Freethought & Rationalism Archive

JesusLovesYou · 06-03-2005, 09:12 PM

[QUOTE]

Quote:

Originally Posted by JGL53

Again, this is really rich. I don't see where anyone "attacked" her particularly, they just explained in some very direct ways that her beliefs are baseless and irrational, for the most part. She was the one that said atheist were "fucked". That was rather rude. I don't recall anyone here using that language toward her (maybe toward her beliefs, perhaps).

Yes, this is rich. I never used one cuss word, which can't be said by others so where do you get that I said the above highlighted area?

Jesus Loves You

IsItJustMe · 06-03-2005, 09:26 PM

JLY, I may have been too harsh with you. If so, I apologize. What bothered me is that you jumped into this thread without seeming to understand the discussion. That is, this thread was (in long ago and bygone days) a discussion about a proof of god that C.S. Lewis claimed to have worked out that ended with the question whether Jesus was the Lord, a liar, or a lunatic. And the thread was about how different people answered that question and what they thought about the proof. And you seemed to think that the thread was about how Jesus was a liar and crazy and that the question was deeply disrespectful and so on.

And I guess it was just genuine misunderstanding on your part. I'm afraid this is the only board I post on very much, and people here are usually VERY quick on the uptake. It's a funny board that way, and a good place to get reliable information on nearly any topic, I think. So I may not have adjusted to someone who was maybe not quite as adept at philosophical questions. And what I had to say to you I should have said more softly.

And for that I do apologize. Some of my best friends are Christians, as they say, and I don't dislike Christians, although I think religion is pretty harmful. (Kind of like hate the sin lover the sinner, I guess.)

JesusLovesYou · 06-03-2005, 09:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IsItJustMe

JLY, I may have been too harsh with you. If so, I apologize. What bothered me is that you jumped into this thread without seeming to understand the discussion. That is, this thread was (in long ago and bygone days) a discussion about a proof of god that C.S. Lewis claimed to have worked out that ended with the question whether Jesus was the Lord, a liar, or a lunatic. And the thread was about how different people answered that question and what they thought about the proof. And you seemed to think that the thread was about how Jesus was a liar and crazy and that the question was deeply disrespectful and so on.

And I guess it was just genuine misunderstanding on your part. I'm afraid this is the only board I post on very much, and people here are usually VERY quick on the uptake. It's a funny board that way, and a good place to get reliable information on nearly any topic, I think. So I may not have adjusted to someone who was maybe not quite as adept at philosophical questions. And what I had to say to you I should have said more softly.

And for that I do apologize. Some of my best friends are Christians, as they say, and I don't dislike Christians, although I think religion is pretty harmful. (Kind of like hate the sin lover the sinner, I guess.)

If you were one of them that was harsh or whatever you want to call it I don't remember, but thank you.
I to am sorry for the way I came in to the thread, and no I didn't realize that the thread was about C. S. Lewis, since the #1 post just said:[QUOTE]

Quote:

Originally Posted by McDuffie

Ok, so we have all had this question posed to us. Which was he?

I thought it was just a poll with comments after, so for that again, I am sorry.

After that I was just trying to answer questions that were put to me, and believe it would have been rude to not answer them. Just the way I am, but even when I tried to leave a thread so they could stay(or get back on topic) on the original OP, but still answer a persons questions by PM, well again that wasn't right to them.
So it appears at least to some it doesn't matter how I try and respect the way you all do things it isn't right.

Again Thank you for your comments and apology.
Jesus Loves You

Kilgore Trout · 06-03-2005, 10:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JesusLovesYou

Yes, this is rich. I never used one cuss word, which can't be said by others so where do you get that I said the above highlighted area.

Maybe you didn't use any cuss words, but here is a quote from you....

Quote:

Originally Posted by JesusLovesYou

I personally don't have any idea what someone that is deceived by the great deceiver would talk about. My delusions, please remember that statement when you are kneeling before God, and it is to late.

This stuff is not supposed to be an insult to us? First you display the christian bigotry of saying that non-christians are all instruments of the devil. Then you resort to the fallacy of the appeal to force. Saying atheists are going to eternal torment (just because they can actually read your bible and see all the fallacies in it) is worse than saying they are f*cked.

