David M. Payne

Yes, it is isn't it.

David

David M. Payne

See the many reasons above.

FS, put up or shut up. (Actually put up or admit you are wrong on my "plagiarism" of "Bob.") If you wish to have me respond to you above, respond to this.

David

David M. Payne

It is interesting to see that after a year of this threads existence, all the theists here have been able to do is try to deflect or derail the main point of this thread, to wit:

If God exists, he is a mass murderer of unparalleled efficiency who is willing to kill not only the guilty, but also everybody else, babies, children and animals, save one family and one pair of each animal in existence. And why does he do this? For the sin of corruption, not murder, rape or other capital crimes, but corruption? This behavior from an omnipotent God who has every available option at his disposal to effect changes in humanities behavior, but chooses the worst one, genocide, as his option. How does one square this behavior with the kind, just, caring, etc God that the theists want us to believe exists? You can't.

It's very simple, either the Abrahamic God is a monster of unbelievable cruelty and callowness, or he is a figment of millions of people's minds. (I vote for figment.) A figment pushed by people, many of whom are after "the usual" money, power and influence, and keep the myth of God alive to both terrorize people into believing in him, (And in the process their authority over the lives of the people that they seek to control.) and to promise a reward, heaven, if you follow their beliefs. It's a pretty good carrot and stick approach that depends on many things, primarily peoples quest to know where we came from, (Our creation) and where we are going. (Death and what, if anything, comes after it.)

I don't know where we came from and it doesn’t matter to me. And when I die, I cease to exist, plain and simple, so I do the best I can now, there is no later. (The afterlife.) I'm here now, humanity is here, and that’s what is verifiable. Since we are here, we should do the best we can to make this world as good as it can be for all of us. I think that’s a good enough reason to do the best we can as a species to improve our environment. Not because we fear/adore some fairy tale God, and hope that by believing in him/her/it we will live forever, but because we are sentient beings able to understand that striving to do the best we can is it's own reward, no promise of heaven needed. Most of us understand what is right, and what is wrong, and need no God in that understanding.

For a little more light hearted look at this tale of God, check out this little story. I think you'll find it amusing. There are some other good articles and links there, many from a Muslim perspective. As some of you know, I like to use humor as well as a serious approach in this little intellectual battle to free the minds of people trapped in the BS of the God/religion quagmire.

David

" Authoritarian Gods and religion, the oldest scam in history, and it still sucks them in today. So free your mind, and your body will follow!"

FarSeeker

People can be "irredeemable," sins can be unforgivable.
I don't claim to understand it completely, but when you commit too much evil, God will remove you from the "human equation" just as any court would.

>Execution is justifiable in cases where it punishes past and prevents future crimes. "Free Inquiry", the
>"humanist" magazine, not long ago publish a study that claimed that a recent dip in crime was due to the
>abortions committed over the past 30 years. In other words, those murdered unborn babies were going to
>grow up to be criminals, so it was a "good" thing that they were killed. If Atheists can justify pre-natal
>murder in that manner, you have just had the rug pulled out from under your argument.


There are three big Atheist supported magazines in the USA:
“Free Inquiry” http://www.secularhumanism.org/fi/
“Skeptical Inquirer” http://www.csicop.org/si/
and
“Skeptic” http://skeptic.com/

“In a recent, much publicized but still unpublished study, [Dr. John J. Donohue III of Stanford and Dr. Steven D. Levitt of the University Of Chicago] find that a drop in crimes coincides with the period when children born shortly after Roe v. Wade would be reaching teen age.”
…
“According to Dr. Levitt, ‘What our paper says is that when you remove a government prohibition against a woman choosing, the woman makes choices that lead to better outcomes for her children.’ ”
“Roe V. Crime,” Winter 1999 (Vol. 20, No. 1), p. 20

>I believe God did try to reason with those people, but they did not listen,
>preferring to choose their own way. For example, I remember reading one Atheist's post that stated that even if Jesus appeared in front of him, he would not believe Jesus really existed.

1. Because that is what He done repeatedly with others in the Bible. See Paul, and Balaam (sp?) for two diametrically different individuals as examples, while both listened to God, Paul chose to follow God, and Ballam did not.

2. Just relating how Atheists are willfully irrational, and hoping you won’t be that way. I might add that no other Atheist (to this day) has so much as even chided that Atheist about being irrational.

