Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Misc Discussion Boards => Religious Debates & Threads => Topic started by: Government_Controlled on February 23, 2010, 08:24:22 PM
-
I figured with all the God "can do this", "Can't do that", "Controls peoples lives", etc, etc, why not ask "What can God NOT Do". Is there a list? I imagine this is an age old question, but I thought, I would get some of the "bright" ones take on it.
Government_Controlled/DEA_Agent
-
Yep. God can't make limbs grow back on amputees.
-
Yep. God can't make limbs grow back on amputees.
Not quite!!
Luke 22:49-51
When they which were about him saw what would follow, they said unto him, Lord, shall we smite with the sword? And Jesus answered and said, Suffer ye thus far. And he touched his ear, and healed him.
Add to that all the lepers that Jesus healed, some of whom had lost limbs due to the disease.
-
God cannot lie.
God cannot sin.
-
God cannot lie.
God cannot sin.
God cannot stop Satan from doing evil deeds... therefore Satan is more powerful God.
God created Satan... therefore God himself perpetrated the primary evil deed... therefore God is more evil than Satan.
If God cannot do evil... yet evil exists... therefore Satan must be the Creator.
I think logic is gonna fuck this thread up.
The Luke
-
God cannot stop Satan from doing evil deeds... therefore Satan is more powerful God.
God created Satan... therefore God himself perpetrated the primary evil deed... therefore God is more evil than Satan.
If God cannot do evil... yet evil exists... therefore Satan must be the Creator.
I think logic is gonna fuck this thread up.
G
The Luke
LEVEL II WARNING! IGNORANT POST! PLEASE STUDY FIRST! THEN TRY AGAIN! GOD WILL FORGIVE YOU! GOD BLESS!
Government_Conrolled/Dea_Agent
-
LEVEL II WARNING! IGNORANT POST! PLEASE STUDY FIRST! THEN TRY AGAIN! GOD WILL FORGIVE YOU! GOD BLESS!
...now you're answering every post of mine with this incoherent gibberish in two different threads.
Am I missing a joke here, or should I report these posts to the mods?
The Luke
-
God cannot stop Satan from doing evil deeds... therefore Satan is more powerful God.
God created Satan... therefore God himself perpetrated the primary evil deed... therefore God is more evil than Satan.
If God cannot do evil... yet evil exists... therefore Satan must be the Creator.
I think logic is gonna fuck this thread up.
The Luke
Lol...very nice. ;D
-
God cannot stop Satan from doing evil deeds... therefore Satan is more powerful God.
Is that right? Last time I checked, even with the trials put on Job, Satan could do no more than God allowed.
God created Satan... therefore God himself perpetrated the primary evil deed... therefore God is more evil than Satan.
If God cannot do evil... yet evil exists... therefore Satan must be the Creator.
I think logic is gonna fuck this thread up.
The Luke
If it does (highly unlikely), it won't be coming from you, especially with stupidity like this.
-
LEVEL II WARNING! IGNORANT POST! PLEASE STUDY FIRST! THEN TRY AGAIN! GOD WILL FORGIVE YOU! GOD BLESS!
Government_Conrolled/Dea_Agent
PLEASE!!!
You have a better chance of seeing President Obama beat Ronnie Coleman in a deadlifting contest.
-
Is that right? Last time I checked, even with the trials put on Job, Satan could do no more than God allowed.
If it does (highly unlikely), it won't be coming from you, especially with stupidity like this.
That was a long time a go...if its true. what material prove do you have? something written on a book?
Not enough.
Perhaps God don't care about us...or maybe God only care about Job.
If Satan continue to do all this evil in the world. How come or why God can't stop Satan?
And yes God create Satan.
Satan was an angel or cherubim by the name of Lucifer.
Islamic perspective "djinn".
-
PLEASE!!!
You have a better chance of seeing President Obama beat Ronnie Coleman in a deadlifting contest.
Ah, come on bud, give him/her chance! "Turn the other cheek".
Government_Controlled/Dea_Agent
-
God cannot lie.
God cannot sin.
Well, actually Stella, He could do those if He chose. What you mean is He WOULDN'T because of His righteousness/love/justice/etc,etc.
There is something He flat out cannot do?
Government_Controlled/Dea_Agent
-
That was a long time a go...if its true. what material prove do you have? something written on a book?
Not enough.
Perhaps God don't care about us...or maybe God only care about Job.
If Satan continue to do all this evil in the world. How come or why God can't stop Satan?
And yes God create Satan.
Satan was an angel or cherubim by the name of Lucifer.
Islamic perspective "djinn".
Who said God CAN'T stop Satan?
On the contrary, He can and WILL, as depicted in the Book of Revelation. Last time I checked, ol' Lucifer gets heaved in the Lake of Fire. That qualifies as being stopped to me.
-
Is that right? Last time I checked, even with the trials put on Job, Satan could do no more than God allowed.
Well dude, Satan created the universe... provable by the existence of evil.
You're not going to argue that God created the universe... then created evil? Are you? That would make him the worst malefactor possible.
Imagine an all-loving, all-powerful God, who, having created a perfect universe devoid of evil... then created evil. Even if he only mixed a little evil in from the start, just for balance, that still makes him the primary source of all evil... and ultimately responsible for all evil.
On a more serious note...
There is no coherent theological argument (insomuch as theological argments can be coherent) which reconciles the existence of evil with God as Creator... either Satan is the Creator, or God created evil... thereby perpetrating the primary act of evil.
This is known ass the "Rex Mundi" heresy, and is the founational tenet of the Cathar (Bogomil) Gnostic Christian faith.
The only rebuttal Christian theologians have ever been able to muster, was the systematic mass extermination of all practicing Cathars during the Christian against Christian Crusades (ie: the Albigensian Crusade an it's ilk).
So no need to attempt a rebuttal McWay, it can't be done.
The Luke
-
Who said God CAN'T stop Satan?
On the contrary, He can and WILL, as depicted in the Book of Revelation. Last time I checked, ol' Lucifer gets heaved in the Lake of Fire. That qualifies as being stopped to me.
Good post! McWay, do you have the scripture where satan's name appears. I seem to can't find it. Thanks, in advance.
Government_Controlled/Dea_Agent
-
Who said God CAN'T stop Satan?
On the contrary, He can and WILL, as depicted in the Book of Revelation. Last time I checked, ol' Lucifer gets heaved in the Lake of Fire. That qualifies as being stopped to me.
Revelations? wow!!!
What about now? or all this horror that its going on?
War,disease the list goes on and on.
-
Well dude, Satan created the universe... provable by the existence of evil.
Dead wrong, and woefully dumb.....as usual!!!
You're not going to argue that God created the universe... then created evil? Are you? That would make him the worst malefactor possible.
Imagine an all-loving, all-powerful God, who, having created a perfect universe devoid of evil... then created evil. Even if he only mixed a little evil in from the start, just for balance, that still makes him the primary source of all evil... and ultimately responsible for all evil.
On a more serious note...
There is no coherent theological argument (insomuch as theological argments can be coherent) which reconciles the existence of evil with God as Creator... either Satan is the Creator, or God created evil... thereby perpetrating the primary act of evil.
This is known ass the "Rex Mundi" heresy, and is the founational tenet of the Cathar (Bogomil) Gnostic Christian faith.
The only rebuttal Christian theologians have ever been able to muster, was the systematic mass extermination of all practicing Cathars during the Christian against Christian Crusades (ie: the Albigensian Crusade an it's ilk).
So no need to attempt a rebuttal McWay, it can't be done.
The Luke
Please!!!
If there's one thing I've proven is that refuting the foolishness you spout is quite effortless to do.
The existence of evil comes from one simple source: Direct disobedience of God. That only occurs when God gives the most precious of things, FREE WILL.
If I give someone chemicals to fertilize grass, and he uses it to create a bomb to blow up somebody, I am NOT RESPONSIBLE for building the bomb; that person is. Nor am I credited for starting explosives.
Quite frankly, the more you talk, the DUMBER you tend to sound. I'm off to bed. I'll let GC deal with your buffoonery, if he's in the mood.
-
Revelations? wow!!!
What about now? or all this horror that its going on?
War,disease the list goes on and on.
The horror is going on, because man continues to disobey God's law. Had he not done so, NONE OF THIS would be occuring.
Therefore, the Lord can and will deal with it when HE SEES FIT. He is NOT on your timetable, or mine for that matter.
-
Dead wrong, and woefully dumb.....as usual!!!
Please!!!
Quite frankly, the more you talk, the DUMBER you tend to sound. I'm off to bed. I'll let GC deal with your buffoonery, if he's in the mood.
Nope! My wife is calling! I must answer her bellowing for her fellow, lover! Kids are sound asleep!. I think, he/she will survive, till the next time, eh? Good night, all. Happy dreams!
Government_Controlled/Dea_Agent
-
The horror is going on, because man continues to disobey God's law. Had he not done so, NONE OF THIS would be occuring.
Therefore, the Lord can and will deal with it when HE SEES FIT. He is NOT on your timetable, or mine for that matter.
Man doing evil things.
Evil things happen because of Satan.
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm...
-
The existence of evil comes from one simple source: Direct disobedience of God. That only occurs when God gives the most precious of things, FREE WILL.
If I give someone chemicals to fertilize grass, and he uses it to create a bomb to blow up somebody, I am NOT RESPONSIBLE for building the bomb; that person is. Nor am I credited for starting explosives.
...yeah, sorry. But none of that constitutes a refutation of the "Rex Mundi" heresy.
Let's not foget here that Satan does not have a soul (angels don't have souls) and that Satan did not eat of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge in the Garden of Eden, hence he does not know the difference between good and evil... and something without a soul that cannot tell right from wrong is not bound by God's Laws (man wasn't before the fall).
So by your silly logic... Satan doesn't qualify as evil.
Also, angels as a rule are not bound by God's law, nor are they bound by the ten commandments... so whichever way you cut it... God created an immortal creature that doesn't know the difference between right and wrong, isn't bound by God's law, isn't bound by the commandments and has the power to lay waste whole cities.
That's pretty fucked up... that's like me giving a chimp a nuclear weapon... pretty evil.
Even aside from all that... look at all the evil shit God does in the Bible... surely that's just Satan masquerading as God?
Maybe I've hit on something here... maybe the one thing God can't do is interfere... only Satan can do that: appearing as an angel to ignorant Beduoins; blowing up cities; spreading plagues; ordering the deaths of children and babies... you know, all the shit SOMETHING claiming to be God did in the Bible.
By their deeds ye shall know them.
Yep, I'm convinced... logically, Yahweh and Satan MUST be one in the same.
The Luke
-
God cannot stop Satan from doing evil deeds... therefore Satan is more powerful God.
God created Satan... therefore God himself perpetrated the primary evil deed... therefore God is more evil than Satan.
If God cannot do evil... yet evil exists... therefore Satan must be the Creator.
I think logic is gonna fuck this thread up.
The Luke
logic doesn't work luke, perhaps god stopped himself from knowing satan would be evil, then he wouldn't be all knowing though. I'm sure there is a good reason for creating evil though, maybe its because he loves us.
-
Is that right? Last time I checked, even with the trials put on Job, Satan could do no more than God allowed.
If it does (highly unlikely), it won't be coming from you, especially with stupidity like this.
so god allowed some evil?
seriously, do you actually think that post is stupid, it is actually perfect logic, you haven't rebutted it. Calling it stupid doesn't rebutt it, if god made satan, god made evil plain and simple.
-
Who said God CAN'T stop Satan?
On the contrary, He can and WILL, as depicted in the Book of Revelation. Last time I checked, ol' Lucifer gets heaved in the Lake of Fire. That qualifies as being stopped to me.
what is he waiting for? he is allowing all this suffering for what? If he is eternal, then time does not matter making this wait completely pointless, actually making this life completely pointless. Eternity negates purpose.
-
...yeah, sorry. But none of that constitutes a refutation of the "Rex Mundi" heresy.
Let's not foget here that Satan does not have a soul (angels don't have souls) and that Satan did not eat of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge in the Garden of Eden, hence he does not know the difference between good and evil... and something without a soul that cannot tell right from wrong is not bound by God's Laws (man wasn't before the fall).
So by your silly logic... Satan doesn't qualify as evil.
Also, angels as a rule are not bound by God's law, nor are they bound by the ten commandments... so whichever way you cut it... God created an immortal creature that doesn't know the difference between right and wrong, isn't bound by God's law, isn't bound by the commandments and has the power to lay waste whole cities.
That's pretty fucked up... that's like me giving a chimp a nuclear weapon... pretty evil.
Even aside from all that... look at all the evil shit God does in the Bible... surely that's just Satan masquerading as God?
Maybe I've hit on something here... maybe the one thing God can't do is interfere... only Satan can do that: appearing as an angel to ignorant Beduoins; blowing up cities; spreading plagues; ordering the deaths of children and babies... you know, all the shit SOMETHING claiming to be God did in the Bible.
By their deeds ye shall know them.
Yep, I'm convinced... logically, Yahweh and Satan MUST be one in the same.
The Luke
I'll do there act luke, don't waste your time luke, these fools know nothing. Its says god healed an amputee in the bible so it must be true. We can back each other up, to make it seem like we are actually making strong arguments and no one will be the wiser.
if evil comes from man disobeying god, did man create evil then? making god not the creator of all?
Who created evil according to the bible, who is the source of evil?
-
God cannot stop Satan from doing evil deeds... therefore Satan is more powerful God.
The Luke, I'm sorry but your course of "logic" almost always perplexes me.
You state something to which you have no proof as a fact and then state an extension of that statement as fact following YOUR course of "logic."
As MCWAY has said, it's in the bible that God has and will stop Satan from doing evil deeds.
But since you don't accept the bible as true, can you see that just in general you cannot prove (or state as fact) that God cannot stop Satan from doing evil deeds? Just because you don't believe it doesn't make it true. So for you to state it as fact holds no water...I'm not flaming you but do you see what I mean?
-
The horror is going on, because man continues to disobey God's law. Had he not done so, NONE OF THIS would be occuring.
Therefore, the Lord can and will deal with it when HE SEES FIT. He is NOT on your timetable, or mine for that matter.
Very good post.
Your fertilizer bomb analogy was excellent too.
GRACIE, I also sometimes struggle w/why doesn't God intervene in some situations when I believe He could, but I realize I don't know everything..but I believe He does. I believe that we have free will and that we suffer the consequences for ours and others' as well. But also, there is no way of knowing how many times God may be intervening in situations if He so chooses. Maybe things would be a lot worse.
-
logic doesn't work luke, perhaps god stopped himself from knowing satan would be evil, then he wouldn't be all knowing though. I'm sure there is a good reason for creating evil though, maybe its because he loves us.
Neither one of you is using any logic. So, I hardly see why you're complaining. At best, you're simply re-hashing emotionally charged yet factually bereft arguments that can be taken apart with ease.
-
what is he waiting for? he is allowing all this suffering for what? If he is eternal, then time does not matter making this wait completely pointless, actually making this life completely pointless. Eternity negates purpose.
Waiting for man to actually learn his lesson, perhaps?
Then again, when He pronounces judgment on those who do evil, you turn right around and BLUBBER about how "mean" He is.
Make up your mind. Either you want Him to do nothing, leaving man to his own devices (in which he will destroy himself) or you want Him to intervene.
-
The Luke, I'm sorry but your course of "logic" almost always perplexes me.
You state something to which you have no proof as a fact and then state an extension of that statement as fact following YOUR course of "logic."
As MCWAY has said, it's in the bible that God has and will stop Satan from doing evil deeds.
But since you don't accept the bible as true, can you see that just in general you cannot prove (or state as fact) that God cannot stop Satan from doing evil deeds? Just because you don't believe it doesn't make it true. So for you to state it as fact holds no water...I'm not flaming you but do you see what I mean?
He/she knows what they are doing, Stella. It's a design to derail the point of discussion. Don't let it perplex you. Luke,The is logical, he/she is choosing to use physiological tactics, in hopes, of perpetrating confusion to the average reader. Or, it's a gimmick, designed to make SOMEONE else look good. Catch my drift?
Government_Controlled/Dea_Agent
-
I'll do there act luke, don't waste your time luke, these fools know nothing.
What can YOU do for mankind?
Government_Control/Dea_Agent
-
Neither one of you is using any logic. So, I hardly see why you're complaining. At best, you're simply re-hashing emotionally charged yet factually bereft arguments that can be taken apart with ease.
what about it has never been rebutted doesn't convince you. The argument of evil is something no theologian has ever countered, so i'm not sure what the sticking point is.
-
Waiting for man to actually learn his lesson, perhaps?
Then again, when He pronounces judgment on those who do evil, you turn right around and BLUBBER about how "mean" He is.
Make up your mind. Either you want Him to do nothing, leaving man to his own devices (in which he will destroy himself) or you want Him to intervene.
I dont see why evil is necessary, he could have created a world without it yet still have people learn lessons, the possibilities are infinite with god. So thats why i'm having a hard time wondering why god is allowing evil, allowing pain and suffering. It's either he doesnt care, or cannot stop it.
-
What can YOU do for mankind?
Government_Control/Dea_Agent
I don't know what you are talking about here. I can do more then your god though.
-
how come no one ever answers my questions? who according to the bible created everything? who according to the bible created evil?
-
how come no one ever answers my questions?
Well, for me, your like at gnat on a elephant's back. Sorta like running on a treadmill, you expend allot of energy, but don't get anywhere.
I can't answer, for, poor ole McWay and the others. I would imagine tho, they have similar feelings.
Government_Controlled/Dea_AGENT
-
Well, for me, your like at gnat on a elephant's back. Sorta like running on a treadmill, you expend allot of energy, but don't get anywhere.
I can't answer, for, poor ole McWay and the others. I would imagine tho, they have similar feelings.
Government_Controlled/Dea_AGENT
i suppose it's like the time you made the irrefutable proof against evolution thread that got raped in a nanosecond, only to never respond. Kinda like that? ::) is it talking about things you have no idea about? like logic, philosophy and science?
again you avoided a simple question, seems you guys are good at that. Who created everything? if it was god, then he created evil, and is not all-good. Nor would he be perfect since perfection wouldn't have negative attributes.
Who created everything?
-
I dont see why evil is necessary, he could have created a world without it yet still have people learn lessons, the possibilities are infinite with god. So thats why i'm having a hard time wondering why god is allowing evil, allowing pain and suffering. It's either he doesnt care, or cannot stop it.
He DID create a world without evil. Again, I refer to my chemical fertilizer example. If I intend it to nourish grass and someone else uses it to create a bomb, I'm not the one charged with the evil deed.
Pain and suffering comes from disobedience to the Lord, "The wages of sin is DEATH!". As for stopping evil, again simply read the book of Revelation.
It reminds me of a saying I once heard from a minister, when he explained why he doesn't overstress about the troubles in life.
"Why? I read the end of the book (the Bible)....I WIN!!"
-
again you avoided a simple question, seems you guys are good at that. Who created everything? if it was god, then he created evil, and is not all-good. Nor would he be perfect since perfection wouldn't have negative attributes.
This seems to be the crux of the problem... God created evil.
So, to answer the question... Yes, there is something God cannot do: he cannot refrain from his own wickedness.
Just look at his behaviour in Genesis:
-he creates a purely evil being (Satan), then punishes him for a minor transgression (telling Eve the truth about the fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil)
-he doesn't forgive Satan for his truthfulness, despite the fact that Satan hasn't eaten of the tree and doesn't know the difference between good and evil
-he won't forgive either Adam or Eve, despite the fact that they didn't know the difference between good and evil when they ate the fruit
Then he spends the rest of the Old Testament ordering the murders of children; the subjugation of women; the brutalisation of children and criminals; the taking of slaves; genocide; rape and human sacrifice.
What an asshole.
The Luke
-
Quote from: MCWAY on February 24, 2010, 09:21:20 PM
Who said God CAN'T stop Satan?
On the contrary, He can and WILL, as depicted in the Book of Revelation. Last time I checked, ol' Lucifer gets heaved in the Lake of Fire. That qualifies as being stopped to me.
Good post! McWay, do you have the scripture where satan's name appears. I seem to can't find it, o WISE one. Thanks, in advance.
Government_Controlled/Dea_Agent
-
This seems to be the crux of the problem... God created evil.
So, to answer the question... Yes, there is something God cannot do: he cannot refrain from his own wickedness.
Just look at his behaviour in Genesis:
-he creates a purely evil being (Satan), then punishes him for a minor transgression (telling Eve the truth about the fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil)
-he doesn't forgive Satan for his truthfulness, despite the fact that Satan hasn't eaten of the tree and doesn't know the difference between good and evil
-he won't forgive either Adam or Eve, despite the fact that they didn't know the difference between good and evil when they ate the fruit
Then he spends the rest of the Old Testament ordering the murders of children; the subjugation of women; the brutalisation of children and criminals; the taking of slaves; genocide; rape and human sacrifice
The Luke
WARNING! INACCURATE INFOMATION! PEASE TRY AGAIN! GOD WILL FORGIVE YOU! GOD BLESS!
Government_Controlled/Dea_Agent
-
Who created everything?
I did, bitch.
Any more questions? >:(
-
This seems to be the crux of the problem... God created evil.
So, to answer the question... Yes, there is something God cannot do: he cannot refrain from his own wickedness.
The crux of the problem is your inability to read.
Just look at his behaviour in Genesis:
-he creates a purely evil being (Satan), then punishes him for a minor transgression (telling Eve the truth about the fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil)
Umm......WRONG!! Satan told Eve that, if she ate of the fruit, she would not die. She did. NEXT!!!!
-he doesn't forgive Satan for his truthfulness, despite the fact that Satan hasn't eaten of the tree and doesn't know the difference between good and evil
One, Satan wasn't truthful at all (see the above); two, when does Satan ever ASK for forgiveness again?
-he won't forgive either Adam or Eve, despite the fact that they didn't know the difference between good and evil when they ate the fruit
Dead wrong again. He gave them specific instructions; they disobeyed them. Still, the plan of redemption was put in place in Gen. 3.
You can't be.....well...actually.. ...you CAN be this DUMB, when it comes to reading simple Bible texts.
Then he spends the rest of the Old Testament ordering the murders of children; the subjugation of women; the brutalisation of children and criminals; the taking of slaves; genocide; rape and human sacrifice.
Again, see above!!
What an asshole.
The Luke
You're projecting, again.
-
Well, McWay, seems you missed my point completely... the flaw in the Genesis story is that the characters are punished for the transgressions they made BEFORE they know the difference between good and evil (eat from the tree). If there is a villain in the Genesis story; it's the fool who put the tree in the garden.
So, let's try something a little simpler; more direct; and less intricate:
Is there anything God cannot do?
Yes, he cannot speak out against the evil of slavery.
The Luke
-
God cannot let SIN go unpunished! What we believers must hold fast to is that fools mock God (by calling him a fool) because they have not the Holy Spirit, God has not given to them the ability to believe. All that we say will fall on deaf ears if they have not the Holy Spirit. Remember what Jesus said to the disciples:
Matt 16:13-17
13 When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, "Who do people say the Son of Man is?"
14 They replied, "Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets."
15 "But what about you?" he asked. "Who do you say I am?"
16 Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."
17 Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, (insert Stella, McWay, GCA and others that believe) for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven.
My point you can keep on trying to convince these unbelievers which is an honorable thing to do but until God quickens them they will never believe and will always mock God! Continue to plant the seed, another will water but God gives the increase!
Question answered, end of thread!
HM
-
I did, bitch.
Any more questions? >:(
POST REPORTED TO RON AVIDAN!
Government_Controlled/Dea_Agent
-
God cannot let SIN go unpunished! Question answered, end of thread!
HM
Ah, close, my friend. God could choose to do that, it would be wrong, but technically, He CAN do it. This is something He ABSOLUTELY, CANNOT DO.
Government_Congrolled/Dea_Agent
-
GC, can He create a rock that He himself cannot lift? ;)
keep in mind that he is all powerful :P
-
I reiterate: God cannot forbid slavery. (Even though most decent people do)
Exhibit one, the Bible.
The Luke
-
Ah, close, my friend. God could choose to do that, it would be wrong, but technically, He CAN do it. This is something He ABSOLUTELY, CANNOT DO.
Government_Congrolled/Dea_Agent
If its wrong he cannot do it, so he would not but anyway the question that started this thread is as silly as the "creating a rock that He himself cannot lift." Anyway enjoy your conversations with these folk and may God Bless your words.
HM
-
god couldn't create vaccines that has helped millions of children today survive the diseases that god made, diseases that have killed many a child in the past.
god couldn't create life in loyal followers who eventually turned to IVF and were able to have a child.
-
You guys are disappointing me. All these answers are good. Problem is, He COULD DO ALL OF THEM, IF HE CHOSE TOO. right or wrong. Just like th satan. Bible says, satan was a good angel at one point. then, turned bad.
Now, what can God NOT do, that even if he wanted to turn bad, or create a rock that he couldn't lift, WHICH He could do those things, EVEN IF HE WANTED TOO? I thought that doctor guy was on hear. What's he's name? Starts with a D. You guys, are suppose to be bright! I'm gonna have to move on, where the I.Q. is at least, CLOSE TO GOD'S. This is a crying shame fellas, ladies. I'm almost ashamed to be on here. Peace!
McWay, can you help them please, my friend! I can't bear it anymore!
.
Government_Controlled/Dea_Agent
-
Well, McWay, seems you missed my point completely... the flaw in the Genesis story is that the characters are punished for the transgressions they made BEFORE they know the difference between good and evil (eat from the tree). If there is a villain in the Genesis story; it's the fool who put the tree in the garden.
O clueless one, it is YOU who don't get it. The difference between good and evil lies in OBEDIENCE to God, NOT the fruit.
God gave them a specific instruction; they disobeyed that instruction and paid the price for it (along with the rest of mankind).
So, let's try something a little simpler; more direct; and less intricate:
Is there anything God cannot do?
Yes, he cannot speak out against the evil of slavery.
The Luke
What's so "evil" about it? And who makes the determination that it's "evil"? This discussion's been done on another thread and the "evil" involved centers around chattel slavery, which Scripture clearly outlawed.
-
god couldn't create vaccines that has helped millions of children today survive the diseases that god made, diseases that have killed many a child in the past.
Diseases that would never have been here in the first place, had man obeyed God in the first place (notwithstanding the fact that those vaccines are there, courtesy of men using God's resources and God's scientific laws to manipulate them).
god couldn't create life in loyal followers who eventually turned to IVF and were able to have a child.
Tell that to Sarah, Hannah, Elizabeth, etc.
As GC has indicated, you apparently can't tell the difference between "couldn't" and "didn't".
-
McWay, where is that knat, "Genius" Necrosis, when you need him/her. Surely, he/she can bust this riddle. I can't take this any mo! This is plumb, ridiculous! *sighs*
Government_Controlled/Dea_Agent
-
You guys are disappointing me. All these answers are good. Problem is, He COULD DO ALL OF THEM, IF HE CHOSE TOO. right or wrong. Just like th satan. Bible says, satan was a good angel at one point. then, turned bad.
Now, what can God NOT do, that even if he wanted to turn bad, or create a rock that he couldn't lift, WHICH He could do those things, EVEN IF HE WANTED TOO? I thought that doctor guy was on hear. What's he's name? Starts with a D. You guys, are suppose to be bright! I'm gonna have to move on, where the I.Q. is at least, CLOSE TO GOD'S. This is a crying shame fellas, ladies. I'm almost ashamed to be on here. Peace!
McWay, can you help them please, my friend! I can't bear it anymore!
.
Government_Controlled/Dea_Agent
There's only so much laughter I can take, before my tummy starts hurting.
-
There's only so much laughter I can take, before my tummy starts hurting.
Try swallowing, some vinegar. The apple cyder, kind. Might help.
Government_Controlled/Dea_Agent
-
Diseases that would never have been here in the first place, had man obeyed God in the first place
Wow... vindictive, collective and inherited punishment... you just defined your god as a psychopath.
I'm sorry for calling him an asshole... you're right, chronic-narcissistic-personality-disorder psychopath with sociopathic tendencies is more appropriate.
The Luke
-
Wow... vindictive, collective and inherited punishment... you just defined your god as a psychopath.
I'm sorry for calling him an [icehole]... you're right, chronic-narcissistic-personality-disorder psychopath with sociopathic tendencies is more appropriate.
The Luke
Either, you are the back-wash, of the so-called evolutionary process, half-ape/half-man, or you just fell off the turnip truck? *sheeeesh*. This is utterly embarrassing. I'm beginning to wonder if God did use two different processes. :-[
Government_Controlled/Dea_Agent
-
Either, you are the back-wash, of the so-called evolutionary process, half-ape/half-man, or you just fell off the turnip truck? *sheeeesh*. This is utterly embarrassing. I'm beginning to wonder if God did use two different processes. :-[
Sorry dude, but no decent person should be worshipping a narcissistic psychopathic thundercloud who not only condones and endorses but practices and orders slavery; rape; child molestation; infanticide; human sacrifice and genocide.
What can't God do... behave morally.
The Luke
-
Wow... vindictive, collective and inherited punishment... you just defined your god as a psychopath.
Hardly!!! When kids disobey their parents, they get punished.
This sounds like more of your usual sniveling about your wanting to misbehave without consequence.
I'm sorry for calling him an asshole... you're right, chronic-narcissistic-personality-disorder psychopath with sociopathic tendencies is more appropriate.
The Luke
Hardly!!! Why don't you call a cop that, when he pulls you over for speeding?
-
Sorry dude, but no decent person should be worshipping a narcissistic psychopathic thundercloud who not only condones and endorses but practices and orders slavery; rape; child molestation; infanticide; human sacrifice and genocide.
What can't God do... behave morally.
The Luke
Morally, according to WHOM? Once again, you atheist folks spend too much time, screaming about what you don't believe. Yet, when asked to define what exactly is morality (or who gets to determine what's right and wrong), I get more dancing than in MC Hammer's "U Can't Touch This" video from 20 years back.
-
Sorry dude, but no decent person should be worshipping a narcissistic psychopathic thundercloud who not only condones and endorses but practices and orders slavery; rape; child molestation; infanticide; human sacrifice and genocide.
Repetive narcissistic psychopathic behavior! I will pray for you, my dear one. God bless.
What can't God do... behave morally.
AGAIN and AGAIN, how I must repeat myself. It is a CHOICE concerning this example, you have haphazardly attempted to provide once AGAIN and AGAIN! He CAN DO THIS IF HE WANTS TOO! Please in the near future, recruit HEEEEEEELLLLLP! Where are the OTHER SO CALLED, EVOLUTIONIST ON THIS COTTON PICKEN BOARD! Dead burn it, I request the Evolutionist s Dr. D.
Government_Controlled/Dea_Agent
-
You guys are disappointing me. All these answers are good. Problem is, He COULD DO ALL OF THEM, IF HE CHOSE TOO. right or wrong. Just like th satan. Bible says, satan was a good angel at one point. then, turned bad.
Now, what can God NOT do, that even if he wanted to turn bad, or create a rock that he couldn't lift, WHICH He could do those things, EVEN IF HE WANTED TOO? I thought that doctor guy was on hear. What's he's name? Starts with a D. You guys, are suppose to be bright! I'm gonna have to move on, where the I.Q. is at least, CLOSE TO GOD'S. This is a crying shame fellas, ladies. I'm almost ashamed to be on here. Peace!
McWay, can you help them please, my friend! I can't bear it anymore!
.
Government_Controlled/Dea_Agent
u're an imbicile ::)
if god can create a rock that he himself can not lift then that renders him less than omnipotent doesn't it? Mind you I'm not an atheist, I was just interested in what type of your argument you might produce, o wise one with God-like IQ.
-
u're an imbicile ::)
Are you aware that "name calling", is indicative, to the equivalent of a 12 year old school girls mentality? I hope you get this under control, Mr. Haider. Are you on steroids?
Also, it would look better for you, if YOU would at least use the CORRECT SPELLING for the word of selection. "imbicile" = imbecile. You ,in the beginning, of Alzheimer's disease laden school girl! Instead of hitten them thar roids, try some Namenda!
if god can create a rock that he himself can not lift then that renders him less than omnipotent doesn't it? Mind you I'm not an atheist, I was just interested in what type of your argument you might produce, o wise one with God-like IQ.
As of now, you don't need to be concerned about Ole GC's I.Q., it's "haider's that is in question, at the moment. Again, I don't know how many times I'm gonna have to say this, there is a difference between using ones powers, and choosing not too.
So, what is the answer, Haider? There is ONE thing God CANNOT DO even if He is omnipotent.
BTW, you are having a minor meltdown, because of your ignorance. Don't let it bother you, I will educate you in the end. peace!
Government_Controlled_DE A_AGENT
-
Are you aware that "name calling", is indicative, to the equivalent of a 12 year old school girls mentality? I hope you get this under control, Mr. Haider. Are you on steroids?
Also, it would look better for you, if YOU would at least use the CORRECT SPELLING for the word of selection. "imbicile" = imbecile. You ,in the beginning, of Alzheimer's disease laden school girl! Instead of hitten them thar roids, try some Namenda!
As of now, you don't need to be concerned about Ole GC's I.Q., it's "haider's that is in question, at the moment. Again, I don't know how many times I'm gonna have to say this, there is a difference between using ones powers, and choosing not too.
So, what is the answer, Haider? There is ONE thing God CANNOT DO even if He is omnipotent.
BTW, you are having a minor meltdown, because of your ignorance. Don't let it bother you, I will educate you in the end. peace!
Government_Controlled_DE A_AGENT
hahaha! Yeah I'm the one melting down, and here you are with your novella post and childish insults ;D You are imbecile for precisely the reason you are now criticising me- name calling!
Thanks for playing ya hypocrite, ya ain't too different after all from the preachy types out there :-*
-
hahaha! Yeah I'm the one melting down, and here you are with your novella post and childish insults ;D You are imbecile for precisely the reason you are now criticising me- name calling!
Thanks for playing ya hypocrite, ya ain't too different after all from the preachy types out there :-*
Well, one thang for show, "old timer", you definitely, must be in the latter stages of Alzheimer's. You nincompoop, YOU FORGOT TO ANSWER THE QUESTION!
Please, if you are gonna CLAIM comeback, AT LEAST HAVE THE DECENCY, to not make yourself, look handicapped!
I'm sorry for your condition. It's a medical ISSUE, not NAME CALLING, you undeceive, semi-educated, decrepit old man!
Don't make me, respond with the same TYPE OF mis-behavioral antics!. YOU , POOR DEAR OLD, DRIED-UP,SWIVELED UP, NO HIDDEN BEAUTY, VICTIM OF steroid abuse! You will loose your religion if I do so!
Now, if you can get around your ignorant condition, for the ump-tine time, WHAT CAN'T GOD DOOOOOO! Can you HEAR/READ WHAT I'm saying, Old man? :-* ;D :o
Government_Controlled/Dea_Agent
-
Well, one thang for show, "old timer", you definitely, must be in the latter stages of Alzheimer's. You nincompoop, YOU FORGOT TO ANSWER THE QUESTION!
Please, if you are gonna CLAIM comeback, AT LEAST HAVE THE DECENCY, to not make yourself, look handicapped!
I'm sorry for your condition. It's a medical ISSUE, not NAME CALLING, you undeceive, semi-educated, decrepit old man!
Don't make me, respond with the same TYPE OF mis-behavioral antics!. YOU , POOR DEAR OLD, DRIED-UP,SWIVELED UP, NO HIDDEN BEAUTY, VICTIM OF steroid abuse! You will loose your religion if I do so!
Now, if you can get around your ignorant condition, for the ump-tine time, WHAT CAN'T GOD DOOOOOO! Can you HEAR/READ WHAT I'm saying, Old man? :-* ;D :o
Government_Controlled/Dea_Agent
what an incoherent mess of a post. Not exactly unlike your 'serious' posts on this topic.
