First off, why the need for an "old" covenant, and a "new" covenant. I reject the whole idea. Why? Because, once again, I (The atheist.) give All-Knowing, All-Wise God credit for being just that. In other words, I trust that he would have had the wisdom and foresight (Especially since he can see into the future and all.) to come up with the right solution, i.e. the "new" covenant, in the first place, rather than piddle-assing around for thousands of years with a defective system.

Second, you claim that anyone with a deformity is that way because of sin, and that that was why they were rejected for the priestly duties in question. I realize that you have to believe this, since the Jesus character is depicted as saying that, but really...
That's disgusting, to be frank.Assuming that any of this stuff actually happened, I'm sure that there were many people with deformities who would have been very sincere and dedicated in carrying out these duties. Unlike Eli's studly sons, who were approved to be priests, yet abused their positions by banging lots of women who showed up at the Tabernacle. (2 Samuel 2:22)

That said, I'll play along...

Romans 3:23

"23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;"

According to that, even the priests who were Tom Selleck look-a-likes were sinners, too. Yet, they were Yahweh-approved. Well, I guess someone had to carry out the services, and Yahweh wanted only beautiful people doing it.

I still say that it wasn't very loving of him.

First off, why the need for an "old" covenant, and a "new" covenant. I reject the whole idea. Why? Because, once again, I (The atheist.) give All-Knowing, All-Wise God credit for being just that. In other words, I trust that he would have had the wisdom and foresight (Especially since he can see into the future and all.) to come up with the right solution, i.e. the "new" covenant, in the first place, rather than piddle-assing around for thousands of years with a defective system.

Second, you claim that anyone with a deformity is that way because of sin, and that that was why they were rejected for the priestly duties in question.

According to that, even the priests who were Tom Selleck look-a-likes were sinners, too. Yet, they were Yahweh-approved. Well, I guess someone had to carry out the services, and Yahweh wanted only beautiful people doing it.

And, proving once again that God is NOT a loving god:

Leviticus 21:17-21

"17 Speak unto Aaron, saying, Whosoever he be of thy seed in their generations that hath any blemish, let him not approach to offer the bread of his God.18 For whatsoever man he be that hath a blemish, he shall not approach: a blind man, or a lame, or he that hath a flat nose, or any thing superfluous,19 Or a man that is brokenfooted, or brokenhanded,20 Or crookbackt, or a dwarf, or that hath a blemish in his eye, or be scurvy, or scabbed, or hath his stones broken;21 No man that hath a blemish of the seed of Aaron the priest shall come nigh to offer the offerings of the Lord made by fire: he hath a blemish; he shall not come nigh to offer the bread of his God."

On top of everything else, God discriminates against disabled people.

Jeez, Yahweh! That's not very PC. You probably didn't even have a wheelchair ramp at the tabernacle, did you? You're lucky there was no Jews with Disabilities Act on the books. For crying out loud, haven't these poor people suffered enough already without you rejecting them? Especially the guy with crushed balls!

There are many Bible passages that depict Yahweh as instructing humans to treat animals kindly (Even though he also required scads of animal sacrifice. D.I.D. Yahweh strikes again!), so it isn't as cut-and-dry as you claim. For, if animals are just "for our use," there would have been no need for Yahweh to say things like this:

Jonah 4:11

"11 And should not I spare Nineveh, that great city, wherein are more than sixscore thousand persons that cannot discern between their right hand and their left hand; and also much cattle?"

Within the context of forgiving the Ninevites' sins, which is what Yahweh and Jonah are here discussing, the cattle should not have even been a consideration, according to your assertion above.

But, all that aside, consider this:
Animals feel pain.
Animals show fear.
Animals suffer.
Animals did not cause all the wickedness that Yahweh was in a snit about in the story. Humans, and "sons of God," did.

So, regardless of what you might claim animals' purpose is, it was unloving of God to NEEDLESSLY drown all of the animals who didn't get a boarding ticket for the floating shoe-box.

As for why Yahweh brought the flood, Genesis says this:
Genesis 6:5-7

"5 And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. 6 And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.7 And the Lord said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them."

Sure sounds like he wanted to "off" a bunch of unruly humans to me. Particularly since, after the whole horrid affair was concluded, he said this:

Genesis 8:21

"21 And the Lord smelled a sweet savour; and the Lord said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake; for the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth; neither will I again smite any more every thing living, as I have done."

