Tennis and volleyball are nothing alike!

That’s not even worth pointing out, right? I mean, anyone can see that the idea in tennis is to hit a ball over a net suspended above a rectangular court, keeping the ball within the bounds of that court while trying to position it in such a way that your opponent cannot return it, whereas the idea in volleyball is…wait, did I get that backward?
One of the analysts at GraniteGrok has criticized Prince Charles for claiming that Islam and Christianity have more similarities than differences. This is plainly true, but there are many people out there who are sufficiently addled and invested in goofy ecclesiastical one-upmanship to confuse warring people with conflicting principles. In other words, just because radical Muslims hate Christians and Jews doesn’t mean that these three religions don’t have a common origin and hence, a great many things in common beyond the obvious.
Says the Grok-sucker:


“Clues…clues….someone hand [Preince Charles] one. If one does only even a surface examination of the basic tenents [sic] of each faith, there is nothing in common – they are diametrically opposed to each other theologically (why else does [sic] many of the Islamofascists believe that we are of the Dar Al-Kufr – land of infidels?).”
I wonder if this guy thinks that the Red Sox and the Yankees — bitter Major League rivals — are “diametrically opposed” organizations and operate via wholly different mechanisms and beliefs. My guess is that players on both teams have similar conditioning regimens, take about the same amount of batting practice, play in accordance with same strategies, and so on. After all, they have the same goal — to win. Just like the leaders of Christianity and Islam each want sole dominion over the world.
I’m not a religious historian, but I am aware that both Islam and Christianity are monotheistic, driven by prophets and prohecies, owe their origins to Jews, describe events taking place in the deserts of the Middle East, place great importance on the idea of divine revelation, and ar driven by textual (Biblical or Qu’rani) tradition and ethics. I suppose if one interprets “diametrically opposed” to mean “differing only in the details,” the Grok-sucker is dead on.
Merely noting that Christianity and Islam religions have more in common than not is certainly not going to bring about world peace. But pretending that Christians and Muslims are at each other’s throats owing to fundamental theological differences is ignorant to the point of absurdity and can do nothing more than provide handy reasons for promoting further hostilities.

41 thoughts on “Tennis and volleyball are nothing alike!”

  1. Well first off Prince Charlie is a dope – for his support of woo medicine. But you cannot fault him here. Muslims and Christians share the same god of Abraham, but the muslims believe Christ was a prophet not son of God, and their guy was a better one (and the last). (Nice move that, you declare yours to be the last so any later ones become heretics). Both holy books make it clear that if you want out from your religion you should be put to death, but at this time only the Muslims paractice it, and only where they can get away with it.
    Both lots believe in a large bunch of untestable, unprovable assertions for which there are no evidence, and if you dig a little both believe that men should rule over women. And from tme to time both have tried to regulate how women should dress.
    What’s the difference?

  2. If someone want to label me intellectually arrogant for saying this I’ll take my licks and go stand in the corner, but I find it hard to take seriously the arguments of someone who is too lazy to bother to spell check. It doesn’t necessarily follow that lousy spelling means lousy thinking, but I guess I’m biased about the laziness thing. In the present case, a little more thought and research might have led Grok to a more rational conclusion.
    Also I resent the use of the word ‘grok’ by someone who obviously doesn’t.

  3. …Yeah! Like the kind of intellectual laziness that makes people think the site name and the writer’s name are the same! Big Dumbyheads!

  4. …Yeah! Like the kind of intellectual laziness that makes people think the site name and the writer’s name are the same! Big Dumbyheads!

  5. Of course Islam and Christianity are similar. After all, they have the same views on:
    1. Salvation.
    2. God’s nature.
    3. God’s character.
    4. The afterlife.
    5. Jesus.
    6. Morality.
    7. The status of the two sexes (I would like to see the Biblical analysis that show that “men should rule over women”.)
    So aside from the fact that they differ on most everything that’s important in a set of religious beliefs, they are similar. Right…

  6. Yeah, David, and rackets aren’t used in volleyball, and tennis tournaments are held outdoors, and in volleyball play stops when the ball hits the court, and tennis balls are small, green, and fuzzy, and points are tallied differently in each sport, and so on. Therefore there are no similarities, and more importantly it’s off limits to go looking because just as tennis players know theirs is the One True Sport, so do volleyball players!
    And yeah, there’s nothing at all in the Bible hearkening of misogyny, especially in the minds of those who have never gotten around to reading it.

  7. There is a difference between two things having some points in common, and being similar.
    As for misogyny, we can go back and forth making unsupported assertions all night if we want. However, I don’t exactly have that kind of time, so perhaps you can come up with some support to your assertion? Else I will just play the atheist and say “Lack of evidence! Lack of evidence! Lack of evidence!” till I’m blue in the face.

  8. This is the George Carlin riff, right?
    “Tennis is just another form of ping pong. In fact, tennis is ping pong played while standing on the table…. In fact, all racket games are nothing more the derivatives of ping pong. Even volleyball is racketless team ping pong played with an inflated ball and raised net while standing on the table.” (Paraphrase from memory.)

  9. This is the George Carlin riff, right?
    “Tennis is just another form of ping pong. In fact, tennis is ping pong played while standing on the table…. In fact, all racket games are nothing more the derivatives of ping pong. Even volleyball is racketless team ping pong played with an inflated ball and raised net while standing on the table.” (Paraphrase from memory.)