You didn't have the capacity to respond coherently without resorting to patronizing insults, and now you want a serious answer?! And you insist you deserve one?
LOL! Go on, keep making a show of what a wanker you are.
I'm gettin my popcorn ready.
-
PS- Its 'ump-teenth' time, dumbass. Like you would say a number, such as "thirteenth time". Oh brother.
-
what an incoherent mess of a post. Not exactly unlike your 'serious' posts on this topic.
You didn't have the capacity to respond coherently without resorting to patronizing insults, and now you want a serious answer?! And you insist you deserve one?
LOL! Go on, keep making a show of what a wanker you are.
I'm getting my popcorn ready.
WHAT ON God's earth, does this have to do with your ignorance, "OLD TIMER". CAN you, SIR, provide the answer or not? If not, we are going to move you into the STUPID category, rather, than, ignorant. Don't try me!
sincerely, your MENTOR!
Government_Controlled/Dea_Agent
-
I'm gettin my popcorn ready.
P.S. Make sure your FALSE teeth are in check! We can't keep on affording to pay for SENILE SENIOR CITIZENS, screw ups! You pious _______.
Sincerely,
THORN in YOUR side!
Government_Controlled/Dea_Agent
-
LOL! Go on, keep making a show of what a wanker you are.
BTW, Is this what they call it, when you "OLD TIMERS" abuse yourselves, via porn?
Sincerely,
Yours Truly!
Government_Controlled/Agent
-
PS- Its 'ump-teenth' time, dumbass. Like you would say a number, such as "thirteenth time". Oh brother.
Like you would know! Ha ha. Your care taker had to point that out, "OLD TIMER". YOU are a disgrace, to the aging process! Maybe, you should reconsider your position on evolution. At least with creation, you will have some HOPE!
Sincerely,
The One & Only!
Government_Controlled/Dea_Agent
-
Diseases that would never have been here in the first place, had man obeyed God in the first place (notwithstanding the fact that those vaccines are there, courtesy of men using God's resources and God's scientific laws to manipulate them).
So in other words god created the diseases then gave us the knowledge to combat them. Hmmm so the diseases were made to punish us, then he gave us the vaccines so that we could live and still disobey him.............yeah that makes total sense.
Tell that to Sarah, Hannah, Elizabeth, etc.
As GC has indicated, you apparently can't tell the difference between "couldn't" and "didn't".
Families that now have children through IVF solved the issue that all the praying to god couldn't for them. Apparently god doesn't care alot about those loyal that follow him since he could have them bear children yet they had use man made science to achieve the end result. If the percentages were put against having children with IVF or praying from several thousands followers to god for a couple who are having difficulty, I'm more than sure that IVF would provide better results.
-
So in other words god created the diseases then gave us the knowledge to combat them. Hmmm so the diseases were made to punish us, then he gave us the vaccines so that we could live and still disobey him.............yeah that makes total sense.
Families that now have children through IVF solved the issue that all the praying to god couldn't for them. Apparently god doesn't care alot about those loyal that follow him since he could have them bear children yet they had use man made science to achieve the end result. If the percentages were put against having children with IVF or praying from several thousands followers to god for a couple who are having difficulty, I'm more than sure that IVF would provide better results.
Hey Flip, good question and point. I don't wont to intrude on McWay's post, so I'll be brief. Just for starters, read the Book of Job. This will get you on your way to the answer. peace!
government_control/Dea_Agent
-
Like you would know! Ha ha. Your care taker had to point that out, "OLD TIMER". YOU are a disgrace, to the aging process! Maybe, you should reconsider your position on evolution. At least with creation, you will have some HOPE!
Sincerely,
The One & Only!
Government_Controlled/Dea_Agent
quadruple post meltdown.
relax, no need to get so upset over an internet board- that goes for both of us.
The riddle I posed was not one I made up myself- it is an old philosophical one that presents a hypothetical case where God's omnipotence seems self-contradictory. The argument is simple and thus:
1, If God can create a rock that he himself can not lift, then what becomes of his omnipotence, i.e. all powerful nature?
2, If he can not create such a rock, then it is something he can not do.
How do you reconcile omnipotence with the points above?
I'm not saying there isn't an answer.
BTW, this is nothing but a mental exercise to me. To make it a religious argument is silly.
PS- you should respect your elders :'(
-
Hey Flip, good question and point. I don't wont to intrude on McWay's post, so I'll be brief. Just for starters, read the Book of Job. This will get you on your way to the answer. peace!
government_control/Dea_Agent
Though I like a good read once in awhile, the bible isn't one I like to endure. Maybe post the scripture and give me your interpretation and why it pertains to my question. Thanks
-
Though I like a good read once in awhile, the bible isn't one I like to endure. Maybe post the scripture and give me your interpretation and why it pertains to my question. Thanks
Well, I'm not your man, Flip. I'm a bible student. If you indeed, do like a good read, this is for you. I thought you were interested in the bible and what it has to say, about mankind's future. It's pretty good outlook, too!. I have to much time, that has to be spread about, with folks, that do WANT to take a genuine interest, in the Bible. You need to start with ALL of Job, if you really want this info. Sorry I couldn't help. My interpretation, is simple, what ever the Bible says, that's my viewpoint! peace!
Government_Controlled/Dea_Agent
-
quadruple post meltdown.
relax, no need to get so upset over an internet board- that goes for both of us.
The riddle I posed was not one I made up myself- it is an old philosophical one that presents a hypothetical case where God's omnipotence seems self-contradictory. The argument is simple and thus:
1, If God can create a rock that he himself can not lift, then what becomes of his omnipotence, i.e. all powerful nature?
2, If he can not create such a rock, then it is something he can not do.
How do you reconcile omnipotence with the points above?
I'm not saying there isn't an answer.
BTW, this is nothing but a mental exercise to me. To make it a religious argument is silly.
PS- you should respect your elders :'(
The logical answer is omnipotence is irrational and impossible, I would state that all of the godly qualities are and they are in fact incongruent with each other from a philosophical side. I also think you have to select the things with which we are asking god to accomplish from a list of possible tasks, i think the above fits the criteria.
ps. what do you do with disobedient children? you stone them of course, if someone works on sunday you kill them, what would you have god do? not kill children who are bad?
-
So in other words god created the diseases then gave us the knowledge to combat them. Hmmm so the diseases were made to punish us, then he gave us the vaccines so that we could live and still disobey him.............yeah that makes total sense.
Of course it doesn't makes "total sense". That's YOUR statement, not mine.
Families that now have children through IVF solved the issue that all the praying to god couldn't for them. Apparently god doesn't care alot about those loyal that follow him since he could have them bear children yet they had use man made science to achieve the end result. If the percentages were put against having children with IVF or praying from several thousands followers to god for a couple who are having difficulty, I'm more than sure that IVF would provide better results.
So, NOW comes your pitiful argument that God doesn't care, if He doesn't do things the way YOU THINK He should. That's like my 5-year-old claiming that I don't love her, if I don't give her a cookie.
Plus, man didn't make science. Man didn't make the laws of physics, nor did he make the raw materials that comprise medicines or treatments today. Gravity was gravity, LOOOOOOOONG before Sir Isaac Newton assigned a name to it. Penicillin cured certain ailments, LOOOOOONG before man actually knwo that it did.
They're called SCIENTIFIC DISCOVERIES for a reason: It's man, finding out what God has known, from the ceaseless ages.
Plus, in case you missed, God has (since times of old) assigned people to carry out His will. When it was time to free Israel from Egypt, He designated Moses to lead the liberation of His people.
As for science (and since it's the last day of Black History Month), I refer you to Dr. Ben Carson, head of John Hopkins pediatric neurosurgery. He will tell you that the Lord led him to his calling in medicine.
So, the idea of God, assigning people on Earth to carry out His will is hardly a new or novel concept.
-
The logical answer is omnipotence is irrational and impossible, I would state that all of the godly qualities are and they are in fact incongruent with each other from a philosophical side. I also think you have to select the things with which we are asking god to accomplish from a list of possible tasks, i think the above fits the criteria.
ps. what do you do with disobedient children? you stone them of course, if someone works on sunday you kill them, what would you have god do? not kill children who are bad?
Since there is NO verse that dictated that disobedient kids get stoned to death (please don't bother trying to twist Deut. 21; you'll just make yourself look silly), this is but another tired skeptic blurb.
-
Of course it doesn't makes "total sense". That's YOUR statement, not mine.
So, NOW comes your pitiful argument that God doesn't care, if He doesn't do things the way YOU THINK He should. That's like my 5-year-old claiming that I don't love her, if I don't give her a cookie.
Plus, man didn't make science. Man didn't make the laws of physics, nor did he make the raw materials that comprise medicines or treatments today. Gravity was gravity, LOOOOOOOONG before Sir Isaac Newton assigned a name to it. Penicillin cured certain ailments, LOOOOOONG before man actually knwo that it did.
They're called SCIENTIFIC DISCOVERIES for a reason: It's man, finding out what God has known, from the ceaseless ages.
Plus, in case you missed, God has (since times of old) assigned people to carry out His will. When it was time to free Israel from Egypt, He designated Moses to lead the liberation of His people.
As for science (and since it's the last day of Black History Month), I refer you to Dr. Ben Carson, head of John Hopkins pediatric neurosurgery. He will tell you that the Lord led him to his calling in medicine.
So, the idea of God, assigning people on Earth to carry out His will is hardly a new or novel concept.
HAHA this is a textbook example of the argument from ignorance, perfect fallacy right here. I have no evidence that god did these things, but i'll just make that assumption. Appeal to authority also, well if dr ben carson believes in god (he was probably raised in a christian household ::) ) then it must be true also ::)
-
HAHA this is a textbook example of the argument from ignorance, perfect fallacy right here. I have no evidence that god did these things, but i'll just make that assumption. Appeal to authority also, well if dr ben carson believes in god (he was probably raised in a christian household ::) ) then it must be true also ::)
Richard Dawkins was raised in a Christian household, too. Yet, you don't seem to have a problem with his musings.
You don't have evidence for a lot of items that you believe; you simply appeal to authority and make the assumption that it's true. So, why blast Christians for doing the same?
-
Richard Dawkins was raised in a Christian household, too. Yet, you don't seem to have a problem with his musings.
You don't have evidence for a lot of items that you believe; you simply appeal to authority and make the assumption that it's true. So, why blast Christians for doing the same?
name one thing i believe that i dont have evidence for? I believe in things with evidence. Yes he was, it's non sequitor, the fact that he was able to avoid his childhood beliefs is more impressive, being indoctrinated is a strong phenomenon, people will even die for those beliefs.
-
name one thing i believe that i dont have evidence for? I believe in things with evidence.
Your, FUTURE! :P
Sincerely,
Unconvinced
Governement_Controlled/DEA_Agent
-
Your, FUTURE! :P
Sincerely,
Unconvinced
Governement_Controlled/DEA_Agent
so theres no evidence for it? again, fail.
-
so theres no evidence for it? again, fail.
U numnut, that's right, fool. But you believe in it? *LOL* You don't believe in your OWN future? *LOL*. Everybody believes in a future for themselves, they just don't have any evidence. Are you sane? Do you remember your question?
name one thing i believe that i dont have evidence for? I believe in things with evidence.
OMG! Unreal! And you are one of the "brilliant" minds? I'm ashamed to have been speaking with you bud. Your gonna bring me down to your level, which isn't something to desire.
government_controlled/DEA_Agent
-
U numnut, that's right, fool. But you believe in it? *LOL* You don't believe in your OWN future? *LOL*. Everybody believes in a future for themselves, they just don't have any evidence. Are you sane? Do you remember your question?
name one thing i believe that i dont have evidence for? I believe in things with evidence.
OMG! Unreal! And you are one of the "brilliant" minds? I'm ashamed to have been speaking with you bud. Your gonna bring me down to your level, which isn't something to desire.
government_controlled/DEA_Agent
i can't tell if you're being serious or not anymore. Are you in your mania phase or something. It started with grandious claims and delusions. Now you are capitilizing everything and melting down like something savage. You are starting to answer your own questions within your text, using different font colors and laughing hysterically at yourself=mania.
So an assumption based on axioms that are self evident and backed by my whole life is not evidence? You should take a page from locos and stellas book and learn how to act like a christian.
-
i can't tell if you're being serious or not anymore. Are you in your mania phase or something. It started with grandious claims and delusions. Now you are capitilizing everything and melting down like something savage. You are starting to answer your own questions within your text, using different font colors and laughing hysterically at yourself=mania.
This is what we call WISHFUL thinking, o "brilliant" one! *sigh*. Look below for the ACCURATE, original quotes and replies. You know better!
so theres no evidence for it? again, fail.
U numnut, that's right, fool. But you believe in it? *LOL* You don't believe in your OWN future? *LOL*. Everybody believes in a future for themselves, they just don't have any evidence. Are you sane? Do you remember your question?
name one thing i believe that i don't have evidence for? I believe in things with evidence.
OMG! Unreal! And you are one of the "brilliant" minds? I'm ashamed to have been speaking with you bud. Your gonna bring me down to your level, which isn't something to desire.
government_controlled/DEA_Agent
So an assumption based on axioms that are self evident and backed by my whole life is not evidence?
What is so self evident in your life time*LOL*, that led YOU to belive you have any sort of backing , that provides an OUNCE of evidence? You still DON'T KNOW your future? But, yoiu know you've got one, if ya don't die anytime soon! *LOL*
You should take a page from locos and Stella's book and learn how to act like a Christian.
Now Necrosis, lets be honest here. McWay gets a tad, shad testy, himself, with you and others. Stella, she appears to be a good gal, on the computer! Maybe I'll check here page out! *LOL*. Loco, well, I've seen him set ya straight, too!
However, I hate to break it to you, but the bible refers to you and haider, in a worse manner! I've been easy, compared to what the Bible puts on ya.
Government_Control/Dea_AGENT
-
Being that the so called, "brilliant" minds have INVADED my thread, instead of coming up with YOUR OWN question, could you PLEASE answer the original question posed.
What CAN'T GOD do? Even if He WANTED too?
P.S. Go ahead, fellow BELIEVERS ONLY, and help these "brilliant" minds with this EASY question, please.! I'm afraid if the CARETAKER (Necrosis), and his SIDE KICK, AKA (haider), THE "brilliant" minds, don't receive it, SOON, THEY will have a MAJOR meltdown! Haider can't take that! It will FINISH HIM if he CAN'T ANSWER THIS. PLEASE, lets save haider, lets save, haider, lets save haider....Peace!
Government_Controlled/DEA_AGENT
-
This is what we call WISHFUL thinking, o "brilliant" one! *sigh*. Look below for the ACCURATE, original quotes and replies. You know better!
U numnut, that's right, fool. But you believe in it? *LOL* You don't believe in your OWN future? *LOL*. Everybody believes in a future for themselves, they just don't have any evidence. Are you sane? Do you remember your question?
name one thing i believe that i don't have evidence for? I believe in things with evidence.
OMG! Unreal! And you are one of the "brilliant" minds? I'm ashamed to have been speaking with you bud. Your gonna bring me down to your level, which isn't something to desire.
government_controlled/DEA_Agent
What is so self evident in your life time*LOL*, that led YOU to belive you have any sort of backing , that provides an OUNCE of evidence? You still DON'T KNOW your future? But, yoiu know you've got one, if ya don't die anytime soon! *LOL*
Now Necrosis, lets be honest here. McWay gets a tad, shad testy, himself, with you and others. Stella, she appears to be a good gal, on the computer! Maybe I'll check here page out! *LOL*. Loco, well, I've seen him set ya straight, too!
However, I hate to break it to you, but the bible refers to you and haider, in a worse manner! I've been easy, compared to what the Bible puts on ya.
Government_Control/Dea_AGENT
i wasn't sure if you were serious but i geuss you are. Since im educated in medicine i know of the conditions that affect my age group, of them im now the percentage of people who die from these conditions, thus i have evidence for the likelihood of dying this way, on top of that i know what diagnositic screening reduces my risk rate. Also, of the conditions that cause sudden death, i have none, thus i can rule out these issues, and again this is evidence that i will continue living.When people say you could drop dead they really dont have a clue what they are talking about(much like you). Also, i know the chances of freak accidents and the likelihood of such accidents which result in death, this is more concrete data to base my conclusion on. Real sound, real world objective data. On top of that i know the avg age of death for my ethnicity and sex in my country, again evidence that me not living tommorrow is unlikely. Moving to my age is several SD's away from the avg mortality age, making it very improbable. If we are talking some strange philosophical argument like reality may end then i would ask for what evidence you have of this, and refer you to the history of the world when this has never happened. If you were to respond in a manner like some christians saying i can't know if tommorrow will exist, then i would just refer you to logic 101 and the fact that we can't truly prove or know anything. I can't prove 100% i exist, but i can provide evidence and logical arguments which make it highly likely. You see beliefs are of this sort, 100% absolute certainty is not possible, we could be in a fucking matrix for all we know, but degrees of certainty are, in this scale faith is at the bottom, with no evidence and no certainty, it is irrational by definition.
Again, you lose. I asked you for something i believe in that has no evidence, clearly the above has evidence. I seem pretty calm, you on the other hand are smashing the caps lock, font changes, color changes, triple post meltdowning along with talking to yourself within one text. This is evidence of somthing, perhaps a meltdown ensuing, i can't be 100% sure of course but the evidence sure points me in that direction. I not sure if you know who i was before the name change, or what i did, but lets just say you are terrible at it.
I like loco and stella, i agree with mcway when i think he makes a valid point, i don't buddy with atheists on this board and haider is religious and disagrees with me.
go to www.failblog.org and submit your lifes work to the fail uploader because you are failing more then jesus christ trying to perform an iron cross.
-
i wasn't sure if you were serious but i geuss you are. Since im educated in medicine i know of the conditions that affect my age group, of them im now the percentage of people who die from these conditions, thus i have evidence for the likelihood of dying this way, on top of that i know what diagnositic screening reduces my risk rate. Also, of the conditions that cause sudden death, i have none, thus i can rule out these issues, and again this is evidence that i will continue living.When people say you could drop dead they really dont have a clue what they are talking about(much like you). Also, i know the chances of freak accidents and the likelihood of such accidents which result in death, this is more concrete data to base my conclusion on. Real sound, real world objective data. On top of that i know the avg age of death for my ethnicity and sex in my country, again evidence that me not living tommorrow is unlikely. Moving to my age is several SD's away from the avg mortality age, making it very improbable. If we are talking some strange philosophical argument like reality may end then i would ask for what evidence you have of this, and refer you to the history of the world when this has never happened. If you were to respond in a manner like some christians saying i can't know if tommorrow will exist, then i would just refer you to logic 101 and the fact that we can't truly prove or know anything. I can't prove 100% i exist, but i can provide evidence and logical arguments which make it highly likely. You see beliefs are of this sort, 100% absolute certainty is not possible, we could be in a fucking matrix for all we know, but degrees of certainty are, in this scale faith is at the bottom, with no evidence and no certainty, it is irrational by definition.
I don't think YOU are sure of anything! Tell me this: What is your FUTURE going be like TOMORROW? CAN you tell us all, EXACTLY, what will happen, TOMORROW? If you can, then I'll listen a LITTLE bit longer. If not, YOU FAIL! Ole GC will have kicked your ICE in an INTELLECTUAL debate! You have NO evidence of what your FUTURE holds, ____________.
.
Again, you lose. I asked you for something i believe in that has no evidence, clearly the above has evidence. I seem pretty calm, you on the other hand are smashing the caps lock, font changes, color changes, triple post meltdowning along with talking to yourself within one text. This is evidence of somthing, perhaps a meltdown ensuing, i can't be 100% sure of course but the evidence sure points me in that direction. I not sure if you know who i was before the name change, or what i did, but lets just say you are terrible at it.
You ninny, that's called GOOD COMPUTING! Ya ever heard of doing "GOOD BUSINESS". SAME principle, dopey! And who CARES, who you were before a name change! OBVIOUSLY, IT DIDN'T HELP! YA STILL ATE UP!
I like loco and Stella, i agree with mcway when i think he makes a valid point, i don't buddy with atheists on this board and haider is religious and disagrees with me.
You ought too! They're trying to help you. I LOVE them, they are just a little in accurate at times. (Devil name being Lucifer).
go to www.failblog.org and submit your lifes work to the fail uploader because you are failing more then jesus christ trying to perform an iron cross.
Baaah humbug! That site is probably ran by the infamous DR. D. What on earth would he know? He can't figure out whether it's evolution, creation, or some SILLY, UNBELIEVABLE (for a man who claims to be smart)ALIENS, AS to mankind's existence. REFER YOURSELF THERE, remember, you two are like 2 peas in a pod.
Government_Controlled/Dea_AGENT
-
I don't think YOU are sure of anything! Tell me this: What is your FUTURE going be like TOMORROW? CAN you tell us all, EXACTLY, what will happen, TOMORROW? If you can, then I'll listen a LITTLE bit longer. If not, YOU FAIL! Ole GC will have kicked your ICE in an INTELLECTUAL debate! You have NO evidence of what your FUTURE holds, ____________.
.
you are blabbering now, i asked you for something i beleived in without evidence, you said my future, i provided evidence against that claim. Now you try to make the task impossible by asking me to tell you what will happen EXACTLY. For one, i didn't make that claim, for two i don't believe it possible to know exactly what will happen,did you even read my post? my refutation of this post is contained in the one before it, before you even made it, spooky huh?
however, based on my life and evidence i have gathered living daily life, i assume ill wake up (evidence for this), eat oatmeal, theres some in the cupboard, unless it disappears somehow ill eat that an the eggs in my fridge. Go to school at the scheduled time, why is there even schedules though, no one knows the future!!!!!!?/??????? lolcaust, lolcoaster ::).
why don't you take a break for a while, you are being owned into oblivion, i'm starting to feel bad for you seriously. i actually answer all of your questions, even the silly ones, you avoid mine like the plague (man found the etiology and cure for this, described the pathogenesis, without which millions more would have died, heaven must been getting empty). Just another tidbit of info for you to digest while you claim science hasn't improved the world.
-
you are blabbering now, i asked you for something i believed in without evidence, you said my future, i provided evidence against that claim. Now you try to make the task impossible by asking me to tell you what will happen EXACTLY. For one, i didn't make that claim, for two i don't believe it possible to know exactly what will happen,did you even read my post? my refutation of this post is contained in the one before it, before you even made it, spooky huh?
however, based on my life and evidence i have gathered living daily life, i assume ill wake up (evidence for this), eat oatmeal, theres some in the cupboard, unless it disappears somehow ill eat that an the eggs in my fridge. Go to school at the scheduled time, why is there even schedules though, no one knows the future!!!!!!?/??????? locust, lol coaster ::).
YOU wish! It's simple logic (101). YOU believe u have a future, yet can't show the evidence. Unless, you know exactly, what's in store. DUMB, DUMB. TALKING about FAIL, It's clear, on this matter.
why don't you take a break for a while, you are being owned into oblivion, i'm starting to feel bad for you seriously. i actually answer all of your questions, even the silly ones, you avoid mine like the plague (man found the etiology and cure for this, described the pathogenesis, without which millions more would have died, heaven must been getting empty). Just another tidbit of info for you to digest while you claim science hasn't improved the world.
BECAUSE, only people like YOU AND YOUR BUDDY (and you know who that is) TAKE BREAKS! You can't even answer two of the most basic questions known to mankind. And you are going to say I've been owned! Take a zanies (or whatever is you take). It might bring REALITY into perspective!
BTW, do you even workout? I bet you and your buddy (The doc), are two CLICKS away from looking like a DRIED-UP, UNDER FED, AIDS RIDDLED, BABOON on IT'S last leg.
Government_Controlled/Dea_agent
-
YOU wish! It's simple logic (101). YOU believe u have a future, yet can't show the evidence. Unless, you know exactly, what's in store. DUMB, DUMB. TALKING about FAIL, It's clear, on this matter.
BECAUSE, only people like YOU AND YOUR BUDDY (and you know who that is) TAKE BREAKS! You can't even answer two of the most basic questions known to mankind. And you are going to say I've been owned! Take a zanies (or whatever is you take). It might bring REALITY into perspective!
BTW, do you even workout? I bet you and your buddy (The doc), are two CLICKS away from looking like a DRIED-UP, UNDER FED, AIDS RIDDLED, BABOON on IT'S last leg.
Government_Controlled/Dea_agent
your first statement is retarded. So unless i know something exactly there is no evidence? i provided the evidence so what are you talking about? Also your argument makes no sense, if i jump off a building i dont know exactly if i will fall, i can't be 100% sure, however i have good evidence that i will fall, just like my future. Again complete rebuttal of your retarded argument yet again, how many times can you go through this? The evidence is above your post, a whole slew of it, and then i destroy your argument with a simple example of why you don't have to know something exactly, in fact the suggestion that you do is simply ridiculous.
its xanax, jesus, of the class benzodiazepine one of the most prescribed medications in the world. Another fail, i geuss drinking puts reality in perspective right?
who is my buddy, i honestly do not know what you are talking about. Tell you what since you are so confident i dont workout, you post a picture and ill do the same. Owned in everyway, im about 210-220 at 5 10 making more then your dad.
-
I figured with all the God "can do this", "Can't do that", "Controls peoples lives", etc, etc, why not ask "What can God NOT Do". Is there a list? I imagine this is an age old question, but I thought, I would get some of the "bright" ones take on it.
Government_Controlled/DEA_Agent
Exist.
End of thread.
-
Exist.
End of thread.
Facepalm! Why didn't I think of that?
Kudos to you sir, kudos.
The Luke
-
*sigh*. It's killing you guys, isn't it. The fact is, Ole GC has the answer, and he is just waiting for all the asinine comments to pile. Ha ha. I was hoping the WHOLE fleet would come on in and post their idiotic replies. have fun, not knowing the answer. "YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!"
AGAIN! What CAN'T God dooooooooooooo!
Government_Controlled/Dea_Agent
-
*sigh*. It's killing you guys, isn't it. The fact is, Ole GC has the answer, and he is just waiting for all the asinine comments to pile. Ha ha. I was hoping the WHOLE fleet would come on in and post their idiotic replies. have fun, not knowing the answer. "YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!"
AGAIN! What CAN'T God dooooooooooooo!
Government_Controlled/Dea_Agent
newsflash no one cares what you think, you have a lower iq then us, deal with it. You like the new study that was just published showing that liberals and atheists have higher iqs then repubs and christians? Let me geuss which one you fall into. Must be hard living in a fantasy world bombarded by facts that refute you.
-
THERE IS ONE THING GOD CAN'T DO:HE CAN'T KEEP ME FROM GETTING MY 44 MAGNUM OUT OF MY CLOSET,PUT THE BARREL IN MY MOUTH, SQUEEZE THE TRIGGER, AND SEND A BULLET UP THROUGH THE TOP OF MY SKULL !!!
-
THERE IS ONE THING GOD CAN'T DO:HE CAN'T KEEP ME FROM GETTING MY 44 MAGNUM OUT OF MY CLOSET,PUT THE BARREL IN MY MOUTH, SQUEEZE THE TRIGGER, AND SEND A BULLET UP THROUGH THE TOP OF MY SKULL !!!
Don't do that, yng466! I've got something you need to look at before making a decision like that. I almost did it too! PM me your email! Peace! There are people who care, I'm one of them!
GC
-
I figured with all the God "can do this", "Can't do that", "Controls peoples lives", etc, etc, why not ask "What can God NOT Do". Is there a list? I imagine this is an age old question, but I thought, I would get some of the "bright" ones take on it.
Government_Controlled/DEA_Agent
Can god make a stone that he himself cannot lift?
ziiiing! ;D
-
I don't understand how some of you cannot accept MCWAY's explanations as possible (at the very least...just possible!) but I think it has to do w/what Hustle Man was saying. That, and it seems like at times some purposely reject things w/o even considering them as possibilities.
The Luke, so much of what you post as biblical is not in the bible.
This is not a flame but a serious question: Do you want to learn anything or just argue your side? For instance you say God created a purely evil being in Satan. Can you please post the scripture to back up that when God created Satan he was purely evil please?
Also, Govt Controlled, I do not believe God can lie or sin because He is completely holy. Do I believe if He wanted to lie or sin that He could change things up and do so? Yes, but since I believe that He doesn't change and that it would go against His very nature, I believe that will never happen.
-
Can god make a stone that he himself cannot lift?
ziiiing! ;D
Toxy, do you not see that the question is illogical?
The argument is if God is or is not omnipotent. If He is omnipotent (as believers contend) then no stone He creates would be too heavy for him to lift. So the sentence makes no sense since it is impossible.
-
newsflash no one cares what you think, you have a lower iq then us, deal with it. You like the new study that was just published showing that liberals and atheists have higher iqs then repubs and christians? Let me geuss which one you fall into. Must be hard living in a fantasy world bombarded by facts that refute you.
Big deal. There are guys with high IQs, living in shacks and in their mothers' basement.
-
newsflash no one cares what you think, you have a lower iq then us, deal with it. You like the new study that was just published showing that liberals and atheists have higher iqs then repubs and christians? Let me geuss which one you fall into. Must be hard living in a fantasy world bombarded by facts that refute you.
Necrosis, why do you believe these study results?
-
Don't do that, yng466! I've got something you need to look at before making a decision like that. I almost did it too! PM me your email! Peace! There are people who care, I'm one of them!
GC
IF I WERE GOING TO COMMIT SUICIDE I'D LIGHT MYSELF ON FIRE AND JUMP OFF A SKYSCRAPER,AT NIGHT.THAT WAY PEOPLE COULD SEE ME FOR MILES AROUND. ;D ANYWAY YOU COULD HANDCUFF ME,PUT ME IN A STRAIGHT JACKET AND CHAIN ME TO THE WALL IN A PADDED CELL AND I COULD STILL BITE THE BIG BAZOOKA IF I WANTED TO.
-
Necrosis, why do you believe these study results?
the power of the study was strong, the controls good, subject numbers adequete along with proper measurements adn conclusions.
The evidence speaks for itself.
-
Don't do that, yng466! I've got something you need to look at before making a decision like that. I almost did it too! PM me your email! Peace! There are people who care, I'm one of them!
GC
LMAO.... talk about mental problems, suicide ideation and a plan is a symptom of major depressive disorder, sounds like your problems are worse then anything i have ever experienced, kettle meet pot
-
Toxy, do you not see that the question is illogical?
The argument is if God is or is not omnipotent. If He is omnipotent (as believers contend) then no stone He creates would be too heavy for him to lift. So the sentence makes no sense since it is impossible.
i think you better read that statment again and then clarify what is illogical in the scenario.
-
Of course it doesn't makes "total sense". That's YOUR statement, not mine.
Nonetheless it's apparent that's what's happening.
So, NOW comes your pitiful argument that God doesn't care, if He doesn't do things the way YOU THINK He should. That's like my 5-year-old claiming that I don't love her, if I don't give her a cookie.
Lol, comparing a "cookie" to a child? Isn't that why life is about? Having children and a family. Fail.
Plus, man didn't make science. Man didn't make the laws of physics, nor did he make the raw materials that comprise medicines or treatments today. Gravity was gravity, LOOOOOOOONG before Sir Isaac Newton assigned a name to it. Penicillin cured certain ailments, LOOOOOONG before man actually knwo that it did.
They're called SCIENTIFIC DISCOVERIES for a reason: It's man, finding out what God has known, from the ceaseless ages.
Plus, in case you missed, God has (since times of old) assigned people to carry out His will. When it was time to free Israel from Egypt, He designated Moses to lead the liberation of His people.
As for science (and since it's the last day of Black History Month), I refer you to Dr. Ben Carson, head of John Hopkins pediatric neurosurgery. He will tell you that the Lord led him to his calling in medicine.
So, the idea of God, assigning people on Earth to carry out His will is hardly a new or novel concept.
We obviously disagree here. Of course the only way we'll know who's right is when one of us dies.
-
Toxy, do you not see that the question is illogical?
The argument is if God is or is not omnipotent. If He is omnipotent (as believers contend) then no stone He creates would be too heavy for him to lift. So the sentence makes no sense since it is impossible.
OR...god is impossible...hense question logical!
-
the power of the study was strong,
Can you explain what you mean by this?
-
OR...god is impossible...hense question logical!
But if the subject is impossible how does that result in a logical question ???
-
havent read the whole thread only a couple of posts on the first page but I had a few thoughts.
First I feel lukes assertion is correct that if God is all good and all powerful than he would not have created a being with the capability of doing evil...
however what is your definition of good and evil? how do you know those definitions coincide with Gods?
These definitions differ from person to person, culture to culture and especially from time period to time period...
also without evil there would be no good it would just be the way it is, so perhaps the "evil" is just Gods way of showing the "good" which would be a good thing...
Luke I envision you as a small, scrawny guy possibly got picked on quite a bit and probably very introverted. There is no need to insult ppl before they insult you most ppl are nice and will treat you with respect if you do the same...
-
Can god make a stone that he himself cannot lift?
ziiiing! ;D
LOL this is indeed an illogical question...I forget the technical name for it but its like asking can God make a square circle... ::)
-
Luke I envision you as a small, scrawny guy possibly got picked on quite a bit and probably very introverted. There is no need to insult ppl before they insult you most ppl are nice and will treat you with respect if you do the same...
...so I shouldn't attack people before they attack me, or you'll chime in and attack me before I attack you in the guise of recommending that I don't attack people before they attack me?
More "Do-as-I-say, not-what-I-just-did" Christianity?
The Luke
-
...so I shouldn't attack people before they attack me, or you'll chime in and attack me before I attack you in the guise of recommending that I don't attack people before they attack me?
More "Do-as-I-say, not-what-I-just-did" Christianity?
The Luke
LOL just my take on your situation and some friendly advice...
I dont really care what you or anyone else for that matter thinks about me and my views on my religion b/c hey they are my views afterall...you for some reason feel the need to belittle ppl and project a sense of superiority towards ppl especially in the realm of religion, you should do some self actualizing and try to find out why that is...that was my point in my previous post... 8)
-
also without evil there would be no good it would just be the way it is, so perhaps the "evil" is just Gods way of showing the "good" which would be a good thing...
ewww.. terrible logic, tell that to the victims of aids, congenital defects in kids, the people in haiti im sure they see the good of it.
-
I dont really care what you or anyone else for that matter thinks about me and my views on my religion b/c hey they are my views afterall...you for some reason feel the need to belittle ppl and project a sense of superiority towards ppl especially in the realm of religion, you should do some self actualizing and try to find out why that is...that was my point in my previous post... 8)
...I like attacking the blatantly ridiculous bullshit that people believe without question. Only those who find themselves Hectored with no recourse to rational rebuttal infer a sense of smug superiority on my part.
Sorry to offend, but if someone ridicules the delusions morons indulge in... and you feel you've been categorised as a moron, well, maybe, rather than being offended you should reconsider your delusions. The fact that you took offence would seem to indicate you (at least subconsciously) concede how ridiculous your beliefs really are.
In Simpsons parlance: "He's making us think about stuff. Let's get'em!"
The Luke
-
ewww.. terrible logic, tell that to the victims of aids, congenital defects in kids, the people in haiti im sure they see the good of it.
LOL thats not bad logic and your points are simply opinion same as mine
-
...I like attacking the blatantly ridiculous bullshit that people believe without question. Only those who find themselves Hectored with no recourse to rational rebuttal infer a sense of smug superiority on my part.
Sorry to offend, but if someone ridicules the delusions morons indulge in... and you feel you've been categorised as a moron, well, maybe, rather than being offended you should reconsider your delusions. The fact that you took offence would seem to indicate you (at least subconsciously) concede how ridiculous your beliefs really are.
In Simpsons parlance: "He's making us think about stuff. Let's get'em!"
The Luke
hahahah :D my point proven...
please prove to us luke that God does not exist since you seem so convinced...
