<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Putting the &#8220;Good&#8221; Book in Context</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.rationalitynow.com/blog/2009/08/07/putting-the-good-book-in-context/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.rationalitynow.com/blog/2009/08/07/putting-the-good-book-in-context/</link>
	<description>Promoting rational thought above dogma.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 24 Apr 2011 15:05:19 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Stan</title>
		<link>http://www.rationalitynow.com/blog/2009/08/07/putting-the-good-book-in-context/comment-page-1/#comment-682</link>
		<dc:creator>Stan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 26 Oct 2009 21:46:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.rationalitynow.com/blog/?p=975#comment-682</guid>
		<description>Hey Skarlet,
I think you&#039;re taking this blog post out of context.

I have to go now as my four year old didn&#039;t put her shoes on when I asked her to. I think I&#039;ll smack her with a red hot poker. That&#039;s not cruel is it Skarlet? She violated one of my rules and so there is nothing wrong with how I have decided to punish her. A bit cruel and over the top maybe, but hey if it&#039;s good enough for the righteous Lord, it&#039;s good enough for me.

Good blog post by the way.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hey Skarlet,<br />
I think you&#8217;re taking this blog post out of context.</p>
<p>I have to go now as my four year old didn&#8217;t put her shoes on when I asked her to. I think I&#8217;ll smack her with a red hot poker. That&#8217;s not cruel is it Skarlet? She violated one of my rules and so there is nothing wrong with how I have decided to punish her. A bit cruel and over the top maybe, but hey if it&#8217;s good enough for the righteous Lord, it&#8217;s good enough for me.</p>
<p>Good blog post by the way.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Skarlet</title>
		<link>http://www.rationalitynow.com/blog/2009/08/07/putting-the-good-book-in-context/comment-page-1/#comment-587</link>
		<dc:creator>Skarlet</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 11 Oct 2009 06:14:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.rationalitynow.com/blog/?p=975#comment-587</guid>
		<description>I liked reading your post, which was quite interesting. However, I don&#039;t see how you can keep claiming that &quot;God&#039;s&quot; behavior is &quot;un-Godlike.&quot; The term un-Godlike only makes sense if you know what God is. That&#039;s like declaring the constitution unconstitutional.

You point out that God destroyed cities with fire and brimstone, that he destroyed the firstborn of Egypt and even the cattle, and tested Abraham about offering his son. You seem to see these as flaws, and therefore unlike a perfect God, and more like imperfect man. Hence, man probably made up the whole thing. But where do you get your objective standard of perfection from? 

I&#039;d encourage you to read this blog: http://silasreinagel.blogspot.com/2009/09/malevolent-god.html

&quot;What is wrong with being violent? What is wrong with seeking glory? What is wrong with jealousy? What is wrong with establishing clear and inflexible rules? As far as I can, there is nothing intrinsically wrong with any of these. In fact, all of these seem to coincide quite nicely with the image of a president or a king. If there is any sort of claim that God is evil or malevolent, the claim is more a reflection of our own personal and cultural biases than it is a meritorious accusation against the God of the Bible. &quot;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I liked reading your post, which was quite interesting. However, I don&#8217;t see how you can keep claiming that &#8220;God&#8217;s&#8221; behavior is &#8220;un-Godlike.&#8221; The term un-Godlike only makes sense if you know what God is. That&#8217;s like declaring the constitution unconstitutional.</p>
<p>You point out that God destroyed cities with fire and brimstone, that he destroyed the firstborn of Egypt and even the cattle, and tested Abraham about offering his son. You seem to see these as flaws, and therefore unlike a perfect God, and more like imperfect man. Hence, man probably made up the whole thing. But where do you get your objective standard of perfection from? </p>
<p>I&#8217;d encourage you to read this blog: <a href="http://silasreinagel.blogspot.com/2009/09/malevolent-god.html" rel="nofollow">http://silasreinagel.blogspot.com/2009/09/malevolent-god.html</a></p>
<p>&#8220;What is wrong with being violent? What is wrong with seeking glory? What is wrong with jealousy? What is wrong with establishing clear and inflexible rules? As far as I can, there is nothing intrinsically wrong with any of these. In fact, all of these seem to coincide quite nicely with the image of a president or a king. If there is any sort of claim that God is evil or malevolent, the claim is more a reflection of our own personal and cultural biases than it is a meritorious accusation against the God of the Bible. &#8220;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