  10. “There is a difference between two things having some points in common, and being similar.”
    I know many, many Christians and Muslims who acknowledge that adherents to both worship the same god. If you want, you can even claim the Muslims stole their entire religion from Christians, just like Christians fired up their cult by co-opting and warping Judiasm in a way that would appeal to pagan gentiles and therefore be even more pervasive.
    How many points in common do two things need to have before you’re willing to acknowledge that they’re similar, David? Is a zebra similar to a horse? Well hell no! I never seen no striped hoss!
    “we can go back and forth making unsupported assertions all night if we want.”
    Nah. I’ll leave that entirely to you, as it’s plainly more your area of expertise.
    “perhaps you can come up with some support to your assertion?”
    Do you just want a long list of Bible verses describing atrocities perpetrated against women, and or would you prefer a list of actual directives from God about specific ways to mistreat them? Why do you think that only a few years ago the Southern Baptard higher-ups issued a statement to the effect that women needed to “respectfully submit” to their husbands?
    As I said, I doubt you’ve even read the Bible. You’re just one more brainwashed godder fighting the tide of reason trying to protect a goofy, Bronze-Age idea.
    Yeah, how unreasonable it is to demand evidence from people whomake outlandish claims. Just like being able to read and write is the sign of the devil.
    Here’s something we’re both ignoring, though: Both Islam and Christianity are rooted in complete nonsense and lies. That right there is the key similarity.

  11. The usual atheist line:
    “I know “many” Christians who believe in something, therefore that must be what one should believe as a Christian.”
    Would you buy it if I said that I knew many atheists who believed that atheism entails a complete lack of purpose in life? That atheism though true, was utterly and totally depressing?
    Majority opionion does not equal truth in Christianity. Sorry.
    How many points in common do two things need to be considered similar? It depends on the points. Claiming that Islam and Chrisitanity are similar in terms of minutae, is a lot different than claiming that they are different in terms of the beliefs that they actually set forth. Perhaps you should try not to make the fallacy that its only the number of points of similarity that counts.
    Going on to women,
    For your first point, that’s as ridiculous as saying that if the Bible has an incident of adultery inside it, it supports adultery. Why I think that the Southern Baptist higher-ups issued a statement to the effect of women needed to “respectfully submit to their husbands” is that there is a Biblical verse to that effect. And, if you have poor reading comprehension, and never get to the rest of that verse, it sure does sound bad. Lots of things can be made to sound bad if your ignorant, and take things completely out of context.
    If you can prove that Islam and Christianity are rooted in complete non-sense and lies, I’d like to see it. Whining about how there isn’t enough evidence, there isn’t enough evidence neq proof.

  12. “Would you buy it if I said that I knew many atheists who believed that atheism entails a complete lack of purpose in life? That atheism though true, was utterly and totally depressing?”
    Not unless you can demonstrate this. I can offer all sorts of scholarly work illustrating that the idea that Christians and Muslims worship precisely the same skygod, but I don’t think you can make hay of your moronic stereotype. Got any evidence that atheists commit more crimes, are more prone to despair, and in general evince less positive morality or poorer ethics than religious adherents? I know you don’t, because studies have shown that, if anything, Christians are worse off in this country thanothers, in all likelihood as a result of poor education and socioeconomic factors than anything else (although these things feed into tendencies toward religiosity as well).
    There is no dispute that C & I are both derivative cults of exactly the same predecessor. They arose in the same arid part of the world thanks to similarly benighted people.
    “For your first point, that’s as ridiculous as saying that if the Bible has an incident of adultery inside it, it supports adultery.”
    No it isn’t. Bible verses that glorify the mistreatment of women — passages in which soldiers are rewarded for the slaughter of innocents with Egyptian virgins, in which the description of a young virgin being raped and left for dead and then chopped into pieces and being mailed all over Israel considered a fine moral tale, in which men are told not to go near women who are menstruating because this is “filthy” — are different from those which simply relate events (fictitious and otherwise).
    Read Ezekiel 23 (or have someone read it to you) and explain how this doesn’t reflect something of a barbaric attitude toward women.
    The point isn’t that this crap is in the Bible in the first place; it’s that twits like you, born 2,000 years later, still think such crap is applicable to contemporary life.
    “Lots of things can be made to sound bad if your ignorant, and take things completely out of context.”
    Nice misuse of “your” there. And it was only a matter of time before you whipped out the “c” word, which stoneheaded apologists use as a “get-out-of-logic” card every time they run up against Bible passages that lay waste to their stupid ideas, e.g., “A day in Genesis is really millions of years in context.”
    In summary, you are a troll and an idiot and therefore the perfect representation of vocal Christianity in the modern Western world. Your neurons may well be ensheathed in faeces rather than myelin, the result being a predictable and devastating impact on your cognitive candlepower. You have lost this argument and should depart now so as to escape further humiliation.

