Intelligent Design

Responding to some hate-mail

Spread the love

Here, as provoked by this recent UD post. Unfortunately, aptly illustrating this. END

___________

F/N: I have further explained what is going on, here, highlighting the implicit, enabling antisemitic significance of attacking the God of the Bible as a “bronze age tribal deity” and “moral monster,” by playing at Bible difficulties games as distractors from uncomfortable issues for new atheists — and yes, Dr Dawkins and co, this explicitly involves you; for the God of the Old Testament you decry in your notorious passage is quite plainly the God of Israel. You therefore have some explaining to do, at minimum for enabling anti-semitism as well as anti-Christian bigotry and bashing. I have also provided a cluster of ten initial links for those who have genuine difficulties that they want to follow up, and I have further responded to the specific distractive case used by J below to try to disrupt this thread. Bible discussions, of course, are obviously not on-topic for this blog.

12 Replies to “Responding to some hate-mail

  1. 1
    Jello says:

    ED: Jello has been instructed to remove himself from any and all threads I post at UD, on previous abusive behaviour. I have therefore removed his distractive, off-topic and abusive comment. He apparently cannot resist the temptation to be disruptive.

  2. 2
    bornagain77 says:

    Jello, as a atheist, how do you justify the existence of evil itself since there is no objective standard of moral good to judge by in the materialistic worldview? i.e Little do most atheists realize that the existence of evil itself necessitates the existence of Good. i.e. one cannot disprove God by pointing to evil since evil itself requires good to exist so that it may exist. All a atheist does when he points to evil in this world is to point out the fact that this world is not perfectly good, Yet Christianity never claimed we were in heaven in the first place. i.e. by pointing to evil (the absence of good), the atheist actually affirms the basic Christian belief that we are in a fallen world and are not in a perfectly good world.

    Does God Exist? – Finding a Good God in an Evil World
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4007708/

  3. 3
    Jello says:

    My post was in no way abusive, distractive or off-topic.

    It was in fact the complete opposite.

    The reason it was removed was because it was very uncomfortable for you.

    Poor Kairosfocus, don’t blame others for the absurdity of God’s own law.

  4. 4
    Mytheos says:

    God does evil.

  5. 5
    Jello says:

    Jello,

    I have removed your further disruptive attempt.

    You have been shown the door, but refused to take the hint, in your notion that you were oh so right in your reading of texts that show up those stupid Christians.

    Please leave.

    GEM of TKI

    PS: Onlookers, I find myself forced to do some Bible exposition, to correct the nonsense at one of the irresponsible hate sites. By inspection and using a little common sense instead of hostility, you will see that had J taken time to look at the context of his clips from Deut 22, on Jewish civil law c 1400 BC, he would learn that there was a death penalty for provable rape in the OT civil law. The penalty of marriage without access to divorce is actually for seduction, with maybe a bit of he said she said on being caught. Having despoiled a girl, the man has a duty to stand by her — implied, if her father is willing to have him as son-in-law (and also implied, what were the two doing together so unchaperoned so that if she screamed for help there was none to hear . . .). J is trying to force-fit a wholly different situation under Islamic law, in which a woman is held responsible for being raped; this, in order to infer an immoral equivalency. Let him think a bit about what he is implying about Judaism.

  6. 6
    kairosfocus says:

    Jello,

    Goodbye.

    You are kindly asked to leave this thread; doubtless you know where you can go to further spin out or enable the sort of irresponsible, distractive, and outright hate-driven commentary exposed in the original post via a link.

    (To see just how off base and outrageous you are, consider that Deuteronomy happens to be a main Jewish religious text. Would you feel comfortable using it to accuse Jews as you seem to wish to accuse Christians? Or, would you see that as unacceptably anti-Semitic? Just think about that, and think about the specific NT texts in the onward linked from the OP, that set a first context for thinking about Christian ethics, for marriage and family and the wider community. Contrary to the hate mail I correct, the Christian faith’s foundational teachings give no comfort or encouragement whatsoever to wife abusers, etc. Just the opposite.)

    That should suffice to show that your behaviour is utterly beyond the pale, similar to that of the author of the hate mail; if you are different at all.

    You and ilk are not welcome to carry forward enabling behaviour for the sort of hate mail being exposed in the linked from the OP; at this or any further thread I post at UD.

    Goodbye again.

    GEM of TKI

    PS: Onlookers who have a genuine desire to address Bible difficulties concerns, can begin here (at no point does Jello show any responsible interaction with this; just another round of repeating what he believes will be polarising and thread-jacking, which justifies strong action . . . ), and beyond may go to qualified theologians who will be willing to help with specific problems.

