Biblical "experts"

     There is one christian, who shall go by the name "Norman" here, who insists that in order to make a determination on whether the biblical god is good or evil, one needs the leadership of "experts." Look, Norman, I know the party line. These "experts" are going to claim that the biblical god is good and make up excus-- er, justifications for his supposed actions and commands. A true expert should be unbiased. Now, I'm not unbiased. I have come to a conclusion myself and so could only serve as advocate.
     I consider genocide inherently unjustifiable. Any being who commands it or carries it out himself is evil. Some biblical advocates, including Norman, will say that it was some kind of "capital punishment." But ponder this: What was the "crime" of the infants? No, the bible is quite clear about the reasoning. Those people were killed because they were already there in the land the Israelis wanted. Anything else is an excuse made up after the fact.

Net Neutrality

     The basic idea behind net neutrality is that Internet Service Providers should not be able to interfere with the ability of their customers to access sites that the provider doesn't like or is paid to interfere with. Apparently the Republicans in Congress and McCain from my own state in particular don't like that idea. I will use an analogy to express the idea. Let's say that you need to have to have groceries delivered to your home because you can't go shopping for yourself. Further, let's suppose that your primary options for this service are MegaCorp (a multi-billion dollar company) and Sal's Groceries (a small company.) For whatever reason (price, personalized service, whatever it turns out to be) you prefer to use the service of Sal's Groceries. MegaCorp, of course, would rather you use their services. Under a policy similar to what the Republicans seem to favor, MegaCorp could pay your phone provider to interfere with your calls to Sal's Groceries. They could add static on the line or have you wait for an hour before even letting the phone ring at Sal's. Or... they might block access to Sal's number outright so that Sal's Groceries doesn't get any incoming calls. Now, for the people that prefer MegaCorp anyway, it's not a big deal. But for those who prefer other options, this is a bad deal.

I think it is a good time to remind my readers...

     I think it is a good time to remind my readers of the christian song of humility.

          Oh, lord, it's hard to be humble,
          When you're perfect in ev-e-ry wa-ay.
          I can't wait to look in the mirror.
          'Cause I get better lookin' each da-ay.

     Now, I don't pretend to be humble. There are things of which I am proud. More importantly, I don't think there is anything wrong with that. But we have all seen these christians that say they are humble. And their behavior suggests they don't know the meaning of the word. They will say that true christians are humble. Well, if true christians are humble, then these people are in for a rather nasty shock. Because that would mean that these people will find themselves rejected by the being they claimed to serve.

Why are so many christians, at least the ones who advertise the fact, so dishonest?

     It is my experience that people who call themselves christians and draw attention to it, even when they are not asked, are dishonest. Now, I can't say that all such people are dishonest. There may be some honest ones that I just haven't run across. But, in my experience, they are dishonest. They will lie about what non-believers say and then ask why the non-believer is too prideful to admit he wrong about something he didn't even say. It has been said that you shouldn't judge a faith based on the actions of the supposedly faithful. And it is certainly true that "bad apples" are far more conspicuous. But I would like to know why these people act the way they do.
     I seek understanding. Tell me in your own words. What motivates you? Do you think you are serving a higher cause with dishonesty? If so, what is it? Do you think that you are forced to be dishonest? If so, how? I really want to know.

UPDATE:

     I will not challenge any reasoning you give, as your reasons are, of course, your own. However, if you make the claim that your actions are not dishonest, I may challenge that, especially if I think I have evidence that you are dishonest.