The archeological evidence of what those tribes were guilty of.
The child murders that occurred in the tribes we are talking about is one reason. The Biblical evidence exists:

Leviticus 18:21
" 'Do not give any of your children to be sacrificed [ 18:21 Or [ to be passed through ] [ the fire ] ] to Molech, for you must not profane the name of your God. I am the LORD

1 Kings 11:33
and Molech the god of the Ammonites,
[http://www.biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible]

>A loving God would not do to His creations what you have suggested:

Case one:
Jonah 3:
10 And God saw their deeds, that they turned from their evil way, and God repented for the evil that He said He would do to them; and He did not do it.

Jonah 4:
1 But it displeased Jonah greatly, and he was angry.
…
11 And I, should I not have pity on Nineveh, the great city, in which are more than a hundred and twenty thousand people who cannot discern between their right hand and their left, and many cattle?

Two things here:
1. God “pursued” Jonah to teach a lesson, one that is opposite of the claims made by DP.
2. He spared Nineveh when they repented.

Case two: Paul on the road to Damascus. Nuf said.
(A) Brainwash them so they had no choice; how Soviet-esc of those around you to imply brainwashing as acceptable, their statements are frightening.

Ah, ah. Your bigotry is darkening thru. That is an opinion I don’t share, but Marxists would very likely agree with you (After all, they have to save the world from the dangers of religions just like you Atheists wants to). So would many other Atheists, like the one above who say that is the brainwashing is an acceptable method of raising a child.

(B) Be a "Big Brother" by constantly policing everyone.
(Is it strange how supportive your fellow Atheists are of Soviet-esc concepts without your dissention?).

There is a difference between being the “Big Brother” of “1984” infamy, and the free will omniscience of God. So please stop with these obtuse objections.

I use it the same way others have said something was “Kafka–esque” to indicate a connection to themes presented in Kafka’s writings. A reference to a subject does not require that the object being referred to still exist. Otherwise, the study of history would not exist. There are many Atheists who are working to remove civil rights from Christians on this forum; some on this very thread. Just look at the little pin they are selling that expresses that the right to speak about our beliefs to others should be eliminated: (let’s see if this works)


Please stop being obstructionally obtuse!

>There is more logic in saying Atheism is responsible for Marxists' acts than
>for saying Christians are responsible for 9/11.

You’re just being obtuse again to waste my time. But just in case…
Marx chose Atheism for his religion: he rejected the existence of God.
Basing his thinking that there was no God, he rationally and logically developed Marxism.
Following Marxism requires the rejection of all deities.
Those who accepted and practice Marx’s ideas have committed evil.
Marxists in no way violated any of DP’s definition of Atheism.
Neither has Marxism violated rationalism’s, principles, and possibly not even logic’s.

Islam claims to share the patriarch Abraham, and accepts Jesus and some other people as historic.
Wow, Christians share the acceptance of some history with Moslems, so we are responsible for destroying the Twin Towers. That is DP’s logic.

The Moslems committed their evil following the teachings of Mohammed – a warrior.
Not Jesus, nor the Bible’s.
Even the argument that Islam is a “Abrahamic” religion is arguable. The root of the name Allah is traced back to a Bedouin pagan moon god. There is evidence to support that Mohammed simply took the pagan god of the largest tribe and said it was the only one, and waged war to spread his claim. Things went down-hill from there.

While Christians are blamed for the Fall of Rome because it was over run by invading barbarians

LM-Blinkin-HO!!! SHE’s RIGHT!!! So much information, so little time to process it all!

But you do realize that while "hacking" at me with your proverbial sword, you just cut off DP’s legs!!!

HEY !! DP, who looks like the "Black Knight" now?

LMHO!!!

You still ignore the evidence of your bigotry and prejudice DP in that the vast majority of Christian in the US were the first to have atomic weapons, and despite endless provocation by your fellow Atheists in Communist countries, only used them to end a war in a desire to avoid more casualties.

Irrelevant. You only restate my point.
Wow! Three of the first five were Christian, AND WE DID NOT DESTROY THE WORLD! Numerical superiority and we didn’t use it! My, DP, how evil are those Christians?

A tale told of the Soviets: A Russian General was looking at a map of Europe, attempting to find a way of attacking NATO and winning, was heard to constantly repeat, “nyet, nyet, nyet, ...”
You don’t use atomic weapons to attack an enemy unless you know you can win decisively – if you don’t only the cockroaches win. If your enemy can fire even one atomic weapon at you, you lose. Thus MAD worked. They didn’t use them because we could have retaliated. And I am sure you will I agree, considering their other evils (i.e. KAL 007, etc.), they would have used them if they could.

I no specific order: Korea, Berlin, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, etc. (then there are likely events you have never hear about). China? Go tell it to the Vietnamese, or did you forget that little war? How about Taiwan, North Korea, or Tibet? Missiles over Japan anybody?

