Me neither, and I don't know why.
God was very clear about it in Deuteronomy 28. If you don't follow all of his laws, he will force you to eat your children.
Here are just some of the things God promises to do to you if you don't follow his laws.
But it shall come to pass, if thou wilt not hearken unto the voice of the LORD thy God, to observe to do all his commandments and his statutes which I command thee this day; that all these curses shall come upon thee, and overtake thee: Deuteronomy 28:15
Thou shalt betroth a wife ... 28:30a
... and another man shall lie with her. 28:30b
The LORD will smite thee with the botch of Egypt, and with the emerods, and with the scab, and with the itch, whereof thou canst not be healed ... The LORD will rejoice over you to destroy you ... 28:27, 63
The LORD shall smite thee in the knees, and in the legs, with a sore botch that cannot be healed, from the sole of thy foot unto the top of thy head. 28:35
The LORD shall smite thee with madness, and blindness, and astonishment of heart. And thou shalt grope at noonday, as the blind gropeth in darkness. 28:28-29
And thy carcase shall be meat unto all fowls of the air, and unto the beasts of the earth, and no man shall fray them away. 28:22
And thou shalt eat the fruit of thine own body, the flesh of thy sons and of thy daughters. 28:53
All these curses shall come upon thee, and shall pursue thee, and overtake thee, till thou be destroyed; because thou hearkenedst not unto the voice of the LORD thy God, to keep his commandments and his statutes which he commanded thee. 28:45
37 comments:
Heh. I love the bit of God nonchalantly drinking the coffee over the guy he's destroyed; "eh, another day, another death".
LOL I wonder if we will hear again how Deuteronomy isn't the word of god but mans attempt to change it. I have never really read much of the bible and have to thank you for pointing out much of it for me.
Wow! George Romero, eat your heart out! (an omnipotent pun!)
And yep, definitely another day at the office for God. Had to have been a Monday.
"The best part of wakin' up....."
Baconsbud-
This rhetoric was pointed at specific groups of pre-exilic Israelites, specifically those that refused to recognize the centrality of the Jerusalem temple, the exclusive hegemony of the Levitical priests, and the transcendence of Yahweh. It was most likely written after the destruction of Jerusalem, using the events of that siege and deportation as ad hoc punishments which were put, as prophecy, into the mouths of earlier Israelite figures.
The problem with averring that the same warning is over us today is that these warnings were directed at Israelites, not at everyone in the world. In the Second Temple Period these prophecies were thought to have been fulfilled by Babylon, and after 70 CE they were again thought to be fulfilled in the Roman destruction of Jerusalem. Since the appropriate socio-political contexts no longer exist for these consequences to play out, no one really accepts that they were meant as perpetually hanging over the heads of Jews.
This is a fun little game for people who don't know much about the Bible or the world of the ancient Near East, but it, again, only applies to the most fundamental of religious traditions. It's also pretty juvenile once you understand the origin and function of this particular brand rhetoric.
How do people buy into this nonsense? I am always amazed...
Well, I know I've worn clothing woven from multiple fabrics recently (heck, I just went to a job interview the other day in suit of wool and silk) and I had a nice ham sandwich for lunch.
None of this stuff that God promises to do happened to me. Strangely, I'm not particularly worried that he's just biding his time.
Ulysses-
I am not defending anything, I am explaining. I'm surprised that I have to point out the distinction. At the same time, you're appealing to presentistic and reductive moral perspectives. Your lack of ability to adequately contextualize these ideologies really precludes you from judging their acceptability on the proper terms.
Your modern sensitivities don't approve, but you've never been a Bronze Age pastoralist next door to a militarizing village, or the chief of a city which survives or dies based on the viability of standard socio-religious ideals. For instance, Egypt's intermediate periods, when poverty and chaos overcame the single most stable economy of the ancient world, came about in large part as a result of the failure of the ideology of kingship.
There's far more at work in these situations than you will ever be aware, especially if you keep up these ridiculous caricatures and this silly polemic.
No Dano, we're aware that these old books were writen for specific audiences.