JesusLovesYou · 06-03-2005, 10:21 PM

[QUOTE]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kilgore Trout

Maybe you didn't use any cuss words, but here is a quote from you....

Quote:

Originally Posted by JesusLovesYou
I personally don't have any idea what someone that is deceived by the great deceiver would talk about. My delusions, please remember that statement when you are kneeling before God, and it is to late.

[QUOTE]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kilgore Trout

This stuff is not supposed to be an insult to us? First you display the christian bigotry of saying that non-christians are all instruments of the devil. Then you resort to the fallacy of the appeal to force. Saying atheists are going to eternal torment (just because they can actually read your bible and see all the fallacies in it) is worse than saying they are f*cked.

Kilgore Trout,
I will answer this even if my post was not to you. The person said in the post I used a certain word, which I didn't, and I also responded to a person that said I was delusional by turning it around to them.

So, let me see if I get this right, you think it is ok to say I am delusional, rude, loud-mouth ignoramous,(some of the names I have been called) but if I use the same words back at you, then I am a bigot. Well ok I am glad I understand now. :huh:

Because someone can read the bible and say they see fallacies in it, gives them the right to call me names? They can quote scriptures at me, but if I point out scriptures that say they are going to hell, that is wrong and worse then using the "F" word.

I quess I need to go back and read the rules again, I must have missed the part about the one-sidedness.

Jesus Loves You

judanne · 06-03-2005, 10:38 PM

I actually decided that he was more of a cult leader whose followers took the ball and ran with it. Probably just the ancient world's answer to Jimmy Swaggart. If the bible is the only account of his life and none of it was written by him, it's all just hearsay anyway.

Oh yeah, if you're a Christian and you can't handle criticism of your ideas, might I suggest you visit a forum in which criticism and questioning of Christian and other religious notions is not the focus of the forum? This forum is an oasis away from the preaching tongues of evangelists of any religious brand.

Sometimes, after a long hard day among the theistic majority, we atheists just like to kick back and let it all hang out. Here we get to say the things we would have liked to say to our boss or coworker but didn't want to get fired, or to our families for fear of their withholding their affection or to the multitude of people out there to whom we often nod politely when they say something we find completely absurd. This is a forum in which we are free to think and say what we want within the agreed upon guidelines. I respect you as an individual, I just don't respect your religion. Welcome to atheist heaven.

Queen of Swords · 06-03-2005, 11:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JesusLovesYou

I quess I need to go back and read the rules again, I must have missed the part about the one-sidedness.

Also the part about christians being harmless as doves. Maybe that's the one-sidedness, that Jesus commands you to turn the other cheek while there's no such admonition for non-christians, and I know it can be a very difficult command to follow. But remember, "with god, all things are possible."

Stacey Melissa · 06-03-2005, 11:06 PM

Many people enjoy being fucked. I don't see what the big deal is, as long as rubbers are utilized. :huh:

Seriously, though, we don't need to blast any Christians with a barrage of barbed, rhetorical questions. Posing a few focused, politely-phrased questions would be far more pragmatic. Or, for a change, we could politely explain how atheists are depicted in the Bible, and in many other places, with straw man caricatures. We don't need to lend credence to those caricatures.

I'm not defending JLY's tactics. But I do think some of the atheist posters in this thread have been just as nasty, and several of you have continued being nasty even after JLY stopped. In short, try not to be such caustic hypocrites, and maybe you'll get somewhere.

Kilgore Trout · 06-03-2005, 11:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JesusLovesYou

Kilgore Trout,
I will answer this even if my post was not to you. The person said in the post I used a certain word, which I didn't, and I also responded to a person that said I was delusional by turning it around to them.

The definition of delusional is saying something is there when there is no evidence of that thing. So until you provide evidence of this god, we have no reason to believe you are not delusional. And quoting your bible is not evidence. Saying we are the ones who are being fooled by the devil and are going to hell is not evidence.

