I think the point of that story in Genesis was that it’s okay for men to shit on women. You know, throw them under the bus and not accept responsibility? That it’s okay to make a woman a scape goat. Call her a witch when she speaks the truth so she’ll get shamed and accused of lying. Must be great for Christian men to berate and tear down their wives when the truth is inconvenient.
Some Christians like my brother never admit when they fuck up or do wrong. They’re just so god damn perfect. They’re delusional. They have delusions of grandeur. They believe their “god” makes them better than everyone else. They get their misogynistic attitude from their Bible thinking “men” are put on a pedestal and “act” like they don’t.
I think that’s bullshit and is unacceptable.
Agreed. But people tend to act like the US President and celebrities are supposed to be perfect and they’re not allowed to fuck up. But when they do. Everyone including their fans enjoy shaming them and pissing all over their career.
It’s a stupid misogynistic story where a woman and a man were duped by a snake (Who was probably “God” in the story tempting them to see if they would break his rules) into eating from a tree that he stupidly placed there as a form of reverse psychology. Adam then throws Eve under the bus and God doesn’t seem to give a shit. But the story validates that it’s okay for women to get shafted while men get a slap on the wrist. It’s okay so long as there’s someone else to take the blame.
That fucking story. So much stupidity. Firstly, the penalty for eating was suppose to be death.
NO mention that all offspring would die even though “they didn’t” eat. NO mention of being kicked out of the garden. NO mention of adding childbirth pains and her “curse” of wanting a man - or his “curse” of hard labor in weeds for food.
ALSO “her” eating didn’t cause the “death/imperfect” gene (lol) to kick in - it was HIS since it was a male “Jesus” figure that had to even the scale that Adam caused. SO had he NOT eaten would the offspring been perfect and death free???
My first twitter suspension (ahh… the good old days!) was when a priest posted that he would never report a child molester who confessed to him because it would violate the sanctity of the confessional.
I called him a “stoopy doo-doo head what should have his face sawed off.”
He reported me for making threats and I had to delete the post or be permanently banned.
I didn’t make any threats there, just said he deserved something nasty, but there was no arguing it and I deleted the post. But I went back and called him an “evil servant of Satan” and that he’d “soon be joining his demonic Master for Eternity.”
That was OK with twitter!
So yeah, they do get a bit of a big head because of their beliefs.
My personal opinion is that more subtle passive-aggressive insults are better. Examples: “I envy everyone you have never met” and “I don’t know what your problem is, but I bet it’s really hard for you to pronounce.”
Then use your favourite search engine and search for “passive aggressive insults” (or similar) and make notes, and cut and paste to a local document the ones you like. When needed, use whatever seems to fit best for the situation at hand and adapt it.
If that’s your preference, I’m not in any position to object to anyting other than to express the opinion that I might disagree with the approach. But to each his own. In any case, I’m pretty sure that even a “man of DogGod” is not impervious to direct insults.
That’s wise, but does calling a priest a “stoopy doo-doo head” really count as cursing?
Now if I were putting a curse on him it would have been more like “May you be forever sexually abused by the spirits of those abused children whose abuser you refused to turn in because you thought god wouldn’t want you to do so!”
Have some vague neutral responses ready. If I find some one is responding, but ignoring what I’ve said, I do it back to them.
They often given up when they see they’re failing, or they hit the self destruct button of course.
If I think it’s a momentary loss of control I give a warning, but nothing is more annoying than someone reeling of unevidenced claims while preaching at you, and get all holier than though, then when you give an expansive rebuttal, they wave it away with a sarcastic one liner, and go right back to preaching.
It’s worth remembering, it’s extremely unlikely that anyone is going to properly evidence any deity, let alone in an internet forum. So claims of that sort get what they deserve.
Religious apologetics has been designed over millennia to shut down reasoned rational critical responses, with vapid platitudes, woolly meaningless sentiments designed to deflect and give the impression these facile comments are deeply profound.
I mean my teeth itch when an apologist says “god is inside you, but you have to look into your heart.”
I may be misrepresenting myself. I usually start off neutral, or even nice.
But when certain things happen, like in my example of the priest who openly said they’d never turn in someone who confessed to child molestation, neutrality and subtlety go out the window before I even get started.
There are actually places in The USA where that is not a crime! And the church is fighting against the laws in the places where it is a crime.
Time and place for everything, including both civility and obnoxia.
Now that the scanning is complete, the work in question can be viewed in full, on this webpage. Furthermore, if you need to download scanned images of particular pages, just enter the image number in the little box, click “Go”, and wait a while for the page to render (the scanned images are high resolution images, each averaging 9 megabytes in size as JPEG files). Once the page you’re interested in is rendered on the website, you can then download the high resolution JPEG scan of that page.
As a corollary of the existence of the above project, you can alight upon the original text of any part of the original 1611 KJV.
You can now enjoy the hilarity that ensues when you point them at the original.
I once gave the Baptist Youth Pastor the finger and told him to go “fuck himself” & getting in my car and driving off. I ran into him at Wal-Mart and he followed me proselytizing why I should believe in his “god”. He preached at my mother’s church and after we got into it, he ran to my mom and complained.
Your first mistake is playing in their ‘home ground’. Why argue about the specifics of a religion and back story that is untrue. You are attempting to argue about the details of THEIR religion, you can’t win that. Even contemporaries of the same religion struggle to nail each other down in the specifics of their own religion.
You are better off getting to the heart of it. Proof of claims that can be substantiated and verified consistently. The talk of HOW it’s possible to have incestuous relationships with no incident of birth defeats is not going to convince them the story itself is grossly dubious/wrong. Don’t get caught up in the diversion of debating what they believe, but rather why it should be accepted by you if they are trying to get you to agree it is sensible.
Oh, and understand, belief is driven by emotion, and logic is no counter to emotion. Religion attempts faux logic to sustain/support that emotion, and summarily dismisses the validity of evidence competing with the reality they like. Set your expectations accordingly.
Based on Eve’s behavior, she was a gullible dolt who fucked up a very good thing. Because of her actions, based on the bible, she condemned all of mankind to a sordid existence.
(lol) to kick in - it was HIS since it was a male “Jesus” figure that had to even the scale that Adam caused. SO had he NOT eaten would the offspring been perfect and death free???
