Just goes to show what a disgusting notion the Christsian god is!

It can be, yes, but so can anything if it's in the wrong hands.

When can adoration of infanticidal monsters ever be in the right hands?

Okay. Which particular aspect of the character of God are you meaning?

Isn't it obvious?

In this thread, the aspect that not only is it ok to offer children to be slaughtered for this monster but the murder of innocents by the hand of the same monster is positively embraced!

Just one of the many unpleasant character traits of the god written about in The Bible.

This sort of thing is dangerous in the wrong hands, it takes a very special person to heal, all this does is build up bad press for the believer and ammunition for the athiest.

One things for certain we will all have to stand before God and explain our actions. "Sorry I did not believe in you" will not wash.

In this thread - yes. These people are exceptions. The majority of Christian people love their children. I did a bit of research on this group and they've gone to ground as far as I can see and no wonder. The authorities are dealing with it now and the story is in the public eye.
So, no, Fells. It isn't okay to offer children to be slaughtered, as you rather dramatically phrase it.
This link ... http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-20105030-504083.html
takes you to a very similar story, but this death of a child was caused by veganism. (And there are other, similar stories). Should we revile all those who practice that?

In both these cases, the fault lies with the parents. They caused the deaths of these two children by their stupidity and ignorance.

When did man start doing that? 2000 years ago. 5000 years? 200 thousand years ago? Did the 3 million year old boy stand before him and say sorry I didn't know about you, I'm 3 million years too early? I'd imagine our mammal ancestors would have had a hard time explaining themselves as well.

"However" far back, they were, the promise of the messiah was in scripture, those who wanted it,and awaited on him.

Don't forget your looking at things with clouded evolutuionary eyes..... :rolleyes: :)

The Bible positively advocates it!

The fault also lies in The Bible, without which these parents would not have sanctioned such reckless abandonment.

Faith heals zero physical ailments - all faith healers are dangerously deluded or wilfully culpable.

Thankfully, it's barely even possible let alone certain. Even if it was, which it isn't, I wouldn't be fawning to such a malicious menace as the Christian notion of a god. It's crimes would be far greater than those of all Mankind put together. It would be in no position to claim a moral high ground

If it hadn't been for the pesky rational empiricism then religion would have gotten away with it!

However, a question for you, Ganda relevant to this thread. If you were convinced one morning that your god demanded you to test your faith by killing your first-born, would you carry it out?

My Mrs Beeton recipe book, which I treasure, tells me that, as the 'mistress' I should take cold or tepid baths every morning, but ... I don't (well, not cold ones at any rate). The recipe for jugged hare starts by telling me to 'first catch your hare' and I don't think I'll be doing that either. I love the book and I read through it with great pleasure, taking away thoughts and ideas by the dozen, but I don't religiously stick to every single instruction I find in it.
For Mrs Beeton, substitute Bible and that about covers my point.

Recently some more pages from the bible were discovered. They're thought to have come from very near to the beginning. A fragment of the first page has now been translated as "for entertainment purposes only".

Shouldn't this have been put in the Religious forum?

Well it started off as a news article but has changed into a religious debate so yea I suppose so. Well, until Baldrick came in and LoL'd all over it, probably the entertainment section now. :D

Tbh it doesn't bother me - it's just that it hit me in the eye as religious and not paranormal.

In regards to the story, unfortunately there will always be people who make idiotic decisions and they'll always find an excuse for their actions.

Some people will only take what they're told and won't think it through themselves, thus ending tragically. A bit like telling someone they can jump off a cliff and land on their feet - then trying it :ph43r:

I do believe in different forms of healing but never without conventional means utmost included.

Forgive me, but this is positively the most preposterous analogy. Mrs Beeton was not a god, the head of a religion who's book was the word of god. She never had followers who were commanded to carry out heinous acts in her name for fear of eternal retribution by a menacing, vengeful god. She never claimed any kinds of healing just for believing in her.

People who believe the Bible to be the inerrant word of god are not the same as a 1950's housewife!

What a ridiculous notion.

It's not like you to completely miss a point, but in this case, you have. Mrs Beeton's book is a set of instructions on how to run a household. The Bible is, admittedly, slightly more than that, but it's essentially a set of instructions on how to live your life under God - particularly the new testament. Yes, it contains historical accounts, but generally, that's what it is, IMV.
God didn't write it - people did. Each part of it contains the societal expectations of the people who wrote it and its tone changes as the people who wrote it changed.
I know some that people will disagree with that, but that's how I view it. My analogy isn't ridiculous because that's how I see it.
Also, you're a hundred years out with Mrs Beeton as well.
:D
And stop being so testy.