  13. “Would you buy it if I said that I knew many atheists who believed that atheism entails a complete lack of purpose in life? That atheism though true, was utterly and totally depressing?”
    Not unless you can demonstrate this. I can offer all sorts of scholarly work illustrating that the idea that Christians and Muslims worship precisely the same skygod, but I don’t think you can make hay of your moronic stereotype. Got any evidence that atheists commit more crimes, are more prone to despair, and in general evince less positive morality or poorer ethics than religious adherents? I know you don’t, because studies have shown that, if anything, Christians are worse off in this country thanothers, in all likelihood as a result of poor education and socioeconomic factors than anything else (although these things feed into tendencies toward religiosity as well).
    There is no dispute that C & I are both derivative cults of exactly the same predecessor. They arose in the same arid part of the world thanks to similarly benighted people.
    “For your first point, that’s as ridiculous as saying that if the Bible has an incident of adultery inside it, it supports adultery.”
    No it isn’t. Bible verses that glorify the mistreatment of women — passages in which soldiers are rewarded for the slaughter of innocents with Egyptian virgins, in which the description of a young virgin being raped and left for dead and then chopped into pieces and being mailed all over Israel considered a fine moral tale, in which men are told not to go near women who are menstruating because this is “filthy” — are different from those which simply relate events (fictitious and otherwise).
    Read Ezekiel 23 (or have someone read it to you) and explain how this doesn’t reflect something of a barbaric attitude toward women.
    The point isn’t that this crap is in the Bible in the first place; it’s that twits like you, born 2,000 years later, still think such crap is applicable to contemporary life.
    “Lots of things can be made to sound bad if your ignorant, and take things completely out of context.”
    Nice misuse of “your” there. And it was only a matter of time before you whipped out the “c” word, which stoneheaded apologists use as a “get-out-of-logic” card every time they run up against Bible passages that lay waste to their stupid ideas, e.g., “A day in Genesis is really millions of years in context.”
    In summary, you are a troll and an idiot and therefore the perfect representation of vocal Christianity in the modern Western world. Your neurons may well be ensheathed in faeces rather than myelin, the result being a predictable and devastating impact on your cognitive candlepower. You have lost this argument and should depart now so as to escape further humiliation.

  14. David this is what Exodus 21:7-11 has about fathers selling daughters. A true model of equality do you think?
    7 “If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as menservants do. 8 If she does not please the master who has selected her for himself, [a] he must let her be redeemed. He has no right to sell her to foreigners, because he has broken faith with her. 9 If he selects her for his son, he must grant her the rights of a daughter. 10 If he marries another woman, he must not deprive the first one of her food, clothing and marital rights. 11 If he does not provide her with these three things, she is to go free, without any payment of money.

  15. Read it in CONTEXT, sailor! If you didn’t hate God so much you would understand that those verses have nothing to do with women. Here is the proper interpretation:
    Old McDonald sittin’ on a bench,
    beatin’ his meat with a monkey wrench!
    Missed his meat and smacked his balls,
    Made him piss his overalls!
    Ber-ne-ner-ne-now, bow-chicka-bow-wow!

  16. “I wonder if this guy thinks that the Red Sox and the Yankees — bitter Major League rivals — are ‘diametrically opposed’ organizations and operate via wholly different mechanisms and beliefs.”
    But, but, but…the Yankees are good and the Red Sox are eeevil. They hate us New Yorkers for our freedom. If we don’t achieve victory at Fenway Park, then we’ll have to fight them at Yankee Stadium. You just hate New York and want the Yankees to lose. Surrender monkey.

  17. “I wonder if this guy thinks that the Red Sox and the Yankees — bitter Major League rivals — are ‘diametrically opposed’ organizations and operate via wholly different mechanisms and beliefs.”
    But, but, but…the Yankees are good and the Red Sox are eeevil. They hate us New Yorkers for our freedom. If we don’t achieve victory at Fenway Park, then we’ll have to fight them at Yankee Stadium. You just hate New York and want the Yankees to lose. Surrender monkey.

  18. Kevin, you mention Ezekiel 23 and ask how it doesn’t reflect a barbarous attitude towards women. Lets take a look and see what it does say.
    Oholah and Oholibah were adulterous, prostitutes and child-murderers. (Note: Not only did they kill their own children but the verse actually suggests that they burned their own children, perhaps even while they were alive). They did not do these things because they were forced to, they did these things because they wanted to. In today’s society they would have been in prison at least, if not on death row.
    God gives Oholah over to the Assyrians. The Assyrians killed her. Note, this was the Assyrians. This was not God, nor was this the Israelites who killed her.
    Oholibah suffers a similar fate. God has her judged by the standards of her lovers.
    No where he do we find endorsement of either the women or their actions. These were thoroughly evil women who were judged by the people they wronged. If you want to “blame” anyone here, blame the morals of the Assyrians and Chaldeans as well as the women themselves.
    This is not a passage where decent women are treated barbarously. This is a passage where thoroughly wicked indviduals get judged by the people they’ve wronged.
    Now, I suppose you could find murder of children, prostitution and adultery perfectly fine actions.

  19. Some more important things.
    There is nothing in Ezekiel that says that they were punished specifically due to the fact that they were women. That is, there is nothing here that says that if a man had committed similar acts, he would not be punished in similar ways. So if this passage reflects a barbarous attitude, there is no evidence that this attitude is only towards women.
    sailor, I am curious what specific problem you have with this passage. First, there is really only one verse in which the women is treated at all different from a man-servant. He “must let her be redeemed”, he can’t sell her to foreigners, he must provide for her. The only difference is that “she is not to go free as menservants do”. Which, in light of the other passages doesn’t mean much more than “She is to be treated differently than menservants. Not necessarily worse.
    So now I’ve given some answers. Will you imitate a creationist and throw more and more spaghetti to create a big mess and claim victory when I don’t clean it all up? Or perhaps you will simply dismiss what I have to say. After all, what do I know. Obviously you are just so much more intelligent than I am. (Hopefully you catch the sarcasm). I don’t hold out too much hope that you will actually listen to what I said.

  20. “Oholah and Oholibah were adulterous, prostitutes and child-murderers. (Note: Not only did they kill their own children but the verse actually suggests that they burned their own children, perhaps even while they were alive).”
    Ah say ah say, bullshit, son! Their children were taken from them and killed by their Assyrian captors:

    23:10 These discovered [Oholah’s] nakedness: they took her sons and her daughters, and slew her with the sword: and she became famous among women; for they had executed judgment upon her.
    23:25 And I will set my jealousy against [Oholibah], and they shall deal furiously with thee: they shall take away thy nose and thine ears; and thy remnant shall fall by the sword: they shall take thy sons and thy daughters; and thy residue shall be devoured by the fire.