Those in Turkey? Agreed. But I think Eisenhower put them in, and Kennedy ordered them out long before Khrushchev tried to move things to Cuba.

There was more involved. The US leaders (I have heard) did not want the Soviets to have a Pacific Ocean foothold on Japan. They wanted to end the war before the Russians were ready to invade. No historian knowledgeable about Japanese history would disagree that the Japanese were READY to fight to the last man if we had invaded. They Generals were so opposed to the Emperor surrendering, he had to record the surrender speech and distribute the recordings secretly.

There are “historians” how deny the holocaust happened, and deny that Hitler was a threat to the world. I don’t accept their views either. As I hope you don’t. Whether an event in history is universally accepted is irrelevant.

>Christians have had atomic, chemical and biological weapons DP,
>and we haven't used them as you claim, so your statements are false!
>Empiricism: the observation did not match the prediction,
>ergo the hypothesis was wrong.

“[A]nd we haven't used them as [DP] claim[ed].” Nuf Said!

>And once those Islamic "wackos" obtain nuclear weapons it will
>likely be from North Korea, so as to make you prophecy self-fulfilling.
>Won't you feel so proud of yourself when you can scream,
>"SEE, SEE, I WAS RIGHT!"

Hey, If we can’t trust Atheists to tell the truth when they claim to have them, who can we trust?

>Imagine how African-Americans (and other ethnic groups)
>feel when evolutionists point out how evolutionarily primitive they are.
>How they should not participate in the political process because they
>weren't intelligent enough.

The Dayton, Tenn. “monkey trial” had a whole slew of evolutionists brought in by the defense council (the ACLU no less) ready to defend the teaching of evolution from a book that clearly and unequivocally states that the Caucasian race was the most evolved humans race. I’ve seen it!

“The Mismeasure of Man” is possibly the biggest “No True Scotsman” fallacy ever written. In fact, it should be so subtitled!

>It is strange that you claim that "all good come from man,"
>and then imply all evil comes from God, when this simply
>does not fit the facts of history.

Ok, let us test your logic. Members of all religions – including Agnosticism and Atheism – commit evil. So the belief in a deity, or even the supernatural, cannot be the common element. So, what is the common element? Hmmmm! Ah hah! Humans! Prideful, arrogant, sinful Humans are the only common element!

The "Humanists" of ancient classical civilization, from whom many Atheists have claimed intellectual descent, found manual labor repugnant, but found acceptable: slavery, infanticide, pedophilia, gladiatorial games, and the superiority of men over women. (Yet strangely, Hippocrates found abortion unacceptable,…hmmm. it seems even some people in violent "primitive" societies had better morals than most Atheists do today). Similar points of view where found in the Chinese, Indus and pre-Columbian American civilizations. All that began to change with the rise of Christianity.


I’m sure we can argue about that latter, but please prepare a list for future reference.

Why did little or no change occur for thousands of years, but shortly after the flowering of Christianity and the stabilization of European society, Freedom did? Only in Christendom do we find the Magna Carta, The Declaration of Independence,, the writing like those of John Locke, Sir William Blackstone, Baron de Montesquieu, and Thomas Jefferson.

Those would not be called democracies or republics if closely examined. They were more oligarchies of the rich and famous. The common man had nothing to do with them.

The Native Americans were spiritual. If your war against deities extends to the supernatural as well (as most Atheists do), then the premise of the argument fails. You still have to argue against DP’s claim that such systems only develop from the rejection of religion.

>Where is the Chinese equivalent of these documents and people?
>Why didn't China develop a democracy or republic?

You and DP are arguing the contrary: Atheism is more friendly to democracy than Christianity! Atheists have argued about the religions of China being more “atheistic” than in the west, i.e Confucius, and more friendly to science that Christianity, i.e. Buddhism. I am simply pointing out that Atheist Dogma is not supported by real world facts.

>The Declaration of Independence was produced in a Christian nation,
>and nowhere else. The leaders of the Roman or Greek Empires
>would never have found the Tiananmen Massacre wrong.

Sign! It was called, “The Arena.” Where thousands if not tens of thousands were rounded up for slaughter. I think you might have found the dying Christians rather entertaining. The Romans would have found the Tiananmen Massacre great entertainment! (“30 drachmas on the short man being chased by the tank!”) As for Vietnam, I just look at the imperialism of Rome, and I shake my head at your statement. On the other hand, how would they have felt about “the US sending teenagers to die a needless death in” 1945 Japan. I guess your opinion is more important that that of the teenagers that would have had to invade Japan. Explain “Non-military targets.”