Au contrare - it's you that's missing the point which is that some people believe the Bible to be true in it's entirety - not just the fluffy bits of the NT but all the nasty bits of the OT (especially in Leviticus) including all the ridiculous bits in Genesis. It bears no similarity to Mrs Beeton's book of household management - either actually or in analogy.

Bible literalists believe it to be merely transcribed by people but that it is the inerrant word of god

But the point of this thread is how some people accept that their version of a god has decided to take the life of their children, how religion makes sane people believe insane things because they are sanctioned by their holy book. Your analogy doesn't fit in that context - especially in response to my arguments.

No I'm not - I never claimed the period of my chosen house wife example to be contemporary to the 19C. Mrs Beeton's Book of Household Management was being touted as late as the 1970's

Oh, leave my analogy alone. It's mine and I'm sticking by it, and I'll also have the grace to ignore your 'wriggling' about 1950s housewives.

I think that whilst there are people around who take the Bible very seriously, that they're in the minority and that even then, when it comes to their own children, even they very rarely go to the lengths the idiots did in the OP. Unless, of course, you're generalising and saying that a strong belief in the Bible automatically makes you a potential child murderer?

Tell that to the 7 million JWs in the world, every one of which would deny life-saving blood transfusions for their children should they need them.

I'm sure you'll twist my argument to mean what you want it to mean whatever I put.

Not so. Whist it's true that they don't permit donor blood transfusions, they do seek out alternatives. And it seems that this has actually proved to be of benefit to other groups.

http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Christiani...ess-Infant.aspx

Now this is interesting, I thought the JW's were an off shoot of the Mormons but while they share many beliefs it was another business man in the 18th century who started the cult...sorry religion.

I don't doubt it, Duck. But my point stands. I'm not defending any particular religious group, I don't go to church, I don't consider myself to be a Christian either. I just don't think that incidents of people allowing their children to die because of their beliefs is confined to those who believe in the Bible. Hence my earlier link to a couple who killed their child by enforcing a strict vegan diet. That one's a lifestyle choice - nothing to do with God. It's not an isolated case either.

Eh? I tell you that JWs would refuse a life saving blood transfusion for their child and you 'refute' this statement by giving an example of a liver transplant and recycled blood! What crazy logic is this?

A child who has lost 4 pints of blood in an accident could not be saved 'alternatively' with chemicals, his own recycled blood, a slice of his nan's liver, chianti or fava beans! The clue is in the phrase 'life-saving blood transfusions'!

My statement stands.

Let me add something here, Those that do not believe in the Bible and the afterlife will never understand the actions of those who do. Just because those that refuse to see the light and its truths does not give them right to ridicule those who have. If someone refuse transplants because of thier faith, who are we to ridicule. They truly believe it will affect their salvation. Now I am not of that stance, and will argue against it, but can you imagine the faith it must take to let a loved one die because of the refusal to allow a blood transfusion. Remember though, those that die, it is not the end, this is the point non believers fail to grasp.

You know, I always thought the final battle between God and the non believers would be a one sided affair, now I'm not so sure. When Jesus returns not all will fall to worship him :rolleyes:

God never asked anyone to kill the first born son, so your point is mute.

Oh my word! For once I agree Fells :lol: Faith healers do not heal, God heals, but my word it takes a lot of faith............

I still maintain people hide behind science. They seem to have a deep seated hatred of God, why?

Rastafarians believe Ethiopian emperor, Haile Selassie, was the second coming of jesus. Maybe they were right, and you missed him? ;)

There will be no mistaking his return.

I suppose the rastafian faith isn't as valid as your faith then :rolleyes:

Not quite sure how that works....

Yea I'm sure Harold Camping and the 1000's of others who have been predicting that for 2000 years thought the same.

To the rastas their faith is alive to them, but it does say many will be decieved. They have every right to practice thier faith, all I do is point out what the Bible says on the matter.

Know one knows the date and time, those who try, for whatever reason, are in for a mighty fall. All it does is bring derision to the Christian faith, so why do they do it? :(

Everyone has the right to ridicule dangerous notions (or any notion, for that matter)

No one should have the right to refuse life-saving treatment for their children under the age of majority - for whatever reason, least of all religious conviction. They can do what they want with their own body but to deny their children such treatment is at least child abuse.