A response to Romphaia:

     "Why can't you just admit when you are wrong?"
     You have not convinced me that I am.
     "Now- I told you that speeding laws apply to all. To use your term, blanket all. (Just as God's laws are blankets over all.)"
     The problem here is that you are trying to jump from the universal applicability of a law to universal applicability of a verdict. To use your analogy: I agree that laws against speeding apply to everybody. I do not believe that everybody is guilty of breaking them. I will reject any blanket verdict of "guilty." A law is universal in its application. My personal guilt or innocence is still dependent on my personal actions.
     "I doubt that I could ever find another human being who would tell me that they are exempt from them, unless they are severely mentally impaired."
     And I don't see where you get the idea that I think myself exempt from laws. I said that to find me guilty of violating them you need evidence of me personally actually doing so.
     "Speeding is a blanket law, it applies to all. Say it PBS. Just humble yourself and say it and I might have some respect for you."
     It doesn't require any humility. I already agree that the speeding laws apply to all.
     "You talk as though speeding has to be proved, that is a lie."
     So, you disagree with the concept of "innocent until proven guilty"?
     "If the cops say you are speeding, you get a ticket."
     Let me lay out the scenario for you. You are travelling down a city street at 32mph. The posted speed limit is 35mph (fairly standard.) A police officer pulls you over and says you were going 120mph (maybe he's trying to meet some sort of quota.) I don't know how I can make any plainer that the law is not in dispute. Now, certainly the police officer is writing a ticket; but you challenge it in court on the grounds that you were not, in fact speeding. Now, if I am understanding you correctly, you are saying that your actual innocence is completely immaterial and that there should be no actual recourse if a police officer erroneously or fraudulently writes a ticket.
     "You said it is the job of the prosecutor to prove your guilt"
     That is how the legal system is set up. I believe the exact terminology is "beyond a reasonable doubt."
     "Then when that little side street led nowhere for you- you spoke as though the courts and judge hear a bunch of speeding ticket challengers, and proof has to be made by the cop. That's a lie."
     I identified the court system as a recourse for the wrongly accused. I'm not sure whether you are misunderstanding me or deliberately misrepresenting me. I do not presume that people who really were speeding and deserved their ticket regularly challenge them in court. The avenue is a recourse for the innocent.
     Tell you what, if you are deliberately misrepresenting me, say that you don't want to hear from me or something like that.
     "Do your homework. 95% of people who get tickets NEVER challenge them on any level."
     That's not in dispute. After all, I said the courts are there to provide recourse to the innocent. Those actually guilty may reasonably assume that the evidence will prove it.
     Now, here's the point. I am not challenging the existence of a blanket law. I have asserted that I am not guilty. It is now your place, as my accuser, to provide evidence (not that the law is on the books, that is not being challenged here) but that I am actually in violation of that law. And if all you have is a 2000-year-old text that says "all have sinned," then you have failed to make your case.

     The above is a response to the comment here. Now, she asks why I can't admit that I am wrong when she is acting like I was making claims that I didn't make. I don't know whether she was wrong or lying, although I am inclined to suspect the latter.

A request for help

     Over here, I was asked for help with the difference between people who have a moral conscience and people who don't. Well, I have a moral conscience and I have encountered quite a few who don't. So I can help. People without a moral conscience have no problems wishing or perpetrating harm on others. The best clue is in justifications for actions. Some who gives "god commanded me to kill those people" as a justification has no conscience. Someone who says "those people were coming to kill my friends and family" probably does. Fundamentalist christianity has a great allure for those without conscience. They are promised eternal paradise for "obedience." And they pretty much get to decide for themselves what their god is commanding them to do. Now, not everyone who subscribes to fundamentalist christianity is without conscience. It simply holds a special attraction for those who are. Fundamentalist islam likewise holds a special attraction to those bereft of conscience. If someones reason for his faith is because he thinks it will get him into heaven, and especially if good works are not important, he has no conscience.

Fruit of the Spirit

     I present to you this "fruit of the holy spirit" at least as practiced by a couple people who claim to be devoted servants of god. There is no need to tell me that these two people are not representative of christians in general. I know that. There are a lot of christians that you wouldn't even know were christians unless you asked. But this is fairly representative of those who would "browbeat you with the bible" as I am inclined to put it. Now, these two people will claim that they love non-christians and only want to lead them to salvation through Jesus. I certainly hope they are in no way representative of the "saved."