Quote:

So, let me see if I get this right, you think it is ok to say I am delusional, rude, loud-mouth ignoramous,(some of the names I have been called) but if I use the same words back at you, then I am a bigot. Well ok I am glad I understand now. :huh:

I didn't say you were a bigot because you call someone rude or a loud-mouth, I said christians are bigots because they say ALL non-christians are run by the devil and going to hell. Taking a group of people other than yourself and separating them into another class makes you a bigot.

Quote:

They can quote scriptures at me, but if I point out scriptures that say they are going to hell, that is wrong and worse then using the "F" word.

As I said, saying a group of people is going to hell is bigotry. Just because it's written in your holy book doesn't make it any better. The KKK must think everything they say is coming from god or some holy book also. They are just passing on what their lord told them.

Quote:

I quess I need to go back and read the rules again, I must have missed the part about the one-sidedness.

As I said you are the one who has the burden of proof. You say there is a god and we are going to hell, you don't provide any evidence and act like you are being persecuted.

JesusLovesYou · 06-03-2005, 11:10 PM

[QUOTE]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Avatar

A listing of the aims of the conservative theocratic movement:

1) The use of the death penalty would be greatly expanded, when the Hebrew Scriptures' laws are reapplied. People will be executed for adultery, blasphemy, heresy, homosexual behavior, idolatry, prostitution, evil sorcery (some translations say Witchcraft), etc. The Bible requires those found guilty of these "crimes" to be either stoned to death or burned alive. Reconstructionists are divided on the execution method to be used.
2) A church or congregation which does not accept the Mosaic Law has another god before them, and is thus guilty of idolatry. That would be punishable by death. That would include all non-Christian religious organizations. At the present time, non-Christians total two-thirds of the human race.
3) The status of women would be reduced to almost that of a slave as described in the Hebrew Scriptures. A woman would initially be considered the property of her father; after marriage, she would be considered the property of her husband.
4) It would be logical to assume that the institution of slavery would be reintroduced, and regulated according to Biblical laws. Fathers could sell their daughters into slavery. Female slaves would retain that status for life. Slave owners would be allowed to physically abuse them, as long as the slaves lived for at least a day before dying of the beating. 9
5) Polygyny and the keeping of concubines were permitted in the Old Testament. However, Reconstructionists generally believe in marriage between one man and one woman only. Any other sexual expression would be a capital crime. Those found guilty of engaging in same-sex, pre-marital or extra-marital sex would be executed.
6) The Old Testament "Jubilee Year" system would be celebrated once more. 7) Every 50 years, the control of all land reverted to its original owners. In theory, this would require every part of North American land to be returned to the original Aboriginal owners (or perhaps to those persons of Aboriginal descent who are now Christians). Hawaii would be given back to the native Hawaiians.
8) Governments would all have balanced budgets.
9) Income taxes would be eliminated.
10) The prison system would be eliminated. A system of just restitution would be established for some crimes. The death penalty would be practiced for many other crimes. There would be little need for warehousing of convicted criminals.
11) Legal abortions would be banished; those found to be responsible for abortions would be charged with murder and executed.

Say hello to fellows who espouse exactly the same mentality you have been.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/reconstr.htm

As I said before I have never heard of that movement, and from what you have listed, above and what is said on the link,(which I just scanned) I wouldn't be in a movement like that. Just because someone is a Christian doesn't but them automatically in a group like that. Just like not all atheist, act or feel the same way as everyother atheist. I think that if you think that way you would be sterotyping people wouldn't you?

[QUOTE]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Avatar

And so he elaborated on his intentions regarding the wall between Church and State...specifically that it was not nor was ever intended to be one-way, unlike what numerous conservative religionists try to claim.

And some atheist try to claim.IMHO

[QUOTE]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Avatar

Like the archconservatives keep trying to do.

So do you think that everyone that professes to be a Christian are archconsevatives? If you do I believe you will find that you are wrong about that just like the movement stuff you mentioned.