    “In today’s society they would have been in prison at least, if not on death row.”
    Well, since we’ve established that they were not child-murderers, I think you’re a just little off, pal. Adultery isn’t even prosecuted these days, and prostitution, to my knowledge, is not a capital crime in America. Are you aware of anyone on death row for prostitution?
    “God gives Oholah over to the Assyrians. The Assyrians killed her. Note, this was the Assyrians. This was not God, nor was this the Israelites who killed her.”
    Ah. So what do you think God supposed the Assyrians would do with the sisters? Take them to the opera? (Hint: He told them explicitly what to do, as revealed below.) Emphasis mine:

    23:42 And a voice of a multitude being at ease was with her: and with the men of the common sort were brought Sabeans from the wilderness, which put bracelets upon their hands, and beautiful crowns upon their heads.
    23:43 Then said I unto her that was old in adulteries, Will they now commit whoredoms with her, and she with them?
    23:44 Yet they went in unto her, as they go in unto a woman that playeth the harlot: so went they in unto Aholah and unto Aholibah, the lewd women.
    23:45 And the righteous men, they shall judge them after the manner of adulteresses, and after the manner of women that shed blood; because they are adulteresses, and blood is in their hands.
    23:46 For thus saith the Lord GOD; I will bring up a company upon them, and will give them to be removed and spoiled.
    23:47 And the company shall stone them with stones, and dispatch them with their swords; they shall slay their sons and their daughters, and burn up their houses with fire.
    23:48 Thus will I cause lewdness to cease out of the land, that all women may be taught not to do after your lewdness.
    23:49 And they shall recompense your lewdness upon you, and ye shall bear the sins of your idols: and ye shall know that I am the Lord GOD..

    “If you want to ‘blame’ anyone here, blame the morals of the Assyrians and Chaldeans as well as the women themselves.”
    I don’t give a shit who’s to “blame” in an account that in all likelihood never happened, as with so many of the important events described in the Bible. My original contention is that the Bible glorifies the barbaric treatment of women, and if God is the one supposedly giving the orders, as as the case here, then it’s pretty clear that these actions were considered righteous, never mind cruel.
    By any contemporary standard, killing one adulterer/whore, and then cutting the nose and ears of another as well as forcing her to “pluck off” her own boobies and — for the grand finale — having her raped (by gents with large dongs who shot big wads, no less; that’s right, tap dat fertile crescent!), mutilated, and stoned to death is barbaric. Unless you have a private definition of the word. Egad, even if they had been murderers, this would be the case. Rape and mutilation are not obligatory elements of the death penalty, unless your magistrate happens to be Godand you were born without a schlong.
    And what, by the way, of all the “rulers clothed most gorgeously, horsemen riding upon horses, all of them desirable young men” whom the sisters banged? Why weren’t these men punished for soliciting prostitutes, as they would be today? See an imbalance in justice here? I won’t even deal with the matter of killing kids on account of misdeeds perpetrated by their mothers — who no doubt had no choice but to “dote on” the fine young Assyrians who needed to get laid.
    Keep in mind this is just one example of perhaps hundreds I could have used.
    “Will you imitate a creationist and throw more and more spaghetti to create a big mess and claim victory when I don’t clean it all up?”
    No. As you can see I’ve refuted your “theory” point by point, although this took no special insight on my part, as is typical when dealing with parochial-minded and epistemologically primitive Bible apologists.
    Summary: Your attempt at making a case failed miserably, as expected. If you can’t even understand the relevant verses — can’t grok the difference between killing your own children and having them seixed and murdered — then you should stay out of arguments like this and preserve at least a shred of your blown dignity. At any rate, I hope you’re wise enough to let this one go, as the discussion, entertaining as it’s been, has veered wildly off point.

  21. 36 The LORD said to me: “Son of man, will you judge Oholah and Oholibah? Then confront them with their detestable practices, 37 for they have committed adultery and blood is on their hands. They committed adultery with their idols; they even sacrificed their children, whom they bore to me, [e] as food for them. 38
    Seems pretty explicit. They even sacrificed their children. Shall we say that “they” doesn’t refer to Oholah and Oholibah? Reading comprehension Kevin. Its important, and not just for your beloved scientific texts.
    –Well, since we’ve established that they were not child-murderers, I think you’re a just little off, pal.–
    Nope. Haven’t established that.
    –I don’t give a shit who’s to “blame” in an account that in all likelihood never happened, as with so many of the important events described in the Bible. My original contention is that the Bible glorifies the barbaric treatment of women,–
    Yes, that was your original claim. You have yet to prove it.
    –They will come against you with weapons, [d] chariots and wagons and with a throng of people; they will take up positions against you on every side with large and small shields and with helmets. I will turn you over to them for punishment, and they will punish you according to their standards. 25–
    Its clear. This wasn’t God’s instructions. God is turning them over to the Assyrians, who will judge them according to the standards of the Assyrians. The verses you cite, refer to this process. This is not God telling the Assyrians what to do. This is God telling the Assyrians, “Do what you will”.
    –By any contemporary standard, killing one adulterer/whore, and then cutting the nose and ears of another as well as forcing her to “pluck off” her own boobies and — for the grand finale — having her raped (by gents with large dongs who shot big wads, no less; that’s right, tap dat fertile crescent!), mutilated, and stoned to death is barbaric–
    Lets see here. As I’ve said, and shown, God did not order these actions, nor is their any endorsement of them. Since you are wrong about them sacrificing their children, we should add that to the list. What your problem with this verse boils down to, is that since ancient peoples have had much harsher punishments, the Bible must endore barbarous actions.
    Moreover, there isn’t a scrap of evidence here that anything special was done because they were women. Was the punishment severe? Of course it was. Is there any indication that if we were talking about men here the punishment would be any less severe? Nope.
    –Why weren’t these men punished for soliciting prostitutes, as they would be today?–
    What makes you think that they weren’t? Just because the skeptic websites you undoubtedly frequent don’t mention it?
    –No. As you can see I’ve refuted your “theory” point by point, although this took no special insight on my part, as is typical when dealing with parochial-minded and epistemologically primitive Bible apologists.–
    Except you completely failed. But that’s ok. The last thing I expect atheists to do is treat the Bible with anything less than loathing. Although I do like:
    –At any rate, I hope you’re wise enough to let this one go, as the discussion, entertaining as it’s been, has veered wildly off point.–
    I was in a conversation with a rather extreme Christian fundamentalist earlier this week and he said the exact same thing to me. Now of course, just because you talk like a fundamentalist, use the same types of argumentation as a fundamentalist, and have the same intellectual problems as a fundamentalist, you are not a fundamentalist.
    Oh, by the way… its amazing you missed the most important verse of this whole passage.
    –4 The older was named Oholah, and her sister was Oholibah. They were mine and gave birth to sons and daughters. Oholah is Samaria, and Oholibah is Jerusalem. —
    Hmm… what could this verse POSSIBLY mean?