-
hahahah :D my point proven...
please prove to us luke that God does not exist since you seem so convinced...
You cannot prove a negative.
So I cannot prove god does NOT exist anymore than you could prove that I am NOT god.
But you can certainly get a good approximation of the likelihood of god existing.
Let's take the Christian god as an example, the probability that such a god exists would be the product of the number of different versions of this god; multiplied by the number of different gods; multiplied by the chance of any god existing at all.
Chance that you picked the right Jesus/Yahweh... 1 in 34,000... there are 34,000 different Christian sects.
Chance that Jesus/Yahweh is the one true god... 1 in 10,000... there have been approx 10,000 different gods.
Chance that any god exists at all... zero... based on availabe evidence.
So, even if there was a god, it's a 1 in 340,000,000 chance that you picked the right one to believe in anyway.
Basically, I believe in your god about as much as you believe in Odin, Horus, Tammuz, Wotan, Setanta, Heracles, Zeus, Poseiden, Attis, Dionysus, Mithras, Gilgamesh, Hades.... etc etc
You're an atheist with regard to 9,999 of the gods.
I'm an atheist with regard to just one more.
We have more in common than we disagree upon... it's just that you are unwilling to rationally assess that last god, the way you assess the 9,999 others.
The Luke
-
You cannot prove a negative.
So I cannot prove god does NOT exist anymore than you could prove that I am NOT god.
But you can certainly get a good approximation of the likelihood of god existing.
Let's take the Christian god as an example, the probability that such a god exists would be the product of the number of different versions of this god; multiplied by the number of different gods; multiplied by the chance of any god existing at all.
Chance that you picked the right Jesus/Yahweh... 1 in 34,000... there are 34,000 different Christian sects.
Chance that Jesus/Yahweh is the one true god... 1 in 10,000... there have been approx 10,000 different gods.
Chance that any god exists at all... zero... based on availabe evidence.
So, even if there was a god, it's a 1 in 340,000,000 chance that you picked the right one to believe in anyway.
Basically, I believe in your god about as much as you believe in Odin, Horus, Tammuz, Wotan, Setanta, Heracles, Zeus, Poseiden, Attis, Dionysus, Mithras, Gilgamesh, Hades.... etc etc
You're an atheist with regard to 9,999 of the gods.
I'm an atheist with regard to just one more.
We have more in common than we disagree upon... it's just that you are unwilling to rationally assess that last god, the way you assess the 9,999 others.
The Luke
Are you god? ??? :o
:)
-
You cannot prove a negative.
So I cannot prove god does NOT exist anymore than you could prove that I am NOT god.
But you can certainly get a good approximation of the likelihood of god existing.
Let's take the Christian god as an example, the probability that such a god exists would be the product of the number of different versions of this god; multiplied by the number of different gods; multiplied by the chance of any god existing at all.
Chance that you picked the right Jesus/Yahweh... 1 in 34,000... there are 34,000 different Christian sects.
Chance that Jesus/Yahweh is the one true god... 1 in 10,000... there have been approx 10,000 different gods.
Chance that any god exists at all... zero... based on availabe evidence.
So, even if there was a god, it's a 1 in 340,000,000 chance that you picked the right one to believe in anyway.
Basically, I believe in your god about as much as you believe in Odin, Horus, Tammuz, Wotan, Setanta, Heracles, Zeus, Poseiden, Attis, Dionysus, Mithras, Gilgamesh, Hades.... etc etc
You're an atheist with regard to 9,999 of the gods.
I'm an atheist with regard to just one more.
We have more in common than we disagree upon... it's just that you are unwilling to rationally assess that last god, the way you assess the 9,999 others.
The Luke
Still parroting this silliness, Luke?
Your logic (or that of whoever penned this drivel) is flawed for one simple reason: An atheist believes in ABSOLUTELY NO DEITIES.
Saying that someone's an atheist, becauase they don't believe in "9,999" gods is like saying someone's isn't a parent, because they don't have "9,999" kids.
How many children do you need be a parent? ONE!
Atheists believe there is NO god. Therefore, if you believe in JUST ONE, even to the exclusion of the other “9,999”, you are NOT an atheist.
-
Necrosis, why do you believe these study results?
The great thing about any scientific study is that we're all free to conduct the same study ourselves to verify the results. That's why people believe studies.
-
Atheists believe there is NO god. Therefore, if you believe in JUST ONE, even to the exclusion of the other “9,999”, you are NOT an atheist.
Wrong.
Atheism in its basic form is not a belief: it is the absence of belief. An atheist is not primarily a person who believes that god does not exist; rather, he does not believe in the existence of a god.
Virtually every theistic person on this planet has atheistic intent towards deities of another faith.
It's impossible to debate with individuals who deny reality and logic. Religious faith requires one to suspend their knowledge of reality for a belief in the supernatural. Perhaps http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_thinking (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_thinking) should be taught from an early age.
-
Atheists believe there is NO god. Therefore, if you believe in JUST ONE, even to the exclusion of the other “9,999”, you are NOT an atheist.
...you are confusing atheist with ANTItheist.
The Luke
-
Wrong.
Atheism in its basic form is not a belief: it is the absence of belief. An atheist is not primarily a person who believes that god does not exist; rather, he does not believe in the existence of a god.
You just said THE EXACT SAME THING. Regardless, your play on words doesn't diminish my point. As long as you believe in the existence of at least ONE deity, you are not an atheist.
If you believe that there's a god, your belief, obviously, is NOT absent.
Virtually every theistic person on this planet has atheistic intent towards deities of another faith.
That doesn't matter. By definition, you have to not believe in ALL of them to be an atheist.
It's impossible to debate with individuals who deny reality and logic. Religious faith requires one to suspend their knowledge of reality for a belief in the supernatural. Perhaps http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_thinking (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_thinking) should be taught from an early age.
Nobody denies reality or logic. Atheists only dig critical thinking, when such is used to take stabs at religion and people of faith.
It is the presumption that critical thinking will result in the rejection of faith, that drive atheists to make such claims.
There are atheists who've used such critical thinking to become Christians. And, there are Christians who use such and remain Christians.
[/quote]
-
You just said THE EXACT SAME THING. Regardless, your play on words doesn't diminish my point. As long as you believe in the existence of at least ONE deity, you are not an atheist.
Rubbish. You clearly don't understand the difference in meaning between the two statements.
If you believe that there's a god, your belief, obviously, is NOT absent.
That doesn't matter. By definition, you have to not believe in ALL of them to be an atheist.
If you do not believe that Thor exists you have atheistic intent towards Thor. Fairly simple to comprehend.
Nobody denies reality or logic. Atheists only dig critical thinking, when such is used to take stabs at religion and people of faith.
It is the presumption that critical thinking will result in the rejection of faith, that drive atheists to make such claims.
There are atheists who've used such critical thinking to become Christians. And, there are Christians who use such and remain Christians.
Critical thinking is how to judge for oneself what it true and what is not. Zero evidence for supernatural entities leads you to conclude what? That it is highly unlikely any such entities exist. Any other conclusion denies reality.
-
Rubbish. You clearly don't understand the difference in meaning between the two statements.
That's rubbish. Either you belief there is a God or you don't. If you do, you're not an atheist; if you don't, you are. It's as simple as that.
If you do not believe that Thor exists you have atheistic intent towards Thor. Fairly simple to comprehend.
That makes about as much sense as saying that I have non-parental intent, because of 100 children in a room, I don’t act parental toward the 99 that aren’t mine. Just as I need but one child to be a dad, I need belief in just one God to be a man of faith or NOT to be an atheist.
Critical thinking is how to judge for oneself what it true and what is not. Zero evidence for supernatural entities leads you to conclude what? That it is highly unlikely any such entities exist. Any other conclusion denies reality.
The "Zero evidence" stuff is laughable to say the least. One such man who thought as much is the late Dr. D. James Kennedy.
-
That's rubbish. Either you belief there is a God or you don't. If you do, you're not an atheist; if you don't, you are. It's as simple as that.
That makes about as much sense as saying that I have non-parental intent, because of 100 children in a room, I don’t act parental toward the 99 that aren’t mine. Just as I need but one child to be a dad, I need belief in just one God to be a man of faith or NOT to be an atheist.
The "Zero evidence" stuff is laughable to say the least. One such man who thought as much is the late Dr. D. James Kennedy.
Again, you don't understand statement written. You can't debate the subject if you don't understand the statement.
Secondly. If you believe there is evidence; published and peer reviewed, reproducible evidence supporting a claim for supernatural entities then the burden of proof is on you to support your claim. Every single claim by people attempting to prove a supernatural entity has been refuted and debunked or invalidated.
-
You cannot prove a negative.
So I cannot prove god does NOT exist anymore than you could prove that I am NOT god.
But you can certainly get a good approximation of the likelihood of god existing.
Let's take the Christian god as an example, the probability that such a god exists would be the product of the number of different versions of this god; multiplied by the number of different gods; multiplied by the chance of any god existing at all.
Chance that you picked the right Jesus/Yahweh... 1 in 34,000... there are 34,000 different Christian sects.
Chance that Jesus/Yahweh is the one true god... 1 in 10,000... there have been approx 10,000 different gods.
Chance that any god exists at all... zero... based on availabe evidence.
So, even if there was a god, it's a 1 in 340,000,000 chance that you picked the right one to believe in anyway.
Basically, I believe in your god about as much as you believe in Odin, Horus, Tammuz, Wotan, Setanta, Heracles, Zeus, Poseiden, Attis, Dionysus, Mithras, Gilgamesh, Hades.... etc etc
You're an atheist with regard to 9,999 of the gods.
I'm an atheist with regard to just one more.
We have more in common than we disagree upon... it's just that you are unwilling to rationally assess that last god, the way you assess the 9,999 others.
The Luke
I dont know for certain that my God is the one true God I believe it to be so just as you believe that no gods exist...
secondly there is evidence that God exists it may not be evidence to you but thats ok many ppl dont buy into your evidence of big foot but that does mean its not evidence to you...
how did you go from 1:10000 to 1:340000000...?
basically what you just said is that you cannot prove that God doesnt exist...so why do you spend so much time trying to convince others that he doesnt?
-
you cannot prove that God doesnt exist
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=323435.0
-
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=323435.0
its an hour and im on a lunch break...basically a theory from what i can tell from your post
again nobody can prove God doesnt exist...so why do you and others spend so much time trying to?
Ill respond later tonight when I get home
-
how did you go from 1:10000 to 1:340000000...?
Jesus (sigh) Christ, can't you read...?
I wrote:
"Chance that you picked the right Jesus/Yahweh... 1 in 34,000... there are 34,000 different Christian sects.
Chance that Jesus/Yahweh is the one true god... 1 in 10,000... there have been approx 10,000 different gods.
Chance that any god exists at all... zero... based on available evidence.
So, even if there was a god, it's a 1 in 340,000,000 chance that you picked the right one to believe in anyway."
You have to multiply the odds that you picked the right god, by the odds that you picked the right version of that God.
That's 1:10,000 by 1:34,000 (for the reasons given above) which equals: 1:340,000,000
The Luke
-
Jesus (sigh) Christ, can't you read...?
I wrote:
"Chance that you picked the right Jesus/Yahweh... 1 in 34,000... there are 34,000 different Christian sects.
Chance that Jesus/Yahweh is the one true god... 1 in 10,000... there have been approx 10,000 different gods.
Chance that any god exists at all... zero... based on available evidence.
So, even if there was a god, it's a 1 in 340,000,000 chance that you picked the right one to believe in anyway."
You have to multiply the odds that you picked the right god, by the odds that you picked the right version of that God.
That's 1:10,000 by 1:34,000 (for the reasons given above) which equals: 1:340,000,000
The Luke
hahhahah sorry I was reading and trying to eat at the same time...
please address my other points as far as the evidence goes and why you spend so much time trying to disprove somethign that you yourself know you cant disprove...
-
please address my other points as far as the evidence goes and why you spend so much time trying to disprove somethign that you yourself know you cant disprove...
I enjoy listening to the "faithful" trying to rationalise their delusions... it's like listening closed-mouthed to a child who's sure they heard Santa land on the roof last Christmas Eve... except these are adults, using logic and reason attempting to justify or defend a belief that doesn't stand up to the scrutiny of logic or reason. It's hilarious.
Imagine someone buying a box of lightbulbs and declaring them to be unbreakable bulbs... its pretty funny to take a bulb out of the box and drop it, watching it smash on the floor.
But if the buyer of the supposedly unbreakable bulbs still asserts that the bulbs are unbreakable, even if you've dropped and smashed all of them, because the one THEY hold isn't broken... well that's pretty hilarious.
When they refuse to drop their one-and-only truly unbreakabe bulb... well that's pretty hysterically funny and makes the effort of dropping a boxful of bulbs one-by-one totally worth it.
Why won't you drop your bulb, tonymctones? Isnt it the one true unbreakable bulb? What could it hurt?
The Luke
-
I enjoy listening to the "faithful" trying to rationalise their delusions... it's like listening closed-mouthed to a child who's sure they heard Santa land on the roof last Christmas Eve... except these are adults, using logic and reason attempting to justify or defend a belief that doesn't stand up to the scrutiny of logic or reason. It's hilarious.
Imagine someone buying a box of lightbulbs and declaring them to be unbreakable bulbs... its pretty funny to take a bulb out of the box and drop it, watching it smash on the floor.
But if the buyer of the supposedly unbreakable bulbs still asserts that the bulbs are unbreakable, even if you've dropped and smashed all of them, because the one THEY hold isn't broken... well that's pretty hilarious.
When they refuse to drop their one-and-only truly unbreakabe bulb... well that's pretty hysterically funny and makes the effort of dropping a boxful of bulbs one-by-one totally worth it.
Why won't you drop your bulb, tonymctones? Isnt it the one true unbreakable bulb? What could it hurt?
The Luke
LOL whats funny is you place all believers into the same category I am in no way a person who takes a literal view of the bible...but as youve already stated you cannot prove God doesnt exist so in part you cannot prove that your proverbial lightbulb will break...so why do you keep trying?
also LOL do you not see the irony in the words your typing coming from a person who believes and searches for bigfoot?
-
LOL whats funny is you place all believers into the same category I am in no way a person who takes a literal view of the bible...but as youve already stated you cannot prove God doesnt exist so in part you cannot prove that your proverbial lightbulb will break...so why do you keep trying?
...you're taking it pretty literally if you believe an angry thundercloud set up residence in a magical gold box telling people who to kill and rape, then reincarnated as a preachey pro-slavery capenter only to rise from the dead and turn back into a thundercloud!
Rather than ask why people like me (seemingly) keep attempting to prove a negative, mayb ask why you keep believing the impossible and uprovable with absolutely no evidence...? Hhmm, maybe...?
I don't believe because a god, any god, is incompatible with the laws of physics.
also LOL do you not see the irony in the words your typing coming from a person who believes and searches for bigfoot?
...yeah I do.
But there's already very good scientific evidence (conclusive, but not yet incontravertible) for the existence of such creatures, and there are people like me who put in the effort to get more evidence.
So, I've dropped my bulb.
The Luke
-
...you're taking it pretty literally if you believe an angry thundercloud set up residence in a magical gold box telling people who to kill and rape, then reincarnated as a preachey pro-slavery capenter only to rise from the dead and turn back into a thundercloud!
Rather than ask why people like me (seemingly) keep attempting to prove a negative, mayb ask why you keep believing the impossible and uprovable with absolutely no evidence...? Hhmm, maybe...?
I don't believe because a god, any god, is incompatible with the laws of physics.
...yeah I do.
But there's already very good scientific evidence (conclusive, but not yet incontravertible) for the existence of such creatures, and there are people like me who put in the effort to get more evidence.
So, I've dropped my bulb.
The Luke
LOL again point of perspective...again point of perspective on evidence as well...alot of things that were thought to be impossible 100, 50, 10, 1 year ago are possible today our understand of the laws of physics have changed tremendously over the last century...you think that in all your wisdom you know what is possible in death? LOL no youre not arrogant at all ::)
again evidence that is conclusive to you not everyone same as my evidence for God...Ive dropped my bulb as well luke and when I die I will know whether it has broken or not is your bulb still in mid air or has it landed?
-
...you're taking it pretty literally if you believe an angry thundercloud set up residence in a magical gold box telling people who to kill and rape, then reincarnated as a preachey pro-slavery capenter only to rise from the dead and turn back into a thundercloud!
Rather than ask why people like me (seemingly) keep attempting to prove a negative, mayb ask why you keep believing the impossible and uprovable with absolutely no evidence...? Hhmm, maybe...?
I don't believe because a god, any god, is incompatible with the laws of physics.
And who's responsible for those laws of physics? Man certainly didn't make them. He simply coined the phrase for them and learned about what has already existed.
God is incompatible with his own laws of physics? That makes a whole lot of sense.
-
And who's responsible for those laws of physics? Man certainly didn't make them. He simply coined the phrase for them and learned about what has already existed.
God is incompatible with his own laws of physics? That makes a whole lot of sense.
...don't you know the laws of physics were created by almighty Atheismo himself.
But don't ask Atheismo about it... he doesn't even believe he is the one true god. In fact Atheismo, all powerful creator of all that is seen and unseen, doesn't even believe he is A god, let alone THE god.
Which is what sets him apart from all the other delusional wanna-be gods, making him unique among gods... hence, logically, the one and only god who is so significantly different than all other gods must be the one true god. Simple, logical progression, proof.
All bow before Atheismo... but not when he's watching, it'll just piss him off.
The Luke
-
...don't you know the laws of physics were created by almighty Atheismo himself.
But don't ask Atheismo about it... he doesn't even believe he is the one true god. In fact Atheismo, all powerful creator of all that is seen and unseen, doesn't even believe he is A god, let alone THE god.
Which is what sets him apart from all the other delusional wanna-be gods, making him unique among gods... hence, logically, the one and only god who is so significantly different than all other gods must be the one true god. Simple, logical progression, proof.
All bow before Atheismo... but not when he's watching, it'll just piss him off.
The Luke
try answering the questions instead of side stepping ;)
-
try answering the questions instead of side stepping ;)
The question is answered just as well by asserting Atheismo created the laws of physics as it is by asserting some other wanna-be god created them.
Do you want me to explain that the laws of physics do not require a creator...?
The Luke
-
The question is answered just as well by asserting Atheismo created the laws of physics as it is by asserting some other wanna-be god created them.
Do you want me to explain that the laws of physics do not require a creator...?
The Luke
rather you admit that you dont know exactly where the laws of physics will lead as they didnt know 1 yr, 10yrs, 50yrs and 100yrs ago...
-
rather you admit that you dont know exactly where the laws of physics will lead as they didnt know 1 yr, 10yrs, 50yrs and 100yrs ago...
I'll happily admit that... atheism is having the courage to admit you don't know.
Could you admit that asserting the existence of some explanatory god or creator everytime you don't know or don't understand is just as ridiculous as blaming everything on Atheismo...?
Your god used to bring the rain; and summer; and winter and cause earthqakes and lightning... now he just hides in unanswerable metaphysical quanderies that may have no basis in reality.
Seems he's getting lazier... the more we understand, the less he actualy does.
The Luke
-
I'll happily admit that... atheism is having the courage to admit you don't know.
Could you admit that asserting the existence of some explanatory god or creator everytime you don't know or don't understand is just as ridiculous as blaming everything on Atheismo...?
Your god used to bring the rain; and summer; and winter and cause earthqakes and lightning... now he just hides in unanswerable metaphysical quanderies that may have no basis in reality.
Seems he's getting lazier... the more we understand, the less he actualy does.
The Luke
so is believing in God, if it was a certainty it would be "knowing" ;) like you already said we have more in common than not ;)
Again its funny how you categorize all believers into one mold, Ive already admitted I dont know and cant prove same as you dont know and cant prove. So at the end of the day we are where we started no better no worse but tomorrow you will again get up and try to prove something that is as you already know impossible to prove...seems alot like masturbation without the payoff ;)
-
Again its funny how you categorize all believers into one mold, Ive already admitted I dont know and cant prove same as you dont know and cant prove. So at the end of the day we are where we started no better no worse but tomorrow you will again get up and try to prove something that is as you already know impossible to prove...seems alot like masturbation without the payoff ;)
...as opposed to believing a lie designed to rob an control people?
The Luke
-
I'll happily admit that... atheism is having the courage to admit you don't know.
Could you admit that asserting the existence of some explanatory god or creator everytime you don't know or don't understand is just as ridiculous as blaming everything on Atheismo...?
Your god used to bring the rain; and summer; and winter and cause earthqakes and lightning... now he just hides in unanswerable metaphysical quanderies that may have no basis in reality.
Seems he's getting lazier... the more we understand, the less he actualy does.
The Luke
Atheists don't claim that they don't know (those are called agnostics). They state with certainty that there is no God. So, that weak argument doesn't fly.
Make up your mind here! Either you believe there is a God; you're not sure there is a God; or you know with certainty that there is no God.
-
.
-
Atheists don't claim that they don't know (those are called agnostics). They state with certainty that there is no God. So, that weak argument doesn't fly.
Make up your mind here! Either you believe there is a God; you're not sure there is a God; or you know with certainty that there is no God.
That is termed Agnostic Atheism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_atheism
There are many types of Atheism and Agnosticism.
-
That is termed Agnostic Atheism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_atheism
There are many types of Atheism and Agnosticism.
So, now the atheist crew has a floating definition, to go with its floating moral compass. You can be an atheist, if you claim you don't know. Or you can be an atheist, even if you ACTUALLY BELIEVE IN A SUPERNATURAL DEITY.
How nice!!!
-
So, now the atheist crew has a floating definition, to go with its floating moral compass. You can be an atheist, if you claim you don't know. Or you can be an atheist, even if you ACTUALLY BELIEVE IN A SUPERNATURAL DEITY.
How nice!!!
If you've been debating this the entire time without knowing this, you have no position to be debating anything regarding this matter.
These aren't recent developments or 'revelations'. Everything isn't simply 'black and white'.
-
...as opposed to believing a lie designed to rob an control people?
The Luke
prove it to be a lie...
-
prove it to be a lie...
prove it's not...
-
Well, being I'm leaving now, I guess it will be appropriate to give the answer! "What can't God do?"
God CAN'T DIE!. You see, even if God Himself, wanted to die, He couldn't. The Scriptures indicate this to be one of His qualities. So, whether He is omni this, or omni that, doesn't make a bit of difference in the world. God can't die! This is one of the reasons Christians have the HOPE we do. We know, nothing can destroy our God! He is eternal!. Not a bad prospect to put your future/hope in. So long and may you find the truth! Peace!
Government_Controlled/Dea_Agent
-
prove it's not...
Ive already admitted I dont know and cant prove same as you dont know and cant prove. So at the end of the day we are where we started no better no worse but tomorrow you will again get up and try to prove something that is as you already know impossible to prove...seems alot like masturbation without the payoff ;)
I already admit that I cant prove it same as luke has but luke still states that its a lie not that he doesnt believe it but that its a flat out lie...so prove it...same to you dawg if you feel that its a lie, prove it...
-
I already admit that I cant prove it same as luke has but luke still states that its a lie not that he doesnt believe it but that its a flat out lie...so prove it...same to you dawg if you feel that its a lie, prove it...
I could care less if it's a lie or not...to each his own I say...you live your life I'll live mine...But....there are people on this forum that state there religious beliefs/opinions as if they are fact which is no different than what you are accusing Luke of doing....
-
I could care less if it's a lie or not...to each his own I say...you live your life I'll live mine...But....there are people on this forum that state there religious beliefs/opinions as if they are fact which is no different than what you are accusing Luke of doing....
agreed but they dont go to an atheist forum and post...luke comes to a religion forum and posts... ;) theres a difference LMFAO if you dont see that
-
Well, being I'm leaving now, I guess it will be appropriate to give the answer! "What can't God do?"
God CAN'T DIE!. You see, even if God Himself, wanted to die, He couldn't. The Scriptures indicate this to be one of His qualities. So, whether He is omni this, or omni that, doesn't make a bit of difference in the world. God can't die! This is one of the reasons Christians have the HOPE we do. We know, nothing can destroy our God! He is eternal!. Not a bad prospect to put your future/hope in. So long and may you find the truth! Peace!
Government_Controlled/Dea_Agent
Since he only exists in the imaginations of the closed minded of course he will never die.
-
agreed but they dont go to an atheist forum and post...luke comes to a religion forum and posts... ;) theres a difference LMFAO if you dont see that
how do you know wether they go to atheist forums or not...And whats wrong with Luke posting in said forum?...All he's doing is stating what he believes just as everyone else is...Man how boring would it be if the only people that posted in forums were people that all agreed and believed the same things....
-
how do you know wether they go to atheist forums or not...And whats wrong with Luke posting in said forum?...All he's doing is stating what he believes just as everyone else is...Man how boring would it be if the only people that posted in forums were people that all agreed and believed the same things....
maybe they do maybe they dont thats not the point i was trying to make...
point is luke says its a fact that God doesnt exist not that he believes he doesnt. If its a fact as he believes it to be than Im simply asking him to prove it... ;) 8)
you said that many religious ppl do the same thing...well luke criticizes them for doing that but then turns around and does the exact same thing ::)
-
If you've been debating this the entire time without knowing this, you have no position to be debating anything regarding this matter.
These aren't recent developments or 'revelations'. Everything isn't simply 'black and white'.
But, this issue IS such. You either believe or you don't.
-
But, this issue IS such. You either believe or you don't.
...I'd hazard a guess McWay that you only believe in one of the several thousand gods on offer.
So really all you need do to understand the atheist viewpoint is simply apply the criteria by which you dismiss the thousands of other gods, to your own.
The Luke
-
...I'd hazard a guess McWay that you only believe in one of the several thousand gods on offer.
So really all you need do to understand the atheist viewpoint is simply apply the criteria by which you dismiss the thousands of other gods, to your own.
The Luke
exactly...I believe in one less god than they do that is all...The reason they dismiss all the other gods is the same reason I dismiss theres....
-
...I'd hazard a guess McWay that you only believe in one of the several thousand gods on offer.
So really all you need do to understand the atheist viewpoint is simply apply the criteria by which you dismiss the thousands of other gods, to your own.
The Luke
If the criteria I use supports my belief in that ONE deity, but not the others, your silly little blurb (and that of L Dawg) goes UP IN FLAMES.
And since belief in ONE deity is all it takes to disqualify me from being an atheist, your musings remain in the realm of the inaccurate.
Add to that, the atheist simply dismisses the gods, purported to be supernatural, and replaces them with a natural being of worship: HIMSELF!!
-
If the criteria I use supports my belief in that ONE deity, but not the others.
I'm interested in what criteria you use to justify your belief in one deity over another, and how you validate these beliefs to come to your conclusions. ;D
Add to that, the atheist simply dismisses the gods, purported to be supernatural, and replaces them with a natural being of worship: HIMSELF!!
Supernatural is that which is unexplainable by natural law. Nothing is being purported with regards to gods being supernatural. Claiming that gods are not supernatural implies there is evidence of their existence.
Claiming man worships himself is an ad hominem argument. Stating that due to lack of evidence to support the existence of supernatural gods, thereby dismissing the notion, one must then worship themselves by default is asinine.
And since belief in ONE deity is all it takes to disqualify me from being an atheist, your musings remain in the realm of the inaccurate.
Atheism simply is a synonym for disbelief. If you disbelieve something, you are an atheist with regards to it. All this statement did was divert the focus of the argument from it's original intent. The intent being, why believe in one deity over another?
http://www.google.com/search?q=disbelief+synonym&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&client=firefox-a
-
I'm interested in what criteria you use to justify your belief in one deity over another, and how you validate these beliefs to come to your conclusions. ;D
Supernatural is that which is unexplainable by natural law. Nothing is being purported with regards to gods being supernatural. Claiming that gods are not supernatural implies there is evidence of their existence.
Claiming man worships himself is an ad hominem argument. Stating that due to lack of evidence to support the existence of supernatural gods, thereby dismissing the notion, one must then worship themselves by default is asinine.
Atheism simply is a synonym for disbelief. If you disbelieve something, you are an atheist with regards to it. All this statement did was divert the focus of the argument from it's original intent. The intent being, why believe in one deity over another?
http://www.google.com/search?q=disbelief+synonym&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&client=firefox-a
Once again, you're doing the whole bait-and-switch routine, with regards to the definition of atheism. But, it doesn't fly.
Atheists believes that there is NO God. Let me repeat that....NO God. Therefore, believing in just ONE deity disqualifies you from being an atheist, point blank.
The original argument (per the title of this thread) has nothing to do with believing one deity vs. another. In fact, the original intent is focused on the ability of ONE PARTICULAR DEITY.
With that said, it doesn't really matter why you believe in ONE deity vs. the others. As long as you believe in at least ONE, you are NOT an atheist, period.
Your claim that believe in ONE deity makes someone an atheist (as it relates to other deities) is as ridiculous as claiming that a parent with just one child is "childless" or "barren" (i.e. Sarah from the OT).
[/quote]
-
Your claim that believe in ONE deity makes someone an atheist (as it relates to other deities) is as ridiculous as claiming that a parent with just one child is "childless" or "barren" (i.e. Sarah from the OT).
Okay, okay... you don't understand the meaning of the word: "socialised"; and the word: "communism"; and you don't have a firm grasp of the subtle differences between the words "atheist"; "deist"; "antitheist" and "adiest".
But, just for the sake of argument, let's humour your delusions and stipulate that you are right.
So what?
You're still justifying the idea that dismissing 10,000 fairytales is irrational... but dismissing 9,999 different gods while simultaneously accepting one particular fairytale as incontrovertibly true.
Can you at least concede that you are a "non-believer" with regard to thousands and thousands of different gods, while an atheist is simply a "non-believer" with regard to thousands and thousands of gods, plus one....?
Can you concede that yours is a patently subjective stance...?
Can you concede that such selective subjectivity is intrinsically irrational...?
Again, the question is pretty simple... Why Jesus? Why not Wotan?
The Luke
-
Okay, okay... you don't understand the meaning of the word: "socialised"; and the word: "communism"; and you don't have a firm grasp of the subtle differences between the words "atheist"; "deist"; "antitheist" and "adiest".
I see you're under the comical delusion that bringing other issues from other threads is going to save you from making yourself look silly again.
But, just for the sake of argument, let's humour your delusions and stipulate that you are right.
So what?
You're still justifying the idea that dismissing 10,000 fairytales is irrational... but dismissing 9,999 different gods while simultaneously accepting one particular fairytale as incontrovertibly true.
First, I never claimed that "dismissing 10,000 fairytales is irrational". What I've said, O myopic one, is that when it comes to being an atheist vs. NOT being an atheist, it's simply an all-or-nothing deal.
ONE MORE TIME!!! Either you believe there is a supreme deity OR YOU DON'T. Claiming that someone's an atheist, because he believes in ONE deity (even at the exclusion of others) is again just as dumb as saying that a woman is childless or barren, simply because she has but ONE child.
If the issue is being an atheist vs. not being one, your pitiful complaint holds NO WATER.
Can you at least concede that you are a "non-believer" with regard to thousands and thousands of different gods, while an atheist is simply a "non-believer" with regard to thousands and thousands of gods, plus one....?
Did you get your Phonics session today? The issue isn't how deities in which I don't believe. What matters is how many in which I DO BELIEVE.
Again, go back to the simple analogy (the best type, when it comes to destroying your claims) of being a parent. It doesn't matter how kids I DON'T HAVE but how many I DO HAVE. To be a dad, how many kids do I need? ONE!!
To be a believer in a deity, how many supernatural entities must I acknowledge to exist or give some sort of reverence?
Answer: ONE
That's ONE, not two, ten, or ten thousand......just ONE!!
Can you concede that yours is a patently subjective stance...?
Can you concede that such selective subjectivity is intrinsically irrational...?
Again, the question is pretty simple... Why Jesus? Why not Wotan?
The Luke
None of that matters, in your weak attempt to paint Christians as atheists. If you believe in one deity, you are a man of faith; hence you are NOT an atheist, bottom line.
-
I see you're under the comical delusion that bringing other issues from other threads is going to save you from making yourself look silly again.
First, I never claimed that "dismissing 10,000 fairytales is irrational". What I've said, O myopic one, is that when it comes to being an atheist vs. NOT being an atheist, it's simply an all-or-nothing deal.
ONE MORE TIME!!! Either you believe there is a supreme deity OR YOU DON'T. Claiming that someone's an atheist, because he believes in ONE deity (even at the exclusion of others) is again just as dumb as saying that a woman is childless or barren, simply because she has but ONE child.
If the issue is being an atheist vs. not being one, your pitiful complaint holds NO WATER.
Did you get your Phonics session today? The issue isn't how deities in which I don't believe. What matters is how many in which I DO BELIEVE.
Again, go back to the simple analogy (the best type, when it comes to destroying your claims) of being a parent. It doesn't matter how kids I DON'T HAVE but how many I DO HAVE. To be a dad, how many kids do I need? ONE!!
To be a believer in a deity, how many supernatural entities must I acknowledge to exist or give some sort of reverence?
Answer: ONE
That's ONE, not two, ten, or ten thousand......just ONE!!
None of that matters, in your weak attempt to paint Christians as atheists. If you believe in one deity, you are a man of faith; hence you are NOT an atheist, bottom line.
...so, why do you dismiss the thousands of other gods, again? Epic evasion.
You, McWay, are simply afraid to explain why you dismiss all these other gods and goddesses; deities and demigods because ANY argument you make would equally disqualify your own personal favorite god.
It's just that simple... you'll argue any other point, nitpick any trivial piece of minutiae, but in the end, you ARE "the best caller of the day".
The Luke
-
Okay, okay... you don't understand the meaning of the word: "socialised"; and the word: "communism"; and you don't have a firm grasp of the subtle differences between the words "atheist"; "deist"; "antitheist" and "adiest".
But, just for the sake of argument, let's humour your delusions and stipulate that you are right.
So what?
You're still justifying the idea that dismissing 10,000 fairytales is irrational... but dismissing 9,999 different gods while simultaneously accepting one particular fairytale as incontrovertibly true.
Can you at least concede that you are a "non-believer" with regard to thousands and thousands of different gods, while an atheist is simply a "non-believer" with regard to thousands and thousands of gods, plus one....?
Can you concede that yours is a patently subjective stance...?
Can you concede that such selective subjectivity is intrinsically irrational...?
Again, the question is pretty simple... Why Jesus? Why not Wotan?
The Luke
MCWAY won't answer your question The Luke as he seems to not be able to understand that there is a question being posed. Or perhaps he feigns this misunderstanding and lack of comprehension due to the fact he knows any answer he gives will support the opposing side of the argument, as any means of invalidating another religion or deity can then be used to invalidate his own.
He seems stuck on the fact that Christians are not one form of Atheists, which still doesn't answer the question being posed and is merely a digression of the topic at hand. Digression itself seems to be the topic of this thread. lol
Again, why one deity over another MCWAY? It's a simple question.
-
...so, why do you dismiss the thousands of other gods, again? Epic evasion.
You, McWay, are simply afraid to explain why you dismiss all these other gods and goddesses; deities and demigods because ANY argument you make would equally disqualify your own personal favorite god.
It's just that simple... you'll argue any other point, nitpick any trivial piece of minutiae, but in the end, you ARE "the best caller of the day".
The Luke
I agree 100%. Funny, you posted this as I was typing my last response and they pretty much say the same thing.
-
...so, why do you dismiss the thousands of other gods, again? Epic evasion.
More like lack of reading comprehension on your part. In case you missed it, at the very least, I can cite these other deities as little more than demons, or fallen angels under Satan's rule. After all, The NT has Jesus casting out such demons (which would be other supernatural entities). What are the odds that these entities could easily act in the role of OT-mentioned gods like Baal, Molech, or Dagon?
Such is hardly a dismissal.
