to their own people? I don't think so.

Christians don't deserve persecution, but neither do they deserve special privileges. They are no more persecuted than any other in the world, and singling them out for their suffering is asinine.

[Luciratus]

Yes, of course. We had no way of knowing that the Iraq War was based on lies, or that four years later Americans would still believe a connection between Hussein and 9/11. Yes, what is wrong with abstinence-only sex education? And what happens when you remove the specter of government oversight from business? People make decisions on that basis.

Consider yourself ridiculed.

The first posts do nothing to suggest that Bush messed up. There was still the possibilty that Saddam has weapons of mass destruction, at least in Bush's eyes. If he had failed to react and a disaster had occurred it would have been Bush's fault. The War in Iraq is not based on lies. What motive would the government have for lying about the war? What would they gain? Saddam did not have anything to do with 9/11, most people I've talked to know that. People have mixed up their wars, how is that Bush's fault? Protection does not stop STD's or pregnancy completely. Abstinence does. Everyone I've talked to knows where to find protection and Bush's curriculum was not followed at least where I learned. No government regulation is bad. Too much government regulation is bad. Yes the businesses can become corrupt and so can governments. Greed tends to be a good motivator though. Plus business also tends to be more efficient than government. All in all, by discussing these issues we have meandered away from the purpose of this thread too far. I will not comment on these issues again in this thread.

[Aggicificicerous]

I pointed out examples that proved that the Syrians did in fact sacrifice infants, unless you discount all historical sources as propoganda and go for the second option. The Israelites only practiced indentured servitude. All servants were debtors or those defeated in war. They were all released every seven years according to the Bible. The Bible does not mention atrocities but divine justice. If you reference the Bible to prove something, you should at least insure that it supports your point completely.

Where is this evidence? Show us the sources.

[Treznor]

I pointed out examples that proved that the Syrians did in fact sacrifice infants, unless you discount all historical sources as propoganda and go for the second option. The Israelites only practiced indentured servitude. All servants were debtors or those defeated in war. They were all released every seven years according to the Bible. The Bible does not mention atrocities but divine justice. If you reference the Bible to prove something, you should at least insure that it supports your point completely.

You mentioned the Syrians, but you didn't give any examples or point to any data. However, I will concede the point because it brings up a good question: since the Syrians featured regularly in Biblical accounts, if they practiced infant sacrifice how come God didn't instruct the Israelites to wipe them from existence? Apparently, God didn't feel it necessary to punish them the way he did the Amelekites (who did not practice infant sacrifice), and they're even still around today. Doesn't that strike you as slightly arbitrary?

By the bye, the Bible doesn't require all slaves to be freed after seven years, only male Hebrew slaves. Foreign slaves are slaves for life. How's that for supporting my point completely?

The Bible points to possible historic figures. Harry Potter fictional figures. There is some evidence to suggest that biblical figures such as Jesus, Jacob, and Joshua existed. In all cases you cannot disprove their existence. Harry Potter was written as a work of fiction and thus according to its author it is not a true story. God mentioned in the Bible is neither supernatural or magic, merely omnipotent. In fact he condemns the use of magic as evil. If the Bible is considered true why not do what God wants you to? I, understand that approach and why many Christians take it. I personally use the Bible like a guide, just like any other philosophy but with more reverence. There is nothing wrong with basing your morality on a book. Many people do take portions of their morals from books and philosophies.

Oy. "Some evidence" to suggest Jesus, Jacob and Joshua existed does not mean they existed. Furthermore, just because the Bible mentions historically verified figures like Herod the Great doesn't mean they did what the Bible claims they did. In fact, historical records indicate that Herod the Great died before Jesus was allegedly born. And what's the difference between supernatural forces and magic? God parting the Red Seas or causing the world to stand still so the Israelites can finish slaughtering their enemies sounds pretty magical to me. And yes, if the Bible is true why not do what God wants you to do? You are then faced with the burden to prove that the Bible is true and that God is real. So far, the evidence isn't convincing. I don't have to disprove anything, all I have to do is point out how you haven't proven anything.