  22. David,
    David selling your daughter to anyone you wish, even though she may abhor him so he can marry here (as part of his concubine) or pass him onto his son. Is not very repsectful of womens’ rights. If you cannot unerstand that you are thicker than douglas fir.

  23. “Seems pretty explicit. They even sacrificed their children. Shall we say that “they” doesn’t refer to Oholah and Oholibah? Reading comprehension Kevin. Its important, and not just for your beloved scientific texts.”
    The difference between “it’s” and “its” is also important, to others if not to you. The reference to the sisters sacrificing their children is nothing more than blaming them and their “whoredoms” for the their kids being taken away and killed by the Assyrians — no different rhetorically than pointing at a felonious father of young children who goes to the gas chamber for his crimes and saying, “Look what he did to his kids.”
    I defy you to find any external support for the idea that these women were even accused of offing their offspring. Go ahead, shitwipe. You got that interpretation straight out of your ass, and that’s where you should put it now.
    “This wasn’t God’s instructions … As I’ve said, and shown, God did not order these actions, nor is their any endorsement of them.”
    For future reference, singular nouns take singular verbs; plural nouns take plural verbs. And their, there, what’s the difference, right? I’m supposed to take seriously the comments about reading comprehension from a semiliterate Bible-thwacker?
    Anyway, if you can’t see from the passage what’s going on — and, leaving aside that we’re talking about a non-existent sky-fairy, I don’t know how much stronger and clearer the final two verses in Ezekiel 23 could be about God’s alleged take on this shit — I sure can’t help you; anyone who speaks of scientific texts in a pejorative sense obviously prefers to live in la-la land anyway, sucking his thumb to unquestioned and idiotic notions of salvation and eternal bliss.
    Anyway, I’m through with your ignorant ass. I could talk about the even more ludicrous and barbaric stuff in Judges 19:22-30 next, as you wouldn’t be able to trot out a “they’re whores!” rationale for justifying what goes on with the concubine in that sick-fuck account. But even were you to grow objectivity and a brain this minute, it’s pointless arguing about the subtleties of a text whose central figures are mythical anyway.
    Just curious, though, was it only one parent who brainwashed you into Christianity as a child or was it both? Sad either way.

  24. Sailor,
    So, your problem is not that women are being treated any differently than men, but with the idea of women being slaves in general as it is “not respectful of women’s rights”. I find it interesting that you have no apparent problem with the fact that men are referenced as being “menservants” or slaves. Now, if you are really talking about slavery in general here, just let me know. If you are talking about something specific in regards to women, then you still have some more work to do.
    Kevin Beck,
    –The difference between “it’s” and “its” is also important, to others if not to you.–
    Ah yes, I made a grammatical error, therefor the rest of my argument is null and void. Got it.
    –The reference to the sisters sacrificing their children is nothing more than blaming them and their “whoredoms” for the their kids being taken away and killed by the Assyrians — no different rhetorically than pointing at a felonious father of young children who goes to the gas chamber for his crimes and saying, “Look what he did to his kids.” —
    Really? Where in the world do you get that interpretation? Are you… “gasp” reading something metaphorically?! But you can’t do that! (Hopefully you detect the sarcasm). The passage is pretty explicit.
    36 The LORD said to me: “Son of man, will you judge Oholah and Oholibah? Then confront them with their detestable practices, 37 for they have committed adultery and blood is on their hands. They committed adultery with their idols; they even sacrificed their children, whom they bore to me, [e] as food for them. 38
    There were adulterous. They were blasphemers. They sacrificed their children to their idols as food. If the passage is truly reflective of the Assyrians coming and killing them (as you suggest) then the kids were not offered as sacrifices.
    So let’s see. We have your metaphorical interpretation that has no textual basis, and which is basically pulled out of your ass, and we have mine which requires nothing more than the ability to read without prejudice.
    Gee… I wonder which interpretation most of the atheists here will go with.
    –Anyway, if you can’t see from the passage what’s going on — and, leaving aside that we’re talking about a non-existent sky-fairy,–
    Proof please. Or will it be the usual, “Not enough evidence!”.
    –I sure can’t help you; anyone who speaks of scientific texts in a pejorative sense obviously prefers to live in la-la land anyway, sucking his thumb to unquestioned and idiotic notions of salvation and eternal bliss.–
    Ah yes. I must only speak of scientific texts in hushed, reverent tones. Man, its amazing how much like a fundamentalist you sound. Replace “scientific texts” with “The Bible” and the rest of your want with something about desiring to live in sin, and you would have a classic fundamentalist screed.
    –Anyway, I’m through with your ignorant ass.–
    Fine by me. Its been fun, but I only have so much time to deal with your tripe.
    –I could talk about the even more ludicrous and barbaric stuff in Judges 19:22-30 next, as you wouldn’t be able to trot out a “they’re whores!” rationale for justifying what goes on with the concubine in that sick-fuck account.–
    I’m certain you could start throwing spaghetti out. I mean, its a classic fundamentalist trick. Throw out example after example and when the scientist, oh sorry, believer doesn’t answer them all, crow that you’ve won. Its an trick that requires little to no intelligence, just the ability to search through your favorite list of “Nasty Bible verses”.
    –Just curious, though, was it only one parent who brainwashed you into Christianity as a child or was it both? Sad either way.–
    Let’s see. I had one parent who was a non-practicing Jew, and one who was at worst, an agnostic. So which one brainwashed me I wonder?
    Personally I wonder what kind of wretched childhood you must have had. Did you hate your father, and that’s why you hate God? Did a priest do bad things to you? Your atheism is obviously not based on reason, so I’m curious what emotional turmoil you must have suffered.