>But we do. Why? Because of Jesus of Nazareth!

That is your opinion. Totally irrelevant to those who committed the act, and as established by the main posters here, a society is permitted to set its own morals. I guess they would simply tell you to keep your laws off their bodies.

>You wear your pride like Isildur did The Ring.
>He refused to get rid of it by destroying it. As
>the ring destroyed so much, so too will your pride.

Big Sign! Web searches can be fun. I suggest you try it. Look under “Lord of the Rings” and “The Two Tower.” Nobody appreciates great literature any more!

David M. Payne

FS, you won't get a reply from me until you address the issue of your false accusation that I plagiarized "The Story of Bob."

I know you think what you did was the same as what I did when I compared you to the black knight in Monty Pythons "The Holy Grail," But they are two different things entirely. I poked fun at someone on the Secular Web who posts the same defeated arguments over and over again and goes by the name FarSeeker. Who is he/she? Who knows, I don't. That FS person has suffered no real damage by my post.

You on the other hand accused me of stealing someone else's ideas and representing them as my own. (Plagiarism.) That isn't a joke, its an accusation that smears my REAL NAME on the internet for the whole world to see, get it?

You owe me an apology, be a man/woman and make it.

David

Jack the Bodiless

The Bible records human sacrifices to the Judeo-Christian god also.

Hardly surprising, because the Jews and the Caananites were the same people, and worshipped the same gods! The Jews didn't renounce their polytheistic pantheon until the Babylonian captivity (under the influence of Zoroastrianism). Only then did they seek to distance themselves from their former beliefs and customs.

A reference to their custom of sacrificing the firstborn child still exists in the Bible: Exodus 22:29, "Thou shalt not delay to offer the first of thy ripe fruits, and of thy liquors: the firstborn of thy sons shalt thou give unto me". Of course, nowadays they like to pretend that the firstborn sons became priests or temple servants instead, but it's easy to see that one person from every family leads to a ludicrous surplus of "temple servants".
Check out the history of the Cuban Missile Crisis. If Kennedy hadn't kept his head and reined in his Christian generals, they would have started World War 3.
Why do you mention KAL 007 as an example of Soviet "evil" when the US did exactly the same thing to an Iranian airliner (the Vincennes Incident)?

Next you'll be claiming that the Soviets dropped booby-trapped toys in Afghanistan!
Why are you using the present tense here?

Imagine how African-Americans feel when you Christians keep them as slaves!

Imagine how Wiccans feel when you Christians burn them at the stake!

Wyz_sub10

So you don’t understand it, but you’re pretty sure it happens? Not a very convincing argument. This is part of the contradiction of Christianity – 1) all sins are forgivable, 2) not all sins are forgivable.

When you come to understand your own beliefs, then maybe you can elaborate on this.

The latter two I’m familiar with, although you are incorrect in saying that they are “atheist supported”. Martin Gardner is one of the big drivers for the “Skeptical Inquirer” and he is not an atheist.

Is this from “Free Inquiry”? If so, why did you reference the other two magazines?

We need to revisit your comment:

Now compare that to the above comment you provide from the magazine.

I see a striking difference between what was actually said, and what your “other words” indicate.

You didn’t address my question - Did god try to reason with the tribes supposedly slaughtered by the Israelites?

I certainly wouldn’t claim that being an atheist make one rational or level-headed. I don’t know the atheist in question, but I have certainly taken the opposing view of many atheists on this board. Others have as well. Why would you say that “atheists are wilfully irrational”?

I’m afraid I don’t accept biblical testimony as evidence. As for archaeological evidence, most of what I’ve read opposes biblical accounts thoroughly. Now, I’m not denying that atrocities happened among the tribes of the area. I would be interested in citations of this for particularly occurrences.

Doesn’t this create a big problem for you, as it implies 1) god was going to commit evil, 2) god was wrong?

Good for Ninevah. But what about all the other men, women, and children slaughtered at his command? Why overlook the innocent babies that supposedly died in the great flood? Or, like you believe “Free Inquiry” to be stating, was killing them young a “good thing”?

Well, I’m not sure it is bigotry, and I’m not sure what you mean by “darkening view”. I assume you take exception to that view, which is no surprise, but I don’t think it’s a particularly dark view.

In any case, I’m not concerned with what Marxists believe. I just think that your comment about brainwashing being “Soviet-esque” is hypocritical. As for raising a child, I will teach my children to think critically about the world around them. Would you teach you children to question what they learn at church or Sunday school? I’ll let you respond to that one, but I have a feeling I know the answer.