I can only imagine the blind ignorance of such a notion. What loving god would demand this of its supposed creation? What a malicious deity!

It probably is the end, this is what believers blinded by faith fail to see.

Why does your god have such a problem with non-believers? It should pay more attention to the bloody awful mess of life its supposed to have created rather than whinging about those that don't believe in it. It really must have one helluva confidence crisis!

Are you sure?…

Exodus 13:2

More god-demanded sacrifice from Leviticus 27:28-29 (Leviticus really is an insidious tome!)

Then your god demands that you, a believer, should murder the likes of Duck, Les and myself because we have the audacity not to believe in your god…

Deuteronomy 13:13-19

The Bible is full of godly death demands. Such a jealous, petty, intolerant deity!

Faith has healed precisely zero people. Show me a regrown amputated limb of a person then I might look at it differently.

Because science is the arbiter of truth in the real world. As for having a 'deep-seated hatred of god[s]', this is preposterous seeing as god/s probably don't exist for anyone to hate in the first place. Many of us despise the pernicious man-made 'holy' books, like The Bible, and the businesses that come from them that use a currency of fear, misery, bribery and ignorance - businesses that can cause innocent people to commit acts of barbary as demonstrated in the OP

You're a nice guy, Ganda, but the god of the Bible is a vile creation.

This does not mean human sacrifice:

Sanctify: The word kadash is to consecrate, separate, and set apart a person or thing from all common or secular purposes to some religious use; and exactly answers to the Greek áãéáæù, from á, privative, and ãç, the earth; because everything offered or consecrated to God was separated from all earthly uses

You are taking scripture completly out of context.

Again does not speak of human sacrifice:

which shall be devoted: That is, either that every person devoted to the service of God shall not be redeemed, but die in that devoted state, or, that such as were devoted to death by appointment and law of God, as the Canaanites were, shall be put to death.


Quoting out of context and quoting from the old testament is not how things should be done. We are under the new promise of God with the New testament. :)

One day we will all have to stand before him and account for our actions, words like "I thought you jealous, petty and intolerant will not wash.

So would it be acceptable for the believer to ridicule the non believer?

Still does not really answer the question of why there is a deep seated hatred of the possibility of an afterlife, and all that includes. Mankind causes misery, if they want to try and hide behind a holy book does that make the book at fault?

It’s all about beliefs Fells, you don’t believe so you see it as “child abuse”. Let’s switch to the other foot, JW’s belief that blood transfusions will harm their child, is that not child abuse?

We'll agree to disagree on that one. :rolleyes:

Thanks Fells :) You not so bad yourself. :)

Erm, ok. Amazing how different people interpret the 'unerring word of god' isn't it?

I shall bold the relevant bit so that it's absolutely clear…

That's unequivocal. Just what other context can there be when demanding humans be put to death?

Oh please, is it inconvenient to mention the vile, nasty pernicious stuff in the OT? The stuff that demonstrates just how vile a creation the deity of the Bible is?
Ignoring the bad stuff of the Bible and only enthusing about the good is like proclaiming how tasty a bowl of soup is even though you witnessed the chef urinating in it - It might have tasty chunks of lobster in it but its still full of urine!

There will be no fawning to a North Korean style dictator of a deity from me because I will be dead.

I have no issues with this - my arguments stand up to scrutiny so 'sticks and stones' and all that.

It answers it perfectly - that it is not satisfying to you is not my problem. It's also still not hatred (the word suggests accepting it's real, for which there is no good evidence) - just scepticism, although I personally find the notion of existing for an eternity to be a repugnant one. It's like being at the longest, most dull party that you are not allowed to leave, ever - so much for free will!

Thankfully, it's probably not true in the first place.

Some people believe it's ok to murder homosexuals for practising their nature - is that acceptable? Or to murder a rape victim because she refuses to marry the rapist? Or to murder someone for mealy working on the sabbath? (Genesis is nearly as repugnant than Leviticus). Do you accept that these things, which are unequivocally demanded in the Bible, are pure and moral notions?

Not according to the law it's not. For them to successfully challenge the law the they would have to provide physical evidence of the harm blood transfusions would supposedly cause. But, seeing as we're on the topic - just what does this supposedly loving, merciful deity have against blood transfusions? What possible harm can it cause?

Thank you, my mum thinks so too - even with my rational belligerence.