Raf

I see no profit in engaging in discussion with you. I don't think your tactics are intellectually honest or sincere. You missed the point of the thread even though it was pointed out using small words. You don't like the definition of God so you change it arbitrarily and accuse me of being "fundy" for engaging the biblical definition of Yahweh instead of the one you pulled out of your ass. You expect everyone to ignore the meanings of words and instead conform to your peculiar definitions (you can take the troll out of the cult...). Those factors alone disqualify you from honest debate. Your gish gallop will no longer be entertained.

Great galloping gish! The only thing worse than a fed troll is a hungry one.

I cited example after example after example. You reduce it to one example, miss the point, and act as if there's simply nothing immoral about executing someone for a petty offense other than "I disagree." "I disagree" is not the point. This is f-ing barbaric, and you refuse to even admit that because doing so would underscore my point, and the Last thing you can allow is for me to have a point. Thats what makes your approach to this thread dishonest. For some reason you decided to troll my comments, ultimately landing on this thread, with constant babbling that doesn't hold up to rational analysis. For whatever reason, you refuse to see it. Fine. But I'm done entertaining you. It is impossible to debate someone who changes definitions and distorts prior stated positions so constantly and shamelessly. If you can't say killing a child for investigating another religion is immoral, then you're a sociopath. I don't debate sociopaths.

He needs more for that flowchart. Sociopath. Grown ups are talking. go away.

no

"Are you more moral than Yahweh?" "No! He's just as bad as we are!" "Um.. Ok. Thanks."

Oh. For what it's worth, they've been talking about this series for a couple of years now.

Waaaaaah! How can I win the argument if I'm not allowed to change definitions in the middle of the debate? Waaaaah!

I thought that was common knowledge. Yeah, it debuts in like two weeks or so.

If the stories are symbolic and not literal then we are not talking about the Yahweh character as portrayed in the Bible, and any extrapolations from that perspective are off topic.

Opinion, this is a picture of a blue sky. Now, watch. Someone will find something to argue about. Because that's the real issue here. Disagreeing with me. It's certainly not the subject of the thread.

I really wish there were a way to screen posts for intellectually dishonest arguments and keep them off of threads. I apologize to anyone who is come here for an interesting conversation only to find it repeatedly interrupted by vapid musings of someone who doesn't seem to grasp the subject of the conversation.

If I were responsible for coming up with a list of things to do on behalf of a rape victim, forcing the rapist to 1. pay her father for damaging his property and then 2. marry her would not make the list. Then again, I am a moral person, unlike Yahweh.

Yahweh acting barbaric proves we are more moral than Yahweh. Those of us who are not sociopaths, anyway.

So you admit you're taking us on an irrelevant tangent. Thanks. It's not a sin to follow the Law. It's preposterous to suggest otherwise. Mercy is also not a sin. Glad we got that figured out

Ah, yes. And the relevance to our topic is what exactly?

Saul/Paul was after the law. Apples/oranges.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop

Anything at all.

If anyone would actually like to talk about Yahweh and whether the actions and positions attributed to him can rightly be considered moral, I'm game. But Yahweh, not whatever God you can conjure up with malleable attributes that no longer resemble the Yahweh of the Bible but fit your need for a God that "wins" the "argument."

"And my comment at the end of the post was more of a general observation than it was personal... but perhaps the closer to the truth something is the more it tends to sting." Except, of course, it did not sting. The only thing it did was Reveal Your desperation, which made me pity you a little.

You excused temporal atrocity over and over and over again and then chastise me for pointing it out. Please.

The omission of links was intentional because you don't have any. You know the claims you do have won't stand up to scrutiny. So you hide them and pretend that I'm not willing to look for them. Nice try. Dishonest. Sad.