[ExI] atheists declare religions as scams.

[Darren Greer]

>I'm always amazed at how few biblethumpers seem to know this.<


I got over my amazement at the christian proselytizer's inability to
interpret the texts they are quoting from years ago. Being gay, I have made
two arguments  based on logic with religious homophobes a hundred times that
they always manage to deke around or entirely ignore.


1. If you abide by the 'law' as it is written in Leviticus that states man
shall not lie with man for it is an abomination, shouldn't you also by
logical extension follow all the other 'laws' in Leviticus, including the
kosher mitzvahs, which are written there?


2. The story of Sodom and Gomorra is an an anecdotal warning against being
inhospitable, not gay sex.


I've long since stopped wasting my breath. I almost wish there was a God, so
that when they die, he could set 'em straight and send them to their rooms
for a few thousand years to think about it.


Darren



On Fri, Jan 7, 2011 at 9:08 PM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:

> ... On Behalf Of Damien Broderick
> Subject: Re: [ExI] atheists declare religions as scams.
>
> On 1/7/2011 12:39 PM, spike wrote:
>
> >> If you refer to the story of Onan, his sin was not masturbation, but
> rather his intentionally failing to impregnate his late brother’s
> >> widow.  See Genesis 38:9...  Clearly this is a failing of any society
> and belief system that would propagate such an egregious notion.
>
> >...I'm always amazed at how few biblethumpers seem to know this. I feel
> that they should insist that their male flock obey this instruction of the
> Creator and spend a lot of effort flocking their widows-in-law and raising
> their kids. It's not just a good idea, it's God's Law!...Damien Broderick
>
> Hmmm, a good theologian who knows her shit could easily find a way out of
> this philosophical bind.  She would argue that while recognizing Onan's
> story refers to the screw-the-sister-in-law rule and even heaps scorn on one
> who disobeyed it, the actual command to impregnate one's brother's widow is
> not actually found anywhere in modern scriptures.  For that reason, we might
> extrapolate that it isn't applicable today.
>
> Further, there may have even been some logic in that notion in the old
> days, when women were not allowed to own property, as it was even in the
> west until surprisingly recently, and still is in some places today.  If
> Onan's sister in law had only daughters, he might have intentionally
> prevented her having a male heir, so that he (Onan) could inherit his
> brother's property.
>
> Another motive I thought of is that his sister-in-law was knockout
> gorgeous, and as long as she didn't conceive an heir, it was his fucking
> duty to keep trying.  And trying.  And trying.
>
> spike
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>



-- 
*"It's supposed to be hard. If it wasn't hard everyone would do it. The
'hard' is what makes it great."*
*
*
*--A League of Their Own
*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20110122/ac8947e9/attachment.html>