inquisitive01

Is that vanity I hear again? I'd think you'd get a headache from the (nearly 50, so far) posts you've made throughout this forum today, but who knows. You even top (actually doubled) Angrillori's posts and the car-sales business must not have been too busy today either.

Vorkosigan

[MOD HAT ON} Inq01, such comments will not advance the thread. Please do not provoke the other posters with personal comments.

Vorkosigan

Steven Carr

The quickest way to get banned from Christian forums is to quote the Bible and ask what it means.

http://www.rejesus.co.uk/ has a 'community' section designed for non-believers to ask questions. It says 'This is the place where you can ask questions, join in discussion with others and generally have your say about Jesus, faith, religion and all the other issues relating to the rejesus website.'


I was, of course, banned for asking questions.
http://www.rejesus.co.uk/cgi-bin/ult...c;f=2;t=000154
was the thread.


Try it. I'm sure you too will be banned. I was banned just after getting a Christian to post this incredible bit of stupdity :- 'God sent Satan (a lying spirit) into this world. That doesn’t make God a liar – does it? He sent other lying spirits at subsequent times (as your verse explains) – but that still doesn’t make God a liar – does it?'

See http://www.rejesus.co.uk/cgi-bin/ult...;f=10;t=000172

Just after that the moderators threw me out :-)


I had a letter in the London Times printed a week ago. I quoted a bit of Joshua and a bit of 1 Sam. 15, and asked what they meant. A respondent claimed I was 'knocking Judaism', when I did no more than quote her own Holy Book.

It is well known that the Bible is for praising , not quoting.

inquisitive01

So your argument (assuming you were the one named skeptic???) was basically based on YOUR view that Jesus, the Son of God and He who sits at the right hand of God, is actually God... which, in turn, would not make God the Father, or Jesus God's son? Doesn't the Bible state clearly that Jesus is the Son of God? Amazing, to say the least. :huh:

Angrillori

Inq., since the data seems to contradict your position, and you haven't been forthcoming about any other evidence, are you prepared to admit that in fact atheists DON'T disbelieve out of a desire to sin more, or without repurcussion?

Or, have you been able to come up with a good way to tell inspired verses from B.S. verses? ('Cause the sensor I'm using still keeps showing that it's all a bunch of man-made stories....)

Or, have you found some evidence to support your....creative(?)....interpretations of grammar and syntax?

(Just checking...)

inquisitive01

I said it gives atheists a CONVENIENT reason to sin, NOT that they sin "more" (not sure where "more" came from). Meaning: after all, why not commit adultery, cheat, steal, lie, or get drunk, since there's really no reason not to when one stops believing.

You will have to study the Bible in much more detail (other than surface reading) in order to determine what is inspired. Actually, the whole Bible may very well be inspired (as the word is used), but one has to take the time necessary to discern what is God's (or His Son's) word, and what is based on things such as man's law/views at that (past) time. You do have the time to do that, don't you?

Simply put, things were different back then, so some of the people's general views are bound to show up when it comes to certain things. We don't generally agree with hanging criminals today like they did in the "old west," however, it still happened and was considered normal for that particular time period. We may not agree with it today, but that's just how it was. If you dispute that, you should jump in a time machine and go back to tell those governmental figures about your opposition to their laws and punishments... but don't be surprised if you are the one who ends up hanging from a rope if you do so.

I agree that you must be "just checking," seeing how five minutes after I post you show up. :thumbs:

Angrillori

But, since it seems thatthey are LESS likely to commit these acts than those that believe in god are, it seems the facts just don't support you on this one.

IF we disbelieved in order to more conveniently do these acts
THEN it would follow that those who disbelieve would be the ones more likely to do these acts.

But, we're not.

So....would you care to try again?

Been there, done that, got the crappy T-shirt. (Several actually.)

In fact, I'd wager (unlike you, I'm not so certain when I toss out accusations) that I've studied the bible SIGNIFICANTLY more than you've studied Evolution.
(Of course I've also studied Evolution significantly more than you've studied evolution.)

Now, since your incredibly limited understanding (misunderstanding?) of evolution seems to qualify you to try to poo-poo that theory, then my much more well-founded understanding of the bible should EASILY give me enough credibility in your eyes to poo-poo the silly fables it's trying to foist off on us.

Yes, but I'll notice, few try to hang their MODERN lifestyle and morality on the morality from "those days." Nor have I ever been proselytized by Latter Day Doc Holliday Saints, or the Church of Billy-the-Kid.

But, and here's the thing your missing:

(I'll try, try, try, to make this as clear as possible!)

The god you claim inspired the bible inspired a document that not only fails to condemn slavery, but supports it! While humanity's morals are seen to be variable, and plastic, and change with time, most christians claim that god's DON'T.

Yes. Everyone agrees that humanity's morals change over time. Most xians believe god's don't.

God inspired a book that said it was ok to have slaves. And god never condemned slavery. Deal with it. Me, I think that's just one more sign the book was just a document cobbled together by humans to maintain the status quo and support their power structure and mythology. It makes a lot more sense that way than by trying to say: Well, we don't agree with that bit now, so it must not be inspired. But we still agree with that part, so it must be inspired.

Heck, 500 years ago we wouldn't be having this conversation, because OF course you'd immediately agree the encouragement to have slaves was right from the mouth of god. But according to you today, the you back then would have been wrong. What would the you 500 years from now say? If you can't know, then how can you know what's REALLY inspired?

Well, y'know it does show up on the main list of forums....

Magdlyn

Except for, oh, one's conscience and care/love/compassion for others. And common sense. One does not have to be Xtian or Jewish to follow the Golden Rule. Atheists are not sociopaths. Certainly you don't imagine that.

And have you done this? I suspect not, or you would've told us by now of a few manmade ones as opposed to God inspired. C'mon, just off the top of your head, give us a couple manmade rules in the Scriptures. Lightning won't strike, I promise.

Your sentence is self-contradictory.

inquisitive01

First, it was "NOT CONDEMNING," now it's
"ENCOURAGEMENT?" Which is it (like you even know)? First, you say "it seems (not definite) they (atheists) are LESS likely to commit these acts," THEN you almost immediately following with the DEFINITE statement "But, we're (atheists) not (more likely to do these acts). Well, which is it? Would YOU care to try again, debunker? :funny:

Also, if you read the Bible (in your claimed in-depth study) like you read my posts, well, there you go! You can read it a hundred times and still not understand much.

Way to bring up evolution again, btw. Shows you don't have too much to lean on here, so you attempt to brings up something else. Good job. :thumbs:

Magdlyn

He already quoted prison stats to you, dude. Using "seems" was a colloquilialism and seemingly an attempt to be polite.