Notice the parallel? The human heart hadn't changed. Humans were still "evil" according to Yahweh. So, apparently Yahweh brought the flood specifically to "off" the unruly humans who were infesting the place at that time.
Otherwise, one must conclude that he went to all the trouble of bringing the flood for nothing, as he knew that the whole process would just begin again, anyway.

Furthermore, it is strange to consider that an All-Wise God would do something so monstrous, and then afterwords conclude that it was not a good idea. After all, he said afterwards that he would never do anything like that again. (I.E. "Curse the ground any more for man's sake.")
Hey...come to think of it...maybe THAT was when he constructed the Ananias and Sapphira Death Beam! So he wouldn't have to wipe out EVERYTHING again. He could just pick off the ******* humans he didn't like.
I may be onto something there...

At any rate, in keeping with the whole point of this entire thread, bringing the flood wasn't very loving.

There are many Bible passages that depict Yahweh as instructing humans to treat animals kindly (Even though he also required scads of animal sacrifice. D.I.D. Yahweh strikes again!), so it isn't as cut-and-dry as you claim. For, if animals are just "for our use," there would have been no need for Yahweh to say things like this

Jonah 4:11

"11 And should not I spare Nineveh, that great city, wherein are more than sixscore thousand persons that cannot discern between their right hand and their left hand; and also much cattle?"

Within the context of forgiving the Ninevites' sins, which is what Yahweh and Jonah are here discussing, the cattle should not have even been a consideration, according to your assertion above.

Notice the parallel? The human heart hadn't changed. Humans were still "evil" according to Yahweh. So, apparently Yahweh brought the flood specifically to "off" the unruly humans who were infesting the place at that time.
Otherwise, one must conclude that he went to all the trouble of bringing the flood for nothing, as he knew that the whole process would just begin again, anyway.

More semantics. Trying to muddy the water. I know from reading your posts that you possess the intelligence to grasp the point of my Ra illustration.

Wow.

I already told you that I agree with your assertion that little can be absolutely proven. However, we generally accept that something is a fact if the evidence is strong enough. And I have repeatedly demonstrated to you that the evidence you have presented is not very strong. Again, if I was trying to sell you on worshiping Ra, and used some of the same type of arguments and "facts" that you are using, you wouldn't accept them. Why? because you would have no sacred cow to defend in that debate, so you would examine my evidence with common sense and logic.

And...you're mistaken. I will accept facts, if you decide to provide some facts that stand up to logical scrutiny.

Again, if I was trying to sell you on worshiping Ra

It wasn't very loving of God to drown all the animals who didn't make it onto the floating shoebox with Noah & Company just because he wanted to "off" a bunch of unruly humans.
All he had to do was crank up his patented Ananias and Sapphira Death Beam (Acts 5:1-11.) and take all the miscreants out like a Heavenly sniper. For that matter, he could also have cranked up the intensity on the ASDB and fried them completely. No muss, no fuss, and no bloated carcasses littering the landscape for Noah and Company to have to clean up. ("Damn, Shem. Look at the size of those elephants. It's going to take us a month to dig a big enough hole for them. And they're really starting to smell, too!")

It wasn't very loving of God to drown all the animals who didn't make it onto the floating shoebox with Noah & Company just because he wanted to "off" a bunch of unruly humans.

So?
I can tell you that:
In 2008 Barack Obama and John McCain both vied for the Presidency. Some days it was sunny, some days it rained. After the election, large, bi-pedal pink Bunny Men from the planet Karrot landed on the moon, and NASA is covering it up.

And, you can go to Google and confirm that Barack Obama and John McCain vied for the Presidency in 2008, and that some days it was sunny, while some days it rained. If you then find only sketchy evidence about the Bunny Men, would you shrug your shoulders and conclude, "Well, everything else he told me was true, I'll just take his word for it about the bunny Men."?

Thanks for quoting that one. You're again making my point for me as far as how far you have to go in order to come up with ANYTHING to support your argument.

The above passage comes to us from a NINTH-Century monk named George Syncellus, who is here quoting a Second-Third Century CHRISTIAN writer named Julius Africanus, who was paraphrasing Thallus, and inserting his own biased interpretation of the cause of the darkness into the passage.

To again illustrate the point, if I round up a quote from a Nine-Century Muslim writer affirming that Allah is the true god, and that he sent the Archangel Gabriel to Mohammed, and Gabriel passed Allah's words onto Mohammed, would you accept that as a historical reality?