As for basing your morals on a book, I give you Ayn Rand and Atlas Shrugged. If your source material is as deeply flawed as Rand and the Bible, you run the risk of real problems.

Changing the meaning of the text allows you to change the beliefs of the entire religion. Also you did not address the fact that Christians and Atheists debate the topics of morality and the existence of God in an ever self-perpetuating cycle. We are doing it at current. I have debated with church leaders. Some will just tell you that you are wrong. Others will actually address concerns. Don't generalize people. The actual approach of Catholics towards the Adam and Eve story was to consider symbolism in the Bible. God does not live in human days but in divine days. They did not merely say "your ideas are valid, but we are right regardless."

I've also debated a lot of church fathers, and gotten a range of reactions from rebukes to "I'll pray for you." In the end, they suggested I might not want to attend church any longer, and I agreed. But you can't just nitpick theological gray areas, like whether Peter's vision means all laws from the Old Testament are moot or just some, you have to challenge them on fundamentals of faith and religion. Keep it up long enough, see what happens.

I never claimed Dominionist didn't have support, merely that they were not the majority. Lots of people recieve support. The U.S. has a Nazi party and a Communist party. That doesn't mean they will win an election. In what ways does the Christian community at large support Dominionist when the majority actually opposes such radical beliefs?

The Dominionists are a political movement running on a platform of "restoring" the United States to fundamental Christian values. The more I research it the more it seems that it gets conflated with Christian Reconstructionism which is the Christian Right's dirty little secret. However, I don't think anyone can argue that the Christian Right hasn't had a lot of influence and support over the last thirty years, even if it took a hit with the death of Jerry Falwell.

[Treznor]

Yes, of course. We had no way of knowing that the Iraq War was based on lies, or that four years later Americans would still believe a connection between Hussein and 9/11. Yes, what is wrong with abstinence-only sex education? And what happens when you remove the specter of government oversight from business? People make decisions on that basis.

Consider yourself ridiculed.

The first posts do nothing to suggest that Bush messed up. There was still the possibilty that Saddam has weapons of mass destruction, at least in Bush's eyes. If he had failed to react and a disaster had occurred it would have been Bush's fault. The War in Iraq is not based on lies. What motive would the government have for lying about the war? What would they gain? Saddam did not have anything to do with 9/11, most people I've talked to know that. People have mixed up their wars, how is that Bush's fault? Protection does not stop STD's or pregnancy completely. Abstinence does. Everyone I've talked to knows where to find protection and Bush's curriculum was not followed at least where I learned. No government regulation is bad. Too much government regulation is bad. Yes the businesses can become corrupt and so can governments. Greed tends to be a good motivator though. Plus business also tends to be more efficient than government. All in all, by discussing these issues we have meandered away from the purpose of this thread too far. I will not comment on these issues again in this thread.

Wrong, wrong and ludicrously wrong. Those articles demonstrate that Bush was repeatedly told that he was pursuing the war on false pretenses, and he chose to forge ahead anyway. What happens when you don't use protection? You get more teen pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases, which is what "abstinence-only" sex education was supposed to fix. And Greed is good? How very Christian of you.

Thank you for your neocon perspective. We're done here.

[The Alma Mater]

By the bye, the Bible doesn't require all slaves to be freed after seven years, only male Hebrew slaves. Foreign slaves are slaves for life. How's that for supporting my point completely?

Don't forget that hitting and raping slaves (if you need an heir) is encouraged by God.

The Bible points to possible historic figures. Harry Potter fictional figures.

Harry Potter mentions real persons as well. Does make all persons in it real
But perhaps you prefer the Odyssea as an example instead ? Quite a few things in there are historical fact.
If there really was an island of one-eyed giants though...