  7. 7
    Jello says:

    Jello:

    Having already pointed out the Bible study correction, that exposes your inability and/or unwillingness to read reasonably in context, and given the resulting clear inadvertent exposure of your attitude, I will let this comment stand, by way of a lesson.

    It seems you are so unfamiliar with the context that you overlooked the immediately preceding verses that show what was the fate c. 1400 BC, for a rapist where the woman could cry and be heard: death.

    You are trying to twist a text that is in one context, to infer an immoral equivalency that simply does not exist.

    Let’s just say that the point of the text is that if you seduce a girl and you are acceptable to her father — where rape cannot be proved on independent witness (it’s just he said she said on being caught), you were permanently married. In the further context where girls and boys full well knew they were not supposed to be alone in seclusion unsupervised.

    GEM of TKI
    __________________________

    Onlookers,

    At Kairosfocus’ website he claims that a rape victim being forced to marry the rapist is patently absurd.

    And yet that is exactly what God commands in Deuteronomy. And no amount of hand-waving about theologians struggling with it can alter this fact.

    Realising his gaffe Kairosfocus is therefore attempting to disown Deuteronomy as merely a Jewish text while accusing me of abusive behaviour!

    Onlookers, in Kairosfocus’ world merely pointing to the absurdity of his position is tantamount to abusive behaviour and cannot be tolerated.

    END.

  8. 8
    Jello says:

    Let him think a bit about what he is implying about Judaism.

    And now you are trying to cast anti-semitic aspersions!

    Truly you are beneath contempt, preacher.

    END.
    __________

    ED: Suddenly, J wakes up and realises that he is dealing with the specifically Jewish scriptures, and is wrenching them out of context to make false accusations and snide insinuations. He needs to think very seriously about what would happen if the same accusations and insinuations used to target Christians, were EXPLICITLY used against Jews instead (the implications, of course are there for all to see). Which, he suddenly realises would be utterly unacceptable and would expose him. Instead of making amends, he then tries to double down, with further insinuations; no prizes for guessing that “preacher,” just above is meant as a smear — and not a sign of willingness to acknowledge that he misread a text and has torn it out of its context of he said she said where both were in a compromising — unsupervised — situation [by contrast with the quite definite sentence for a proved rape . . . ], to make out that it is the same as blaming a raped woman as a fornicator and sentencing her to 12 years in gaol for HER crime, for which she could only get out by marrying her rapist, absent being able to show on four eyewitnesses to the actual physical act that she was wronged. Sad, but this is all of a piece with the piece of hate mail that is linked from the original post, and which very probably comes from sockpuppet J’s circle. I hope J has enough decency left to realise that long before this thread, for cause he has worn out his welcome, and has been shown the door. KF

  9. 9
    kairosfocus says:

    M: I hope you do not really mean that. If so, you have a basic problem — how do you DEFINE good and evil? KF

  10. 10
    Jello says:

    Kairosfocus, you said it:-

    Being forced to marry your rapist is patently absurd.

    And yet God demands this very thing in Deuteronomy.

    I can only imagine that you believe it’s not absurd when it’s part of the Jewish law (context, context, context!) but beyond the pale when it comes from Islamic sources.

    It’s a simple question, Kairosfocus. Being forced to marry the person who raped you is either patently absurd or it isn’t.

    Which is it?
    ________________

    ED: Observe that in 4 above, this misreading of the context was corrected, But the real context, that when rape is provable — a scream in a reasonable context suffices — the sentence is death, and where a boy and girl are caught in a compromising situation with maybe he said she said, something different applies, is brushed aside to make a polarising talking point. There is no way that this is morally equivalent to gaoling a rape victim for fornication, and informing her that she can only get out by marrying the rapist. This approach tells us that we are not dealing with any reasonable discussion, just a polarising disruption meant to derail a thread that would otherwise expose the sort of hate mail that is now being circulated by J’s ilk. Notice, the only “defence” being offered for that sort of hate mail: derail discussion and try further false accusations and snide insinuations. Sadly revealing. KF

  11. 11
    KRock says:

    Not another HATE-THEIST with the (ABSOLUTE) “God is a moral monster” claim.. Jello, do yourself a favor and quit preaching ethics in the “morally relativistic” world you live in. Nobody cares, that is innless you’re implying some moral absolute, like God is wrong, or evil..! Which is it Jello, moral relativism or moral absolutes? You can’t have it both ways..

  12. 12
    kairosfocus says:

    Okay, the above is sufficient to show the willful intent to hijack a thread.

Comments are closed.