Its the believers who don't realize it and continue to take those books seriously and try to force the rules & outlook in them onto people in vastly different circumstances today.
Of course, as you know those books weren;t written for people today I don't see why you think they are pertinent at all.
danielomcclellan,
You were defending, and you defend even more in latest reply. When you admonish people for criticizing something and try to give reasons for why people should not criticize, that is defending.
"Presentistic" and "reductive" moral principles? How did you determine my morality from that small little comment I made? Regardless of your presumed omniscience and also your presumed epistemic superiority, how does condemning the behavior of the god of the bible express presentistic moral principles?
By presentistic I gather you mean by present/modern standards. That implies that a) there is some great universal consensus of what "modern" morals are b) I share those morals c) during the time of these events being discussed there weren't people who would have condemned the acts as contemptible. Of course, a-c are all false. There are many conflicting moral views and standards in the present. I have many peculiar moral views and grounds, especially relative to standards and views that are probably most common. There have been conflicting moral views and standards throughout human history and in [just about] every human society.
There is no lack of adequately contextualizing the events; that is just a way for you to justify your acceptance of them. Just as there is no missing contextual data that would make me more accepting of American slavery, or Hitler's Final Solution, there is no missing data that would make me more accepting of Jehovah's threats, murders, and genocides. You are just like a abused spouse who tells her/his friends that the behavior of the abuser would be understood if they just knew how sweet he/she really was. Just some missing data.
And I haven't a clue why you thought what I said was reductive. Please elaborate.
You don't know what my "sensitivities" are. What I sense from you though is just some environmental determinist BS, placing no responsibility on the unique desires, decisions, and beliefs of the individuals involved and the culture that those constelattion of non-environmental factors created.
And what caricature or polemic am I supposed to stop keeping up? That was my first comment.
You are welcome to present the information you think exonerates the threats Jehovah makes in the passages quoted. In fact, I invite you to. Please, let us know the circumstances--in the time they were made--that make the threats acceptable to you. I mean, beyond the information you have already provided, because that wasn't sufficient to make me less disapproving toward them.
danielomcclellan
It's also pretty juvenile once you understand the origin and function of this particular brand rhetoric.
Right -- we get it. The ancient people of Yahweh used god's supposed voice -- as their own -- giving themselves a bogus sense of authority to manipulate the masses and to push agendas during their own specific, time period and their own specific culture.
--S.
Mdanielomcclellan
So now in order to understand the bible, one has to have lived in the bronze age and know as much as you do about Egypt's intermediate periods?
I thought the bible was the infallible/inerrant (take your pick) "word of god". Jesus himself says in Matthew 5:17-18
Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
I thought the bible was for all time. A document to guide us, to turn to in times of trouble, etc. Now I learn that it was just for certain people at certain times. Can you please enlighten me as to what parts of the bible are currently in effect? Are the 10 commandments still to be obeyed? How about Adam and Eve? How about Genesis?
The idea that you think you can "explain" it is unbelievable. Your response to Ulysses is the MOST arrogant, self-aggrandizing puff piece I've ever read. You must be real proud of yourself. Can anyone stand you? Do you have any friends other than overpompus blowhards like yourself?
Danielo,
You keep referring to the fallacy of applying "presentistic and reductive moral perspectives" and the inability of the layman to place these ancient ideologies (and atrocities) in the proper and timely context. You say you're not defending these events, but merely explaining them in their appropriate context.
I understand your position to a certain degree: Since we'll never again be the way we were, because experiences impact and change civilizations over time. Therefore, we can never "describe" historical events adequately, nor learn from them fully because our perspective and the situational context of the events will never be quite the same. However, at such point history fails to instruct, because excuse after excuse can be submitted for why things played out the way they did, and that nobody has any business nor authority to review or critique them.