You, McWay, are simply afraid to explain why you dismiss all these other gods and goddesses; deities and demigods because ANY argument you make would equally disqualify your own personal favorite god.
Wrong again!! And the reasons for that have been discussed ad nauseum, including (but not limited to) the historical data, verifying the existence and ministry of Jesus Christ, as well as those of Old Testament prophecies and events.
Virtually NONE of that holds for these other "deities".
It's just that simple... you'll argue any other point, nitpick any trivial piece of minutiae, but in the end, you ARE "the best caller of the day".
The Luke
The point I argued is that your claim of a Christian being an atheist, because of dismissing other deities is just plain DUMB. An atheist believes that there is NO deity, no GOD. A Christian does not fit that category, as he believes in ONE God. That disqualifies him from being an atheist, just as my oft-used analogy of a mother who bears just ONE child, disqualifies her from being childless or barren.
As for these clowns on this video, chalk that up as more slapstick. Is this the best you can do? Even Deicide came up with better stuff than this.
-
MCWAY won't answer your question The Luke as he seems to not be able to understand that there is a question being posed. Or perhaps he feigns this misunderstanding and lack of comprehension due to the fact he knows any answer he gives will support the opposing side of the argument, as any means of invalidating another religion or deity can then be used to invalidate his own.
Not really!!! Give me a prophecy of Dagon that has come to pass!!! Heard any Molech prophecies, as of late?
At last check, the Lord gave the prophet Jeremiah a prophecy as to when Nebuchadnezzar's empire would come to an end. I don't recall the Babylonian gods being able to stop that from being fulfilled.
And Zeus certainly didn't keep Alexandar the Great, from dying a premature death and having his empire SPLIT into four parts (which Daniel predicted would happen over TWO CENTURIES prior).
But, that's just the short list.
He seems stuck on the fact that Christians are not one form of Atheists, which still doesn't answer the question being posed and is merely a digression of the topic at hand. Digression itself seems to be the topic of this thread. lol
Again, why one deity over another MCWAY? It's a simple question.
To which, simple answers have been given, more than once and on more than one thread.
And, in case you missed it, the topic of this thread is actually "Is there anything that God Can't Do?". That title, in an of itself, indicates that people believe in God, which would obviously take them OUT of the atheist category.
I don't know why you can't grasp that simple concept. But, that's your proverbial cross to bear. Why I or anyone else believes that there's a God makes no difference in this matter. Whether you think my reasons (stated or unstated) are "logical" or "rational" makes no difference either, in this regard.
Either you believe there's a God or you don't. I believe there is God. Therefore, try as I might, I just can't be an atheist.
-
exactly...I believe in one less god than they do that is all...The reason they dismiss all the other gods is the same reason I dismiss theres....
Oh really!!
So you dismiss God, because of historical evidence that Dagon's prophecies (or those of Zeus or Baal) have come to pass?
Or, because despite mass persecution of its followers, the Molechian faith is alive and well, with milllions worldwide being baptized and worshipping Molech, by passing their sons and daughters through the fire?
Or, because of all the wonderful humanitarian efforts and innovations, inspired by those called by Ashoreth to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, and comfort the afflicted?
Is THAT WHY you dismiss God?
EXACTLY!!!! ::)
-
In case you missed it, at the very least, I can cite these other deities as little more than demons, or fallen angels under Satan's rule. After all, The NT has Jesus casting out such demons (which would be other supernatural entities). What are the odds that these entities could easily act in the role of OT-mentioned gods like Baal, Molech, or Dagon?
...and Yahweh couldn't be one of these fallen angels because...?
You can't claim that his precogniscence of future events qualifies him as authentic, not when the Delphic Oracle; Tezcaplipoca, the Incan deities; the Spartan Ephors; even Setanta here in Ireland ALL made prophetic predictions which came true as a matter of historical record.
Just look at the evidence: YOU believe the entire ancient pantheon of gods to be fallen angels or evil jinn masquerading as gods... while at the same time YOU believe an angry thundercloud who orders RAPE; MURDER; SLAVERY and GENOCIDE to be the one true god.
If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck...
Obviously, whatever criteria you are using to dismiss Dagon; Baal and company as fallen angels would equally expose Yahweh as the same.
Come on... "By their deeds shall ye know them"; so surely a raping enslaving mass murderer qualifies as a false god too?
Oh, and just for the record, the assertion that the other biblical gods can be explained as fallen angels attempting to pervert the destiny of mankind originates with Milton's "Paradise Lost" and is not a Christian teaching... Yahweh himself recognises the authenticity of other gods in the Old Testament, he does not claim to be the one true god... just to be the one true god of the Israelites.
Oh, and also just for the record, Jesus predicted that some of his contemporaries would live to see the coming of the kingdom of heaven on earth... guess he got that one wrong, unless you subscribe to the Early Christian dogma which details how some of the disciples became immortal and wander the land even to this day?
Besides, if you believe in fallen angels; jinn and other supernatural entities... you are a polytheist.
The Luke
-
...and Yahweh couldn't be one of these fallen angels because...?
Fallen angels are the one who defied God. It’s awfully hard for God to be one of those.
You can't claim that his precogniscence of future events qualifies him as authentic, not when the Delphic Oracle; Tezcaplipoca, the Incan deities; the Spartan Ephors; even Setanta here in Ireland ALL made prophetic predictions which came true as a matter of historical record.
And, this historical record would be.......
Yet, for some odd reason, the followers of these deities benefitted little from these prophecies. As a matter of fact, where are the followers of those deities?
Just look at the evidence: YOU believe the entire ancient pantheon of gods to be fallen angels or evil jinn masquerading as gods... while at the same time YOU believe an angry thundercloud who orders RAPE; MURDER; SLAVERY and GENOCIDE to be the one true god.
If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck...
Why are you complaining about that (notwithstanding that half of what you claim is bogus)? Remember, per atheist rules, morality is FLUID. Therefore, all it takes is justification and rationale for such actions.
Obviously, whatever criteria you are using to dismiss Dagon; Baal and company as fallen angels would equally expose Yahweh as the same.
Wrong again!! See above!!
Come on... "By their deeds shall ye know them"; so surely a raping enslaving mass murderer qualifies as a false god too?
Once again, by whose rules are you playing? You don’t make the declaration that morality is fluid then whine when someone exercises such alleged fluid morality, even at someone else’s expense.
Oh, and just for the record, the assertion that the other biblical gods can be explained as fallen angels attempting to pervert the destiny of mankind originates with Milton's "Paradise Lost" and is not a Christian teaching... Yahweh himself recognises the authenticity of other gods in the Old Testament, he does not claim to be the one true god... just to be the one true god of the Israelites.
Oh, and also just for the record, Jesus predicted that some of his contemporaries would live to see the coming of the kingdom of heaven on earth... guess he got that one wrong, unless you subscribe to the Early Christian dogma which details how some of the disciples became immortal and wander the land even to this day?
He said nothing of the sort.
Besides, if you believe in fallen angels; jinn and other supernatural entities... you are a polytheist.
The Luke
Wrong again!!! Acknowledging their existence and worshipping such are two separate items altogether. I acknowledge that Christ cast out demons. Yet, I have no shrines and pay no homage to "Legion" or Beelzebub.
NEXT!!!!
-
Oh really!!
So you dismiss God, because of historical evidence that Dagon's prophecies (or those of Zeus or Baal) have come to pass?
Or, because despite mass persecution of its followers, the Molechian faith is alive and well, with milllions worldwide being baptized and worshipping Molech, by passing their sons and daughters through the fire?
Or, because of all the wonderful humanitarian efforts and innovations, inspired by those called by Ashoreth to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, and comfort the afflicted?
Is THAT WHY you dismiss God?
EXACTLY!!!! ::)
I'll tell you what else I dismiss...you as a Christian...The way you address people is anything but how a Christian would respond...Your post's are often litered with elementary name calling and the discontempt you show boarders on outright hate for anyone that believes different than you do...
I know a few honest to goodness Christians that not only talk the talk but walk the walk.And they would never address people in the manner in which you do...they still enter in debate on the different subjects of religion but manage to leave out the discontempt,name calling and sarcastic tone that your post's are full of...They respond with "I will be praying for you"Something that if you have posted I have never seen & is few and far bettween.Your arrogance and holier than thou attitude along with constantly talking down to people is a liability to your faith and serenity...Your demeanor does your Religion a disservice...
I'm sure your ego & pride will serve to deflect and dismiss this post...As I am sure you will respond with a witty post that lets me no what a buffoon you think I am...It's OK...This is merely a defense mechanism to protect your ideals and beliefs...If I was a religious person I would pray for you...
-
Fallen angels are the one who defied God. It’s awfully hard for God to be one of those.
...why? We only have Yahweh's word for it. I'm sure Dagon told his followers he was the one true god too.
Yet, for some odd reason, the followers of these deities benefitted little from these prophecies. As a matter of fact, where are the followers of those deities?
...but having 700 million followers is a triumph? There are 6.6 billion people on this planet, Yahweh's only infected 11%. So Atheismo is catching him up pretty quickly (100 million followers in Europe alone, and growing even faster than Christianity is withering away).
Why are you complaining about that (notwithstanding that half of what you claim is bogus)? Remember, per atheist rules, morality is FLUID. Therefore, all it takes is justification and rationale for such actions.
...are you arguing that rape; incest; slavery; murder and genocide were actually MORAL when Yahweh indulged in them? That's pretty fucked up.
Once again, by whose rules are you playing? You don’t make the declaration that morality is fluid then whine when someone exercises such alleged fluid morality, even at someone else’s expense.
...how can you maintain that Baal is merely a fallen angel because he ordered infanticide, when Yahweh ordered the very same crimes?
He said nothing of the sort.
...better check your scripture, there are reams of Christian Apologist theorising on this very subject: Jesus' failed prophecy.
Wrong again!!! Acknowledging their existence and worshipping such are two separate items altogether. I acknowledge that Christ cast out demons. Yet, I have no shrines and pay no homage to "Legion" or Beelzebub.
...how can you be sure Yahweh isn't one of these evil fallen angels? He ordered rape; incest; slavery; murder and genocide? Even Jesus (morally far superior to his Dad) didn't speak out against the forcibly arranged marriages or chattel slavery ubiquitous in his time.
What makes your amoral mass-murdering sociopathic thundercloud so superior to these other ghouls? He sounds like a real fucking asshole to me...
The Luke
-
Well, being I'm leaving now, I guess it will be appropriate to give the answer! "What can't God do?"
God CAN'T DIE!. You see, even if God Himself, wanted to die, He couldn't. The Scriptures indicate this to be one of His qualities. So, whether He is omni this, or omni that, doesn't make a bit of difference in the world. God can't die! This is one of the reasons Christians have the HOPE we do. We know, nothing can destroy our God! He is eternal!. Not a bad prospect to put your future/hope in. So long and may you find the truth! Peace!
Government_Controlled/Dea_Agent
So according to this statement, jesus then never sacraficed himself because he knew he couldn't die. Which makes the resurrection BS because resurrection has to have a dead being.
-
I'll tell you what else I dismiss...you as a Christian...The way you address people is anything but how a Christian would respond...Your post's are often litered with elementary name calling and the discontempt you show boarders on outright hate for anyone that believes different than you do...
I know a few honest to goodness Christians that not only talk the talk but walk the walk.And they would never address people in the manner in which you do...they still enter in debate on the different subjects of religion but manage to leave out the discontempt,name calling and sarcastic tone that your post's are full of...They respond with "I will be praying for you"Something that if you have posted I have never seen & is few and far bettween.Your arrogance and holier than thou attitude along with constantly talking down to people is a liability to your faith and serenity...Your demeanor does your Religion a disservice...
Dead wrong and painfully silly as usual, L Dawg.
I don't have comtempt for people who believe differently from me. In fact, I've had very cordial discussions with people whose believe are quite different.
What I don't do, however, is stand for people like you, taking potshots at people of faith and their beliefs, only to whimper and cry, when their feeble takes get torn apart.
I'm sure your ego & pride will serve to deflect and dismiss this post...As I am sure you will respond with a witty post that lets me no what a buffoon you think I am...It's OK...This is merely a defense mechanism to protect your ideals and beliefs...If I was a religious person I would pray for you...
A defense mechanism would imply that your substance-lacking one-liners (or that of Luke or anyone else) is actually a threat to my beliefs, which is hardly the case.
And, speaking of deflections, you make the silly claim that you dismiss God for the EXACT same reasons that I allegedly dismiss other gods. Yet, when pressed with the actual questions, guess what you did.......DEFLECT!!
So which is it? DO you dismiss God, for the same reasons you claim that I (or any other Christian) dismiss other gods, or NOT?
Of course, it would help if you actually listed some actual reasons for YOUR dismissal (some original ones, at least), instead of parroting someone else's lines, which is something you're notorious for doing.
-
...why? We only have Yahweh's word for it. I'm sure Dagon told his followers he was the one true god too.
So, where is Dagon, or his followers to speak on his behalf? Plus, if we "only have Yahweh's word for it", I guess we know who won that matchup.
...but having 700 million followers is a triumph? There are 6.6 billion people on this planet, Yahweh's only infected 11%. So Atheismo is catching him up pretty quickly (100 million followers in Europe alone, and growing even faster than Christianity is withering away).
Atheismo is hardly even close. Christianity has been supposedly withering away for nearly TWO MILLENIA. Yet, here it stands, alive and well.
...are you arguing that rape; incest; slavery; murder and genocide were actually MORAL when Yahweh indulged in them? That's pretty fucked up.
Read what I actually posted. Your Atheismo claims that morality is "fluid". Therefore, if man decided that the aforementioned items are "right" and "moral", you should have no issue with it. He is simply following what he feels is right.
Add to the fact that, per Scripture, rape was a capital offense as was murder, your statement makes even less sense than your standard fare.
As for your claims of "slavery" and "genocide", we've beaten that ad nauseum. The former, in actuality, is servitude with rules and regulation that allow those who serve to rise in social status and is HARDLY the chattel form of slavery, for which the term is most associated.
And the claims of genocide are also hollow, as this was military action, against unrepentant enemies (committing some of the very things about which you were whining, not too long ago).
Said another way, if the followers of Molech are kidnapping people, raping women, and passing their daughters through the fire, WHO EXACTLY IS GOING TO STOP THEM? If you say "pretty please" to Team Molech and they continue their ways (attacking you in the process), what actions are to be taken to get them to cease and desist?
...how can you maintain that Baal is merely a fallen angel because he ordered infanticide, when Yahweh ordered the very same crimes?
Did American order "infanticide" when dropping the A-Bomb on Japan? I'm quite sure some babies died when Nagasaki went KA-BOOM!!
...better check your scripture, there are reams of Christian Apologist theorising on this very subject: Jesus' failed prophecy.
Which would be what? Once again, you have this nasty habit of talking out the side of your neck, making claims that you can't back.
...how can you be sure Yahweh isn't one of these evil fallen angels? He ordered rape; incest; slavery; murder and genocide? Even Jesus (morally far superior to his Dad) didn't speak out against the forcibly arranged marriages or chattel slavery ubiquitous in his time.
One, I already answered that question. Two, at no time did God order rape or incest. And I've already discussed your cracked claims of slavery, murder, and genocide.
The rest of your quips are equally hollow. Any chattel slavery was imposed BY THE ROMANS, not the Jewish people. As for forcibly arranged marriages, that is yet more historically inaccurate drivel on your part.
Of course, there still remains the question of why YOU are complaining about arranged marriage OR chattel slavery, since PER YOUR ATHEISTIC RULES, morality is fluid and the Romans thought chattel slavery was right.
What makes your amoral mass-murdering sociopathic thundercloud so superior to these other ghouls? He sounds like a real fucking asshole to me...
The Luke
By whose standards? Yet again, you keep avoiding the fact that, per atheistic creed, MORALITY IS FLUID. You have no standard against which to make such a claim, or even to claim that YOUR form of morality is superior to that of another man (let alone that of God).
-
Add to the fact that, per Scripture, rape was a capital offense as was murder, your statement makes even less sense than your standard fare.
...defending rape.
As for your claims of "slavery" and "genocide", we've beaten that ad nauseum. The former, in actuality, is servitude with rules and regulation that allow those who serve to rise in social status and is HARDLY the chattel form of slavery, for which the term is most associated.
...defending slavery.
And the claims of genocide are also hollow, as this was military action, against unrepentant enemies (committing some of the very things about which you were whining, not too long ago).
...defending genocide.
...at no time did God order rape or incest.
...defending both rape and incest.
Any chattel slavery was imposed BY THE ROMANS, not the Jewish people. As for forcibly arranged marriages, that is yet more historically inaccurate drivel on your part.
...defending both slavery and forced marriages.
What does Christianity do to people that they don't realise the bullshit it has them rationalising?
McWay's defence here is that Atheism subscribes to a fluid morality therefore an atheist cannot criticise the rape; slavery; murder; infanticide and genocide so prevalent in the Bible.
Sorry to break this to you McWay, but study after study have shown that atheists are THE most moral and law-abiding sector of every population... they do NOT subscribe to the idea of fluid morality that you ascribe to them. In fact, they base their (superior) morality on the tenets of logic and rational altruism.
Yes, atheists do allow their morality to EVOLVE... but seeing as you dismiss evolution just as you dismiss basic morality, I don't see how I can explain that to you.
Facts are facts:
-the Bible condones forced marriages
-the Bible both condones and codifies rape, incest and even forced incest
-the Bible both condones and codifies slavery, and it's chattel slavery for non-Jews
-the Bible both condones and codifies genocide and infanticide
...if you don't believe these simple facts, try reading the Bible.
What can't God do? Behave morally.
The Luke
-
...defending rape.
What part of "rape was a CAPITAL OFFENSE" (i.e. the max penalty was DEATH) don't you understand?
...defending slavery.
...defending genocide.
...defending both rape and incest.
...defending both slavery and forced marriages.
What does Christianity do to people that they don't realise the bullshit it has them rationalising?
Perhaps you should ask yourself why you are sniveling about this stuff (nothwithstanding that your claims are most inaccurate), if morality is so "fluid".
McWay's defence here is that Atheism subscribes to a fluid morality therefore an atheist cannot criticise the rape; slavery; murder; infanticide and genocide so prevalent in the Bible.
It's awfully hard for atheists to start blubbering about such after stating that, per their own rules.....well.....there are basically NO RULES. Each can define "right" and "wrong" as he sees fit. That's being "fluid".
Lost in all this is the "measuring stick" of morality, that is the guiding light for the godless crew.
Sorry to break this to you McWay, but study after study have shown that atheists are THE most moral and law-abiding sector of every population... they do NOT subscribe to the idea of fluid morality that you ascribe to them. In fact, they base their (superior) morality on the tenets of logic and rational altruism.
Tell that to the folks who lived under Stalin, Mao, and Hitler: Guys who were so MORAL that atheists (in a humorous attempt at revisionist history) distance themselves AS FAR AS POSSIBLE from them, even trying to claim that they were Christians.
Yes, atheists do allow their morality to EVOLVE... but seeing as you dismiss evolution just as you dismiss basic morality, I don't see how I can explain that to you.
This has ZILCH to do with evolution. And, as usual, you just shot yourself in the foot. See the aforementioned leaders. Their morality "evolved" too, and the results weren't pretty.
Facts are facts:
-the Bible condones forced marriages
NOPE!!! Big difference, between arranged and forced.
-the Bible both condones and codifies rape, incest and even forced incest
You missed on that one, too. Those laws are covered in Leviticus.
Incest:
Lev. 18: 6-10
None of you shall approach to any that is near of kin to him, to uncover their nakedness: I am the LORD.
The nakedness of thy father, or the nakedness of thy mother, shalt thou not uncover: she is thy mother; thou shalt not uncover her nakedness.
The nakedness of thy father's wife shalt thou not uncover: it is thy father's nakedness.
The nakedness of thy sister, the daughter of thy father, or daughter of thy mother, whether she be born at home, or born abroad, even their nakedness thou shalt not uncover.
The nakedness of thy son's daughter, or of thy daughter's daughter, even their nakedness thou shalt not uncover: for theirs is thine own nakedness.
-the Bible both condones and codifies slavery, and it's chattel slavery for non-Jews
So sorry!!! Chattel slavery is barred. And, all the attributes, associated with chattel slavery, were outlawed and punishable by several means.....INCLUDING DEATH!!!
-the Bible both condones and codifies genocide and infanticide.
The Bible no more condones genocide or infanticide, than this country did when Japan got hit with the A-bomb.
...if you don't believe these simple facts, try reading the Bible.
I have, which is why I can tear apart these silly claims of yours......OH WAIT!!!! I've been doing that for years.
What can't God do? Behave morally.
The Luke
For all your bloviating, you have yet to answer the simple question, regarding the moral standard from which you claim God can't adhere. And, if you keep spouting off about the fluidity of morality, your claims are simply hollow.
Plus, you also missed answering exactly what was to be done about folks like those who followed Molech (i.e. passing their daughters through the fire, raping, and kidnapping people).
Who's going to STOP THEM?
-
Sorry, but I'm confused.
Did Yahweh order forced marriages?... yes.
Did Yahweh enforce incestuous relationships?... yes.
Did Yahweh condone and codify rape?... yes.
Did Yahweh condone and codify slavery?... yes. Was it chattel slavery?... among non-Jews, yes, yes it was.
Did Yahweh order infanticide?... yes, several times.
Did Yahweh order genocide?... yes, several times.
Absolutely NONE of this is contested by Bible scholars.
So I don't understand your argument...?
Are you contesting that these acts are actually detailed in the Bible...? I don't see how you could argue that, it's there for everyone to read in black and white.
Are you asserting that these acts were somehow moral when Yahweh committed them?
Or are you arguing that these acts are somehow moral because it was Yahweh who committed them?
I don't get it. All I read in your posts is the rambling of someone struggling with chronic cognitive dissonance.
The Luke
-
Sorry, but I'm confused.
Did Yahweh order forced marriages?... yes.
NOPE!!!
Did Yahweh enforce incestuous relationships?... yes.
NOPE!! See Leviticus 18, cited earlier (and 20).
Did Yahweh condone and codify rape?... yes.
NOPE!! See Deut. 22:25:
But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die:
As stated earlier, rape was a CAPITAL offense.
Did Yahweh condone and codify slavery?... yes. Was it chattel slavery?... among non-Jews, yes, yes it was.
Try again!!
Lev. 19:34
But the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God.
Lev. 25:47-48
And if a sojourner or stranger wax rich by thee, and thy brother that dwelleth by him wax poor, and sell himself unto the stranger or sojourner by thee, or to the stock of the stranger's family. After that he is sold he may be redeemed again; one of his brethren may redeem him:
Oh dear!!! NON-JEWS having position of influence and wealth, not being treated as chattel. In fact, such was specifically forbidden in Israel, as God CONSTANTLY REMINDED His people about how harshly they were treated in Egypt. That’s the reason they were to be kind to those non-Jews within their land.
Did Yahweh order infanticide?... yes, several times.
Did Yahweh order genocide?... yes, several times.
As stated earlier, that is no more infanticide or genocide than was dropping of the A-bomb on the Japanese.
Notwithstanding that, again one has to wonder why you’re whining about that, since you subscribe to that “fluid” morality of atheism.
Absolutely NONE of this is contested by Bible scholars.
That's another utterly false statement, no doubt made due to your rather selective memory, regarding Bible scholars.
So I don't understand your argument...?
Oh, I believe you understand it quite well.
Are you contesting that these acts are actually detailed in the Bible...? I don't see how you could argue that, it's there for everyone to read in black and white.
I've given the details and have shown, in black-and-white, that they are hardly as you so pitifully described them.
Are you asserting that these acts were somehow moral when Yahweh committed them?
Or are you arguing that these acts are somehow moral because it was Yahweh who committed them?
My statements are quite clear. Virtually all of your claims are either categorically FALSE or woefully incomplete.
Since God is the Creator, He has the final say on what is done with what is HIS.
Furthermore, you're in no position to bleat about it, especially with your "fluid morality" atheistic mantra. Not to mention you HAVE YET TO GIVE any standard off which to bounce "right" and "wrong" behavior.
I don't get it. All I read in your posts is the rambling of someone struggling with chronic cognitive dissonance.
The Luke
Once again, you get what I'm saying. Since it refutes your claims quite handily, you've resorted to playing dumb.
-
What part of "rape was a CAPITAL OFFENSE" (i.e. the max penalty was DEATH) don't you understand?
Perhaps you should ask yourself why you are sniveling about this stuff (nothwithstanding that your claims are most inaccurate), if morality is so "fluid".
It's awfully hard for atheists to start blubbering about such after stating that, per their own rules.....well.....there are basically NO RULES. Each can define "right" and "wrong" as he sees fit. That's being "fluid".
Lost in all this is the "measuring stick" of morality, that is the guiding light for the godless crew.
Tell that to the folks who lived under Stalin, Mao, and Hitler: Guys who were so MORAL that atheists (in a humorous attempt at revisionist history) distance themselves AS FAR AS POSSIBLE from them, even trying to claim that they were Christians.
This has ZILCH to do with evolution. And, as usual, you just shot yourself in the foot. See the aforementioned leaders. Their morality "evolved" too, and the results weren't pretty.
NOPE!!! Big difference, between arranged and forced.
You missed on that one, too. Those laws are covered in Leviticus.
Incest:
Lev. 18: 6-10
None of you shall approach to any that is near of kin to him, to uncover their nakedness: I am the LORD.
The nakedness of thy father, or the nakedness of thy mother, shalt thou not uncover: she is thy mother; thou shalt not uncover her nakedness.
The nakedness of thy father's wife shalt thou not uncover: it is thy father's nakedness.
The nakedness of thy sister, the daughter of thy father, or daughter of thy mother, whether she be born at home, or born abroad, even their nakedness thou shalt not uncover.
The nakedness of thy son's daughter, or of thy daughter's daughter, even their nakedness thou shalt not uncover: for theirs is thine own nakedness.
So sorry!!! Chattel slavery is barred. And, all the attributes, associated with chattel slavery, were outlawed and punishable by several means.....INCLUDING DEATH!!!
The Bible no more condones genocide or infanticide, than this country did when Japan got hit with the A-bomb.
I have, which is why I can tear apart these silly claims of yours......OH WAIT!!!! I've been doing that for years.
For all your bloviating, you have yet to answer the simple question, regarding the moral standard from which you claim God can't adhere. And, if you keep spouting off about the fluidity of morality, your claims are simply hollow.
Plus, you also missed answering exactly what was to be done about folks like those who followed Molech (i.e. passing their daughters through the fire, raping, and kidnapping people).
Who's going to STOP THEM?
hitler was not an atheist, but lets say he was as were the others. Atheism has no logical in roads to perform acts of violence, it has no rules or guidelines. What they did was not in the name of atheism, because you can't do something in the name of a non-belief. It;s like saying because they all had mustaches they killed in the name of mustaches, which clarifies the ridiculousness of your statement. By the way this argument has be rebutted millions of times. You want a video with dawkins explaining the logic to you?
religion has logical inroads to violence and atrocities, atheism has no logical connection, none, fact.
-
hitler was not an atheist, but lets say he was as were the others. Atheism has no logical in roads to perform acts of violence, it has no rules or guidelines. What they did was not in the name of atheism, because you can't do something in the name of a non-belief. It;s like saying because they all had mustaches they killed in the name of mustaches, which clarifies the ridiculousness of your statement. By the way this argument has be rebutted millions of times. You want a video with dawkins explaining the logic to you?
religion has logical inroads to violence and atrocities, atheism has no logical connection, none, fact.
Really? If "you can't do something in the name of a non-belief," then why do atheists file lawsuits, have organizations, magazines, radio shows, websites, regular meetings, protests, and even "church" meetings?
-
The answer to the OP's question is found at Titus 1:2 'upon the basis of a hope of the everlasting life which God, who cannot lie, promised before times long lasting,' ...
The answer to the Jesus couldn't sacrifice himself and still resurrect himself is simple. Jesus is not GOD, he is God's son. They are not the same person. Jesus presented his sacrifice to God, Jehovah, in heaven after his resurrection as a purchase price for each of us, sinful mankind.
SG
-
I'm not really interested in this game of scriptural quotation.
I make a claim with regard to something scriptural... nothing controversial, something considered common knowledge... and some Evangelical whack job (who knows right well which verses I'm referring to) jumps in quoting a scriptural passage that seemingly refutes my claim, but because I can't quote the common-knowledge verses from wrote memory: I must be wrong.
There's no forced incest in the Bible...? Please. The first thing this pervert thundercloud does is create only two human beings: (one cloned from the other) and pairs them up... just two people, and they're quasi-identical twins (same DNA). For her sins, Eve is forced to submit to Adam ever after (slavery) and God promises to strike down her children for generations to come.
So right away we have a forced marriage involving incest; slavery; infanticide and genocide... Could it be that McWay hasn't read the first page of Genesis?
My point stands... Yahweh ordered forced incest; forced marriages; chattel slavery; rape; murder; infanticide and genocide.
None of that is disputed (except by McWay)... So what can't God do? Behave morally.
So this will be my last post in this delusional thread: Anyone who is interested can simply visit a site such as www.EvilBible.com and read the scriptural quotations for each and every one of Yahweh's many, many crimes:
http://www.evilbible.com/Ritual_Human_Sacrifice.htm
...this covers all the instances of human sacrifice and infanticide in the Bible. There are too many to list them all here. Everything is quoted and referenced.
http://www.evilbible.com/Rape.htm
...this covers all the instances of rape; forced marriages; and sex slavery in the Bible. Again there are too many to list here. Everything is quoted and referenced.
http://www.evilbible.com/Murder.htm
...this covers not only Yahweh's murders and ordered murders, but also genocide and mass infanticide. Of course, there are way too many instances to list all of them here. Everything is quoted and referenced.
...and, I'm out.
The Luke
-
I'm not really interested in this game of scriptural quotation.
Which is why I stopped following or participating this thread, except due to slightly different reasoning. While the bible does contain some historical accuracies it also contains many fallacies and historical inaccuracies. It is also open to interpretation by different religious sects and/or people, whom draw different conclusions and meanings from identical passages. It's too subjective. It's difficult to take any person seriously who quotes the bible as fact and I'm not about to argue small parts of the bible without discussing the validity of the work as a whole.
-
I'm not really interested in this game of scriptural quotation.
Of course not!! You keep losing every time you play it.
I make a claim with regard to something scriptural... nothing controversial, something considered common knowledge... and some Evangelical whack job (who knows right well which verses I'm referring to) jumps in quoting a scriptural passage that seemingly refutes my claim, but because I can't quote the common-knowledge verses from wrote memory: I must be wrong.
You make a claim, referring to a verse in Scripture, which is blatantly FALSE. Now, I can simply say that you're full of BULL.....OR I can cite the specifics and tear your claim to pieces for all to see.
The rape claim is a prime example. I give the specifics, which show that rape was punishable by DEATH. And, you tuck tail. And, don't bother screaming about such only applying to betrothed women. Those who raped unbethroted women were sentenced to lifetime care of that woman. And, that hardly required the woman even living in the same house. More often than not, the victim stayed home with her family. Yet, the rapist was STILL ON THE HOOK for her material care (the only reason he's being kept alive).
There's no forced incest in the Bible...? Please. The first thing this pervert thundercloud does is create only two human beings: (one cloned from the other) and pairs them up... just two people, and they're quasi-identical twins (same DNA). For her sins, Eve is forced to submit to Adam ever after (slavery) and God promises to strike down her children for generations to come.
You must be on that stuff, again. If Eve were even half of what I pictured the ideal woman to be, I'm sure that Adam had to be dragged kicking and screaming to have sex with her.
So right away we have a forced marriage involving incest; slavery; infanticide and genocide... Could it be that McWay hasn't read the first page of Genesis?
Could it be that you're smoking crack?
My point stands... Yahweh ordered forced incest; forced marriages; chattel slavery; rape; murder; infanticide and genocide.
Correction: Your point falls, yet again. That's why you don't want to play the Scriptural quotation game, as you put it. You keep getting beat.....as usual.
None of that is disputed (except by McWay)... So what can't God do? Behave morally.
So this will be my last post in this delusional thread: Anyone who is interested can simply visit a site such as www.EvilBible.com and read the scriptural quotations for each and every one of Yahweh's many, many crimes:
Roughly translated: As usual, when my silly claims can't stand up to scrunity and are clearly shown to be false, inaccurate, and incomplete, I will run like a scalded dog and make all manner of excuses.
YAWN!!!!!
http://www.evilbible.com/Ritual_Human_Sacrifice.htm
...this covers all the instances of human sacrifice and infanticide in the Bible. There are too many to list them all here. Everything is quoted and referenced.
http://www.evilbible.com/Rape.htm
...this covers all the instances of rape; forced marriages; and sex slavery in the Bible. Again there are too many to list here. Everything is quoted and referenced.
http://www.evilbible.com/Murder.htm
...this covers not only Yahweh's murders and ordered murders, but also genocide and mass infanticide. Of course, there are way too many instances to list all of them here. Everything is quoted and referenced.
...and, I'm out.
The Luke
I've already gone to work on silliness like this before. So, I will only cover specific items on requests. This mess isn't new, and neither is the information that refutes it. Let Luke tuck his tail and run, as usual.
-
hitler was not an atheist, but lets say he was as were the others. Atheism has no logical in roads to perform acts of violence, it has no rules or guidelines. What they did was not in the name of atheism, because you can't do something in the name of a non-belief. It;s like saying because they all had mustaches they killed in the name of mustaches, which clarifies the ridiculousness of your statement. By the way this argument has be rebutted millions of times. You want a video with dawkins explaining the logic to you?
religion has logical inroads to violence and atrocities, atheism has no logical connection, none, fact.
And, yet we have violence and atrocities, committed by atheists, that make the Crusades look like a catfight at Hooters.
Atheism has guidelines, as has been shown by at least one poster here. Among those guidelines is that morality is "fluid". In other words, man is his own moral compass. So, why do atheists have such a problem when that mindset gets taken to its ultimate conclusion, resulting in bodies piling up by the millions?
Said another way (which I've stated from the get-go), at its core, atheism is simply man worshipping himself.
-
Really? If "you can't do something in the name of a non-belief," then why do atheists file lawsuits, have organizations, magazines, radio shows, websites, regular meetings, protests, and even "church" meetings?
um it is usually against constitutional rights being trampled on.Again atheism has no logical in roads to violence, none, unlike religion.
organizations that push there religious agenda on the public, like putting relgious symbols on gov property deserved to be sued, they have to be checked otherwise they would trample peoples constitutional rights.
FAIL.
-
um it is usually against constitutional rights being trampled on.Again atheism has no logical in roads to violence, none, unlike religion.
organizations that push there religious agenda on the public, like putting relgious symbols on gov property deserved to be sued, they have to be checked otherwise they would trample peoples constitutional rights.
FAIL.
O.K. You addressed lawsuits. What about atheist organizations, magazines, radio shows, websites, regular meetings, protests, and even "church" meetings? How do you reconcile the fact they have all these things with your contention that "you can't do something in the name of a non-belief"?
-
And, yet we have violence and atrocities, committed by atheists, that make the Crusades look like a catfight at Hooters.
Atheism has guidelines, as has been shown by at least one poster here. Among those guidelines is that morality is "fluid". In other words, man is his own moral compass. So, why do atheists have such a problem when that mindset gets taken to its ultimate conclusion, resulting in bodies piling up by the millions?
Said another way (which I've stated from the get-go), at its core, atheism is simply man worshipping himself.
jesus, you have no idea again what you are talking about. Hitler didn't do anything in the name of atheism, he was religious, read mine kampf (spelling is certainly wrong here). Again, he states numerous times in his diary per se that he is religious, had relgious symbols inscribed on uniforms etc..