  25. 1 Corinthians 11:3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.
    1 Corinthians 14:34-36 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.
    1 Timothy 2:11-15 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing.
    Ephesians 5:22-24 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.

    Sounds fair to me Sailor!

  26. 1 Corinthians 11:3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.
    1 Corinthians 14:34-36 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.
    1 Timothy 2:11-15 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing.
    Ephesians 5:22-24 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.

    Sounds fair to me Sailor!

  27. “Or will it be the usual, “Not enough evidence!”
    That says it all — in your “mind,” the lack of evidence for God, plus the fact that the world works just as it would be expected to work without one, plus the fact that the Jesus myth was plainly swiped and adapted from past cults, plus the various factual, scientific, and historical errors and abusrdities in the Bible, aren’t reason enough to be doubtful.
    You’re like someone screaming that 2 + 2 = 5 for sufficiently large values of 2 and then, upon being corrected, sniping “Oh, let me guess. You’re ‘rules of addition’ can’t be questioned. Nope your not just one more kind of fundamentalist, nope not at all (note my sarcasms).” In other words, you’re a parody of yourself, kid.
    “Let’s see. I had one parent who was a non-practicing Jew, and one who was at worst, an agnostic. So which one brainwashed me I wonder?”
    Well, that’s even worse because now you have no excuse. You actually chose to be an idiot, or want to think you made this choice; either way, don’t wait for the world to award your intellect any prizes.
    “Did you hate your father, and that’s why you hate God? … Your atheism is obviously not based on reason…”
    Double chuckle. You can’t even decide whether I even believe in God or not (I thought it was clear, but do you want a hint?) and are calling my refusal to embrace the supernatural unreasonable.
    Don’t take this the wrong way, but if I knew I would wake up tomorrow as deluded and benighted as you, I would have no choice but to shoot myself in the face with a giant rifle for the good of humankind. At a minimum, please, pretty please refrain from breeding or donating sperm.

  28. Now it seems kevin has resulted to telepathy. Yet another Christian fundamentalist trick. Apparently Kevin, having only conversed with me on the internet for a couple of posts, knows me better than I know myself. I like it. Keep up the good work.
    Of course, instead of admitting he was wrong about my parents, he goes on like it it never happened. This is pretty good.
    But its ok. You gave reading the Bible your best shot. You failed miserably, which is hardly surprising, but it was all your intellect could muster.
    Some other points that are worth addressing.
    –Double chuckle. You can’t even decide whether I even believe in God or not (I thought it was clear, but do you want a hint?) and are calling my refusal to embrace the supernatural unreasonable. —
    No, its pretty clear that you don’t believe that any God’s exist. But above that, you hate the God of the Bible. While we haven’t really spoken much Allah, or Buddha, or anything else like that, so for all I know you could just absolutely love those guys, but think they don’t exist. But right now, you can’t talk about the Bible, or the God it depicts, with anything other than loathing. What do I base that on? Our little back and forth here. Now maybe you are in a particularly bad mood. Who knows. Not me. Unlike you, I don’t possess mystic fundamentalist telepathy.
    I’m certain that its a lot easier to believe that the God you hate doesn’t exist. After all, it means you don’t have to think about whether or not you are right to hate him or not. I was like you once. I “didn’t believe God existed” but for someone who didn’t believe God existed I really couldn’t talk about him dispassionately.
    Finally, what in the world is the RIGHT way to take your last little insult?

  29. Oh, by the way, just to show I’m not ignoring you Phyllis, why not throw all the spaghetti at once, ok? Instead of just following the usually pattern where I deal with the verses you cite, you cite some more, I deal with those and it just goes on, and on and on, why not act like the true fundamentalist you are, make all the mess you want right up front.
    I am curious about one thing. Did you spend any time doing any research on these verses yourself? Or did you pick them up from your favor atheist website, read them and that was that? I am curious how objective you really are here.