Since I didn’t live among nomadic Near East pastoralists, I cannot recognize how pervasive and acceptable the practice of stoning people to death really was. Since I didn't live in 19th century Ukraine, I can't possibly judge the moral acts of the merciless Jewish pogroms by the Tsar’s forces. Because I didn't live in Nuremburg in November 1938 I can't possibly conceptualize, let alone apply an opinion to, the worldview of the Nazis. Since I was never a middle-age pastoralist in mainland China during the 13th century, I can't possibly understand and appreciate the necessary expansionist policies (and wanton brutality) of Gengkis and Kublai Khan. Since I didn’t live in Mississippi in the 1920s and 1930s I can’t possibly comprehend the socio-economic and cultural pressures that “inspired” poor white Bible-belt agriculturalists to lynch tens of hundreds of black Americans.
What you're imploring here is beyond obvious. OF COURSE our modern day sensibilities are very different than a bronze age Jewish pastoralist! But this doesn't disqualify anyone in the 21st century from "describing" the punitive practices inspired by God in the Bible of stoning family members and loved ones as “brutal and contemptible acts”. This level of criticism (and ridicule) is particularly valid today because we have all around the United States, Danielo, millions of Christians and Jews claiming that these biblical verses are not only 100% true but 100% divinely inspired.
Aside from that, we cannot help the position in space and time we currently occupy. We can try hard to appreciate cultural and social-economic pressures of a certain epoch, but this appreciation is always limited and will never be perfect. And modern day perspectives on these Biblical verses may change in the future. But for now we must, and do, describe all documented and historical events as best we can. And sometimes those descriptions rub dogma defenders and previously held perspectives the wrong way. A good example of this is what many modern day Turks are still saying this very decade: The West will never fully understand the intricate circumstances surrounding the “so-called” Armenian genocide (Turks today still insist genocide never took place).
I would think as a critical and learned historian you would be the first to recognize how your issuance of “free passes” gets us all no where fast. History should be explained. It should also be open to critique.
You come across as someone who is quite use to talking down to other people and very sensitive to those who ridicule faith. That’s your choice. Thank you for your scholarly expertise on the Near East and its cultures, but you’ll excuse me (and presumably many others) if I allow the book of Deuteronomy to speak for itself.
What I think danielomclellan is saying is that the Bible is an anachronism that has no relevance to modern human societies.
Sounds about right to me.
Regardless of the target audience for these silly and sadistic warnings, people living today believe the Bible is "The Word" and is to be believed, revered, and followed.
That is the scary and tragic part of the entire Judeo-Christian myth machine.
busterggi-
I think they're pertinent because ancient history, and specifically ancient Judaism, is my career.
Ulysses-
Please quote the line where I defend the threats.
sconnor-
I made no statement regarding anything related to God being involved in this text.
Tom-
Yes, to understand the Bible you have to be able to contextualize it, otherwise you're just retrojecting your own personal worldview into the literary remnants of a phenomenally alien worldview. That's not going to teach you anything about the ancient world.
And no, the Bible is not infallible or inerrant. Read what I say before you accuse me of such juvenile worldviews.
Markus-
Rather poor reductive and emotive reasoning. Associating these things with much more modern examples of genocide and ethnocentrism may make you feel more angry about them, but you're again misapplying presentistic perspectives to much more ancient ideas.
Ian-
It certainly has relevance to people who want to know about the ancient world. If you don't that's your prerogative, but don't speak for others who do.
Timothy-
You're addressing only the most fundamental of Judeo-Christian viewpoints, as I pointed out earlier. That's not where I'm coming from.
danielomcclellan
I made no statement regarding anything related to God being involved in this text.
You said, This rhetoric was pointed at specific groups of pre-exilic Israelites, specifically those that refused to recognize the centrality of the Jerusalem temple, the exclusive hegemony of the Levitical priests, and the transcendence of Yahweh. (emphasis mine)
My statement still stands:
The ancient people of Yahweh used god's supposed voice (hegemony) -- as their own -- giving themselves a bogus sense of authority to manipulate the masses and to push agendas during their own specific, time period and their own specific culture -- agreed?
--S.
Danielomcclellan is either an atheist anthropologist making a subtle academic point about the audience the bible was written for or the stupidist christian since...well...take your pick.
If you're the former, we take your point. The bible is arachnaristic nonsense that had some value for bronze age goat herders. If you're the latter, you're defending your god's morals by conceding that the bible is arachnaristic nonsense.