[Luciratus]

Oh, it's more than the fact that God can't be seen with the eyes. God can't be seen with the eyes, heard with the ears, felt with our fingers, smelt with our noses or tasted with our tongues. God can't be measured, tested, challenged or in any way validated or invalidated. In any other aspect of our lives when we encounter a hypothesis that simply defies any means of validation, we reject it as a bad hypothesis. But not for God! God is a sacred institution, a tradition handed down from our forebears and incontestable. That's what makes religion a failed philosophy. Any philosophy that clings to a concept that fails challenge is rejected, except religion.

So, who are these atheists and agnostics who oppose gay marriage because it's "yucky?" I'm genuinely curious to learn who these nutjobs are. I have yet to hear an argument against gay marriage that wasn't ultimately grounded in religious terms.

White Supremacy goes hand in hand with religion. White Supremacy is an obvious evil, which makes it a useful analogy. No one envisions a sweet, loving White Supremacist (except maybe other White Supremacists) because we've seen what White Supremacists do when they get the upper hand. Well, this is me standing outside of religion reminding people what religionists do when they get the upper hand. Gallup recently posted a new survey entitled, "Americans' Opposition to Gay Marriage Eases Slightly." Think about that a moment. "Eases Slightly." Why have Americans been so opposed to gay marriage for so long? Here's a hint: the reason rhymes with "stygian," and I don't mean the witches.

We're going to spend generations recovering from the damage religion causes our societies. Yay, some religions seek to benefit communities, but so did the genocidal psychotics throughout history. Germans have the honor of being one of the oldest Western societies with universal health care, but that didn't stop them from committing atrocities. Shall we ignore that part of history because they were so good to their own people? I don't think so.

Christians don't deserve persecution, but neither do they deserve special privileges. They are no more persecuted than any other in the world, and singling them out for their suffering is asinine.

---

God can be invalidated. Prove that the soul does not exist through neurology and you'll be getting somewhere. Prove, beyond a doubt, that the universe was formed so perfectly by natural means. Prove, conclusively, that evolution is not only possible but also traceable. Because science is cyclical it is easy to challenge. If one theory is wrong and it pertains to another that theory is by default wrong or in need of changes. Actually the Big Bang has been challenged and at current scientist still accept as largely true while refusing to change their opinions until it is replaced by a different model. Many theories and practices have been challenged in science and yet there are no changes until another model is proven, if another model is proven. Scientist go into experiments expecting old theories to be verified instead of open-mindedly. Many political ideologies, philosophies, economies, and belief systems have been challenged and failed in application but still exist. God has not failed any test completely thus far, just because science can't disprove God doesn't mean it isn't a possibility and thus a good hypothesis.

I won't give out names. I'm just clarifying that people have certain biases independent of religion. Please don't refer to them as "nutjobs", they just disagree with you and I on this particular issue. And the argument made by them is that it was unnatural and disgusting, a typical argument that was rather easy to rebute.

White Supremacy is distinct from religion. In America that is based on post-Civil War anger and frustration not religion. Then it began to be based on Hitler and the Nazis. Still not religion. The teachings of Jesus directly contradict the doctrines of White Supremacy. In fact Jesus wasn't even white, he was Middle Eastern. Catholics only displayed him as white, not for racial reason, but so that he would be more identifiable with Europeans who were also light-skinned. That is just an old tradition now. Black churches also portray Jesus as white for the same reason. Yes, religion does oppose gay marriage but also many Christians and Jews still vote for gay marriage because they belief gays are having their rights violated. So while you may be right, the change can also be attributed to more liberal Christians or increased tolerance as well. Religious faith is currently 75% of the country while 15% is non-religious. That still doesn't explain why gay marriage is such a contentious issue.

Yes, I agree, don't forget the atrocities. However hold them independtly from the good. Judge at an individual level and don't generalize. Don't blame modern Christians for the crimes of the past. Consider everyone good until they have been proven bad.

I agree no special priviliges. Express anger and dismay when any group suffers. I think the OP singled them out because they aren't typically considered oppressed as I've pointed out before. I disagree with his/her first two links but the last link seems to be partly valid. All in all, it's a good lesson on the world at large. The OP might have wanted to see if NS was really as tolerant as they claimed to be. I'm not sure why he/she posted this thread but I'm merely hypothesizing. On the issue of world oppression we seem to agree. Yeah! Thats one point of concurence!