  30. Oh, by the way, just to show I’m not ignoring you Phyllis, why not throw all the spaghetti at once, ok? Instead of just following the usually pattern where I deal with the verses you cite, you cite some more, I deal with those and it just goes on, and on and on, why not act like the true fundamentalist you are, make all the mess you want right up front.
    I am curious about one thing. Did you spend any time doing any research on these verses yourself? Or did you pick them up from your favor atheist website, read them and that was that? I am curious how objective you really are here.

  31. So what about this?
    Numbers 31:15 And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive?
    Numbers 31:17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.
    Numbers 31:18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.
    Or is that not misogeny because they kept the virgins alive?

  32. Thanks for the back-up Phyllis.
    David, I have not seen you talk your way out of any of this. Show me the verses where god gives a command that it is ok to sell your sons into slavery (not an example where it happened, but a command as with the daughters I mentioned, how you should do it and what the conditions should be). Then we can talk of equality
    I think between my quotes and those of Phyllis and Kevin it is pretty clear that what the stupid jerks who put the bible together thought of women. And (I think this is where we started) Muslims are much the same only today they practice it more, mainly because they can get away with it.
    “But above that, you hate the God of the Bible” How on earth is Kevin supposed to hate something he does not believe in? Think logically! Do you hate Thor?

  33. Forget this clown, daedalus2u. If you give examples that support exactly what it is you’re claiming, David will accuse you of “throwing spaghetti.” If you point out that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, he tries to laugh this off as unoriginal. At least he admits that he finds himself in the unique position of being derided by both atheists and fundies, which, although difficult to achieve, is not anything to be proud of.
    “its pretty clear that you don’t believe that any God’s exist.”
    Two very basic grammar screw-ups in one short sentence this time. Are you actually trying to look stupid now, pal? Do you really think this “nitpicking” on my part does not in fact underscore a general inability on your part to understand things and exchange ideas? It’s not as if you’ve merely made a typo or two; you’re a total bumblefuck in your own native language.
    “I’m certain that its a lot easier to believe that the God you hate doesn’t exist. After all, it means you don’t have to think about whether or not you are right to hate him or not. I was like you once. I ‘didn’t believe God existed’ but for someone who didn’t believe God existed I really couldn’t talk about him dispassionately.”
    If you wer ever “like me” you’d still be an atheist. You’ve opted here for a variation of the “looks like I touched a nerve” rhetorical gambit: If I react strongly, it must mean it’s because you’re right — that I don’t, despite what I say, reject gods for ordinary logical reasons, I just hate them. And I especially loathe the One True God, which happens to be yours!
    I suppose it never occurred to you that it’s not “God” that gives atheists headaches, it’s the morons who are the noisest 10% of any sect and yammer constantly about the godthing, ascribe to this maniacal and sadistic fuckstick-figure characteristics that happen to impede things for gays, scientists, teachers, people in competing religions, women seeking abortions, euthanasia proponents, and more or less everyone else. There’s room for debate on some of these issues, but not when the entirety of one side’s argument hinges on non-reasoning such as “Because it’s in the Bible.”
    If I got in your face and screamed over and over that your mom was a whore, eventually you’d probably get pissed off. Would that mean I could declare “A-ha! I knew there was something to the rumor”?
    Finally, if I was wrong about your parents — and as you know I was just playing the percentages — it’s no skin off my ass, but is certainly not a point in your favor, because as I already noted, at least religious brainwashing victims, as annoying as they can be, are innocent victims. Apparently you reached an age at which you could in theory think critically and still chose insanity. Good for you. And don’t complain about being issued a beating here because you asked for it.

  34. Obviously David is incredibly hopeless, aside from his denial that there is anything wrong with the way women are treated in the bible, he also has some tortured logic on… torture:
    “One can, conceivably gain information from torture, as well as the possibility of money or possessions. Moreover, torture may allow you to subdue a dangerous enemy, which would impact your life in a negative way. (Perhaps by killing you.) Will torturing someone else effect you negatively? Not really.”
    “Now, certainly most of us have feelings about torture. I should hope that most of us feel it as wrong. But that is just a feeling.”
    “Some may argue that torture is wrong, because if everyone did it, then there would be negative practical consequences. Really? Certainly for those who are being tortured. But that does not mean that these consequences would effect you. Do not be tortured. Might there be less people in the world because of this widespread use of torture? Of course. But that may very well be a good thing. Also, those who survive torture, and thrive in such an environment will be extremely strong individuals, quite capable of surviving.”

  35. Obviously David is incredibly hopeless, aside from his denial that there is anything wrong with the way women are treated in the bible, he also has some tortured logic on… torture:
    “One can, conceivably gain information from torture, as well as the possibility of money or possessions. Moreover, torture may allow you to subdue a dangerous enemy, which would impact your life in a negative way. (Perhaps by killing you.) Will torturing someone else effect you negatively? Not really.”
    “Now, certainly most of us have feelings about torture. I should hope that most of us feel it as wrong. But that is just a feeling.”
    “Some may argue that torture is wrong, because if everyone did it, then there would be negative practical consequences. Really? Certainly for those who are being tortured. But that does not mean that these consequences would effect you. Do not be tortured. Might there be less people in the world because of this widespread use of torture? Of course. But that may very well be a good thing. Also, those who survive torture, and thrive in such an environment will be extremely strong individuals, quite capable of surviving.”