By the way, I know that an arachnid is an out-of-date spider.
sconnor-
My statement pointed to the author's position regarding priests and God, not mine. Your statement does not stand. I made absolutely no comment about the involvement of God in the text.
edna-
Thanks for the uninformed guesses. I have a bio up at my blog. You're welcome to check it out if you want to know who I am, but if you have specific issues with my statements please address them directly and I'll be happy to respond. "You're stupid!" isn't really an assertion I think merits a response.
danielomclellan
"It certainly has relevance to people who want to know about the ancient world. If you don't that's your prerogative, but don't speak for others who do."
It has value as an academic exercise, no doubt, but that's not what I'm disputing. I'm disputing that it contains morals and wisdom that are applicable to the 21st century world.
Ian-
The Bible certainly contains a number of moral and didactic discussions relevant to today's world. It has many more that are not, but it's not at all devoid of contemporary relevance.
danielomcclellan I have a question for you. I am wondering if you go to the christian websites that are teaching the bible as most christians learn it? Ok more then one question. If you do, do you explain to them that they are wrong in the way they are being taught the bible? The reason I ask is that most christians I know would look at you like a fool with some of your views of the bible.
This blog and others tend to interpret them as it seems most christians do, other then most of us see it as evil acts while the christians see it as good acts.
What kinds of responces do you get from the more extreme christians when you explain they have been mislead in how the bible should be interpreted?
I really am interested in answers to these questions.
Baconsbud-
First, I don't go to any websites that teach the Bible, and the only websites I visit that are Christian-oriented are the occasional Christian blog. Second, I don't think you can even begin to judge what "most Christians" learn. I don't think you have exposure to more than a few generalized Christian perspectives.
To answer your question, though, when I come across fallacious or uninformed opinions, Christian or otherwise, I point them out. For example, in another post on this blog someone insisted the Septuagint did not instruct parents to kill their children, but to report them. I corrected that person. The Septuagint does tell them to kill their children. On my blog I evaluate a number of common theist and non-theist claims.
I hope it comes as no surprise to you that I really couldn't care less what most Christians you know think. I understand the Bible quite well, and neither theist nor non-theist dogmas really matter to me.
I disagree that "most Christians" interpret killing or eating your children as "good acts." You're welcome to dispute that if you wish, but I'll have to ask for more than anecdotal "I know some Christians who said that" evidence.
I generally don't deal with extremist viewpoints on either side of this question, but if I do engage them, I get the same kind of responses I'm getting from the extremists on this blog: "You're stupid." (It's amazing how dogmatism manifests itself so consistently on opposite ends of this ideological spectrum.) I promise you, though, I'm neither stupid nor uninformed when it comes to the Bible. If anyone would like to challenge that, I would be more than happy to oblige.
Tom,
Yes, do you think that daniel loves to smell his own farts too? The pompousness is palpable.
Markus,
I, by the way, think your comment was an example of excellent reasoning. I think Daniel has his head so far up his ass that he can't objectively see good reasoning.
danielomcclellan
"I promise you, though, I'm neither stupid nor uninformed when it comes to the Bible."
I don't think many people here think you are uninformed when it comes to the Bible. Sounds like you sleep with it under your pillow. I don't think people would consider you stupid for how well you would do on Bible Jeopardy, but they might think you are stupid for how you approach the Bible. From your about me on your website, it is difficult to really deduce what sort of Christian you are, or whether you are at all. BYU? Does that mean you are mormon? Do you believe there is a god? And do you believe that this god was actively involved in at least inspiring the bible? Will you answer those questions?
" "You're stupid!" isn't really an assertion I think merits a response."
Do you think "you're juvenile" or "silly" warrants a response? You do a really shitty job of "describing" things. Might want to work on that. "Juvenile" is a condescending insult.
"And no, the Bible is not infallible or inerrant. Read what I say before you accuse me of such juvenile worldviews."
Oh,so much contempt for those worldviews. And you just express yourself to describe, of course.