[Luciratus]

By the bye, the Bible doesn't require all slaves to be freed after seven years, only male Hebrew slaves. Foreign slaves are slaves for life. How's that for supporting my point completely?

Don't forget that hitting and raping slaves (if you need an heir) is encouraged by God.

The Bible points to possible historic figures. Harry Potter fictional figures.

Harry Potter mentions real persons as well. Does make all persons in it real
But perhaps you prefer the Odyssea as an example instead ? Quite a few things in there are historical fact.
If there really was an island of one-eyed giants though...

Actually the article said that there appears to be some contradictions. Both male and female slaves could be freed after seven years. Most passages do not specify on which slaves were released but merely stated that after seven years all slaves must be released.

The second common is not true. There were codes of morality that applied to slave masters. As the people were indentured servants it was considered wrong to abuse them.

True Harry Potter does mention real people. Guy Fawkes is one. Odysseus was a Greek epic that might have had some basis in reality. As for the one-eyed giants again they are physical entities and thus cannot be compared to transcendant beings.

[Liuzzo]

No it is not ok. It happens all over the world. It is also not right to persecute people of any religion. Here ends obvious answers to obvious questions. I will not, Christian persecution in America is most a things of paranoia and delusion. Not always, but most of the time that is spot on.

[The Alma Mater]

The second common is not true. There were codes of morality that applied to slave masters. As the people were indentured servants it was considered wrong to abuse them.

Incorrect. Read the Bible. It even tells us how hard one is allowed to smack a slave.

As for the one-eyed giants again they are physical entities and thus cannot be compared to transcendant beings.

Poseidon/Neptune then ?

I do not see why it matters though. People mix fantasy and reality in lots of books - including in the time the Bible was written.

[Luciratus]

The second common is not true. There were codes of morality that applied to slave masters. As the people were indentured servants it was considered wrong to abuse them.

Incorrect. Read the Bible. It even tells us how hard one is allowed to smack a slave.

As for the one-eyed giants again they are physical entities and thus cannot be compared to transcendant beings.

Poseidon/Neptune then ?

I do not see why it matters though. People mix fantasy and reality in lots of books - including in the time the Bible was written.

I have heard of the ability to hit slaves as specified in the Bible. However they were freed after the seven year period. I am not familiar with the specific passage however. There were still codes of morality and they were alot more balanced than those of the Egyptians, Assyrians, or Babylonians. For a civilization at the time slavery was not an uncommon practice.

Posiden/Neptune was still a physical god who dwelled in a physical palace either at the bottom of the sea or in Olympus. All "pagan" belief system worshiped physical gods. The only religions that didn't to my knowledge originated in the Middle East or Asia. Religious faiths such as Zoroastrianism, Judaism, Islam, Manichaeism, Christianity, Budhism, and Taoism worship things which are non-physical. Thus to compare their deities to other physical deities is a weak argument. That is why pink unicorn or flying spaghetti monster arguments can't be applied, they are straw-man.

[Aggicificicerous]

Posiden/Neptune was still a physical god who dwelled in a physical palace either at the bottom of the sea or in Olympus. All "pagan" belief system worshiped physical gods. The only religions that didn't to my knowledge originated in the Middle East or Asia. Religious faiths such as Zoroastrianism, Judaism, Islam, Manichaeism, Christianity, Budhism, and Taoism worship things which are non-physical. Thus to compare their deities to other physical deities is a weak argument.

No True Scotsman fallacy. Poseidon is also a god, and this non-physical nonsense, quite apart from being open to a great deal of interpretation is irrelevant. Or are you trying to suggest that someone actually met Poseidon?

That is why pink unicorn or flying spaghetti monster arguments can't be applied, they are straw-man.

Your understanding of logical fallacies is lacking.