First of all, let me state again: In the other thread, the gentleman stated that there was ample extra-biblical PROOF of Jesus' resurrection. I commented that I would love to see that. You offered a list of extra-biblical references to Jesus for our consideration. I have here demonstrated how few of these references actually refer to the RESURRECTION, as well as how vital the resurrection is to Christianity. I then used logic and common sense to try to get you (And anyone else who might be reading this.) to see how flimsy this evidence is. It certainly doesn't come anywhere near being PROOF.
Now, I actually agree with you that it is very difficult to PROVE anything, and that was my main point. The gentleman on the other thread made an assertion that is patently false. You just admitted it yourself in the above post. When I see an apologist make an assertion like that, I try to correct the record for the benefit of any readers who might be like I once was; struggling with the internal conflict between the things they were taught (Brainwashed) into believing from youth, and their sense of logic.
For, not everyone has had the time, or the inclination, to study this information as much as you and I have. So, when someone who hasn't studied like we have hears or reads someone stating that there is ample extra-biblical proof of Jesus' resurrection, he/she may not be informed enough to know that that is NOT true, and this could cause the person to be misled. As I once was.

As for your comment about Jesus being crucified by the Romans for spreading blasphemy...I'm sorry, but that is incorrect. Assuming for the sake of argument that Jesus actually existed, and was actually crucified by the Romans, the Romans wouldn't have crucified him for blasphemy. Do you think the Romans gave a damn whether or not Jesus was committing some form of apostasy from the JEWISH faith?
If the Romans did, in fact, crucify him, it was because they considered him an insurrectionist; another messiah figure among many that they had had to deal with since taking over the area.
Taking the story at face-value, this can be inferred both by the fact that he was depicted as being crucified, rather than being beheaded, and that Pilate supposedly had the sign put up above his head reading, "King of the Jews." (Rather than "Blasphemer.")

As for your point about most people at the time being illiterate, yes, I said that in my earlier comment. Thank you for confirming that fact. However, it is a rather serendipitous irony that, despite that fact, there were a number of historians in that region near the time in question whose writings have been preserved down to this day. It's nothing short of astonishing that Jesus could have done all the things he is said to have done, including rising from the dead, without being referred to by Philo, Pliny the Elder, Seneca the Elder, and Seneca the Younger, to name a few. This despite the fact that the Gospels tell us things like this:

Luke 4:36-37King James Version (KJV)

36 And they were all amazed, and spake among themselves, saying, What a word is this! for with authority and power he commandeth the unclean spirits, and they come out.37 And the fame of him went out into every place of the country round about.

As Lazarus said on the other thread, one has to keep the blinders on in order to ignore the logical conclusion when faced with this information. I am quite certain that if I tried to convince you that Ra was the true God, and engaged in spin and special pleading in order to attempt to refute your criticisms, you would be all over me, calling me on it. And, well you should.

While we may not be able to PROVE whether or not any of the stories about Jesus are true, we can certainly examine the evidence available with a logical, common sense approach. (Occam's Razor, anyone?)

And mary had a little lamb. What was your point?

If I survive a heart attack then float up several feet out of the hospital bed as if to be lifted by the hand of a god, maybe then.

Feeling good about something (no matter how good) does not make it divine.
Like, if I survive a heart attack, that's just dumb luck, people do it all the time. If I survive a heart attack then float up several feet out of the hospital bed as if to be lifted by the hand of a god, maybe then.

Magic, miracles or godly intervention, it matters not; these are just terms that people use for things that they cannot understand. Maybe some man named Jesus lived 2000 years ago and storys were likely told of him, exaggerated stories of being the son of god because his mother was a virgin. I mean no possible way that she could have just been a slut and too scared of her husband whom at the time would have had full rights to beat her senseless if not to death if caught cheating on him. And more exaggerated stories about how he turned perfectly good water into wine, for reasons.. I guess getting drunk was a necessity back then.. Or what was the other one, turning one loaf of bread into 10, it's likely that Jesus merely invented sliced bread, lol...

It's likely these stories made it through time because they're based on "truth" and even today people still cling to "reality" TV even if it is mostly scripted and made up.

Simple fact, For most of us, life is boring and pointless, that is all. We need to live in the day and not for some fantasy afterlife. We will live on after death but only as the molecules that made up our being, nothing more.