"Please quote the line where I defend the threats. "
Well, why settle for a line? Your first few posts were a defense of those threats. Anyway, here is a line where you defend them:
"I am not defending anything, I am explaining. I'm surprised that I have to point out the distinction. At the same time, you're appealing to presentistic and reductive moral perspectives. Your lack of ability to adequately contextualize these ideologies really precludes you from judging their acceptability on the proper terms. "
Regardless of your own mistake of categorization--you are in fact defending--here is a time you defend. You clearly say that I should not judge because of some lack of data--which implies that if I had the appropriate data, I would judge differently. That is to say, these things being judged would not be judged so harshly; thus, your defense is that the data you have would render the rhetoric uncondemnable. Somehow, because of what you know, that the rest of humankind does not, the rhetoric would be excusable.
Defend 1. to ward off attack from; guard against assault or injury (usually fol. by from or against)
2. to maintain by argument, evidence, etc.; uphold
You have done both. By claiming that my judgments are presentistic you are nullifying their validity; by nullifying their validity the rhetoric is effectively defended from my judgments. Have I held your hand enough?
And you still havent given me that missing data I asked for. You are being juvenile.
Ulysses-
Call me pompous if it makes you feel better about not knowing as much about the Bible, but I'm still right, and you still cling to a woefully inadequate view of the Bible and its socio-religious context.
As to your questions, I believe there is a God, and I see far less of his direct hand in this world than many others. I think many people involved in the production of the ideas that became the Bible were inspired to one degree or another, but I don't think any literary unit of the Bible comes to us as a direct and unencumbered revelation.
In my scholarship I am agnostic. That is to say, in my research I don't approach any religious question with the notion that theology, revelation, or faith is going to bear at all on it. My professional analysis of the Bible and cognate literature treats it all as of equally human origin. I do not say I am professionally atheistic, because I do not militate against theism, I just don't address it.
Moving on, I never said "you're juvenile." I said this game was juvenile. My exact words were:
"This is a fun little game for people who don't know much about the Bible or the world of the ancient Near East, but it, again, only applies to the most fundamental of religious traditions. *It's also pretty juvenile* once you understand the origin and function of this particular brand rhetoric."
I also never called you silly. If you intentionally misrepresent me again then we're done here.
Moving on again, I did not defend anything. Again, I was explaining. That my explanation happens to side with a more informed and less vitriolic view of the Bible does not defend, it explains. The semantic masturbation that follows fails to support your assertion. I am explaining the world behind the Bible, not defending the Bible. The Bible is a flawed human product, and I have no reason to defend its transcendence.
I'll thank you to save the impotent posturing. I didn't see any "missing data" request, although I'm not reading any sentences that contain petty insults, so I may have missed it. If you wish me to read it please reiterate, and without the cursing. If you can do that I'll be happy to respond. If not, you forfeit this debate and we're done.
danielmcclellen
"Moving on, I never said "you're juvenile." I said this game was juvenile. My exact words were..."
And you complain about me engaging in semantic masturbation? So, I guess your correction has made your comment 5% less pretentiously insulting. Congratulations.
"I also never called you silly."
and
"There's far more at work in these situations than you will ever be aware, especially if you keep up these ridiculous caricatures and this silly polemic."
No, you just called my comments silly. Always the semantic masturbating with you. And of course, even better, you implied that I was somehow incapable of becoming aware of some situations that you were.
" If you wish me to read it please reiterate, and without the cursing. If you can do that I'll be happy to respond. If not, you forfeit this debate and we're done."
Read what? And I don't recall ever cursing. Mind pointing out when I cursed? Please don't misrepresent me.
I think I've asked you for the data that you think would render all the judgments you have considered presentistic void two times so far. I ask again: You have repeatedly said that my judgments are groundless because I lack some knowledge about the socio-religious context of the statements quoted by the OP. Again, please let us have that data so we can all discover if that data does in fact change my judgments.
"Call me pompous if it makes you feel better about not knowing as much about the Bible, but I'm still right, and you still cling to a woefully inadequate view of the Bible and its socio-religious context."
No, really, I don't care if you could beat me in Bible Jeopardy. I have other things in my life I feel are more valuable than the irrelevant minutia of the bible. Like semantic masturbation.