Regardless, he did not and could not do anything in the atheism, so much as him having a mustache makes mustaches evil. You have no argument. Atheism is a lack of belief, the burden of proof is on you guys and i see none. So, even if hitler declared im an atheist, there is no god (pretty strong statment, most atheists would say there is no evidence, not a definitive statement when really asked), it would have nothing to do with him killing. Even if he said there is no god so that means i can kill as i please, that is not a doctrine of atheism, that is his personal opinion, he is a sociopath.
However, lets look at religion it states that people who work on sunday should be stoned or the sabbath, so it has logical in roads to violence. Thus, you can do something in the name of theism but not atheism.
If i believed in fairies and had a book saying that anyone who doesnt believe in fairies should be killed, that is a logical in road. If i was an afairist and killed people, that would not have a logical connect that is the connection you are trying to make and it has been rebutted over and over, its a fallacy, an irrational argument that is easily disproved.
As for you concern on morality, you think there is an absolute morality god, i dont. You think that something external is needed to keep people in order, i dont. What does the evidence say? you are wrong. Atheists are the most moral groups, the more secular/atheistic a nation the more peaceful and equal it becomes. The more religious, darfur for example, the more violence terror and immorality. Also, if morality was absolute then i should agree with gods acts in the bible since he made me and i am endowed with this moral compass he created. The fact is i dont,millions of others do not leading me to believe this is not the source of morality. Animals show morality, something you keep avoiding. Morality is more evolved in humans and continues to progress, this is why certain acts are no longer deemed correct, its not fluid like you state. Its not that tommorrow i would think rape is fine, its a natural progression towards improvment, some people lack morals hence the issues.
morals are based on logic and reason as already explained to you, those with more of these constructs are morally superior per se. Hence atheists with the higher iqs then religious folks tend to be more moral. You see gays as immoral and sinful, i see them as people who are allowed to live there own lifes and do as they please as long as it doesnt hurt anyone. There is nothing wrong with gayness, it exists in nature, again showing its a normal variation on sexuality. You have a bigoted approach, an approach of repression and hate, i condone love, peace, acceptance and common rights for everyone. Who is more moral? there is no rational reason for anyone to ridicule gay people in this world not one.
you said you would kill your kids if god told you to, i would tell god to fuck off and do it himself if he wanted it done. I don't think killing kids for any reason is moral, you have justifications that it is, i deny infanticide and you defend it, who is more moral?
here is a funny video showing the ridiculousness of christian dissonance and argument.
-
O.K. You addressed lawsuits. What about atheist organizations, magazines, radio shows, websites, regular meetings, protests, and even "church" meetings? How do you reconcile the fact they have all these things with your contention that "you can't do something in the name of a non-belief"?
i was specifically referring to the immoral acts of said atheists. Sure people can meet, that are atheists, what does that have to do with anything? What does atheist magazines have to do with anything, i fail to see your point. Group meetings are likely for companionship, there is no readings, perhaps they talk about how ridiculous god is, i dont know.
Perhaps atheists enjoy reading like minded material, i do. However, nothing i do in my life is because of my atheism, there is no direction offered from it.
The logic that you can do something in the name of atheism is illogical.
Give me a specific example if you will please, i was referring to something else, but i would rather counter a specific argument and how that is in the name of atheism. You cannot kill people in the name of atheism because there is no tenet which states anythign that can be seen that way. Sure people can say, well no god=i can kill, but no where does atheism state that and that is not a logical connection. The bible on the other hand has specific instructions, get my point?
-
Necrosis,
Good points, and some great informative posts... but remember to avoid McWay's semantic traps here.
He is couching the argument in his terms, reject them.
Atheism is NOT a belief, it is a lack of belief... so the violent acts of an atheist can not be attributed to atheism any more than they could be attributed to said atheist's similar lack of belief in any god.
Did Hitler commit atrocities because he didn't believe in god?
Or did Hitler commit atocities because he didn't believe in Satan? (a fervent zealous Satanist is NOT an atheist)
Each is equally valid... each is equally disregarded by atheism... each is equally NOT believed.
So was it Hitler's lack of belief in Jesus?
Or his lack of belief in Wotan? Or his lack of belief in Horus? Or Krishna? Or Attis? Or Tammuz? Or Dionysus? Or Hercles/Heracles? Or Setanta? Or Hesus? Or Tezcatlipoca?
Claiming atheism compels anyone to do anything is akin to blaming McWay's rudeness on his belief in Atheismo.
He doesn't believe in Atheismo... he's just a self-righteous ignorant-know-it-all asshole.
The Luke
-
i was specifically referring to the immoral acts of said atheists. Sure people can meet, that are atheists, what does that have to do with anything? What does atheist magazines have to do with anything, i fail to see your point. Group meetings are likely for companionship, there is no readings, perhaps they talk about how ridiculous god is, i dont know.
Perhaps atheists enjoy reading like minded material, i do. However, nothing i do in my life is because of my atheism, there is no direction offered from it.
The logic that you can do something in the name of atheism is illogical.
Give me a specific example if you will please, i was referring to something else, but i would rather counter a specific argument and how that is in the name of atheism. You cannot kill people in the name of atheism because there is no tenet which states anythign that can be seen that way. Sure people can say, well no god=i can kill, but no where does atheism state that and that is not a logical connection. The bible on the other hand has specific instructions, get my point?
I actually did give you specific examples. To expand on one: atheists have several national organizations. Here are a few:
American Atheists: http://www.atheists.org/ They have an annual national convention, a magazine, speakers, etc. They even sell atheist buttons, mugs, and pins: http://www.atheists.org/store/
There is Atheist Alliance International, which "is an umbrella organization of groups and individuals in the United States and around the world committed to promoting and defending reason and the atheist worldview." http://www.atheistalliance.org/
There is "The Center for Atheism (CFA) was established by New York City Atheists as a separate and independent national organization to propose, develop and be a catalyst for new national activities supporting the objectives of atheists, agnostics, humanists, freethinkers, skeptics, secularists and separation-of-church/state advocates." http://centerforatheism.org/
I could give you about ten other specific examples. You really think these atheist organizations are not actually organized and operating in the name of atheism?
-
I actually did give you specific examples. To expand on one: atheists have several national organizations. Here are a few:
American Atheists: http://www.atheists.org/ They have an annual national convention, a magazine, speakers, etc. They even sell atheist buttons, mugs, and pins: http://www.atheists.org/store/
There is Atheist Alliance International, which "is an umbrella organization of groups and individuals in the United States and around the world committed to promoting and defending reason and the atheist worldview." http://www.atheistalliance.org/
There is "The Center for Atheism (CFA) was established by New York City Atheists as a separate and independent national organization to propose, develop and be a catalyst for new national activities supporting the objectives of atheists, agnostics, humanists, freethinkers, skeptics, secularists and separation-of-church/state advocates." http://centerforatheism.org/
I could give you about ten other specific examples. You really think these atheist organizations are not actually organized and operating in the name of atheism?
sure, but atheism has no central doctrine or book, no moral code, nothing, it is simply a disbelief. Now there are various forms of atheism, militant atheism has evolved somewhat in response to the atrocities of relgion, with that i agree. However, i do not see your point in any of this, those examples still fail to show how atheism can be used as a doctrine or schematic to accomplish something. It is a disbelief, anything those people do is opinion, same with dawkins, there is no book to go to, to get scripture or authority, no rules to atheism, no commandments, no central figure to govern it, it ascribes no moral code, says nothing about right or wrong, up or down.
It cannot, unless someones own beliefs and opinions besides atheism are underpinned. Simple as that. Dawkins believes relgion poisons the mind, that is breeds hate and violence, that it hides the truth. Atheism itself says nothing about any of this, it is simply dawkins who is an atheist providing reasoning for his worldview, which i agree with somewhat.
atheism=lack of belief in god, thats it. To say that means this or that is a personal and subjective assumption. To say that is means god does not exist so rape is fine is an opinion, atheism says nothing about this. It implies nothing, it implies nothing just as afairism implies nothing other then one has no belief in fairies.
-
Necrosis,
Good points, and some great informative posts... but remember to avoid McWay's semantic traps here.
He is couching the argument in his terms, reject them.
Atheism is NOT a belief, it is a lack of belief... so the violent acts of an atheist can not be attributed to atheism any more than they could be attributed to said atheist's similar lack of belief in any god.
Did Hitler commit atrocities because he didn't believe in god?
Or did Hitler commit atocities because he didn't believe in Satan? (a fervent zealous Satanist is NOT an atheist)
Each is equally valid... each is equally disregarded by atheism... each is equally NOT believed.
So was it Hitler's lack of belief in Jesus?
Or his lack of belief in Wotan? Or his lack of belief in Horus? Or Krishna? Or Attis? Or Tammuz? Or Dionysus? Or Hercles/Heracles? Or Setanta? Or Hesus? Or Tezcatlipoca?
Claiming atheism compels anyone to do anything is akin to blaming McWay's rudeness on his belief in Atheismo.
He doesn't believe in Atheismo... he's just a self-righteous ignorant-know-it-all asshole.
The Luke
Not to speak for MCWAY, but I believe he meant to infer that due to the atheists lack of morals, as per MCWAYS's interpretation of obtaining morality, he can directly relate Atheism as being the cause for peoples' heinous acts. Not that these people committed these acts in the name of Atheism. That's hogwash, of course, and I do agree that Hitler was not an Atheist as he referenced god and Christianity both publicly and privately, and was endorsed not only by Atheists but by German Christians as well. The one thing he most definitely was, was a psychopathic fuckwad.
Here's a little tidbit regarding morality and Hitler's acts.
We can make many sound arguments against the Nazis' moral system, one of which is the amount of human suffering it produces. If religious theists respond by asserting that we have no objective reasons to prefer that humans not suffer, then what they are saying is that they don't personally care if humans suffer unless ordered to by their god — and that's hardly a perspective that can recommend their moral position over anything else. If a religious theist really needs something more than the suffering of people to want to end that suffering, this doesn't speak well of their ability to empathize with other human beings.
The problem with making such an argument to a defender of divine command theory is that such people typically assume that only a perfectly independent source of moral standards is valid — hence, no argument from human experience will ever succeed with them. They are, in effect, impervious to any counter-arguments on this issue. They can't accept that the basis for your moral system is any superior to the basis of a Nazi moral system because neither basis creates absolute obligations and neither basis is absolute or objective. That your moral system leads to greater happiness and the Nazi moral system leads to greater suffering will be deemed irrelevant — an important fact to keep in mind.
http://atheism.about.com/od/atheismatheistsmorals/a/AbsoluteMorals.htm
Necrosis does make several good points with regards to Atheism, morality and any subjective assumptions regarding the intent, or lack-thereof, of Atheism.
Atheism is illogical without evidence anyway imho, and leaves one open to MCWAY's semantic meanderings, which are annoying as heck. Even Dawkins admits to being agnostic, though not in the literal term. He states, 'On a scale of 1-7. With 1 referring to Theists and 7 referring to Atheists, he would be a 6.9'. All the while still calling himself an Atheist. Of course, he still thinks religion is rubbish, but he doesn't preclude the existence of first cause, however unlikely. Now I'm meandering...haha!
MCWAY does come across as a asshole who can't admit when he's wrong, but I like him anyway.
*GRRRRRR...lost half my post trying to post on this thread. GetBig needs a major overhaul of it's database or needs to move/add servers*
-
sure, but atheism has no central doctrine or book, no moral code, nothing, it is simply a disbelief. Now there are various forms of atheism, militant atheism has evolved somewhat in response to the atrocities of relgion, with that i agree. However, i do not see your point in any of this, those examples still fail to show how atheism can be used as a doctrine or schematic to accomplish something. It is a disbelief, anything those people do is opinion, same with dawkins, there is no book to go to, to get scripture or authority, no rules to atheism, no commandments, no central figure to govern it, it ascribes no moral code, says nothing about right or wrong, up or down.
It cannot, unless someones own beliefs and opinions besides atheism are underpinned. Simple as that. Dawkins believes relgion poisons the mind, that is breeds hate and violence, that it hides the truth. Atheism itself says nothing about any of this, it is simply dawkins who is an atheist providing reasoning for his worldview, which i agree with somewhat.
atheism=lack of belief in god, thats it. To say that means this or that is a personal and subjective assumption. To say that is means god does not exist so rape is fine is an opinion, atheism says nothing about this. It implies nothing, it implies nothing just as afairism implies nothing other then one has no belief in fairies.
My point is: your view that "you can't do something in the name of a non-belief" conflicts with the actions of atheists. People don't typically become highly organized around a core belief and then do nothing (except Congress). These people are having annual national conventions where they talk about their non-belief in God. They publish magazines that talk about their non-belief in God. http://www.atheists.org/magazine/ I've always found that kind of thing peculiar.
-
jesus, you have no idea again what you are talking about. Hitler didn't do anything in the name of atheism, he was religious, read mine kampf (spelling is certainly wrong here). Again, he states numerous times in his diary per se that he is religious, had relgious symbols inscribed on uniforms etc..
We went over this before, on another thread. Hitler having religious symbols on his uniforms means absolutely SQUAT.
Madonna wore a cross around her neck during the 80s. Did that make her a nun or a deaconness? I don't think so.
Your "flavor-of-the-month", Richard Dawkins, was once Espicopalian. Does that mean he's a Christian now?
And, as you tend to forget, Hitler STARTED as a Christian, but as he gained power and got closer to WWII, he made it clear that he wanted Christianity DESTROYED "root and branch". He wanted the swastiska (the government) to replace the Cross as Germany's salvation.
Do the math. If Hitler wanted Germans to worship the government, instead of the Cross, and HITLER runs the government, guess who he wants to be the object of worship (ultimately)? HIMSELF!!!
Regardless, he did not and could not do anything in the atheism, so much as him having a mustache makes mustaches evil. You have no argument. Atheism is a lack of belief, the burden of proof is on you guys and i see none. So, even if hitler declared im an atheist, there is no god (pretty strong statment, most atheists would say there is no evidence, not a definitive statement when really asked), it would have nothing to do with him killing. Even if he said there is no god so that means i can kill as i please, that is not a doctrine of atheism, that is his personal opinion, he is a sociopath.
As stated earlier (a point you have trouble refuting and that tends to irk you), because of his lack of belief in God, guess who was to become (in his mind) the ultimate object of worship: HITLER, himself.
The doctrine of atheism is demonstrated quite clearly in Hitler's action. His "fluid" morality ALLOWED him to justify his actions, that he was the supreme being, the end-all-to-be-all. In fact, he felt that he and his people were the "master race". With no belief in a deity (especially that of those pesky Jews), Hitler deduced that he could do what he wanted, when he wanted.
However, lets look at religion it states that people who work on sunday should be stoned or the sabbath, so it has logical in roads to violence. Thus, you can do something in the name of theism but not atheism.
If i believed in fairies and had a book saying that anyone who doesnt believe in fairies should be killed, that is a logical in road. If i was an afairist and killed people, that would not have a logical connect that is the connection you are trying to make and it has been rebutted over and over, its a fallacy, an irrational argument that is easily disproved.
As for you concern on morality, you think there is an absolute morality god, i dont. You think that something external is needed to keep people in order, i dont. What does the evidence say? you are wrong. Atheists are the most moral groups, the more secular/atheistic a nation the more peaceful and equal it becomes. The more religious, darfur for example, the more violence terror and immorality. Also, if morality was absolute then i should agree with gods acts in the bible since he made me and i am endowed with this moral compass he created. The fact is i dont,millions of others do not leading me to believe this is not the source of morality. Animals show morality, something you keep avoiding. Morality is more evolved in humans and continues to progress, this is why certain acts are no longer deemed correct, its not fluid like you state. Its not that tommorrow i would think rape is fine, its a natural progression towards improvment, some people lack morals hence the issues.
morals are based on logic and reason as already explained to you, those with more of these constructs are morally superior per se. Hence atheists with the higher iqs then religious folks tend to be more moral. You see gays as immoral and sinful, i see them as people who are allowed to live there own lifes and do as they please as long as it doesnt hurt anyone. There is nothing wrong with gayness, it exists in nature, again showing its a normal variation on sexuality. You have a bigoted approach, an approach of repression and hate, i condone love, peace, acceptance and common rights for everyone. Who is more moral? there is no rational reason for anyone to ridicule gay people in this world not one.
you said you would kill your kids if god told you to, i would tell god to fuck off and do it himself if he wanted it done. I don't think killing kids for any reason is moral, you have justifications that it is, i deny infanticide and you defend it, who is more moral?
Yet, you would kill kids (minus any divine provocation), as long as you had the luxury of using modern weapons that make the killing impersonal. If I'm not mistaken, I asked you some time ago, exactly what was to be done about certain people, committing certain atrocities about which you were fuming, when "diplomatic solutions" done for extensive periods of time were ineffective.
-
My point is: your view that "you can't do something in the name of a non-belief" conflicts with the actions of atheists. People don't typically become highly organized around a core belief and then do nothing (except Congress). These people are having annual national conventions where they talk about their non-belief in God. They publish magazines that talk about their non-belief in God. http://www.atheists.org/magazine/ I've always found that kind of thing peculiar.
Don't forget about those "un-churches", particularly those in California.
Atheists, gathering amongst each other and patting each other on the back, giving each other pep talks about their constant angst about someone who supposedly doesn't exist.
And they call Christians nuts!!!
-
Necrosis,
Good points, and some great informative posts... but remember to avoid McWay's semantic traps here.
He is couching the argument in his terms, reject them.
Atheism is NOT a belief, it is a lack of belief... so the violent acts of an atheist can not be attributed to atheism any more than they could be attributed to said atheist's similar lack of belief in any god.
Of course, it can. With no belief in God, the atheist deems himself as the highest moral authority and with that "fluid" morality, he can pretty much justify anything he wants.
Again, that's why the body counts of atheists like Stalin make the Crusades look like spitball fights. And that's why atheists keep breaking their non-believing necks TRYING TO DISTANCE THEMSELVES FROM THESE MEN.
Did Hitler commit atrocities because he didn't believe in god?
Or did Hitler commit atocities because he didn't believe in Satan? (a fervent zealous Satanist is NOT an atheist)
Each is equally valid... each is equally disregarded by atheism... each is equally NOT believed.
And, as a result, boy genius, Hitler PUT HIMSELF as the deity of worship. He wanted the swasticka (not the Cross) to be Germany's salvation (and that of the world).
In other words, as stated numerous times, atheism (put in practice) is simply man worshipping HIMSELF.
So was it Hitler's lack of belief in Jesus?
Or his lack of belief in Wotan? Or his lack of belief in Horus? Or Krishna? Or Attis? Or Tammuz? Or Dionysus? Or Hercles/Heracles? Or Setanta? Or Hesus? Or Tezcatlipoca?
Claiming atheism compels anyone to do anything is akin to blaming McWay's rudeness on his belief in Atheismo.
He doesn't believe in Atheismo... he's just a self-righteous ignorant-know-it-all asshole.
The Luke
I don't make traps. I post facts and back them with SPECIFICS, unlike you.
You run your mouth then get cut off at the knees when the facts come to light. Then, you whine and complain and/or you run (tail neatly tucked between legs) and hide, until your wound-licking is complete.
-
-
We went over this before, on another thread. Hitler having religious symbols on his uniforms means absolutely SQUAT.
Madonna wore a cross around her neck during the 80s. Did that make her a nun or a deaconness? I don't think so.
Your "flavor-of-the-month", Richard Dawkins, was once Espicopalian. Does that mean he's a Christian now?
And, as you tend to forget, Hitler STARTED as a Christian, but as he gained power and got closer to WWII, he made it clear that he wanted Christianity DESTROYED "root and branch". He wanted the swastiska (the government) to replace the Cross as Germany's salvation.
Do the math. If Hitler wanted Germans to worship the government, instead of the Cross, and HITLER runs the government, guess who he wants to be the object of worship (ultimately)? HIMSELF!!!
As stated earlier (a point you have trouble refuting and that tends to irk you), because of his lack of belief in God, guess who was to become (in his mind) the ultimate object of worship: HITLER, himself.
The doctrine of atheism is demonstrated quite clearly in Hitler's action. His "fluid" morality ALLOWED him to justify his actions, that he was the supreme being, the end-all-to-be-all. In fact, he felt that he and his people were the "master race". With no belief in a deity (especially that of those pesky Jews), Hitler deduced that he could do what he wanted, when he wanted.
You know something historians don't?
No one knows Hitler's true religious convictions. There are assumptions and speculation but that's as far as it goes. Your drawing your own conclusion as to another person's motives and inspiration and stating this as fact. There is just as much speculation that he was a deist, if not a theist.
-
You know something historians don't?
No one knows Hitler's true religious convictions. There are assumptions and speculation but that's as far as it goes. Your drawing your own conclusion as to another person's motives and inspiration and stating this as fact. There is just as much speculation that he was a deist, if not a theist.
You know Hitler's religious convictions (or lack thereof) quite well. Again, that's why you and so many other atheists continue to contort yourself to distance yourself from this guy.
Hitler stated, in NO UNCERTAIN TERMS, that he wanted Chrisitanity destroyed "root and branch". And, for some strange reason, I don't recall him invoking Allah, Buddha, or even the prince of darkness (not Ozzy Ozborne, folks).
Besides, I thought you weren't posting here no more.
-
You know Hitler's religious convictions (or lack thereof) quite well. Again, that's why you and so many other atheists continue to contort yourself to distance yourself from this guy.
Hitler stated, in NO UNCERTAIN TERMS, that he wanted Chrisitanity destroyed "root and branch". And, for some strange reason, I don't recall him invoking Allah, Buddha, or even the prince of darkness (not Ozzy Ozborne, folks).
Besides, I thought you weren't posting here no more.
Changed my mind about posting when the scripture quoting ceased. Glad you care. :) I'm not an atheist either, which I've stated previously.
Hitler wanted both Christianity and State Atheism abolished but supposedly believed in a God, just not the God referred to in Christianity. Hitler never once referred to himself as an Atheist, not that that means much as his statements and actions were rife with contradictions. Read up on it a bit and you'll find that there are many assumptions as to his religious convictions but no substantial proofs to unequivocally designate Hitler as belonging to any religious/non-religious group save his own warped convictions.
-
Changed my mind about posting when the scripture quoting ceased. Glad you care. :)
Hitler wanted both Christianity and State Atheism abolished but supposedly believed in a God, just not the God referred to in Christianity. Hitler never once referred to himself as an Atheist, not that that means much as his statements and actions were rife with contradictions. Read up on it a bit and you'll find that there are many assumptions as to his religious convictions but no substantial proofs to unequivocally designate Hitler as belonging to any religious/non-religious group save his own warped convictions.
I've read about it already and went through this discussion with Necrosis some time ago.
Plus, when did belonging to a group become mandatory to be an atheist (notwithstanding Beach Bum's comments on such gatherings of non-believers and the "un-churches" I cited earlier)?
-
I've read about it already and went through this discussion with Necrosis some time ago.
Plus, when did belonging to a group become mandatory to be an atheist (notwithstanding Beach Bum's comments on such gatherings of non-believers and the "un-churches" I cited earlier)?
You're drawing your own conclusions. No one know Hitler's true religious convictions. To assume that you do merely weakens your argument.
-
You're drawing your own conclusions. No one know Hitler's true religious convictions. To assume that you do merely weakens your argument.
We have folks here, claiming that he was a Christian. Yet, I don't hear you claiming that their arguments are weakened.
As for mine, we have Hitler's actions and statements. We know his desire to have his government (and himself) deemed as the focal point of "worship" (for lack of a better turn).
-
We have folks here, claiming that he was a Christian. Yet, I don't hear you claiming that their arguments are weakened.
As for mine, we have Hitler's actions and statements. We know his desire to have his government (and himself) deemed as the focal point of "worship" (for lack of a better turn).
My posts earlier would disqualify the claims of Hitler being a Christian as well, obviously. If I remember correctly though, Hitler's actions were brought into this thread by you asserting he was an Atheist. Which I why I posted as I did. No one knows what went on in Hitler's head and to argue the point is an exercise in futility.
-
My point is: your view that "you can't do something in the name of a non-belief" conflicts with the actions of atheists. People don't typically become highly organized around a core belief and then do nothing (except Congress). These people are having annual national conventions where they talk about their non-belief in God. They publish magazines that talk about their non-belief in God. http://www.atheists.org/magazine/ I've always found that kind of thing peculiar.
if they form to oppose relgion, that is not atheism, that is a different cause. It's been explained, what these people are doing is opinion, and personal values that i may not share. Atheism has no values, has nothing to say, what people ascribe to it is merely personal views and values.
I can see the need to increase atheism however, i believe all the evidence points to it creating more peaceful and civilized unions. Atheism is better for the world imo. However, the dummies will need something to lean on and that is the part that worries me.
-
Don't forget about those "un-churches", particularly those in California.
Atheists, gathering amongst each other and patting each other on the back, giving each other pep talks about their constant angst about someone who supposedly doesn't exist.
And they call Christians nuts!!!
That might be the most bizarre of all. They're called "humanist centers" right? They're set up to mimic church services. I wonder if they actually preach sermons too?
-
if they form to oppose relgion, that is not atheism, that is a different cause. It's been explained, what these people are doing is opinion, and personal values that i may not share. Atheism has no values, has nothing to say, what people ascribe to it is merely personal views and values.
I can see the need to increase atheism however, i believe all the evidence points to it creating more peaceful and civilized unions. Atheism is better for the world imo. However, the dummies will need something to lean on and that is the part that worries me.
You're not making sense Necrosis. If atheism "has no values, has nothing to say," then what are they talking about at their annual national atheist conventions? Are the magazines filled with blank pages? What about the atheist churches? Do they all just sit around and stare at each other?
-
We went over this before, on another thread. Hitler having religious symbols on his uniforms means absolutely SQUAT.
Madonna wore a cross around her neck during the 80s. Did that make her a nun or a deaconness? I don't think so.
Your "flavor-of-the-month", Richard Dawkins, was once Espicopalian. Does that mean he's a Christian now?
And, as you tend to forget, Hitler STARTED as a Christian, but as he gained power and got closer to WWII, he made it clear that he wanted Christianity DESTROYED "root and branch". He wanted the swastiska (the government) to replace the Cross as Germany's salvation.
um false, read mein kampf, he states over and over again his religious beliefs. Madonna wearing a cross in a video could be for fashion, or have something to do with the video, numerous motives could be behind that. Hitler however, making sure every soldier had chrisitian symbols on their uniforms clearly shows his intent. Would you like the quotes from the book again, in hitlers own words. Regardless it does not matter.
"As stated earlier (a point you have trouble refuting and that tends to irk you), because of his lack of belief in God, guess who was to become (in his mind) the ultimate object of worship: HITLER, himself.
The doctrine of atheism is demonstrated quite clearly in Hitler's action. His "fluid" morality ALLOWED him to justify his actions, that he was the supreme being, the end-all-to-be-all. In fact, he felt that he and his people were the "master race". With no belief in a deity (especially that of those pesky Jews), Hitler deduced that he could do what he wanted, when he wanted."
computer fuckage again. I have no trouble refuting that point, show me were in atheism it says man is the supreme being, has fluid morality, and should be worshipped? Lets say hitler was an atheist, him believing he should be worshipped and that other races should be killed has nothing absolutely nothing to do with atheism. Nothing. He is a moral inbred, You cannot make the connection, its one your opinion, two nothing to do with atheism. You are making an illogical and absurd conclusion, IE "there is no god, therefore all things are fine and man will do what he wants, nothing is stopping him". This is obviously false as we view atheistic societies, prisons and academics were atheists have more moral scrupels then dick sucking ted haggard. On top of that you would have to admit if you take the stance you do that god is the only thing keeping you from killing others and eating babies, something i find disgraceful and sick to be honest. Your tired argument rebutted several times over. the end.
if you think morality is not fluid and not evolving then should kids be stoned who work on sunday?
I mean god said this, so its absolute and not subject to change, do you agree with this? that death for working on the sabbath etc.. should be the penalty, especially in innocent kids?
"Yet, you would kill kids (minus any divine provocation), as long as you had the luxury of using modern weapons that make the killing impersonal. If I'm not mistaken, I asked you some time ago, exactly what was to be done about certain people, committing certain atrocities about which you were fuming, when "diplomatic solutions" done for extensive periods of time were ineffective."
um no, nice assumption. There is a huge difference from accidentally or indirectly killing kids and civilians in battle from ordering the death of kids, all of them, making them targets as per the bible. Fail to see the difference, you probably do since you can't comprehend simple arguments and fail to understand when an argument lacks logic. Certain said people should be put in jail, fined, luxuries taken away, etc etc... im sure the babies werent committing said atrocities unless these were super babies now were they? So even if war is indicated, killing the kids who are innocent makes no sense and is called infanticide, something that is babaric and ridiculous.
-
We have folks here, claiming that he was a Christian. Yet, I don't hear you claiming that their arguments are weakened.
As for mine, we have Hitler's actions and statements. We know his desire to have his government (and himself) deemed as the focal point of "worship" (for lack of a better turn).
Hitler stated numerous religious cites, mainly from christianity, he changed his mind alot could be do to the neurodegenerative illness he had ::)
I would readily admit he was an atheist, it still doesn't reflect atheism.
-
um false, read mein kampf, he states over and over again his religious beliefs. Madonna wearing a cross in a video could be for fashion, or have something to do with the video, numerous motives could be behind that. Hitler however, making sure every soldier had chrisitian symbols on their uniforms clearly shows his intent. Would you like the quotes from the book again, in hitlers own words. Regardless it does not matter.
We went through this before. We know exactly WHY Hitler did what he did, regarding those symbols. And, we have HIS WORDS, regarding what he wanted to do with those who followed Christianity. That was, of course, stamping it out, "root and branch".
You can't seem to make up your mind here. One minute, you want to blame Hitler's "Christianity", the next you're blaming his actions on the clap or some other STD.
All of this is to dodge the simple fact that Hitler's de facto atheism was the driving force behind his nefarious actions.
computer fuckage again. I have no trouble refuting that point, show me were in atheism it says man is the supreme being, has fluid morality, and should be worshipped? Lets say hitler was an atheist, him believing he should be worshipped and that other races should be killed has nothing absolutely nothing to do with atheism. Nothing. He is a moral inbred, You cannot make the connection, its one your opinion, two nothing to do with atheism. You are making an illogical and absurd conclusion, IE "there is no god, therefore all things are fine and man will do what he wants, nothing is stopping him". This is obviously false as we view atheistic societies, prisons and academics were atheists have more moral scrupels then dick sucking ted haggard. On top of that you would have to admit if you take the stance you do that god is the only thing keeping you from killing others and eating babies, something i find disgraceful and sick to be honest. Your tired argument rebutted several times over. the end.
YngiweRhoads covered that in several of his posts (particuarly in certain links of his).
My conclusion is hardly absurd. Furthermore, this childish rant of yours just proved my point. Why are you using Ted Haggard to hurl an indirect insult if homosexuality isn't wrong, as you've maintained numerous times (ironically enough, that's the NUMBER ONE method in which folks on this site insult others, by calling them gay)?
Once again, YOU HAVE NOT mentioned your standard of morality. And, until you do, you have no footing on which to claim you allegedly have more "moral scrupels".
That's what I've been asking you FOR WEEKS. On what do YOU based your standard of "right" vs. "wrong"? Who's making the rules here?
I mean god said this, so its absolute and not subject to change, do you agree with this? that death for working on the sabbath etc.. should be the penalty, especially in innocent kids?
Please tell me you're joking!! One, with the death of a certain guy from Nazareth, that penalty (a maximum one, at best), is covered.
Two, nothing in Scripture give such a penalty for children. Hence, your rant is but more comedic skeptic outrage
um no, nice assumption. There is a huge difference from accidentally or indirectly killing kids and civilians in battle from ordering the death of kids, all of them, making them targets as per the bible. Fail to see the difference, you probably do since you can't comprehend simple arguments and fail to understand when an argument lacks logic. Certain said people should be put in jail, fined, luxuries taken away, etc etc... im sure the babies werent committing said atrocities unless these were super babies now were they? So even if war is indicated, killing the kids who are innocent makes no sense and is called infanticide, something that is babaric and ridiculous.
What do you think happens when you drop bombs on people? It kills (or at least, wounds) EVERYBODY WITHIN RANGE of the explosion: Man, woman, boy, girl, infant, dog, cat, sheep, goat, cow, etc.
And, for those pro-"choice" folks who happen to be atheists, they're the last one to be talking about infanticide.
As a matter of fact, thanks to a butt-load of political bribery and tomfoolery, American tax-payers dollars (if they weren't before) are now going to fund infanticide, AS WE SPEAK. What do you think partial-birth abortions, which are/have been legal, in THIS COUNTRY in the 20th/21st century, are?
-
We went through this before. We know exactly WHY Hitler did what he did, regarding those symbols. And, we have HIS WORDS, regarding what he wanted to do with those who followed Christianity. That was, of course, stamping it out, "root and branch".
You can't seem to make up your mind here. One minute, you want to blame Hitler's "Christianity", the next you're blaming his actions on the clap or some other STD.
All of this is to dodge the simple fact that Hitler's de facto atheism was the driving force behind his nefarious actions.
What LMAO? hitler was all over the place, so your one quote trumps all the evidence and other quotes we have?????? seems logical? the logical conclusion is that hitler is a crazy guy, sociopathic, psychotic, murderous lunatic. You are insane if you think his de facto atheism was the driving force for the slaughter of other humans. Reading that statement makes me lulz, its so illogical my brain hurts.
"YngiweRhoads covered that in several of his posts (particuarly in certain links of his).
My conclusion is hardly absurd. Furthermore, this childish rant of yours just proved my point. Why are you using Ted Haggard to hurl an indirect insult if homosexuality isn't wrong, as you've maintained numerous times (ironically enough, that's the NUMBER ONE method in which folks on this site insult others, by calling them gay)?
Once again, YOU HAVE NOT mentioned your standard of morality. And, until you do, you have no footing on which to claim you allegedly have more "moral scrupels".
That's what I've been asking you FOR WEEKS. On what do YOU based your standard of "right" vs. "wrong"? Who's making the rules here?"
logic and reason are the standard for which morality is measured, it has been said over and over. You cannot accept anything other then god so arguing with you is like banging your head against a wall, your mind is made up and nothing will deter you. Society, logic, reason, relationships etc.. all make the rules, morality is evolving as expected. We are more moral then we were 100 years ago, and will continue to progress. People like you who think homos are evil are likely to be phased out, hating others because of their life choices is hardly more.
"Please tell me you're joking!! One, with the death of a certain guy from Nazareth, that penalty (a maximum one, at best), is covered.
Two, nothing in Scripture give such a penalty for children. Hence, your rant is but more comedic skeptic outrage"
OK MCWAY ::)
Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God must be put to death. Such evil must be purged from Israel. (Deuteronomy 17:12 NLT)
You should not let a sorceress live. (Exodus 22:17 NAB)
A man or a woman who acts as a medium or fortuneteller shall be put to death by stoning; they have no one but themselves to blame for their death. (Leviticus 20:27 NAB)
Whoever strikes his father or mother shall be put to death. (Exodus 21:15 NAB)
1) If one curses his father or mother, his lamp will go out at the coming of darkness. (Proverbs 20:20 NAB)
2) All who curse their father or mother must be put to death. They are guilty of a capital offense. (Leviticus 20:9 NLT)
The LORD then gave these further instructions to Moses: 'Tell the people of Israel to keep my Sabbath day, for the Sabbath is a sign of the covenant between me and you forever. It helps you to remember that I am the LORD, who makes you holy. Yes, keep the Sabbath day, for it is holy. Anyone who desecrates it must die; anyone who works on that day will be cut off from the community. Work six days only, but the seventh day must be a day of total rest. I repeat: Because the LORD considers it a holy day, anyone who works on the Sabbath must be put to death.' (Exodus 31:12-15 NLT)
THATS anyone baby, anyone, kids die for doing shit on sunday, moral as fuck.