[QUOTE]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Avatar

If Christians stopped at "mentioning", I would have no problem. I would continue to ignore them as I ignore the Mormons, the Muslims, and other groups who occassionaly try to intrude on my life. Christianity goes a few steps further than that though, trying to legislate their morality while pretending that the moral ideals of others don't exist. You think that's not happening? Take a look at these:

So you listed 5-6 people, and that means that because of the things these 5-6 have said that all Christians believe/support, etc., their beliefs?

Oh, and you maybe shouldn't ignore the some of the Muslims. Just 2 weeks ago one told his congregation or whatever they call the members of their church, that the only way there will ever be peace on earth is when all the Jews are dead, but that they may be able to let some of the Americans live, because they are reprogrammable.

I hope I responded to everything that you wanted my answers on. If not let me know. Again, attacking or saying that everyone that says they are a Christian are this way or that way, is wrong. IMHO

Jesus Loves You

View Poll Results: Lord, liar, lunatic or...
Lord	12	5.43%
Liar	2	0.90%
Lunatic	5	2.26%
None of the above: he was probably a cult leader about whom people invented stories after his death	119	53.85%
None of the above: he was a myth	74	33.48%
A combination of lunatic and liar	9	4.07%
Voters: 221. You may not vote on this poll

06-03-2005, 10:38 PM	#186
judanne Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: near Toronto Posts: 1,757	sometimes I feel like a nut I actually decided that he was more of a cult leader whose followers took the ball and ran with it. Probably just the ancient world's answer to Jimmy Swaggart. If the bible is the only account of his life and none of it was written by him, it's all just hearsay anyway. Oh yeah, if you're a Christian and you can't handle criticism of your ideas, might I suggest you visit a forum in which criticism and questioning of Christian and other religious notions is not the focus of the forum? This forum is an oasis away from the preaching tongues of evangelists of any religious brand. Sometimes, after a long hard day among the theistic majority, we atheists just like to kick back and let it all hang out. Here we get to say the things we would have liked to say to our boss or coworker but didn't want to get fired, or to our families for fear of their withholding their affection or to the multitude of people out there to whom we often nod politely when they say something we find completely absurd. This is a forum in which we are free to think and say what we want within the agreed upon guidelines. I respect you as an individual, I just don't respect your religion. Welcome to atheist heaven.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-03-2005, 09:26 PM	#182
IsItJustMe Veteran Member Join Date: May 2005 Location: Next smoke-filled cellar over from Preno. Posts: 6,562	JLY, I may have been too harsh with you. If so, I apologize. What bothered me is that you jumped into this thread without seeming to understand the discussion. That is, this thread was (in long ago and bygone days) a discussion about a proof of god that C.S. Lewis claimed to have worked out that ended with the question whether Jesus was the Lord, a liar, or a lunatic. And the thread was about how different people answered that question and what they thought about the proof. And you seemed to think that the thread was about how Jesus was a liar and crazy and that the question was deeply disrespectful and so on. And I guess it was just genuine misunderstanding on your part. I'm afraid this is the only board I post on very much, and people here are usually VERY quick on the uptake. It's a funny board that way, and a good place to get reliable information on nearly any topic, I think. So I may not have adjusted to someone who was maybe not quite as adept at philosophical questions. And what I had to say to you I should have said more softly. And for that I do apologize. Some of my best friends are Christians, as they say, and I don't dislike Christians, although I think religion is pretty harmful. (Kind of like hate the sin lover the sinner, I guess.)

06-03-2005, 11:06 PM	#188
Stacey Melissa Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Wichita, Kansas, USA Posts: 8,650	Many people enjoy being fucked. I don't see what the big deal is, as long as rubbers are utilized. :huh: Seriously, though, we don't need to blast any Christians with a barrage of barbed, rhetorical questions. Posing a few focused, politely-phrased questions would be far more pragmatic. Or, for a change, we could politely explain how atheists are depicted in the Bible, and in many other places, with straw man caricatures. We don't need to lend credence to those caricatures. I'm not defending JLY's tactics. But I do think some of the atheist posters in this thread have been just as nasty, and several of you have continued being nasty even after JLY stopped. In short, try not to be such caustic hypocrites, and maybe you'll get somewhere.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.