And right about what? Because this discussion is about more than details about what the Hebrews ate on mondays. It is more about what sort of information would alter my moral judgments, and what sort of information ought to alter my moral judgments. Two things that have little to do with the bible. Which might be why you are having such a hard time understanding me; maybe your knowledge ends when the bible ends.
"I am explaining the world behind the Bible, not defending the Bible."
Good, then you shouldn't have any problem with people criticizing it. Oh wait, you think thats juvenile. Hmm. You are as confusing as the bible.
Lets just agree to disagree.
"The Bible is a flawed human product, and I have no reason to defend its transcendence."
Yes, why defend its "transcendence" when in another paragraph you assert it!
As you say : 'I think many people involved in the production of the ideas that became the Bible were inspired to one degree or another'
Which means.. well... that you think the bible is transcendent... to one degree or another. Wouldn't want to misrepresent you. Unless, of course, by "inspired" you don't mean inspired by a god. And just mean inspired by, like, the Marquis De Sade was inspired.
So, question you have not answered:
Data that would render my judgments void. You have made a big stink about how my presumed ignorance makes me unqualified to pass judgments about the bible, but you have yet to provide any data that supports your assertion.
Oh, and what is this posturing of mine you are so contemptuous of?
"I didn't see any "missing data" request, although I'm not reading any sentences that contain petty insults, so I may have missed it."
And one more question... how could you know a sentence has petty insults in it if you didn't read it? :/ Thats so silly!
Ulysses-
There is a large and important difference between criticizing an argument and criticizing a human being. One is legitimate argumentation, and one is a fallacy. I am not splitting hairs, I am showing that I did not commit a fallacy, as you have done.
"And I don't recall ever cursing. Mind pointing out when I cursed? Please don't misrepresent me."
Here (1:55 PM): "You do a really shitty job of 'describing' things."
Don't pretend you're being objective and respectful in this argument. You most certainly are not.
"Yes, why defend its 'transcendence' when in another paragraph you assert it!"
I've never asserted the Bible's transcendence. I told you not to intentionally misrepresent me again. You refused. I'm not interested in a debate with someone who's only going to lie to make himself feel like a bigger person. Good day.
Danielomccllan
"Here (1:55 PM): "You do a really shitty job of 'describing' things."
Dang. The one time I cursed, I said shitty. That is what you are all butt-hurt about? Have something against poo? Remember I was just criticizing an argument and not a human being. Do you think calling something "reductive and emotive" is anymore acceptable, when not providing any support, than calling something shitty? I don't know, I think I might think the former is worse. What do others in this discussion think?
"I've never asserted the Bible's transcendence. I told you not to intentionally misrepresent me again. You refused. I'm not interested in a debate with someone who's only going to lie to make himself feel like a bigger person. Good day."
Now you are just desperately trying to get out of the debate and having to provide that data we all have been waiting for. You forgot to quote the rest of what I said:
"Which means.. well... that you think the bible is transcendent... to one degree or another. Wouldn't want to misrepresent you."
If you ever feel considerate enough to have a conversation with someone who isn't going to bow to your superiority complex, I will be around, patient and accepting of your juvenile pomposity. Maybe you will have that data to support the argument you have been repeatedly making. Since you failed to provide your evidence, I'll just assume you have forfeited and accepted defeat. I win by default!
Good day to you too!
Oh, and:
"Don't pretend you're being objective and respectful in this argument. You most certainly are not. "
Never said I was being respectful. You haven't earned my respect. I am being objective as the topic warrants on the other hand. And you are doing a shabby (i.e. shitty) job of being respectful yourself; you lost that adjective when you rode in on your high horse calling things juvenile.
My statement pointed to the author's position regarding priests and God, not mine. Your statement does not stand. I made absolutely no comment about the involvement of God in the text.
What does that have to do with anything? Who cares that it's not your position. I want to know your position -- is my statement tenable?
"The ancient people of Yahweh used god's supposed voice (hegemony) -- as their own -- giving themselves a bogus sense of authority to manipulate the masses and to push agendas during their own specific, time period and their own specific culture -- agreed?"