"What do you think happens when you drop bombs on people? It kills (or at least, wounds) EVERYBODY WITHIN RANGE of the explosion: Man, woman, boy, girl, infant, dog, cat, sheep, goat, cow, etc.
And, for those pro-"choice" folks who happen to be atheists, they're the last one to be talking about infanticide.
As a matter of fact, thanks to a butt-load of political bribery and tomfoolery, American tax-payers dollars (if they weren't before) are now going to fund infanticide, AS WE SPEAK. What do you think partial-birth abortions, which are/have been legal, in THIS COUNTRY in the 20th/21st century, are?"
you are being willingly ignorant, god ordered all the infants to be killed, infanticide. The us or anyone bombing somewhere are not targeting kids, big difference. If i was a general and bombed iraq and then said go in after and kill all the babies and kids who are alive, wouldn't that be fucking sick? The fact that warfare back then would limit innocent victims, and god still wanted the kids killed shows his character=hitler. For one, the baby is not alive, you have a different deal altogether here. Most abortions are on fetuses with no neurological development to speak, feel no pain, have no thoughts etc.. Comparing infanticide of living children to abortion is like comparing raping a living person to necrophilia.
I wont get into this argument with you as you are using your diversion tactic as always, confounding the argument with new topics, skewing the argument, and cherry picking. Not to mention willingly ignoring points, creating the best strawmen and failing in general.
GOD ORDERS THOSE WHO WORK ON A FUCKING DAY TO BE KILLED, KILLED? lol, fucking insane you defend this non-sensical bullshit. You live your life by this shit? you work on sunday? if so be a good christian and put a 22 to your dome.
-
Hey Nec, unless you actually understand the Bible you should really not speak. All you are doing is taking a quote here and a quote there and fitting it to your argument without any sense of context or historical understanding. BTW, the sabbath is no more since Christ relieved us from it, and even it were, exactly what 'work' would an infant do to break the sabbath? Your arguments make absolutely no sense at all.
SG
-
Hey Nec, unless you actually understand the Bible you should really not speak. All you are doing is taking a quote here and a quote there and fitting it to your argument without any sense of context or historical understanding. BTW, the sabbath is no more since Christ relieved us from it, and even it were, exactly what 'work' would an infant do to break the sabbath? Your arguments make absolutely no sense at all.
SG
What if a doctor works on the Sabbath... on an emergency case?
What if he's an abortion doctor... but it's an emergency abortion?
You religious people really are a delusional bunch.
The Luke
-
-
Hey Nec, unless you actually understand the Bible you should really not speak. All you are doing is taking a quote here and a quote there and fitting it to your argument without any sense of context or historical understanding. BTW, the sabbath is no more since Christ relieved us from it, and even it were, exactly what 'work' would an infant do to break the sabbath? Your arguments make absolutely no sense at all.
SG
did i say infants? i thought i said children but let i could be wrong. You don't have to read a whole pile of shit to know something is shit. I don't have to listen to everything hitler said to know he hates jews, your logic is non sequitor, but goverment controlled you always fail to use logic. The fact that god at any point ordered death to those who work on the sabbath is fucking ridiculous, you can't defend it.
-
The LORD then gave these further instructions to Moses: 'Tell the people of Israel to keep my Sabbath day, for the Sabbath is a sign of the covenant between me and you forever. It helps you to remember that I am the LORD, who makes you holy. Yes, keep the Sabbath day, for it is holy. Anyone who desecrates it must die; anyone who works on that day will be cut off from the community. Work six days only, but the seventh day must be a day of total rest. I repeat: Because the LORD considers it a holy day, anyone who works on the Sabbath must be put to death.' (Exodus 31:12-15 NLT)
THATS anyone baby, anyone, kids die for doing shit on sunday, moral as fuck.
I see your point Necrosis, but on a side note, somebody once said:
"But imagine - what would happen if everyone in the world kept the Sabbath? Imagine one day a week when no cars, planes or boats guzzled gas, no factories coughed out polluted stench, no TVs, stereos, or computers leeched electricity? Just imagine the health benefits if everyone rested once a week! And how many road deaths (the majority of which occur on weekends) would be avoided."
Religion aside, something to think about.
-
I see your point Necrosis, but on a side note, somebody once said:
"But imagine - what would happen if everyone in the world kept the Sabbath? Imagine one day a week when no cars, planes or boats guzzled gas, no factories coughed out polluted stench, no TVs, stereos, or computers leeched electricity? Just imagine the health benefits if everyone rested once a week! And how many road deaths (the majority of which occur on weekends) would be avoided."
Religion aside, something to think about.
not so sure resting one day a week would have many health benefits, depends on how one lives there life. Rest if you saying bedrest or no activity is not really a good thing for a healthy person, activity is more beneficial, enjoyment and sports would be more beneficial. No matter what way you cut it death is not an appropriate penalty, surely you see that? I can see the benefit of one day of rest but the factory stuff, work, business may not be feasible, nothing happening for one day a week might be economic death.
I see your point, i wont blindly argue against it just because that is my expected default position, im unsure if it would benefit or not. I just disagree with the punishment.
-
"But imagine - what would happen if everyone in the world kept the Sabbath? Imagine one day a week when no cars, planes or boats guzzled gas, no factories coughed out polluted stench, no TVs, stereos, or computers leeched electricity? Just imagine the health benefits if everyone rested once a week! And how many road deaths (the majority of which occur on weekends) would be avoided."
...more moronic bullshit.
Does this include doctors and nurses? Aid workers? Police?
The Luke
-
What LMAO? hitler was all over the place, so your one quote trumps all the evidence and other quotes we have?????? seems logical? the logical conclusion is that hitler is a crazy ####, sociopathic, psychotic, murderous lunatic. You are insane if you think his de facto atheism was the driving force for the slaughter of other humans. Reading that statement makes me lulz, its so illogical my brain hurts.
Yet, you're the one, contributing Hitler's actions to an STD!!
logic and reason are the standard for which morality is measured, it has been said over and over. You cannot accept anything other then god so arguing with you is like banging your head against a wall, your mind is made up and nothing will deter you. Society, logic, reason, relationships etc.. all make the rules, morality is evolving as expected. We are more moral then we were 100 years ago, and will continue to progress. People like you who think homos are evil are likely to be phased out, hating others because of their life choices is hardly more.
One more time, WHOSE logic and whose reason?
If it's that of man, then my original statement (against which you've fumed for months) stands. And, that is atheism simply being man worshipping himself.
If you put man at the be-all-to-end-all of what's right and wrong, then you CANNOT refute that statement, because you have cited no other source (or no source period) for a standard of "right" and "wrong".
We all saw what Hitler's "logic" and "reason" ended up causing. And, it appears he did that "fluid" morality thing to a tee. But rather than celebrating this poster example of atheism-gone-wild, you and countless other godless folks have broken your collective necks to, not only distance yourselves from this fellow, but to try to cast him as a Christian.
Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God must be put to death. Such evil must be purged from Israel. (Deuteronomy 17:12 NLT)
You should not let a sorceress live. (Exodus 22:17 NAB)
A man or a woman who acts as a medium or fortuneteller shall be put to death by stoning; they have no one but themselves to blame for their death. (Leviticus 20:27 NAB)
What exactly do you think these mediums were doing, baking cookies and singing Kum Bah Yah?
Whoever strikes his father or mother shall be put to death. (Exodus 21:15 NAB)
1) If one curses his father or mother, his lamp will go out at the coming of darkness. (Proverbs 20:20 NAB)
2) All who curse their father or mother must be put to death. They are guilty of a capital offense. (Leviticus 20:9 NLT)
And this is a problem, because..........Cursing someone (and, NO, I don't mean simple profane words) was something MAJOR.
The LORD then gave these further instructions to Moses: 'Tell the people of Israel to keep my Sabbath day, for the Sabbath is a sign of the covenant between me and you forever. It helps you to remember that I am the LORD, who makes you holy. Yes, keep the Sabbath day, for it is holy. Anyone who desecrates it must die; anyone who works on that day will be cut off from the community. Work six days only, but the seventh day must be a day of total rest. I repeat: Because the LORD considers it a holy day, anyone who works on the Sabbath must be put to death.' (Exodus 31:12-15 NLT)
THATS anyone baby, anyone, kids die for doing shit on sunday, moral as fuck.
Of course, with no example of such happening, your hysterical rant can be brushed off as just that.
you are being willingly ignorant, god ordered all the infants to be killed, infanticide. The us or anyone bombing somewhere are not targeting kids, big difference. If i was a general and bombed iraq and then said go in after and kill all the babies and kids who are alive, wouldn't that be fucking sick? The fact that warfare back then would limit innocent victims, and god still wanted the kids killed shows his character=hitler. For one, the baby is not alive, you have a different deal altogether here. Most abortions are on fetuses with no neurological development to speak, feel no pain, have no thoughts etc.. Comparing infanticide of living children to abortion is like comparing raping a living person to necrophilia.
What do you think happens when you drop a bomb on someone? You do so WITH THE FULL KNOWLEDGE that women and children WILL BE KILLED. What you're doing (as usual) is arguing semantics. Killing kids isn't that bad, as long as it's impersonal.
The term, "fetus", is a cushy term used so that people don't have to call babies what they really are and justify destroying them. And your other claims have been dismantled by medical scientific discovery (something atheists swear up and down they uphold....heck, they all but bow before it). Babies have neurological developments (to say the least) and functioning brains and that occurs before the woman EVEN KNOWS SHE'S pregnant.
I wont get into this argument with you as you are using your diversion tactic as always, confounding the argument with new topics, skewing the argument, and cherry picking. Not to mention willingly ignoring points, creating the best strawmen and failing in general.
GOD ORDERS THOSE WHO WORK ON A FUCKING DAY TO BE KILLED, KILLED? lol, fucking insane you defend this non-sensical bullshit. You live your life by this shit? you work on sunday? if so be a good christian and put a 22 to your dome.
You first!!! Since you have no moral compass, you can do so, just for the sake of satisfying that floating morality compass of yours.
That would be the one that says morality is fluid, yet those who ascribe to such whine and complain when man takes that premise to its ultimate conclusion (as Hitler, Mao, Stalin, et al. did all to well, with all-too-tragic consequences).
-
...more moronic bullshit.
Does this include doctors and nurses? Aid workers? Police?
The Luke
No, Jesus healed on the Sabbath and taught people to do good on the Sabbath, and so can aid workers, doctors and nurses. But it would be the least busy day of the week for all of them, wouldn't it be?
-
I can see the benefit of one day of rest but the factory stuff, work, business may not be feasible, nothing happening for one day a week might be economic death.
Chick-fil-A, the second-largest quick-service chicken restaurant chain in the country, gives all employees Sunday off to spend with family, to relax and to express their faith if they choose to do so. Yet, Chick-fil-A generates more sales in six days than most national chains produce in seven. Closing on Sunday is just one of the “principles before profits” ingredients in founder Truett Cathy's inspiring recipe-for-success.
“I was not so committed to financial success that I was willing to abandon my principles and priorities. One of the most visible examples of this is our decision to close on Sunday. Our decision to close on Sunday was our way of honoring God and of directing our attention to things that mattered more than our business.”
Chick-fil-A is the only major fast-food restaurant chain to be closed on Sundays, one of the busiest days of the week in the restaurant business. Despite being closed on Sundays, Truett Cathy has led Chick-fil-A on an unparalleled record of 40 consecutive years of sales increases, with its core free-standing restaurants achieving higher sales per unit in six days (with shorter operating hours) than most major chains in the industry.
http://www.truettcathy.com/about_recipe.asp
-
Chick-fil-A, the second-largest quick-service chicken restaurant chain in the country, gives all employees Sunday off to spend with family, to relax and to express their faith if they choose to do so. Yet, Chick-fil-A generates more sales in six days than most national chains produce in seven. Closing on Sunday is just one of the “principles before profits” ingredients in founder Truett Cathy's inspiring recipe-for-success.
“I was not so committed to financial success that I was willing to abandon my principles and priorities. One of the most visible examples of this is our decision to close on Sunday. Our decision to close on Sunday was our way of honoring God and of directing our attention to things that mattered more than our business.”
Chick-fil-A is the only major fast-food restaurant chain to be closed on Sundays, one of the busiest days of the week in the restaurant business. Despite being closed on Sundays, Truett Cathy has led Chick-fil-A on an unparalleled record of 40 consecutive years of sales increases, with its core free-standing restaurants achieving higher sales per unit in six days (with shorter operating hours) than most major chains in the industry.
http://www.truettcathy.com/about_recipe.asp
The man who married me and my wife is also a caterer. He does NOTHING work-related (except for preaching, on occasion) on Sunday.
Yet, he has prospered for years. So, the rumors of "economic death" for business are greatly exaggerated.
-
Yet, you're the one, contributing Hitler's actions to an STD!!
um so? he had syphilis, the tertiary form is neurosyphilis among other things, slow dementia is very possible, perhaps a contributing factor. Hard to say, regardless, your point?
One more time, WHOSE logic and whose reason?
If it's that of man, then my original statement (against which you've fumed for months) stands. And, that is atheism simply being man worshipping himself.
If you put man at the be-all-to-end-all of what's right and wrong, then you CANNOT refute that statement, because you have cited no other source (or no source period) for a standard of "right" and "wrong".
We all saw what Hitler's "logic" and "reason" ended up causing. And, it appears he did that "fluid" morality thing to a tee. But rather than celebrating this poster example of atheism-gone-wild, you and countless other godless folks have broken your collective necks to, not only distance yourselves from this fellow, but to try to cast him as a Christian.
why is it always a who, the standard is man, logic and reason. That explains why things in the bible are immoral now, we have progressed as would be predicted. Slavery is no longer moral, it was previously, again another prediction. Your argument is like saying what is teh external source for the color BLUE? whose blue? i mean is it your blue, or my blue without a god to say what blue is we cannot know what blue is right? well its agreed upon what blue is by people, just like morality. No god needed, why are atheists more moral then christians, why is morality evolving, why do people dispute teh bibles morality if it is absolute?
What exactly do you think these mediums were doing, baking cookies and singing Kum Bah Yah?
And this is a problem, because..........Cursing someone (and, NO, I don't mean simple profane words) was something MAJOR.
Your right those damn mediums ::). Oh and cursing carries a penalty of death? fuck, sorry, i should be dead then. Seriously are you defending this shit? thought this was absolute, i mean god wrote it right? it should still hold today as he is unchanging, has your kid ever talked back to you? gave you sauce? if so kill him/her, seriously get a clue dude.
Of course, with no example of such happening, your hysterical rant can be brushed off as just that.
Again if your argument is that there is no said example then it is fine, that shows the statements immorality. If i were to find an example your statment implies that this is wrong, does it not? So you agree that people working on sundays, thats a whole lot of people right now should die. Regardless, the statement at anytime is retarded beyond belief. He knows the fucking future, yet kills people for working on the day he created not to work on, but knew they would work on. Ya that makes perfect sense ::)
What do you think happens when you drop a bomb on someone? You do so WITH THE FULL KNOWLEDGE that women and children WILL BE KILLED. What you're doing (as usual) is arguing semantics. Killing kids isn't that bad, as long as it's impersonal.
The term, "fetus", is a cushy term used so that people don't have to call babies what they really are and justify destroying them. And your other claims have been dismantled by medical scientific discovery (something atheists swear up and down they uphold....heck, they all but bow before it). Babies have neurological developments (to say the least) and functioning brains and that occurs before the woman EVEN KNOWS SHE'S pregnant.
You first!!! Since you have no moral compass, you can do so, just for the sake of satisfying that floating morality compass of yours.
That would be the one that says morality is fluid, yet those who ascribe to such whine and complain when man takes that premise to its ultimate conclusion (as Hitler, Mao, Stalin, et al. did all to well, with all-too-tragic consequences).
what is this medical breakthrough, LMAO. You are spouting shit as usual, the mapping of the human fetus as it grows is well known. OMG neurons, it must be alive. Again, killing kids is never right, there is a difference between ordering the slaughter of kids versus casualties of war, if you cannot see this then you are either stupid or blind with faith. Why dont i have a moral compass again? i have already told you what dictates my morality, logic,reason,knowledge that guides me and every sane person. I can figure out that raping a kid is immoral, incest is immoral all without ever reading the bible. I think your god is immoral, how could i think that if he endowed me with absolute moral traits? shouldn't i agree with the killing of kids who curse on there parents? The definition of when a baby is alive is tricky, could it live outside the uterus, if not it is not really a living entity i would reckon. I can go through some embryology if you like since i actually have studied it unlike some ::)
-
Haven't had much time to post other than a few min here and there, but here is an interesting hypothesis on science and morality.
Most educated, secular people (and this includes most scientists, academics, and journalists) seem to believe that there is no such thing as moral truth—only moral preference, moral opinion, and emotional reactions that we mistake for genuine knowledge of right and wrong, or good and evil. While I make the case for a universal conception of morality in much greater depth in my forthcoming book, The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values , I’d like to address the most common criticisms I’ve received thus far in response to my remarks at TED.
-
um so? he had syphilis, the tertiary form is neurosyphilis among other things, slow dementia is very possible, perhaps a contributing factor. Hard to say, regardless, your point?
My point is this ridiculous attempt to paint Hitler's actions as being driven by an STD, as opposed to his end result of his "fluid" morality is beyond ridiculous and way past bordering on absurd.
why is it always a who, the standard is man, logic and reason. That explains why things in the bible are immoral now, we have progressed as would be predicted. Slavery is no longer moral, it was previously, again another prediction. Your argument is like saying what is teh external source for the color BLUE? whose blue? i mean is it your blue, or my blue without a god to say what blue is we cannot know what blue is right? well its agreed upon what blue is by people, just like morality. No god needed, why are atheists more moral then christians, why is morality evolving, why do people dispute teh bibles morality if it is absolute?
"Slavery is no longer moral"....says who? If man's morality is fluid, then there's no reason why, if slavery is no longer moral, it can't be moral once again.
As for atheists being more moral than Christians, that's more double-talk on your end. You have a floating standard of morality (to this day, you have yet to officially cite a source).
People question the Bible's morality, because they want to do their own thing. As stated earlier, they want to worship themselves and put THEIR standard (whatever the heck that is) above Scripture.
And, if the standard is man's logic and reason (as you've just stated), then you've just validated what I've said about atheism from the start. It is simply and effectively MAN WORSHIPPING HIMSELF.
Again if your argument is that there is no said example then it is fine, that shows the statements immorality. If i were to find an example your statment implies that this is wrong, does it not? So you agree that people working on sundays, thats a whole lot of people right now should die. Regardless, the statement at anytime is retarded beyond belief. He knows the fucking future, yet kills people for working on the day he created not to work on, but knew they would work on. Ya that makes perfect sense
What part of free will don't you get? People have the ability to choose to obey or disobey. Of course, there are consequences (positive and negative) for obedience and disobedience. So, this latest wailing of yours sounds like the standard "why-can't-I-break-the-rules-without-facing-the-consequences" routine.
what is this medical breakthrough, LMAO. You are spouting shit as usual, the mapping of the human fetus as it grows is well known. OMG neurons, it must be alive. Again, killing kids is never right, there is a difference between ordering the slaughter of kids versus casualties of war, if you cannot see this then you are either stupid or blind with faith. Why dont i have a moral compass again? i have already told you what dictates my morality, logic,reason,knowledge that guides me and every sane person. I can figure out that raping a kid is immoral, incest is immoral all without ever reading the bible. I think your god is immoral, how could i think that if he endowed me with absolute moral traits? shouldn't i agree with the killing of kids who curse on there parents? The definition of when a baby is alive is tricky, could it live outside the uterus, if not it is not really a living entity i would reckon. I can go through some embryology if you like since i actually have studied it unlike some
You're dehumanizing an unborn baby, to justify its destruction based on convenience; yet you're whining about infanticide. That's rich. Also, listen to what you just said...."casualties of war".
That's exactly what those children, in the Old Testament, were. So, your wailing is based on nothing but semantics. Would those children be any less DEAD if bombs were used vs. swords?
When the Japanese hit us at Pearl Harbor and we dropped the A-Bomb on them, DIDN'T THEIR KIDS pay the price for their parents' mistakes? OF COURSE!!
That's happening NOW, with the war on terror.
Hitler's "logic and reason" guided him, too. As did the "logic and reason" of Stalin and Mao. We all know the results of that.
-
My point is this ridiculous attempt to paint Hitler's actions as being driven by an STD, as opposed to his end result of his "fluid" morality is beyond ridiculous and way past bordering on absurd.
so a neurological illness to explain dementia is absurd? i suppose if he walked funny pointing out his parkisons is equally ridiculous. You are misrepresenting my argument as usually, i have stated numerous times he was a sociopathic, murderous,lunatic with a disease as well. Perhaps you miss the point, he was crazy, a deviant. I only pointed out his religious beliefs when people like you try to claim his atheism caused him to murder millions, a ludacris argument. His morality was not fluid, what the fuck are you talking about, no sane person would agree that it is fine to commit genocide ::).
"Slavery is no longer moral"....says who? If man's morality is fluid, then there's no reason why, if slavery is no longer moral, it can't be moral once again.
because its against the law to have slaves, no one accepts slavery. We would have to devolve for this to occur, as a society at large we have concluded it is immoral. Morality is decided by humans, just like every other construct.
As for atheists being more moral than Christians, that's more double-talk on your end. You have a floating standard of morality (to this day, you have yet to officially cite a source).
what do you mean source? so it has to have an outside source then? where is your evidence of this. the more atheistic the country the less crime. Prison populations have less atheists per percentile then the religious, want more? Why cant morality be fluid and evolving, i have yet to see why this isn't the case.
People question the Bible's morality, because they want to do their own thing. As stated earlier, they want to worship themselves and put THEIR standard (whatever the heck that is) above Scripture.
And, if the standard is man's logic and reason (as you've just stated), then you've just validated what I've said about atheism from the start. It is simply and effectively MAN WORSHIPPING HIMSELF.
what the fuck is with the worshipping, are you a puppet that needs somethign to worship? all it shows is that man can make his own moral conclusions without the bible, that no external source is needed. If i disagree with the morality in the bible my criterion is not from the bible
What part of free will don't you get? People have the ability to choose to obey or disobey. Of course, there are consequences (positive and negative) for obedience and disobedience. So, this latest wailing of yours sounds like the standard "why-can't-I-break-the-rules-without-facing-the-consequences" routine.
umm no, it sounds like god knows all so he knew your choice hence making free will an illusion, show me how this is not the case.
You're dehumanizing an unborn baby, to justify its destruction based on convenience; yet you're whining about infanticide. That's rich. Also, listen to what you just said...."casualties of war".
That's exactly what those children, in the Old Testament, were. So, your wailing is based on nothing but semantics. Would those children be any less DEAD if bombs were used vs. swords?
NO YOU SICK BASTARD. god ordered the kids to be killed, he went out of his way to ensure the mass murder of kids and infants. We try to avoid this at all costs, however, casualties will occur but they are to be minimized. In fact some of the extremist groups would gather with children in battle as the states etc.. would not kill the children, essentially fucking up the operations. ITS NOT SEMANTICS PSYCHO, one ordered the death of innocent kids the other are trying to eliminate adults and avoid kids. Again if a general now a days said after we bomb them go in a slit all the kids thoats and drown the babies he would face a penalty of death for numerous reasons. Get the point? dehumanizing an unborn baby? dude you have to have a basis for your argument. Where does the human start. I mean it cant live outside the womb at 7 months for the most part. I has no neurological development in the early stages, when is it a human, when it is outside the womb functioning like a human. How about when i jerk off is that abortion, since i have just wasted semen which could potentially be a child? Seriously what are the criteria for human? otherwise you are just blowing smoke and rambling as usual
When the Japanese hit us at Pearl Harbor and we dropped the A-Bomb on them, DIDN'T THEIR KIDS pay the price for their parents' mistakes? OF COURSE!!
That's happening NOW, with the war on terror.
Hitler's "logic and reason" guided him, too. As did the "logic and reason" of Stalin and Mao. We all know the results of that.
OK, read above for the kid example yet again, i wont continue that futile argument if you miss the point again. I agree with hitler andstalin and mao's logic, what does that have to do with anything? they are deviants, social misshaps, exactly what we would expect from a moral code without god, not what we would expect if god entrenched a moral code in us. Why do you fail so much.
If there is no god, are you saying that you would see it fine to rape babies and kill others? please answer.
-
because its against the law to have slaves, no one accepts slavery. We would have to devolve for this to occur, as a society at large we have concluded it is immoral. Morality is decided by humans, just like every other construct.
Point missed by a country mile. At one point (in the USA) it was LEGAL to own slaves (chattel). In many countries, IT STILL IS LEGAL. Does that mean that the countries in which slavery is still legal are acting "morally" or not? After all, they used their "logic" and "reason" to conclude that chattel slavery was good for their society.
So if humans decide in a manner that you don't like, you STILL (per your wacky atheistic standard) have no room to complain, as they are merely exercising that "fluid" morality stuff.
what do you mean source? so it has to have an outside source then? where is your evidence of this. the more atheistic the country the less crime. Prison populations have less atheists per percentile then the religious, want more? Why cant morality be fluid and evolving, i have yet to see why this isn't the case.
PLEASE!! That prison population mess is as flimsy as soggy tissue. Those prisoners, more often than not, cite their parents' religious denomination (despite likely not having been to church or actively involved in religious activity IN YEARS).
Once again, if morality is "fluid", why are you blubbering when it flows in a way that you don't particularly like?
what the fuck is with the worshipping, are you a puppet that needs somethign to worship? all it shows is that man can make his own moral conclusions without the bible, that no external source is needed. If i disagree with the morality in the bible my criterion is not from the bible
Yet, when someone else draws his own moral conclusions, you get all bent out of shape and start wailing bleating like a wounded sheep!! If you want to make your own moral conclusions, don't cry when someone else does the same, with the results being adverse to YOU.
NO YOU SICK BASTARD. god ordered the kids to be killed, he went out of his way to ensure the mass murder of kids and infants. We try to avoid this at all costs, however, casualties will occur but they are to be minimized. In fact some of the extremist groups would gather with children in battle as the states etc.. would not kill the children, essentially fucking up the operations. ITS NOT SEMANTICS PSYCHO, one ordered the death of innocent kids the other are trying to eliminate adults and avoid kids. Again if a general now a days said after we bomb them go in a slit all the kids thoats and drown the babies he would face a penalty of death for numerous reasons. Get the point? dehumanizing an unborn baby? dude you have to have a basis for your argument. Where does the human start. I mean it cant live outside the womb at 7 months for the most part. I has no neurological development in the early stages, when is it a human, when it is outside the womb functioning like a human. How about when i jerk off is that abortion, since i have just wasted semen which could potentially be a child? Seriously what are the criteria for human? otherwise you are just blowing smoke and rambling as usual
More semantics. Bombs or swords, those kids are JUST AS DEAD!! And your neurological development argument it patently false. But, that seems to be your cup of tea. As long as you THINK unborn babies aren't really babies, hacking them up for convenience's sake doesn't seem to be a problem.
As for your other comments, I have no desire to know about what you do with your hands, besides typing on this forum.
A baby can't live outside the womb for seven months? Are you sniffing paint thinner today? We've seen preemie babies less than 7 months old, that have been KEPT ALIVE and have gone on to be regularly functioning people. A friend of my wife is unfortunately struggling financially, trying to pay medical bills for her PREMATURE BABY (who's now just over a year old). She gave birth to him, at the six-month mark.
OK, read above for the kid example yet again, i wont continue that futile argument if you miss the point again. I agree with hitler andstalin and mao's logic, what does that have to do with anything? they are deviants, social misshaps, exactly what we would expect from a moral code without god, not what we would expect if god entrenched a moral code in us. Why do you fail so much.
If there is no god, are you saying that you would see it fine to rape babies and kill others? please answer.
Exactly what makes them "deviants"? The Germans and Russians thought they were just ducky. Once again, all Adolf and Joe were doing was exercising that good ol' "fluid" morality, which you love so much. To be a "deviant", you must drift from a certain moral standard. What, do tell, is this standard from which those two strayed?
As for your other silly question, first, there is a God. So, your trap question holds no water. Second, perhaps, the folks in NAMBLA would be better suited to answer that.
Since there is a God, and He says rape and murder is a no-no, I'll go by His standard and say that, NO, I don't think raping babies is fine. In case you missed it, rape was a CAPITAL OFFENSE in the Old Testament (as was murder).
-
McWay,
You keep harping on about "fluid" morality... why?
Why use the quotation marks...?
I don't remember anyone else espousing the model of secular morality you keep ascribing to atheists... are you quoting your own misconceptions?
The Luke
-
McWay,
You keep harping on about "fluid" morality... why?
Why use the quotation marks...?
I don't remember anyone else espousing the model of secular morality you keep ascribing to atheists... are you quoting your own misconceptions?
The Luke
I use the quotation marks, because the words came from a link, cited by YngiweRhoads . I stated that several days ago.
The issue that certain atheists are loathed to face is the "logical" conclusion of their fluid morality, that someone can use their own "logic" and "reason" to end up pulling a Hitler or a Stalin. If man can define his own morality, then neither you nor Necrosis are in any position to complain about their acts being "immoral", as they had every right to define their own morality as the two of you do (per atheistic standards).
-
I use the quotation marks, because the words came from a link, cited by Ynghwie Roads. I stated that several days ago.
Well, can you give it a rest... you don't understand relative morality; moral evolution; or even morality itself.
You come on here defending every bestial savage immoral act of barbarism in the Bible, then attack atheists as being somehow morally inferior.
It's ridiculous.
I realise that you can't really think for yourself and so need some sort of moral authority... but why criticise those who have evolved beyond Bronze Age brutality and in turn reject it...? These people are your moral superiors. Study after study have shown that atheists are the MOST moral sector of any society.
Why not recognise your own cognitive shortfalls, maybe even work to improve yourself?
The Luke
-
you are lost mcway.
answer the question, if god does not exist does that mean it is ok to rape babies and kill others at your whim? if not why?
-
you are lost mcway.
answer the question, if god does not exist does that mean it is ok to rape babies and kill others at your whim? if not why?
I answered it, Einstein. But, just to recap:
One, God does exist. So, your scenario holds no water and I can answer that such is not "OK" (hence the reason that both rape and murder were capital offenses in Scripture).
Two, as stated far too many times, if there is no God, man IS LEFT TO HIS OWN DEVICES. That means that you and Necrosis can't say JACK about folks like Stalin and Hitler, or those lovely folks from NAMBLA. All they are doing is exercising that fluid morality, that is so high on the atheistic totem pole.
-
Well, can you give it a rest... you don't understand relative morality; moral evolution; or even morality itself.
You come on here defending every bestial savage immoral act of barbarism in the Bible, then attack atheists as being somehow morally inferior.
It's ridiculous.
What's ridiculous is you complaining about how "immoral" the Bible is, yet subscribing to relative morality and so-called moral evolution.
We've seen plenty of example of such evolving into things that you don't find too kosher. But, as you have no set standard of "right" and "wrong", your complaints make you sound quite silly!!
I realise that you can't really think for yourself and so need some sort of moral authority... but why criticise those who have evolved beyond Bronze Age brutality and in turn reject it...? These people are your moral superiors. Study after study have shown that atheists are the MOST moral sector of any society.
PLEASE!!! Study after study have shown that Christians are undoubtedly THE MOST CHARITABLE folks on this Earth. They've helped the helpless, when the so-called moral superiors left them to starve and die.
They've clothed the naked and cared for widows, and they've done so FOR CENTURIED, while the self-proclaimed enlightened folk were MIA.
We have two of the BIGGEST card-carrying examples of atheism, whose body counts (again) make the Crusades look like a Hooters catfight. People from whom you'd love to historically distance yourself, because they followed the logical conclusion of atheistic fluid morality, with drastically tragic results.
Why not recognise your own cognitive shortfalls, maybe even work to improve yourself?
The Luke
I've improved myself significantly over the years. Fortunately, that doesn't require subscribing to the atheist nonsense of self-worship and deifying man.
-
Energizer bunny here... :o
-
Wow...
McWay, you've won me over... I now realise that Super-Christey Fundie Jeebusness is the way to go.
After all, here I was thinking things through and basing my arguments in reality, when I could have simply changed sides; allowing me to fabricate a fictitious reality conforming to my own prejudices and misconceptions... a reality wherein I am never wrong as the things I believe are true and just based solely on faith.
So, now that I've accepted Jeebus as my personal saviour... could you help me be a proper Christian?
Tomorrow morning I'm going to honour-kill my disobedient mouthy children; stone to death that nice Wiccan hippie lady down the street; murder all infidels (starting with the homosexuals); and beat my disobedient slaves.
Anything I'm missing there? Are any of Amolek's descendants still around? 'Cause I know I have to kill them all; be they women, children or swaddling babes.
Can I have my slaves do some of the killing for me? It seems like a lot of murdering to be a good Christian, and I want to be finished by the Sabbath.
The Luke
-
God does exist.
Pretty extraordinary claim to make with zero evidence. You're funny.
Two, as stated far too many times, if there is no God, man IS LEFT TO HIS OWN DEVICES. That means that you and Necrosis can't say JACK about folks like Stalin and Hitler, or those lovely folks from NAMBLA. All they are doing is exercising that fluid morality, that is so high on the atheistic totem pole.
Hitler, apparently, was a Theist. Not a Christian. Not an Atheist. Not that it matters. He was probably one of the worst humans to ever have lived and both Theists and Atheists, almost universally, agree with this and both groups denounce his actions vehemently.
Just wondering MCWAY. How much of a fundamentalist are you? Do you take everything the Bible says in literal terms? Such as creating the the universe in a few days, Adam and Eve, Noah and Moses, for example.
What do you think of scientific hypotheses and theories such as evolution, the age of the universe, dinosaurs, the possibility of life on other planets, or the possibility that life may not have originated on Earth? How do you reconcile these subjects with the writings contained in the bible? These are just a few well known topics I'm using as examples of course.
-
PLEASE!!! Study after study have shown that Christians are undoubtedly THE MOST CHARITABLE folks on this Earth. They've helped the helpless, when the so-called moral superiors left them to starve and die.
They've clothed the naked and cared for widows, and they've done so FOR CENTURIED, while the self-proclaimed enlightened folk were MIA.
Now who do you think opposes universal health care in the US and who do you think supports it?
-
Now who do you think opposes universal health care in the US and who do you think supports it?
Most charitable and giving...
The Luke
-
Most charitable and giving...
The Luke
Wouldn't it be ironic if a homosexual individual discovered a cure for cancer and refused to treat Christians?
-
Pretty extraordinary claim to make with zero evidence. You're funny.
Hitler, apparently, was a Theist. Not a Christian. Not an Atheist. Not that it matters. He was probably one of the worst humans to ever have lived and both Theists and Atheists, almost universally, agree with this and both groups denounce his actions vehemently.
Just wondering MCWAY. How much of a fundamentalist are you? Do you take everything the Bible says in literal terms? Such as creating the the universe in a few days, Adam and Eve, Noah and Moses, for example.
What do you think of scientific hypotheses and theories such as evolution, the age of the universe, dinosaurs, the possibility of life on other planets, or the possibility that life may not have originated on Earth? How do you reconcile these subjects with the writings contained in the bible? These are just a few well known topics I'm using as examples of course.
Yes, you are new here.
MCWAY is s literalist and a young earth creationist.
-
Yes, you are new here.
MCWAY is s literalist and a young earth creationist.
Doh!
-
Wouldn't it be ironic if a homosexual individual discovered a cure for cancer and refused to treat Christians?
What if a scientist discovers a cure for stupid and won't treat Creationists?
The Luke
-
I answered it, Einstein. But, just to recap:
One, God does exist. So, your scenario holds no water and I can answer that such is not "OK" (hence the reason that both rape and murder were capital offenses in Scripture).