  36. Good job Molkien. Taking a quote of mine out of context. Wonderful fundamentalist behavior. Bravo.

  37. –“But above that, you hate the God of the Bible” How on earth is Kevin supposed to hate something he does not believe in? Think logically! Do you hate Thor?–
    You know sailor, I don’t know why Kevin hates God. But its clear from the evidence that he does. You may or may not. I don’t know. PZ does.
    I would take your own advice and start thinking logically for yourself. Think about your own atheism, instead of just accepting it dogmatically.
    As for your “not seeing where I talked my way out of this”, that’s not surprising. There is nothing to talk out of. Your argument so far has been “daughters were sold into slavery”. That’s it. I’m not doing your work for you here sailor. If you want to show that sons weren’t sold into slavery you can go right ahead. But until then you have no argument, and you are just venting. Which is fine. When I was an atheist I wasn’t logical either. It was only when I really started to think about my atheism, started to do some actual research into Christianity that I realized how wrong I was before. Do I expect you to follow suit? Not really.
    Kevin, at this point, you are so angry its hardly worth talking to you. Awhile ago you had said you were “done” with me. Now, I didn’t really expect you to hold yourself up to that, but I bring it up as you might consider it.

  38. “Kevin, at this point, you are so angry its hardly worth talking to you. Awhile ago you had said you were ‘done’ with me. Now, I didn’t really expect you to hold yourself up to that, but I bring it up as you might consider it.”
    Ah say ah say, you need to learn the difference betwen anger and scorn, son! It’s not possible to become angry with someone as backward as you, at least on the Internet where you cando no harm except to yourself. Aghast, maybe.
    Let me clarify: I’m done discussing specific examples from the Bible with you. Any clear-headed party realizes that this was a settled dispute before you even arrived and that all you’ve done is talk in mewling circles ever since. Your assertion about the absence of a misogynistic component to scripture is no more sensible than claiming it was originally written in Greek or English.
    I’m not sure what all of your bullshit about torture means or where you posted it, but it’s plain that you enjoy making far-fetched statements in an effort to get a rise out of your betters on blogs you know are populated by lots of godless and erudite commenters and writers. Well, everyone needs a hobby, and there’s only so much the mind of a Jesus-freak can wrap itself around, so whatever.
    Also, I’m not convinced you’re not trolling as part of some independent or school project aimed at assessing reactions to the absolute worst of what Bible fans have to offer. I mean, calling atheism a dogmatic and illogical conclusion? A person of Jewish heritage who can barely write who nevertheless adopts Christianity and gets into a non-community college?
    Anyway, where others might have banned you for this putative trolling or for your general noisemaking and irrelevance, I’ll just continue pointing out your especially flagrant violations of cognitive rigor. If you get some sort of payoff from launching arguments that are imediately blown to smithereens and braying to the world thatr your brain is screwed up, have at it.

  39. –I’m done bother discussing specific examples from the Bible with you.–
    You’re done “bother”?
    –I’m not sure what all of your bullshit about torture means or where you posted it, but it’s plain that you enjoy making far-fetched statements in an effort to get a rise out of your betters on blogs you know are populated by lots of godless and erudite commenters and writers.–
    Let’s see here. You don’t know what my post meant, but you are more than willing to attribute it to my supposed enjoyment of making far-fetched statements. I like it. “I don’t know what you are trying to do… but I actually do”. Good job.
    –Anyway, where others might have banned you for this putative trolling or for your general noisemaking and irrelevance, I’ll just continue pointing out your especially flagrant violations of cognitive rigor.–
    Pretty much just as I thought. You say you are “done” with me, and yet you are not. I like it. Good show.
    I doubt I will be posting too much more on this particular thread. But if you like you can follow me around like a small dog, yipping “violation!”, “He’s stupid!” and all the other atheistic screeds you like.

  40. –I’m done bother discussing specific examples from the Bible with you.–
    You’re done “bother”?
    –I’m not sure what all of your bullshit about torture means or where you posted it, but it’s plain that you enjoy making far-fetched statements in an effort to get a rise out of your betters on blogs you know are populated by lots of godless and erudite commenters and writers.–
    Let’s see here. You don’t know what my post meant, but you are more than willing to attribute it to my supposed enjoyment of making far-fetched statements. I like it. “I don’t know what you are trying to do… but I actually do”. Good job.
    –Anyway, where others might have banned you for this putative trolling or for your general noisemaking and irrelevance, I’ll just continue pointing out your especially flagrant violations of cognitive rigor.–
    Pretty much just as I thought. You say you are “done” with me, and yet you are not. I like it. Good show.
    I doubt I will be posting too much more on this particular thread. But if you like you can follow me around like a small dog, yipping “violation!”, “He’s stupid!” and all the other atheistic screeds you like.

  41. Extra word removed, thanks. See, son, that’s the kind of thing that happens when I type too quickly and switch verb choices mid-word. Your mistakes, on the other hand, demonstrate the sort of basic incompetence expected in a generally poor thinker.
    I don’t need to know the context of your torture comments to see that they’re intended to provoke someone(s) any more than I need to know the setting in which someone yells “Look here, you smelly raghead!” to grasp that the speaker is out to demean a Muslim; beyond this, your continued gnatlike presence here is plain evidence that you like trying to upset atheists’ apple carts. (You appear to be failing, in case you didn’t notice. It’s hard to simultaneously be psychotically unreasonable and an effective provocateur.)
    Is it jealousy that drives you toward this habit? Inner conflict? Bitterness? Who knows, but you’re clearly not here to try to defend the faith, as many of the Christians who wander these blogs do. You’re not even interested in staying on topic at all.
    I’d think that on a Sunday morning you would have been off fellating, teabagging, or being cornholed and perhaps donkey-punched by your imaginary friend or whatnot, rather than subjecting yourself to the hammer-blows of reason and the exposure of your own global ineptitude. Whatever floats your boat, little boy.

Comments are closed.