...it please reiterate, and without the cursing. If you can do that I'll be happy to respond. If not, you forfeit this debate and we're done.
awoooooooooo, awooooooooooo! -- the fucking profanity police, again.
It's nothing but a convenient ploy; a lousy whiny-ass excuse to bail (because a person's virgin ears are burning) at an INFORMAL debate on a web site.
There's NOTHING wrong with using curse words as emphasis words or describing words to convey something in an informal discussion, which danielmcclellen arbitrarily condemns as "off-limit words" because it chaps his (ass) sensibilities, because he deems them offensive. Waaaaaaaaaaah!
--S.
sconnor-
If you want a response then please refrain from ejaculating profanity at me in your post. If you can't express yourself intelligently then your opinion is really meaningless here.
If you want a response then please refrain from ejaculating profanity at me in your post.
Curious -- you are able to respond to posts that have profanity in them -- hmmmm?
If you can't express yourself intelligently then your opinion is really meaningless here.
Oh -- odd? -- aren't you the one clamoring on about fallacious arguments? Well, one can express themselves intelligently and still use profanity.
I, also, noticed you could not respond to the relevancy of my intelligent post, in relation to it being an informal area where people use profanity as emphatic descriptive words.
I can understand if the discussion digressed into nothing but profane attacks and belligerent name-calling but as the late great George Carlin said, "Profanity is just another spice in my stew" and the last I checked I live in a country where I can express myself with profanity -- even coupled with germane, intelligent arguments.
Again, your arbitrary condemnation of profane words is just a bullshit ploy for bullshit selfish reasons. I could give a rat's ass if you don't respond to me.
--S.
Danielomcclellan,
"sconnor-
If you want a response then please refrain from ejaculating profanity at me in your post. If you can't express yourself intelligently then your opinion is really meaningless here."
What would you prefer he ejaculate at you? I doubt many people would mind if you left. If your virgin eyes are damaged by the language here, perhaps you would be better off somewhere else. Just engage in the discussion and stop posturing as a poor persecuted scholar. You are wasting space by trying to demand that others show you personal consideration when most of your comments have been condescending and consisted of worthless bible trivia.
What Sconnor wrote was intelligently expressed and meaningful. Keep the pretentious bullshit for your unfortunate students. If you can't answer criticisms of your argument and rather spend most of your mental energy bitching about other peoples' choice of language and how they aren't showing you deference, then your opinion is really meaningless here. If you expect us to put up with your ridiculous underhanded pretentious insults, the least you could do is tolerate the (very) occasional "profanity" like "shitty." Don't be a douche.
I guess no one is interested in an intelligent conversation here. You just want to assert your right to act like a high school kid, even if it means intentionally forfeiting a debate. Well played. You lose.
danielomcclellan, I've read the Bible; hell, I used to believe in it, but I certainly don't think it's divinely inspired just because a few verses quoted out of context sound just peachy. See the light of reason, mate.
Ulysses, let's give the man some time to explain his arguments; once we get down to name-calling, it's not long before Godwin's Law gets invoked, and you know what that means...
I guess no one is interested in an intelligent conversation here. You just want to assert your right to act like a high school kid, even if it means intentionally forfeiting a debate. Well played. You lose.
Oh; what a devastating blow from a pompous ass who indulges in self-proclaimed wins.
Whatever will we do without your super-genius pretentiousness, keen intellect and sage insight? Ohhhhhh, the humanity!!!!!
--S.
daniel,
"I guess no one is interested in an intelligent conversation here. You just want to assert your right to act like a high school kid, even if it means intentionally forfeiting a debate. Well played. You lose."
Still waiting for the evidence for your argument.
This passage is one of those that makes you wonder. When people were reading this, how many of them looked up and went, "What the hell is this?"
Or even worse, how many people read this part of the Bible and thought, "Yes, this is a good god we follow."
What no one seems to have commented on is this: Hell is supposed to be worse than anything suffered on Earth. No mention that the individual sinner (probably dependent on whether he repents before death) would be doomed according to Christian theology.
In the time the Torah was put together, Hell simply had not been invented yet.
Post a Comment