Two, as stated far too many times, if there is no God, man IS LEFT TO HIS OWN DEVICES. That means that you and Necrosis can't say JACK about folks like Stalin and Hitler, or those lovely folks from NAMBLA. All they are doing is exercising that fluid morality, that is so high on the atheistic totem pole.
closed minded as hell, no evidence god does exists none what so ever, thats why its called faith.
Answer the question, yes or no?
if god did not exist, would you rape and torture babies, kill people and you see this as ok?
-
Wouldn't it be ironic if a homosexual individual discovered a cure for cancer and refused to treat Christians?
I'm a Christian. If I discovered a cure for cancer, I would not refuse to treat homosexuals, or anybody else for that matter.
-
I'm a Christian. If I discovered a cure for cancer, I would not refuse to treat homosexuals, or anybody else for that matter.
...but your god would.
Loco: more moral than his own imaginary friend.
The Luke
-
I'm a Christian. If I discovered a cure for cancer, I would not refuse to treat homosexuals, or anybody else for that matter.
I would hope not, but some Theists apparently do not share your compassionate views.
-
Most charitable and giving...
The Luke
The Onion is a fake news org.
I hope you guys realise that ;D
-
The Onion is a fake news org.
I hope you guys realise that ;D
Don't you know the Bible declares homosexuality to be wrong...?
The Old Testament decries (male) homosexuality as "an abomination"... the New Testament goes even further and insists both sodomites and lesbians be put to death.
That's Christian charity. The Onion's satire isn't too far off the mark.
That's why the only religious group fit to run a charity are the Disciples of Atheismo.
The Luke
-
the New Testament goes even further and insists both sodomites and lesbians be put to death.
Where? Please quote book, chapter and verse.
http://www.BibleGateway.com
-
Where? Please quote book, chapter and verse.
http://www.BibleGateway.com
Corinthians 6:9
9Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
Timothy 1:10
10For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;
Romans 1:18-32
18For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
19Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
20For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
21Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
23And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
24Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
25Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
26For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
28And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
29Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
30Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
31Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
32Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.
Cliff notes: "Gays and lesbians (among others) who have read the Bible and know God forbids their behaviour, deserve death. So not only kill them, but admire and cheer those who kill gays and lesbians (among others)".
Don't you guys even read the Bible?
The Luke
-
... the New Testament goes even further and insists both sodomites and lesbians be put to death.
Luke, where does the New Testament insist both sodomites and lesbians be put to death?
Where, in your last post does it say they must be put to death?
Thanks.
-
Luke, where does the New Testament insist both sodomites and lesbians be put to death?
Where, in your last post does it say they must be put to death?
Can't read the Bible... can't read plain English.
"...that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them."
I know you guys don't take Shakespeare, but this is pretty easy to translate:
"...that they which commit such things..."
The people who do these things (referring to homosexuals; lesbians; adulterers; fornicators etc mentioned earlier in the passage)...
"...are worthy of death,"
...deserve to die,
"...not only do the same,"
...so not only kill them,
"but have pleasure in them that do them."
...but encourage/cheer-on/admire/respect those who kill such people.
All together now:
"...that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them."
The people who do these things deserve to die, so not only kill them, but admire those who kill such people.
That's the King James Version I'm quoting from... so don't pretend Christians never believed this.
Right through the Middle Ages homosexuals were executed based solely on the verdict of this passage. Even the great artist Michaelangelo was put on death row for homosexual behaviour. Up till modern times the main basis for the illegality of homosexual practice was the biblical interdictions (both Old and new Testament) against such behaviour.
Is this the big difference between atheists and believers... both read the Bible, but only the atheists understood it?
Frankly, the astonishing ignorance of what is actually in the Bible, among the supposedly Christian members of this board, frightens me. Every time an unpalatable truth regarding their (supposed) faith is placed in front of them it is either dismissed without consideration or some ridiculous pedantic re-translation is trotted out: "slavery" becomes indentured servitude; "battery" becomes chastisement; "rape" becomes consensual premarital sex;
I wonder what will happen here?
-dismissal without consideration...?
-touchy-feely re-interpretation...?
The Luke
-
Can't read the Bible... can't read plain English.
"...that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them."
I know you guys don't take Shakespeare, but this is pretty easy to translate:
"...that they which commit such things..."
The people who do these things (referring to homosexuals; lesbians; adulterers; fornicators etc mentioned earlier in the passage)...
"...are worthy of death,"
...deserve to die,
"...not only do the same,"
...so not only kill them,
"but have pleasure in them that do them."
...but encourage/cheer-on/admire/respect those who kill such people.
All together now:
"...that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them."
The people who do these things deserve to die, so not only kill them, but admire those who kill such people.
Romans 1:26-32
26For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
28And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
29Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
30Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
31Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
32Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.
Luke, maybe it would help you to read all of the above to see that your sentence there that you dissected is not commanding people to kill others.
The sentence is talking about the same people the whole time.
It doesn't start talking about a completely different group of people in the middle of the sentence. See what I mean?
It is talking about people that engage in the same activity.
Continue to Romans 2 (right after the 32nd verse of Romans 1):
Romans 2
1Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things.
2But we are sure that the judgment of God is according to truth against them which commit such things.
3And thinkest thou this, O man, that judgest them which do such things, and doest the same, that thou shalt escape the judgment of God?
Maybe the New International version can help you understand a little more:
6Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.
28Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. 29They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.
Romans 2
God's Righteous Judgment
1You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge the other, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things. 2Now we know that God's judgment against those who do such things is based on truth. 3So when you, a mere man, pass judgment on them and yet do the same things, do you think you will escape God's judgment?
-
Meh, you can find one passage that says one thing, another that says another thing. Bottom line is the Bible is a giant muck of contradictions from cover to cover.
-
I wonder what will happen here?
-dismissal without consideration...?
-touchy-feely re-interpretation...?
We have a winner.
The Luke
-
We have a winner.
The Luke
So Luke you are saying that in the midst of all those verses, which are talking about the same people, all of a sudden in the middle of one sentence, it is in regard to different people and then back to the first group again w/the next sentence?
Come on now Luke!
I would be interested if Deicide reads it the same way as you do?
How do you read it D ???
-
So Luke you are saying that in the midst of all those verses, which are talking about the same people, all of a sudden in the middle of one sentence, it is in regard to different people and then back to the first group again w/the next sentence?
Come on now Luke!
...it's open to interpretation.
I know which interpretation was used to persecute homosexuals though.
Why is it so hard to believe the New Testament might be homophobic in light of what is in the Old Testament?
The Luke
-
...it's open to interpretation.
I know which interpretation was used to persecute homosexuals though.
Why is it so hard to believe the New Testament might be homophobic in light of what is in the Old Testament?
The Luke
Luke, it's clear that both the OT and NT state that engaging in homosexual behavior is a sin.
That's not what the debate was here.
You claimed that the New Testament insists that both sodomites and lesbians be put to death.
It doesn't.
-
You claimed that the New Testament insists that both sodomites and lesbians be put to death.
It doesn't.
That's YOUR interpretation... I assume those final clauses are imperatives case; after all they come just after the assertion that gays and lesbians deserve death.
Isn't there a similar passage in the Old Testament that insists upon death as a punishment for homosexuality? Isn't the Bible self-consistent? Isn't it the infallible word of god?
The Luke
-
That's YOUR interpretation... I assume those final clauses are imperatives case; after all they come just after the assertion that gays and lesbians deserve death.
Isn't there a similar passage in the Old Testament that insists upon death as a punishment for homosexuality? Isn't the Bible self-consistent? Isn't it the infallible word of god?
The Luke
Your interpretation of that sentence seems pretty complicated.
Yes, can you please tell me your understanding of Old Testament Law in relation to Jesus Christ?
-
Yes, can you please tell me your understanding of Old Testament Law in relation to Jesus (who came to fulfill the law)?
Well, lots of Christians think that Jesus overturns Mosaic Law (which essentially is Shariah Law), but it's as patently ridiculous to say "Jesus changed everything" as it is to use the justification "911 changed everything".
In fact Jesus asserted that his followers must follow Mosaic Law... and that's the problem, the entire Bible is self-contradictory. Jesus never denounced any of the evil shit his Dad spouted... never... not once.
Besides, how could Jesus even be the same god as Yahweh...? Jesus is a pretty decent guy except for his acceptance of female subjugation and slavery (he never spoke out against either despite their ubiquity in his times)... whereas Yahweh is a psychopath.
In fact, many Christian traditions (such as the Cathars) believed Yahweh the Creator was actually the devil.
It makes sense. Evil exists... the creation of evil is itself evil... therefore the creator is evil... therefore the devil is the creator.
This was known as the "Rex Mundi" heresy... Christianity never developed an apologist doctrine that counters the force of it's logic. In fact, the Papacy eventually had to exterminate the Cathars (and other groups) by the millions in order to stop the spread of such thinking.
...and that's the problem. What can't God do? He can't act morally.
God's morals ALWAYS reflect the morals of the time... for he is a construct of the human mind. Slave owners cannot conceive of a god who forbids slavery. Misogynists cannot conceive of a god who endorses equality. Racists cannot conceive of a universal god.
You guys look upon Jesus the way undereducated liberals look at Ghandi... you assume Jesus was perfect; he wasn't. He was pro-slavery. But Christian believers are blind to this fact because they work backwards from unquestionable certainty... that stifles thought, but, sadly that is the purpose of faith.
Soft-minded liberals look upon Ghandi in the same way... they see him as some form of perfect saintly activist/humanist: he wasn't. He was a racist; bigot; anti-Semite; misogynist who supported the caste system. Few liberals remember this aspect of his personality.
God is no different. Yahweh was moral when people dreamt him up... Jesus was moral when people dreamt him up... both fail today, Yahweh more markedly so.
The Luke
-
Well, lots of Christians think that Jesus overturns Mosaic Law (which essentially is Shariah Law),
Luke, I've never heard this...this is really interesting....I'm going to make another thread on it so as not to get off on even more tangents in this one OK?
-
I could be wrong but I don't think I've read here that anyone said "Jesus changed everything" in the way you seem to mean.
He is the New Covenant...that doesn't mean that the plan changed. Mosaic Law (Old Cov) was between Israel and God.
Jesus is a pretty decent guy except for his acceptance of female subjugation and slavery (he never spoke out against either despite their ubiquity in his times)...
The slavery thing has been done to death here but in a different way think of these things:
Do you think that the only words He ever spoke are written in the bible?
Luke, I've never seen you speak out against girls with long nostril hair. Does this mean you accept/approve of it ??? ;D
-
Luke,
I've read all of the New Testament many times, in several different versions, both in English and in Spanish. I have also just read all of the scriptures that you posted and nowhere does it say that sodomites and lesbians be put to death. So you made it up. It is nowhere in the New Testament.
-
I've read all of the New Testament many times, in several different versions, both in English and in Spanish. I have also just read all of the scriptures that you posted and nowhere does it say that sodomites and lesbians be put to death. So you made it up. It is nowhere in the New Testament.
...did you read it in the original Greek and Hebrew?
If not, then it's just a matter of which translation you prefer for that Romans 2 passage. I assume it's an imperative clause based on the "they deserve death" bit, it kinda colours my thinking.
Once we are all agreed that the Old Testament DOES demand death for homosexuals; insolent children; cussing your parents; worshipping other gods; witchcraft etc etc... once we all agree upon that.. and that the New Testament deems homosexuals at least deserving of death.
I could be wrong but I don't think I've read here that anyone said "Jesus changed everything" in the way you seem to mean.
He is the New Covenant...that doesn't mean that the plan changed. Mosaic Law (Old Cov) was between Israel and God.
Seems you believe Jesus overrode Mosaic Law too?
But he didn't... Jesus commanded all his followers (Jews and Gentiles alike) to follow the old Mosaic Law.
That's basically Shariah Law: slavery, honour killings, Draconian punishments, all the psychopathic rantings of that abominable shithead called Yahweh... any of you Americans following that? (Voting for Palin doesn't count).
The slavery thing has been done to death here but in a different way think of these things:
Do you think that the only words He ever spoke are written in the bible?
Luke, I've never seen you speak out against girls with long nostril hair. Does this mean you accept/approve of it ??? ;D
...girls having long nostril hair doesn't hurt anyone; it isn't morally reprehensible; it isn't an irreconcilable injustice; it isn't an affront to basic human decency. So that's an empty argument that only shows your poor ability to draw parallels, Stella (no offence intended).
A better contrast would be the comparison between a godless atheist (like me) who openly speaks out against the intrinsic evils of slavery despite living in a time basically free of chattel slavery... and Jesus living in a world run on chattel slavery yet never speaking out against it.
I'd even go further and say wage slavery is also wrong... does that make me a more moral person than Jesus... I suppose technically it does.
Let's take an example from Jesus' own life...
Jesus healed the daughter of a Roman centurion, then stayed for dinner. That dinner would have been served to Jesus by slaves (probably a few house slaves for a Roman centurion). So sitting there eating dinner, the centurion asks Jesus what he can do to repay him... Jesus doesn't ask anything of him... I understand that, maybe he didn't want to prostitute his super healing powers. But at the very least he could have given a little sermon about the evils of chattel slavery seeing as there would have been several chattel slaves waiting on him at the time.
Bet those slaves thought Jesus was a complete asshole.
But this brings us back to the topic of this thread... what can't god do? He can't act morally.
At best he can only meet the moral standards of the time.... the standards of those who imagine him.
Let me explain...
I might be an atheist, but I understand a little bit about moral evolution and Darwinian altruism... so I can give a few examples of things that aren't considered immoral NOW... but undoubtedly will be in the future:
-the abuse of an asymmetric power relationship: a Biblical example would be God asking Mary to carry Jesus... did an uneducated 13 year-old girl feel she could actually say no to God; or a glowing Angel carrying a burning sword? Isn't it immoral to impregnate a 13 year-old even if you're the creator of the universe. This is considered immoral now, but still considered okay and moral if Yahweh does it for some reason (despite the damage such an early pregnancy does).
-manipulation by threat of violence: a Biblical example would be the entire concept of judgement and infinite punishment (hell). Nowadays you often hear the threat of violence used in relation to self-defence... that won't always be considered a valid justification for violence.
-ownership of private property: slavery is the most extreme Biblical example of this. Our modern economic system is based on the concept of private property rights (or should I say corporate rights to private property), but as the Earth gets more crowded and better developed such selfishness will no longer be tolerated when people understand the benefits of universally communal property and resources.
-debt... Biblically the most ridiculous debts are those of sin; innocent children killed to punish their evil-doing parents etc. Nowadays capitalism itself is based on ever escalating levels of debt, but in the future debt itself will be considered immoral; as just another form of wage slavery.
Why can't god give us future-proof morals?
Why can't god give us some sort of theory that allows us to understand the processes that produce morality itself...? Like Evolution did.
When Moses read the ten commandments from Jebul Madbh, wouldn't the smart people in the audience have tuned out when it went three commandments without any mention of rape; torture or slavery...?
Couldn't god set aside his ego long enough (the first three commandments are all about stroking his ego), to ban the big stuff:
1-Thou shalt not torture.
2-Thou shalt not rape.
3-Thou shalt not enslave.
If I'm so patently more moral than your God, why aren't you guys worshipping me?
The Luke
-
...did you read it in the original Greek and Hebrew?
The Luke
All of the Bible verses which you quoted from the New Testament were originally written in Greek, not Hebrew.
ΠΡΟΣ ΡΩΜΑΙΟΥΣ - 1
1 Παῦλος, δοῦλος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, κλητὸς ἀπόστολος, ἀφωρισμένος εἰς εὐαγγέλιον Θεοῦ. 2 ὃ προεπηγγείλατο διὰ τῶν προφητῶν αὐτοῦ ἐν γραφαῖς ἁγίαις 3 περὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ, τοῦ γενομένου ἐκ σπέρματος Δαυῒδ κατὰ σάρκα, 4 τοῦ ὁρισθέντος υἱοῦ Θεοῦ ἐν δυνάμει κατὰ πνεῦμα ἁγιωσύνης ἐξ ἀναστάσεως νεκρῶν, Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν, 5 δι' οὗ ἐλάβομεν χάριν καὶ ἀποστολὴν εἰς ὑπακοὴν πίστεως ἐν πᾶσι τοῖς ἔθνεσιν ὑπὲρ τοῦ ὀνόματος αὐτοῦ, 6 ἐν οἷς ἐστε καὶ ὑμεῖς κλητοὶ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, 7 πᾶσι τοῖς οὖσιν ἐν Ρώμῃ ἀγαπητοῖς Θεοῦ, κλητοῖς ἁγίοις· χάρις ὑμῖν καὶ εἰρήνη ἀπὸ Θεοῦ πατρὸς ἡμῶν καὶ Κυρίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ. 8 Πρῶτον μὲν εὐχαριστῶ τῷ Θεῷ μου διὰ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ ὑπὲρ πάντων ὑμῶν, ὅτι ἡ πίστις ὑμῶν καταγγέλλεται ἐν ὅλῳ τῷ κόσμῳ. 9 μάρτυς γάρ μού ἐστιν ὁ Θεός, ᾧ λατρεύω ἐν τῷ πνεύματί μου ἐν τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ, ὡς ἀδιαλείπτως μνείαν ὑμῶν ποιοῦμαι, 10 πάντοτε ἐπὶ τῶν προσευχῶν μου δεόμενος εἴ πως ἤδη ποτὲ εὐοδωθήσομαι ἐν τῷ θελήματι τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐλθεῖν πρὸς ὑμᾶς. 11 ἐπιποθῶ γὰρ ἰδεῖν ὑμᾶς, ἵνα τι μεταδῶ χάρισμα ὑμῖν πνευματικὸν εἰς τὸ στηριχθῆναι ὑμᾶς, 12 τοῦτο δέ ἐστι συμπαρακληθῆναι ἐν ὑμῖν διὰ τῆς ἐν ἀλλήλοις πίστεως ὑμῶν τε καὶ ἐμοῦ. 13 οὐ θέλω δὲ ὑμᾶς ἀγνοεῖν, ἀδελφοί, ὅτι πολλάκις προεθέμην ἐλθεῖν πρὸς ὑμᾶς, καὶ ἐκωλύθην ἄχρι τοῦ δεῦρο, ἵνα τινὰ καρπὸν σχῶ καὶ ἐν ὑμῖν καθὼς καὶ ἐν τοῖς λοιποῖς ἔθνεσιν. 14 Ἕλλησί τε καὶ βαρβάροις, σοφοῖς τε καὶ ἀνοήτοις ὀφειλέτης εἰμί· 15 οὕτω τὸ κατ' ἐμὲ πρόθυμον καὶ ὑμῖν τοῖς ἐν Ρώμῃ εὐαγγελίσασθαι. 16 οὐ γὰρ ἐπαισχύνομαι τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τοῦ Χριστοῦ· δύναμις γὰρ Θεοῦ ἐστιν εἰς σωτηρίαν παντὶ τῷ πιστεύοντι, Ἰουδαίῳ τε πρῶτον καὶ Ἕλληνι. 17 δικαιοσύνη γὰρ Θεοῦ ἐν αὐτῷ ἀποκαλύπτεται ἐκ πίστεως εἰς πίστιν, καθὼς γέγραπται· ὁ δὲ δίκαιος ἐκ πίστεως ζήσεται. 18 Ἀποκαλύπτεται γὰρ ὀργὴ Θεοῦ ἀπ' οὐρανοῦ ἐπὶ πᾶσαν ἀσέβειαν καὶ ἀδικίαν ἀνθρώπων τῶν τὴν ἀλήθειαν ἐν ἀδικίᾳ κατεχόντων, 19 διότι τὸ γνωστὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ φανερόν ἐστιν ἐν αὐτοῖς· ὁ γὰρ Θεὸς αὐτοῖς ἐφανέρωσε. 20 τὰ γὰρ ἀόρατα αὐτοῦ ἀπὸ κτίσεως κόσμου τοῖς ποιήμασι νοούμενα καθορᾶται, ἥ τε ἀΐδιος αὐτοῦ δύναμις καὶ θειότης, εἰς τὸ εἶναι αὐτοὺς ἀναπολογήτους, 21 διότι γνόντες τὸν Θεὸν οὐχ ὡς Θεὸν ἐδόξασαν ἢ εὐχαρίστησαν, ἀλλ' ἐματαιώθησαν ἐν τοῖς διαλογισμοῖς αὐτῶν, καὶ ἐσκοτίσθη ἡ ἀσύνετος αὐτῶν καρδία· 22 φάσκοντες εἶναι σοφοὶ ἐμωράνθησαν, 23 καὶ ἤλλαξαν τὴν δόξαν τοῦ ἀφθάρτου Θεοῦ ἐν ὁμοιώματι εἰκόνος φθαρτοῦ ἀνθρώπου καὶ πετεινῶν καὶ τετραπόδων καὶ ἑρπετῶν. 24 Διὸ καὶ παρέδωκεν αὐτοὺς ὁ Θεὸς ἐν ταῖς ἐπιθυμίαις τῶν καρδιῶν αὐτῶν εἰς ἀκαθαρσίαν τοῦ ἀτιμάζεσθαι τὰ σώματα αὐτῶν ἐν αὑτοῖς, 25 οἵτινες μετήλλαξαν τὴν ἀλήθειαν τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐν τῷ ψεύδει, καὶ ἐσεβάσθησαν καὶ ἐλάτρευσαν τῇ κτίσει παρὰ τὸν κτίσαντα, ὅς ἐστιν εὐλογητὸς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας· ἀμήν. 26 Διὰ τοῦτο παρέδωκεν αὐτοὺς ὁ Θεὸς εἰς πάθη ἀτιμίας. αἵ τε γὰρ θήλειαι αὐτῶν μετήλλαξαν τὴν φυσικὴν χρῆσιν εἰς τὴν παρὰ φύσιν, 27 ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ οἱ ἄρσενες ἀφέντες τὴν φυσικὴν χρῆσιν τῆς θηλείας ἐξεκαύθησαν ἐν τῇ ὀρέξει αὐτῶν εἰς ἀλλήλους, ἄρσενες ἐν ἄρσεσι τὴν ἀσχημοσύνην κατεργαζόμενοι καὶ τὴν ἀντιμισθίαν ἣν ἔδει τῆς πλάνης αὐτῶν ἐν ἑαυτοῖς ἀπολαμβάνοντες. 28 Καὶ καθὼς οὐκ ἐδοκίμασαν τὸν Θεὸν ἔχειν ἐν ἐπιγνώσει, παρέδωκεν αὐτοὺς ὁ Θεὸς εἰς ἀδόκιμον νοῦν, ποιεῖν τὰ μὴ καθήκοντα, 29 πεπληρωμένους πάσῃ ἀδικίᾳ πορνείᾳ πονηρίᾳ πλεονεξίᾳ κακίᾳ, μεστοὺς φθόνου φόνου ἔριδος δόλου κακοηθείας, 30 ψιθυριστάς, καταλάλους, θεοστυγεῖς, ὑβριστάς, ὑπερηφάνους, ἀλαζόνας, ἐφευρετὰς κακῶν, γονεῦσιν ἀπειθεῖς, 31 ἀσυνέτους, ἀσυνθέτους, ἀστόργους, ἀσπόνδους, ἀνελεήμονας· 32 οἵτινες τὸ δικαίωμα τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐπιγνόντες, ὅτι οἱ τὰ τοιαῦτα πράσσοντες ἄξιοι θανάτου εἰσίν, οὐ μόνον αὐτὰ ποιοῦσιν, ἀλλὰ καὶ συνευδοκοῦσι τοῖς πράσσουσι.
-
All of the Bible verses which you quoted from the New Testament were originally written in Greek, not Hebrew.
...I know that.
But some of the New Testament was written in Hebrew (originally)... I was referring to your claim that you had read the entire New Testament several times. That should have been obvious.
Is that what debate on this board has reduced to...? Nitpicking.
No mention of any of the points I raised... just deliberate misinterpretation of whatever tiny trivial word or phrase that could be dishonestly misconstrued as an error on my part.
The Luke
-
...I know that.
But some of the New Testament was written in Hebrew (originally)... I was referring to your claim that you had read the entire New Testament several times. That should have been obvious.
Is that what debate on this board has reduced to...? Nitpicking.
No mention of any of the points I raised... just deliberate misinterpretation of whatever tiny trivial word or phrase that could be dishonestly misconstrued as an error on my part.
The Luke
No, you were referring to Romans.
...did you read it in the original Greek and Hebrew?
If not, then it's just a matter of which translation you prefer for that Romans 2 passage. I assume it's an imperative clause based on the "they deserve death" bit, it kinda colours my thinking.
-
No, you were referring to Romans.
loco you are cherry picking the shit out of his argument, you acknowledge that at least?
I read it and see that it claims what luke says it does. At least thats what i gather.
-
loco you are cherry picking the shit out of his argument, you acknowledge that at least?
I read it and see that it claims what luke says it does. At least thats what i gather.
Nowhere does the New Testament say that sodomites and lesbians be put to death.
Romans was not written in Hebrew.
Neither you, Necrosis, nor Luke have read the Bible. He makes up way too much stuff about the Bible that is false. And you believe it because you don't know better.
The more Luke posts, the more obvious it becomes that he knows nothing about the Bible.
I guess that's why they say "you have to know the Bible to talk about the Bible."
-
Nowhere does the New Testament say that sodomites and lesbians be put to death.
Romans was not written in Hebrew.
Neither you, Necrosis, nor Luke have read the Bible. He makes up way too much stuff about the Bible that is false. And you believe it because you don't know better.
The more Luke posts, the more obvious it becomes that he knows nothing about the Bible.
I guess that's why they say "you have to know the Bible to talk about the Bible."
the verses he quoted do not exist? i would have to read the bible more then once to be able to remember particular quotes etc, it is quite big. I have read some of the bible, a good portion in fact when i was interested in holy texts, i read many different books but i admit that i really have no knowledge when it comes to the bible like you and mcway, stella etc.
i was just reading the quote he posted where it states what looks to be his assertion, i was also pointing out that you are cherry picking. I have no problem admiting when i am wrong, in fact i have numerous times, i have also backed the religious folk of this board when i thought there argument was valid.
I will let you and luke continue the debate, i wont sidetrack it much more ;D
-
Nowhere does the New Testament say that sodomites and lesbians be put to death.
But you'll concede that even your new touchy-feely translation claims they "deserve death"?
The Luke
-
the verses he quoted do not exist? i would have to read the bible more then once to be able to remember particular quotes etc, it is quite big. I have read some of the bible, a good portion in fact when i was interested in holy texts, i read many different books but i admit that i really have no knowledge when it comes to the bible like you and mcway, stella etc.
i was just reading the quote he posted where it states what looks to be his assertion, i was also pointing out that you are cherry picking. I have no problem admiting when i am wrong, in fact i have numerous times, i have also backed the religious folk of this board when i thought there argument was valid.
I will let you and luke continue the debate, i wont sidetrack it much more ;D
Very well, then you can tell me from Luke's Bible quotes where the New Testament says that sodomites and lesbians be put to death. It does not say that so I don't know what you are talking about.
-
But you'll concede that even your new touchy-feely translation claims they "deserve death"?
The Luke
Absolutely no New Testament translation exists which tells anyone to put to death sodomites and lesbians, as you claimed.
the New Testament goes even further and insists both sodomites and lesbians be put to death.
-
Absolutely no New Testament translation exists which tells anyone to put to death sodomites and lesbians, as you claimed.
Well, that's not really true now is it...
Revelations (New Testament) says quite clearly that on Judgement Day, evildoers (including homos and dykes) still alive to see the Second Coming of Jesus but deemed unworthy of Rapture will be sent to hell while still alive.
Isn't that a prophecy/promise that Jeebus himself will return and kill (directly send to hell) the entire living population of homosexers?
The Luke
-
closed minded as hell, no evidence god does exists none what so ever, thats why its called faith.
Answer the question, yes or no?
if god did not exist, would you rape and torture babies, kill people and you see this as ok?
I've already answered this loaded question of yours, TWICE.
So, read it again, until it sinks into your skull.
-
Now who do you think opposes universal health care in the US and who do you think supports it?
What does universal healthcare have to do with charity?
If anything, it is the VERY OPPOSITE OF SUCH?
Forcing someone to pay for someone's else medical expenses (via excessive taxation) ain't charity. Plus, as we've seen time and time again, the very people that are supposed to be helped, end up being shafted, due to red tape.
If you and Luke are so fired up about footing someone else's bills, why don't you find a random family with no coverage AND PAY THEIR WAY OUT OF YOUR OWN RESPECTIVE POCKETS.
-
...did you read it in the original Greek and Hebrew?
If not, then it's just a matter of which translation you prefer for that Romans 2 passage. I assume it's an imperative clause based on the "they deserve death" bit, it kinda colours my thinking.
Once we are all agreed that the Old Testament DOES demand death for homosexuals; insolent children; cussing your parents; worshipping other gods; witchcraft etc etc... once we all agree upon that.. and that the New Testament deems homosexuals at least deserving of death.
We didn't all agree on this mess, because (once again) your tendency to post utter foolishness rears its silly head.
There is no death penalty for insolent children, nor for "cussing" your parents. Yes, the OT cites capital punishment for homosexuals, those who worship other gods (of course, bringing up the methods by which those gods were worshippied, i.e human sacrifice, and a bunch of other items about which you keep blubbering seems to be a problem for you.).
Seems you believe Jesus overrode Mosaic Law too?
But he didn't... Jesus commanded all his followers (Jews and Gentiles alike) to follow the old Mosaic Law.
That's basically Shariah Law: slavery, honour killings, Draconian punishments, all the psychopathic rantings of that abominable shithead called Yahweh... any of you Americans following that? (Voting for Palin doesn't count).
One, NOWHERE in Scripture is there any such "honor killings". Two, and the point over which the no-God squad keep fumbling, is what exactly makes these edicts "Draconian"?
One minute, you keep yelping about moral evolution and "fluid morality. Yet, when that morality flows in a way you don't like, you get all testy.
...girls having long nostril hair doesn't hurt anyone; it isn't morally reprehensible; it isn't an irreconcilable injustice; it isn't an affront to basic human decency. So that's an empty argument that only shows your poor ability to draw parallels, Stella (no offence intended).
WHAT?
A better contrast would be the comparison between a godless atheist (like me) who openly speaks out against the intrinsic evils of slavery despite living in a time basically free of chattel slavery... and Jesus living in a world run on chattel slavery yet never speaking out against it.
I'd even go further and say wage slavery is also wrong... does that make me a more moral person than Jesus... I suppose technically it does.
NOT EVEN CLOSE!! One, there's no such thing as "intrinsic evil", per atheist standards, because of that pesky "moral fluidity". That's simply a man's morals flowing in a certain direction. And, if enough of them get that mindset, then you have the "moral evolution.
What makes chattel slavery "evil"? Whose rules say it's such and why, especially if other men deduce differently?
Let's take an example from Jesus' own life...
Jesus healed the daughter of a Roman centurion, then stayed for dinner. That dinner would have been served to Jesus by slaves (probably a few house slaves for a Roman centurion). So sitting there eating dinner, the centurion asks Jesus what he can do to repay him... Jesus doesn't ask anything of him... I understand that, maybe he didn't want to prostitute his super healing powers. But at the very least he could have given a little sermon about the evils of chattel slavery seeing as there would have been several chattel slaves waiting on him at the time.
Bet those slaves thought Jesus was a complete asshole.
But this brings us back to the topic of this thread... what can't god do? He can't act morally.
At best he can only meet the moral standards of the time.... the standards of those who imagine him.
Notwithanding how preposterous that statement is, what exactly makes the moral standards of the time any inferior to that of today, especially with you having NO MEASURING STICK (other than godless arrogance) to compare and contrast? I'd say that people of Jesus' say would find 21st century morality just as vile as you claim ancient morality among the Israelites was.
Let me explain...
I might be an atheist, but I understand a little bit about moral evolution and Darwinian altruism... so I can give a few examples of things that aren't considered immoral NOW... but undoubtedly will be in the future:
-the abuse of an asymmetric power relationship: a Biblical example would be God asking Mary to carry Jesus... did an uneducated 13 year-old girl feel she could actually say no to God; or a glowing Angel carrying a burning sword? Isn't it immoral to impregnate a 13 year-old even if you're the creator of the universe. This is considered immoral now, but still considered okay and moral if Yahweh does it for some reason (despite the damage such an early pregnancy does).
You can't be this cracked in the head. Why would it be immoral, if the conception is IMMACUATE (i.e. no freaky-deaky sex acts, unlike some deities we know)? Once again, you keep crying about immorality, with absolutely NO standards or rule book from which to reference.
Plus, notwithanding that Mary may not have been 13-years old (I'm not quite sure what her age was), whatever her age, IT WAS LEGAL MARRYING AGE, and certainly did NOT run afoul of Biblical law. Heck, girls in the USA can marry as young as 12 (with parental consent) in certain states.
-manipulation by threat of violence: a Biblical example would be the entire concept of judgement and infinite punishment (hell). Nowadays you often hear the threat of violence used in relation to self-defence... that won't always be considered a valid justification for violence.
So, exactly how were those who continue to disobey laws and assaault people, unprovoed, to be dealth with? You tell people to quit sacrificing women; they ignore you and keep doing it. HOW DO YOU STOP THEM, say "Pretty Please, with sugar on top"?
-ownership of private property: slavery is the most extreme Biblical example of this. Our modern economic system is based on the concept of private property rights (or should I say corporate rights to private property), but as the Earth gets more crowded and better developed such selfishness will no longer be tolerated when people understand the benefits of universally communal property and resources.
-debt... Biblically the most ridiculous debts are those of sin; innocent children killed to punish their evil-doing parents etc. Nowadays capitalism itself is based on ever escalating levels of debt, but in the future debt itself will be considered immoral; as just another form of wage slavery.
AHH!! More socialist gibberish with tons of emotion but zero substance. I don't see you, putting a gun to your hhead, trying to make extra space on this "overcrowded" planet of ours. Besides, what do your ilk plan to do about it? Dictating to people how many kids they can have, or going on a killing spree to make room?
As for your continued crying about innocent children, again, what's to be done with them? Do you leave them to starve in the desert, with no parents, or do you assimilate them (OOPS!!! you were just complaining about that not too long ago?)
And, as stated eaarlier, even in this day and age, children pay for the sins of their parents. For example, when Katrina hit the Gulf Coast in 2005, how many innocent kids DIED, becuse their bone-headed parents didn't heed the warnings and the edicts to EVACUTATE the area? How many innocent people DIED, becuase local and state officials didn't take the threats of Katrina seriously, until it was too late?
Why can't god give us future-proof morals?
Why can't god give us some sort of theory that allows us to understand the processes that produce morality itself...? Like Evolution did.
When Moses read the ten commandments from Jebul Madbh, wouldn't the smart people in the audience have tuned out when it went three commandments without any mention of rape; torture or slavery...?
Couldn't god set aside his ego long enough (the first three commandments are all about stroking his ego), to ban the big stuff:
1-Thou shalt not torture.
2-Thou shalt not rape.
3-Thou shalt not enslave.
If I'm so patently more moral than your God, why aren't you guys worshipping me?
The Luke
Because, Christians prefer to worship an entity that actually has a clue and some sense.
As for your stupid claims, it appears your ability to read has short-circuited AGAIN.
"Thou shalt not torture" That's covered in the Commandments and further exmplained in the Levitical laws.
"Thous shalt not rape"? HELLO!!!! Rape was a capital offense (something that it is NOT, now, at least not in the USA).
"Thou shall not enslave" I covered that months ago. Chattel slavery was banned. Other forms of indebtedness were based on poverty, punishment for crimes (i.e. rape), etc.
And, in case you missed it, rape, human sacrifice, chattel slavery, etc. were among the things that Israel's neighbors were doing. That's why God had the Israelites strip them of their land, in the first place.
And, He ordered the Israelites NOT to follow in their footsteps (Deut. 12:29-31). But, they disobeyed and paid the price for their disobedience.
-
What does universal healthcare have to do with charity?
If anything, it is the VERY OPPOSITE OF SUCH?
Forcing someone to pay for someone's else medical expenses (via excessive taxation) ain't charity. Plus, as we've seen time and time again, the very people that are supposed to be helped, end up being shafted, due to red tape.
If you and Luke are so fired up about footing someone else's bills, why don't you find a random family with no coverage AND PAY THEIR WAY OUT OF YOUR OWN RESPECTIVE POCKETS.
I'm not American, thank God (pun intended). I already pay my taxes which supports other peoples' health care.
You seem to be somewhat uniformed as to the benefits/drawbacks of universal health care, but I would assume that's due to lack of any real world experience. I'm not getting into that here anyway as it's another issue entirely.
The point being made by my previous post is regarding the outright refusal of supposedly moral people to help those in need. According to your post, you're more interested in keeping your money than helping others, your own Countrymen no less, even if you have the means.
-
I'm not American, thank God (pun intended). I already pay my taxes which supports other peoples' health care.
You seem to be somewhat uniformed as to the benefits/drawbacks of universal health care, but I would assume that's due to lack of any real world experience. I'm not getting into that here anyway as it's another issue entirely.
The point being made by my previous post is regarding the outright refusal of supposedly moral people to help those in need. According to your post, you're more interested in keeping your money than helping others, your own Countrymen no less, even if you have the means.
WRONG!! When you help someone, you do so OF YOUR OWN CONVICTIONS, not because a bunch of government bureaucrats raid your wallet and take your money.
And, those in need, end up getting SCREWED anyway, because the lion's share of those dollars go to the bureaucrats and their buddies, NOT to those countrymen in need.
To flip the script, how "Moral" ARE YOU, in this instance? If your government weren't snatching your cash away to supposedly help those in need, would you be coughing up your $$$$ OF YOUR OWN FREE WILL, to give healthcare to those who don't have it?
-
WRONG!! When you help someone, you do so OF YOUR OWN CONVICTIONS, not because a bunch of government bureaucrats raid your wallet and take your money.
And, those in need, end up getting SCREWED anyway, because the lion's share of those dollars go to the bureaucrats and their buddies, NOT to those countrymen in need.
To flip the script, how "Moral" ARE YOU, in this instance? If your government weren't snatching your cash away to supposedly help those in need, would you be coughing up your $$$$ OF YOUR OWN FREE WILL, to give healthcare to those who don't have it?
What one does of their own personal accord or via enforced charity, was not what my original post's intent to address. I'm personally involved in charitable organizations, both monetarily, and through physical means. But again, that's a digression of my original post.
I am implying that it is/was the majority of the Christian right who value(d) monetary gain over human welfare.
-
WRONG!! When you help someone, you do so OF YOUR OWN CONVICTIONS, not because a bunch of government bureaucrats raid your wallet and take your money.
And, those in need, end up getting SCREWED anyway, because the lion's share of those dollars go to the bureaucrats and their buddies, NOT to those countrymen in need.
To flip the script, how "Moral" ARE YOU, in this instance? If your government weren't snatching your cash away to supposedly help those in need, would you be coughing up your $$$$ OF YOUR OWN FREE WILL, to give healthcare to those who don't have it?
you have some fucked up worldviews, reality is so skewed in your mind, its almost as if you have lost touch with reality.
-
you have some fucked up worldviews, reality is so skewed in your mind, its almost as if you have lost touch with reality.
Yeah. I try to be PC most of the time, but this pretty much sums it up.
-
What one does of their own personal accord or via enforced charity, was not what my original post's intent to address. I'm personally involved in charitable organizations, both monetarily, and through physical means. But again, that's a digression of my original post.
I am implying that it is/was the majority of the Christian right who value(d) monetary gain over human welfare.
And your implication is way off the mark. This issue isn't about human welfare, especially in the United States.
This is about a government, hell-bent on taking liberties from people and dictating to them what they do with their money, how they eat, how they raise their children, and several other issues, that have been discussed elsewhere.
Not to mention that it's the elitist liberal left from other countries, who show how much faith they have in universal healthcare, BY HAULING THEIR BEHINDS to USA, to get procedures that their wonderful system can't or won't provide. To top it all off, thsose in DC who yak about their great reform AREN'T EVEN ON THEIR OWN PROGRAM (including our current President).
you have some fucked up worldviews, reality is so skewed in your mind, its almost as if you have lost touch with reality.
Because I believe that I should decide whether to be charitable and how I should do such, not some politicians from DC? Charity is only such WHEN IT IS VOLUNTARY. Perhaps, you can't see that due to your "F&#%@* UP worldviews", that you think it's your job (or that of your government) to force someone else to be "charitable"
-
you have some fucked up worldviews, reality is so skewed in your mind, its almost as if you have lost touch with reality.
...seconded.
The Luke
-
And your implication is way off the mark. This issue isn't about human welfare, especially in the United States.
This is about a government, hell-bent on taking liberties from people and dictating to them what they do with their money, how they eat, how they raise their children, and several other issues, that have been discussed elsewhere.
Not to mention that it's the elitist liberal left from other countries, who show how much faith they have in universal healthcare, BY HAULING THEIR BEHINDS to USA, to get procedures that their wonderful system can't or won't provide. To top it all off, thsose in DC who yak about their great reform AREN'T EVEN ON THEIR OWN PROGRAM (including our current President).
Because I believe that I should decide whether to be charitable and how I should do such, not some politicians from DC? Charity is only such WHEN IT IS VOLUNTARY. Perhaps, you can't see that due to your "F&#%@* UP worldviews", that you think it's your job (or that of your government) to force someone else to be "charitable"
you always miss the point, the point is the christians are against this bill, the right wing conservatives.If you have more then enough which i know you do then why wouldnt you support a bill like the liberals and help the poor and middle class with there health concerns, seems christian to me. You live nothing like christ, you know that right?
-
you always miss the point, the point is the christians are against this bill, the right wing conservatives.If you have more then enough which i know you do then why wouldnt you support a bill like the liberals and help the poor and middle class with there health concerns, seems christian to me. You live nothing like christ, you know that right?
Because, the bill is loaded with more pork than a Texas BBQ, that will hurt the poor EVEN MORE than they already are. To say NOTHING of the aforementioned overtaxation and attempts at FORCED "charity".
That's why many conservatives OPPOSED this bill/law. And, it's why your claim that not supporting this mess makes one un-Christian is beyond ridiculous.
Besides, if this bill is about helping them, why do the so-called benefits NOT KICK for at least FOUR YEARS?
The liberals are about nanny-state socialism, NOT helping the poor (which would explain why many of the liberals who imposed this mess aren't on their plan THEMSELVES).
If ths crap were so "Christian", the nefarious way in which it was passed into law woudl have NEVER occured. But, for some stange reason, I don't hear YOU, or any other of your no-God squad buddies, whining about that. Go figure.
And, since Christ never mandated that people's money be siphoned from them, via the government, and "given" to the poor, your chirps about Christianity (as it relates to healthcare), are quite WEAK.
-
Because, the bill is loaded with more pork than a Texas BBQ, that will hurt the poor EVEN MORE than they already are. To say NOTHING of the aforementioned overtaxation and attempts at FORCED "charity".
That's why many conservatives OPPOSED this bill/law. And, it's why your claim that not supporting this mess makes one un-Christian is beyond ridiculous.
Besides, if this bill is about helping them, why do the so-called benefits NOT KICK for at least FOUR YEARS?
The liberals are about nanny-state socialism, NOT helping the poor (which would explain why many of the liberals who imposed this mess aren't on their plan THEMSELVES).
If ths crap were so "Christian", the nefarious way in which it was passed into law woudl have NEVER occured. But, for some stange reason, I don't hear YOU, or any other of your no-God squad buddies, whining about that. Go figure.
And, since Christ never mandated that people's money be siphoned from them, via the government, and "given" to the poor, your chirps about Christianity (as it relates to healthcare), are quite WEAK.
YOU LIVE NOTHING LIKE CHRIST. you are far from the mark, you actually go against his teachings do you not?
The 50 million with no health care will soon have it. OVERTAXATION? in respect to what the gross differences in wealth? how can bill gates be over taxed huh? How can the rich be overtaxed with there bentleys, gucci purses. Seriously get a grip, the rich should be taxed more to help society, since when did helping those in need come secondary to acquiring and maintaining wealth. Christ would spit in your face if he wasnt christ :D.
-
YOU LIVE NOTHING LIKE CHRIST. you are far from the mark, you actually go against his teachings do you not?
Based on what? Certaintly not your bleating about forced charity.
The 50 million with no health care will soon have it. OVERTAXATION? in respect to what the gross differences in wealth? how can bill gates be over taxed huh? How can the rich be overtaxed with there bentleys, gucci purses. Seriously get a grip, the rich should be taxed more to help society, since when did helping those in need come secondary to acquiring and maintaining wealth. Christ would spit in your face if he wasnt christ :D.
The rich pay WAY MORE TAXES (percentage wise) than anyone else in the country. And this isn't about acquiring wealth. What people like you, who keep spewing this foolishness keep missing is that the "tax the rich" routine almost NEVER WORKS.
The rich keep their money and the middle-class get shafted, having their money taken from them. Obama just proved that to be the case. He swore up and down that people making under $250K would NOT have their eaxes go up "one single dime". Guess what Obama's plan does....JACKS UP THE TAXES ON THE MIDDLE CLASS. Their premiums GO UP.
As for the exaggerated numbers you just posted, a huge amount of people without healthcare SIMPLY DON'T WANT IT. Now, they're being forced to get it or get FINED? That's ridiculous.
And, if doctors and pharmacies don't accept your health insurance, ObamaCare is WORTHLESS (which might explain WHY OBAMA HIMSELF ain't on his own plan). Just ask the folks in Washington (state). If they're a new case on Medicaid after April 16, Walgreens WILL NOT accept their insurance.
There is nothing remotely Christian about the government, forcing people (via severe taxation) to be "charitable" to others, AGAINST THEIR WILL.
And, YOU AREN'T IN CHARGE of determining who makes too much money. Just as you don't have the right to steal Bill Gates' property, NO MATTER HOW MUCH MONEY HE HAS!! What happens when some bureaucrats wants to raid YOUR BANK ACCOUNT, because they think YOU make too much?
-
McWay,
Hijacking the thread with your ratings about healthcare seems pretty low... come on dude, Jesus healed TWO beggars for every rich person he healed.
Guess youre the kind of pseudo-Christian who arrives at the Pearly Gates with a Siberian Dwarf Camel and a sixty foot long needle... "What? I tried to help the poor and unfortunate, but it just wasn't capitalist... or convenient."
You are an embarrasssment to your own beliefs... just another amoral psychopath devoid of empathy or any human kindness who needs Jesus and FOX News to get through the day without killig everyone who looks at him crossways.
Look at these lies...
The rich pay WAY MORE TAXES (percentage wise) than anyone else in the country.
...a huge amount of people without healthcare SIMPLY DON'T WANT IT.
...you don't have the right to steal Bill Gates' property, NO MATTER HOW MUCH MONEY HE HAS!!
...for shame, for shame, have you no shame sir?
The Luke
-
McWay,
Hijacking the thread with your ratings about healthcare seems pretty low... come on dude, Jesus healed TWO beggars for every rich person he healed.
Guess youre the kind of pseudo-Christian who arrives at the Pearly Gates with a Siberian Dwarf Camel and a sixty foot long needle... "What? I tried to help the poor and unfortunate, but it just wasn't capitalist... or convenient."
You are an embarrasssment to your own beliefs... just another amoral psychopath devoid of empathy or any human kindness who needs Jesus and FOX News to get through the day without killig everyone who looks at him crossways.
Look at these lies...
...for shame, for shame, have you no shame sir?
The Luke
Unfortunately it's not just mcway, but the majority of American Christians who feel this way, apparently.
-
haha just watched this...damn good points...
-
haha just watched this...damn good points...
Monkeys is teh smart. ;)
-
McWay,
Hijacking the thread with your ratings about healthcare seems pretty low... come on dude, Jesus healed TWO beggars for every rich person he healed.
Earth to Luke, YOU and YngiweRhoads brought up healthcare. I addressed your rather dubious statements. So, the hijacking is on the two of you, not me.
Furrthermore, this has nothing to do with any ratio of beggars to rich people being healed. The point, which that head of yours can't quite contain is that NOWHERE does Christianity advocate "enforced charity" as YngiweRhoads put it.
Guess youre the kind of pseudo-Christian who arrives at the Pearly Gates with a Siberian Dwarf Camel and a sixty foot long needle... "What? I tried to help the poor and unfortunate, but it just wasn't capitalist... or convenient."
You are an embarrasssment to your own beliefs... just another amoral psychopath devoid of empathy or any human kindness who needs Jesus and FOX News to get through the day without killig everyone who looks at him crossways.
Since human kindness and empathy DO NOT require subscribing to a ridiculous healthcare law or any other attempts at "enforced charity, your statements continue to paint you a s a bumbling fool, whose rhetoric are as far from fact as the East is from the West.
Look at these lies...
...for shame, for shame, have you no shame sir?
The Luke
You, the poster child for citing buffoonery, asking someone if he has any shame? Now, that's rich!!!
But, just for the sake of ripping this claim of yours to ribbons....
The Citizenship Factor
According to Census Bureau data, of the estimated 46 million "Americans" without health insurance, more than 10 million are non-U.S. citizens.
Some Just Don't Want Insurance
Many young workers, whose employers do offer it, simply do not consider health insurance. According to the Census Bureau, 18.3 million of the uninsured are under age 34.
http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/medicarehealthinsurance/a/insurancestats.htm (http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/medicarehealthinsurance/a/insurancestats.htm)
And, you just stated, Boy Genius, that stealing from Bill Gates being wrong (i.e. your having NO RIGHT to do that, no matter how much money he makes) is a "lie".
Then again, for all your clucking about morality, you have advocated lying for political gain, as long as it with regards to being a Christian, when one is actually not.
-
McWay,
You didn't claim people without insurance didn't want insurance, you claimed people without healthcare don't want healthcare. Big difference.
...a huge amount of people without healthcare SIMPLY DON'T WANT IT.
...I can understand a poor person not wanting to pay for health insurance; or rather, not being able to afford the inflated prices in the US... but the idea that those without coverage just disagree with the entire concept of modern medicine and don't want to avail of it's benefits is patently ridiculous. You should be ashamed of this kind of intellectual dishonesty.
This is also a lie...
The rich pay WAY MORE TAXES (percentage wise) than anyone else in the country.
...they may pay the largest portion as a percentage of taxes paid; but the top 10% do not pay a percentage of tax revenue anywhere near the percentage of income they receive; or the percentage of returns-to-wealth they receive. That's why the rich are getting richer and wealth disparity is growing.
Let me give you an example:
Imagine an island with ten inhabitants; nine paupers working the sugar cane fields and one aristocrat who sells the sugar. The cane cutters earn $10 a year cutting the cane; the aristocrat earns $10 million a year selling the sugar. The cane cutters are taxed $5 a year... the aristocrat pays $100 tax on his $10 million yearly income.
YOU are the sugar cane cutter shouting at his unhappy compatriots that the aristocrat already contributes double what they do in taxes ($100 versus the $45 paid by the paupers)... is that a fair system? The average income of such an island would be $1,000,000+ dollars per year. Would a flat tax be more fair? Yes. Would progressive taxation (rich pay more) be even more equitable? Yes.
Moron.
...you don't have the right to steal Bill Gates' property, NO MATTER HOW MUCH MONEY HE HAS!!
...and when one of these oligarchs owns EVERYTHING?
Moron.
The Luke
-
Earth to Luke, YOU and YngiweRhoads brought up healthcare. I addressed your rather dubious statements. So, the hijacking is on the two of you, not me.
Then again, for all your clucking about morality, you have advocated lying for political gain, as long as it with regards to being a Christian, when one is actually not.
Health care was brought in as an example of how the religious right do not care for the welfare of their fellow man and cares more for their own wealth, as an example of american christian morality. You then started nitpicking the policy being put in place without understanding that no matter how perfect the policy, the religious right will still not want to help pay for their fellow citizens, if they ever will. They don't want people 'getting a free ride', as has been the rhetoric espoused for years prior to the existence of this policy. Their objection has very little to do with the actual policy being put in place. The average christian doesn't/can't even comprehend this policy, much less have a legitimate reason for denying it. They simply don't want their tax dollars going to help other people obtain health care, period.
-
Health care was brought in as an example of how the religious right do not care for the welfare of their fellow man and cares more for their own wealth, as an example of american christian morality. You then started nitpicking the policy being put in place without understanding that no matter how perfect the policy, the religious right will still not want to help pay for their fellow citizens, if they ever will. They don't want people 'getting a free ride', as has been the rhetoric espoused for years prior to the existence of this policy. Their objection has very little to do with the actual policy being put in place. The average christian doesn't/can't even comprehend this policy, much less have a legitimate reason for denying it. They simply don't want their tax dollars going to help other people obtain health care, period.
...yeah, I guess every time I engage with McWay I get a little closer to learning that lesson.
What's wrong with the education system over there that you produce so many of these conflicted people? They're Evangelical Christians; while also being Gordon-gecko style capitalists...? I don't get it.
Ruben-omics; Reaganomics; trickle-down-economics; neo-liberalism; neo-classical economics; neo-conservatism; Bush-onomics; Free Market Fundamentalism... all of these ideologies have proven themselves to be nothing more than variant forms of delusional (religious) magical thinking.
Yet most Americans are both religious AND infected with one (or more) of these other false self-deluding philosophies.
What do they teach you guys in school?
The Luke
-
They're Evangelical Christians; while also being Gordon-gecko style capitalists...? I don't get it.
Either do I.
What do they teach you guys in school?
The Luke
Intelligent Design? ;)
-
I'm not American, thank God (pun intended).
Intolerant of other cultures, are we?
-
Intolerant of other cultures, are we?
It was a joke, as I thought I had spelled out quite literally. ;D
-
Either do I.
Intelligent Design? ;)
...ha-ha! Good one!
Isn't it a strange coincidence that the American education system the corporate government lobbied so hard to underfund and undermine just so happens to produce poor uneducated drones who believe EVERYTHING the corporations would wish them to believe...?
Christians who hate the poor.
Poor who love the rich.
Slaves who believe they're free.
Choiceless masses rejoicing in the democracy they don't have.
Minimum wages without maximum wages.
However did that happen?
The Luke
-
Well, that's not really true now is it...
Revelations (New Testament) says quite clearly that on Judgement Day, evildoers (including homos and dykes) still alive to see the Second Coming of Jesus but deemed unworthy of Rapture will be sent to hell while still alive.
Isn't that a prophecy/promise that Jeebus himself will return and kill (directly send to hell) the entire living population of homosexers?
The Luke
That is for all who reject Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, all, sodomite or not, lesbian or not.
Absolutely no New Testament translation exists which tells anyone to put to death sodomites and lesbians, as you claimed.
-
...ha-ha! Good one!
Isn't it a strange coincidence that the American education system the corporate government lobbied so hard to underfund and undermine just so happens to produce poor uneducated drones who believe EVERYTHING the corporations would wish them to believe...?
Christians who hate the poor.
Poor who love the rich.
Slaves who believe they're free.
Choiceless masses rejoicing in the democracy they don't have.
Minimum wages without maximum wages.
However did that happen?
The Luke
The maker of the Zeitgeist films has some interesting ideas as to why this is happing. I'm pretty sure you've seen the films. He does make some good points with regards to the central bank, debt and the wealthy elite. Now, how many of his claims are factual is debatable though, haha. Perhaps money and/or power is the motivating factor in all decisions being made by the policy makers in modern societies. Keeping the average citizen confused, ignorant and complacent seems to be the best way to force ones' ideologies on people without their knowledge, consent, or understanding. I would tend to agree with that idea.
-
McWay,
You didn't claim people without insurance didn't want insurance, you claimed people without healthcare don't want healthcare. Big difference....I can understand a poor person not wanting to pay for health insurance; or rather, not being able to afford the inflated prices in the US... but the idea that those without coverage just disagree with the entire concept of modern medicine and don't want to avail of it's benefits is patently ridiculous. You should be ashamed of this kind of intellectual dishonesty.
Tough talk, coming from the guy who made a ridiculous claim about rape victims being put to death in the Old Testament, yet INTENTIONALLY LEFT OUT the very verse that shows his claim TO BE FALSE (which was located IMMEDIATELY after the passage he so erroneously cited).
Furthermore, I never claimed that people disagreed with the concept of modern medicine. Most of those who can afford but don’t want health insurance are younger people who simply don’t think they need it right now and (depending on their occupation) may make more money WITHOUT healthcare benefits.
This is also a lie......they may pay the largest portion as a percentage of taxes paid; but the top 10% do not pay a percentage of tax revenue anywhere near the percentage of income they receive; or the percentage of returns-to-wealth they receive. That's why the rich are getting richer and wealth disparity is growing.
More hogwash, from them flapping lips of yours.
Let me give you an example:
Imagine an island with ten inhabitants; nine paupers working the sugar cane fields and one aristocrat who sells the sugar. The cane cutters earn $10 a year cutting the cane; the aristocrat earns $10 million a year selling the sugar. The cane cutters are taxed $5 a year... the aristocrat pays $100 tax on his $10 million yearly income.
YOU are the sugar cane cutter shouting at his unhappy compatriots that the aristocrat already contributes double what they do in taxes ($100 versus the $45 paid by the paupers)... is that a fair system? The average income of such an island would be $1,000,000+ dollars per year. Would a flat tax be more fair? Yes. Would progressive taxation (rich pay more) be even more equitable? Yes.
Moron.
...and when one of these oligarchs owns EVERYTHING?
Moron.
The Luke
It doesn’t matter how much he owns. If it belongs to him, YOU DO NOT have the right to take it from him, without his permission, PERIOD.
So, basically, that “fluid”morality of yours is working in full swing, as you are making up justifications to STEAL from other people. But, that doesn’t surprise me, as you’ve also gone on record as stating that LYING for political gain is kosher (as was evident in your claims that Obama was an atheist, lying about being a Christian, to get ahead politically).
And, you’re talking that mess about moral superiority! PLEASE!!!
-
Health care was brought in as an example of how the religious right do not care for the welfare of their fellow man and cares more for their own wealth, as an example of american christian morality. You then started nitpicking the policy being put in place without understanding that no matter how perfect the policy, the religious right will still not want to help pay for their fellow citizens, if they ever will. They don't want people 'getting a free ride', as has been the rhetoric espoused for years prior to the existence of this policy. Their objection has very little to do with the actual policy being put in place. The average christian doesn't/can't even comprehend this policy, much less have a legitimate reason for denying it. They simply don't want their tax dollars going to help other people obtain health care, period.
That example is a bogus and patently FALSE one, to say the least. One, the “religious right” tend to give more to charities than folks like you on a regular basis. And, lest you forget, the lion’s share of humanitarian centers and homeless shelters are RELIGIOUS-BASED or run by churches.
So, the empty rhetoric flowing from your lips is that Christians don’t care for their fellow man, unless they subscribe to some bone-headed universal healthcare plan, loaded with pork, passed under the most nefarious of circumstances, and NOT EVEN USED by the very crooked politicians that hyped it to the gills.
And, contrary to your claims, the objection IS IN FACT with the policy itself, as well as the methods in which it’s put into law. The government has no business dictating to people, what type of care they should have or that they should have healthcare, PERIOD.
And, at the end of the day, this issue is about government imposing its will on private citizens, NOT simply providing healthcare.
As far as tax dollars and helping your fellow man are concerned, wasn’t it the liberal left, who SHUT down a school voucher program to help the inner-city youth of DC, simply because the vouchers could be used at private schools (many of which are religious ones). I heard plenty of left-winged and atheist folks whining about “separation of church and state”. I guess helping your fellow man isn’t that big of a priority, after all (by your standards).
-
"When you look at the data," says Syracuse University professor Arthur Brooks, "it turns out the conservatives give about 30 percent more. And incidentally, conservative-headed families make slightly less money."
"But the idea that liberals give more is a myth. Of the top 25 states where people give an above-average percentage of their income, all but one (Maryland) were red -- conservative -- states in the last presidential election."
"The people who give one thing tend to be the people who give everything in America. You find that people who believe it's the government's job to make incomes more equal, are far less likely to give their money away."
"Conservatives are even 18 percent more likely to donate blood."
"Religious people are more likely to give to charity, and when they give, they give more money -- four times as much."
"Religious Americans are more likely to give to every kind of cause and charity, including explicitly nonreligious charities. Religious people give more blood; religious people give more to homeless people on the street."
Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism
by Arthur C. Brooks
# ISBN-10: 0465008232
# ISBN-13: 978-0465008230
http://www.forbes.com/2008/12/24/america-philanthropy-income-oped-cx_ee_1226eaves.html
http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=2682730
http://townhall.com/Common/PrintPage.aspx?g=8c6b1ed7-dcab-4886-adf6-2c554cd0cebf&t=c
-
It doesn’t matter how much he owns. If it belongs to him, YOU DO NOT have the right to take it from him, without his permission, PERIOD.
...therefore the rightful heir to Sitting Bull, as rightful King of America, would own everything in the US including the people; including you and your children.
Get real you moron! Economics is a zero sum game.
Billionaires cause poverty by their very existence... or will it take the advent of a trillionaire class before you fools see through your corporate brainwashing?
You rail against the government "taking" your money via taxation, but have no problem with, even defend the right of corporations and market manipulators to take even more of your money?
So, basically, that “fluid”morality of yours is working in full swing, as you are making up justifications to STEAL from other people.
If you keep quoting something I never made reference to and attributing it to me, well, then I'll have to mention your "man-love" and "conflicted sexual attraction" towards "attractively proportionate" men.
The Luke
-
...therefore the rightful heir to Sitting Bull, as rightful King of America, would own everything in the US including the people; including you and your children.
Get real you moron! Economics is a zero sum game.
Billionaires cause poverty by their very existence... or will it take the advent of a trillionaire class before you fools see through your corporate brainwashing?
Billionaires do nothing of the sort. I don't know where you get this cracked idea, probably a bunch of socialist BS (of course, there are NO billionaires in socialist countries ::) ), but it ranks right up there with the rest of your ridiculous and inaccurate statements.
You rail against the government "taking" your money via taxation, but have no problem with, even defend the right of corporations and market manipulators to take even more of your money?
If you keep quoting something I never made reference to and attributing it to me, well, then I'll have to mention your "man-love" and "conflicted sexual attraction" towards "attractively proportionate" men.
The Luke
That will simply add to the growing mountain of utterly false statements. But, YOU on the other hand, have condoned lying when it’s politically expedient, specifically if it involved an alleged atheist lying about being a Christian for political gain (i.e. your claims about Barack Obama).
You claimed that stealing from someone like Bill Gates being wrong was a lie, point blank. So, there’s no misquoting here. You have just exhibited an example of atheistic "fluid morality", by claiming that taking something that does NOT belong to you, simply because the owner of that something is extremely wealthy, isn't wrong.
-
You claimed that stealing from someone like Bill Gates being wrong was a “lie”, point blank. So, there’s no misquoting here. You are justifying taking something that does NOT belong to you, simply because the owner is extremely wealthy.
...Bill Gates and Steve Jobs started Microsoft and Apple after stealing the GUI (graphic User Interface) from Xerox.
Gates is a twice convicted monopolist who also happens to be the richest man on the planet.
EVERYONE on this planet is about $15 bucks poorer due to his wealth.
Who better to steal from than the guy who doesn't really own the largest fortune on the planet?
It doesn't bother me too much... but I'm a dollar poorer every time some asshole fraudulently amasses a fortune larger than $7 billion; and there are thousands of them... I can live with that, albeit begrudgingly because I'm a wealthy First Worlder.
But how fair is such legalised greed excess on the starving Third Worlders...?
People living on a dollar a day can't afford to give Bill Gates $15... they certainly can't afford to give the corporate oligarchy the thousands of dollars it costs to have a couple thousand billionaires worldwide.
I'd happily steal from Bill Gates... he's stolen from EVERYONE... but I similarly won't mind too much if he gave the Third Worlders back their proper share of the money he stole.
In fact, he can give them my share of the money he stole too.
You might call that "FORCED charity"... but could you explain and defend Bill Gates right to steal $100,000,000,000 to a starving Congolese war orphan?
McWay, you're the worst type of Christian: a Christian in name only: a Christian Christ himself would shun.
The Luke
-
...Bill Gates and Steve Jobs started Microsoft and Apple after stealing the GUI (graphic User Interface) from Xerox.
Gates is a twice convicted monopolist who also happens to be the richest man on the planet.
EVERYONE on this planet is about $15 bucks poorer due to his wealth.
Who better to steal from than the guy who doesn't really own the largest fortune on the planet?
If Gates stole something from another company, then the appropriate law-enforcement bodies should deal with him, accordingly. That STILL doesn’t give you the right to steal from him or any other wealthy person.
Once again, you’ve exhibited that wonderful atheistic fluid morality, making up in your own mind justification for taking what is not yours.
It doesn't bother me too much... but I'm a dollar poorer every time some asshole fraudulently amasses a fortune larger than $7 billion; and there are thousands of them... I can live with that, albeit begrudgingly because I'm a wealthy First Worlder.
But how fair is such legalised greed excess on the starving Third Worlders...?
And, take a wild guess at to what kind of leaders do that. The SOCIALISTIC ones, who espouse some of the same crap that you just mentioned.
People living on a dollar a day can't afford to give Bill Gates $15... they certainly can't afford to give the corporate oligarchy the thousands of dollars it costs to have a couple thousand billionaires worldwide.
I'd happily steal from Bill Gates... he's stolen from EVERYONE... but I similarly won't mind too much if he gave the Third Worlders back their proper share of the money he stole.
But stealing is WRONG isn't it? Even mean old pesky Jehovah knows that (it made the Commandments list).
In fact, he can give them my share of the money he stole too.
You might call that "FORCED charity"... but could you explain and defend Bill Gates right to steal $100,000,000,000 to a starving Congolese war orphan?
McWay, you're the worst type of Christian: a Christian in name only: a Christian Christ himself would shun.
The Luke
Notwithstanding the gross assumption that your claims about Gates “stealing” are actually correct, you still can’t grasp the simple point. Stealing is wrong, regardless of the economic status of the thief or the victim of theft.
Add the fact that the plight of a Congolese war orphan had hardly anything to do with Gates’ amassing his fortune (along with the likelihood that a simple investigation into the matter will prove your claims about Gates to be false) and your pitiful attempt to justify theft simply crashes on its face.
-
Stealing is wrong, regardless of the economic status of the thief or the victim of theft.
So stealing the whole country of Canaan by genocide of the people would be....?
Come on... follow your own logic... see it through... give a straight answer.
The Luke
-
So stealing the whole country of Canaan by genocide of the people would be....?
Come on... follow your own logic... see it through... give a straight answer.
The Luke
You follow your own logic. The fact is that Canaan wasn't stolen in the first place (The Lord gave them that land, as it was set aside for them centuries beforehand). Besides, you've justified STEALING, in certain circumstances (as well as lying).
So why are you complaining?
-
You follow your own logic. The fact is that Canaan wasn't stolen in the first place (The Lord gave them that land, as it was set aside for them centuries beforehand). Besides, you've justified STEALING, in certain circumstances (as well as lying).
So why are you complaining?
...Here in Ireland, one of our gods promised my ancestors the entire earth.
Does that count? Moron.
Epic evasion and brutal cognitive dissonance by the way.
The Luke
-
...Here in Ireland, one of our gods promised my ancestors the entire earth.
Does that count? Moron.
Epic evasion and brutal cognitive dissonance by the way.
The Luke
Let's see if he actually delivers, Boy Genius.
There's no evasion here, considering your statement (as it all too often the case) was false.
The bottom line, of course, is that you just wedge your foot in your mouth....AGAIN. One minute you're justifying stealing; the next, you're wailing aboutthe theft of the land of Canaan (which, of course, was not the case).
Which is it? Is stealing right or wrong? What about lying, something about which you have no problem (provided that it's an alleged atheist, pretending to be a Christian for political gain)?
-
Let's see if he actually delivers, Boy Genius.
There's no evasion here, considering your statement (as it all too often the case) was false.
The bottom line, of course, is that you just wedge your foot in your mouth....AGAIN. One minute you're justifying stealing; the next, you're wailing aboutthe theft of the land of Canaan (which, of course, was not the case).
Which is it? Is stealing right or wrong? What about lying, something about which you have no problem (provided that it's an alleged atheist, pretending to be a Christian for political gain)?
Dude... you're the funniest poster on this board... just page after page of deflection and justification... page after page of hilarious rationalised insanity.
Personally I think you should be shunned.
Maybe if I just ignore your incoherent ramblings you might get the point... after all, at this point I think I'm the only person on this board willing to engage with you.
Yeah, a good 'ol fashioned shunning... seems, ironically... biblical.
The Luke
-
Dude... you're the funniest poster on this board... just page after page of deflection and justification... page after page of hilarious rationalised insanity.
Personally I think you should be shunned.
Maybe if I just ignore your incoherent ramblings you might get the point... after all, at this point I think I'm the only person on this board willing to engage with you.
Yeah, a good 'ol fashioned shunning... seems, ironically... biblical.
The Luke
No, that falls on you, condoning stealing and lying, unless you think that pesky Israelites are doing such. Then, it's BAAAAAAAD!!!
So, which is it? Is stealing wrong or right? Is lying wrong or right?
And why are you complaining about alleged instances of such in Scripture, yet justifying it when it comes to certain people you like or dislike?
As for "shunning", you said weeks ago that you weren't going to post here anymore. Yet, here you are continuing to RUN YOUR MOUTH, making yourself look silly in the process.
-
Personally I think you should be shunned.
Maybe if I just ignore your incoherent ramblings you might get the point... after all, at this point I think I'm the only person on this board willing to engage with you.
Yeah, a good 'ol fashioned shunning... seems, ironically... biblical.
The Luke
exactly man...besides no true Christian addresses people in the manner in which he does....He talks down to people and resorts to outright name calling....with every post that he makes full of these things he only validates how most Christians are good at talking the talk but often fall very short of walking the walk...His arrogance and attitude does his faith a disservice....
-
exactly man...besides no true Christian addresses people in the manner in which he does....He talks down to people and resorts to outright name calling....with every post that he makes full of these things he only validates how most Christians are good at talking the talk but often fall very short of walking the walk...His arrogance and attitude does his faith a disservice....
You are describing exactly how most atheists on this board treat Christians. So who are you to judge MCWAY?
And what do you know about how a true Christian should address people?
-
You are describing exactly how most atheists on this board treat Christians. So who are you to judge MCWAY?
And what do you know about how a true Christian should address people?
I've often found that sarcasm and a bit of humor are the best ways to deal with blowhard atheists/skeptics like L Dawg and Luke.
You hit the nail on the head. They come here full of you-know-what and vinegar, running their mouths and belittling people of faith.
But, when someone doesn't put up with their condescending attitudes and puts it to them, countering their tired and dreadfully inaccurate statements with the facts, they blubber and cry like kindergarten kids that just got their gummies taken from them.
Dawg and Luke are poster boys for such infantile behavior. To quote the late James Brown, "Don't start nothin'; won't be nothin'"
If anyone, regardless of their belief system, wants to have a cordial and friendly but intense discussion (as I've had with Ozmo and others like him), that's fine with me.
But, if folks like Luke and Dawg want to continue act a fool, I have no problem, tearing their pitiful posturing apart and exposing them for the limp-wristed crybabies that they are.
Besides, Luke swears that he's more moral than I am. So, you would think that Mr. Upright would be able to stand his ground, without cracking and calling me a "Moron", with all that moral fiber, coursing through his veins.