Is there some “Atheist Club” I don’t know about? Who on earth are you talking about when you say “my fellow atheists”? I know dozens of atheists, and not one supports “Big Brother” policies of any kind. Seriously, I have no idea where this comes from. “Big Brother” policies are quite common in many Christian religions and certainly in Islam.

I think you find these objections “obtuse” because they disturb your comfort zone. There are few differences between “1984” (which was fiction, by the way) and the Christian view of one’s obligations to god.

Saying that an objection is unfounded does not make it so. If you cannot refute the point then perhaps you are best to ignore it altogether.

No, but you continue to use the term and connect it to atheism as if there is some present-day initiative (i.e. this “Atheist Club” inference). There is no connection between being an atheist and holder “Soviet-esque” beliefs.

I’ll challenge you with this – compare the moderation on this site (by atheists) to the moderation on Christian sites (by Christians). Take this time to do this – consciously and purposefully – then come back and re-examine your statement on “removing civil rights”.

I realize, though, that you are not speaking on moderation, but on a movement re: prayer in schools or something similar (your link did not work, so I’m not sure exactly what you are referring to). I doubt that anyone wants to take away your civil right to free speech. But free speech has to be tempered with context.

In case you disagree, do you think an elementary school teacher should be allowed to tell students that Christianity is a lie and that Jesus was really a murderous pedophile? (I’m not making that statement. I’m asking you if you think that type of comment should be protected)

Please stop making sweeping statements irrelevant to the point! (and inventing words like “obstructionally”)

Really? I thought I was asking you to elaborate on an unsubstantiated statement.

Do you think you should be able to make any asinine comment you like with no explanation and expect others to simply accept it as fact? Maybe you’ve made a habit of doing so in your life, but do not expect others to follow suit.

Again, if you cannot back up your comments, perhaps you should choose them more carefully.

Atheism is not a religion. Call that another “obtuse objection” if it makes you feel better.

Here’s where you go wrong. You are making a non sequitur connection between Marxism and evil – you assert the connection, then use it as proof.

Those who accepted and practice Jesus’s ideas have committed evil.
Those who accepted and practice Mohammed’s ideas have committed evil.
Those who eat peanut butter and banana sandwiches have committed evil.
Those who put their pants on right-leg first have committed evil.

You must instead demonstrate how the principles of Marxism *advocate* “evil”. I’ll bet I could more easily do that with Christianity and Islam than you could with Marxism.

It’s not my logic. But Bush is sure waving the Christian banner as the bombs fall on Baghdad. Either way, people often use religion to justify the killing of others.

Replace the Islamic references with Christian ones and the stories changes not an ounce. Where do you think ‘Easter’ comes from?

First of all, I’m a “he”.

Second….???? What on earth are you talking about?

You said that Muslims would get weapons from North Korea.
I asked you how you knew this. You didn’t answer.
I noted that the US – a Christian nation – has been a principal supplier of Iraqi weapons. You ignored this.
I corrected you in noting that “Muslims” already have nuclear weapons. You responded that this somehow proves your point.

A not-so-impressive “verbal two step”, but I’m failing to see how you’ve addressed any of my comments.

Not irrelevant, and I did not restate your point.

Your point was wrong on two counts – that Christian nations were the first to get nuclear weapons and that they did not use them despite endless provocation by atheists.

I don’t think you are adequately prepared to have this discussion, as you fail once again to address my point, preferring to make jabs at David Payne. Perhaps you should have addressed him to begin with.

So what’s the point of this unsubstantiated tale? The Soviets were aggressive but thanks to MAD they did not risk using nuclear weapons? The same could be said for the US…except in the case of Japan, where they had no fear of retaliation and did use them.

Well, Berlin, Hungary and Czechoslovakia were all tragic (same with the rest of Eastern Europe). The US had far more subversive tactics, but they still pulled the strings of many regimes. Why were they in Viet-Nam, do you figure? To liberate the Vietnamese?

As for China, they are a unique instance of a massive power who has existed in almost sheer isolation. They are certainly no more an aggressor than Great Britain or Spain.

The Japanese would likely have fought until the end. But that end was well on its way through embargoes. Also, Japan would have likely surrendered had Hirohito been allowed to remain (which he did anyway).

Well, not the Christians, to be sure.

I find it interesting that you accuse me (and DP) repeatedly of bigotry, yet you have no qualms about making such sweeping generalizations about “who atheists are, what they do and how they think.” It’s very telling.

What book was that? Keep in mind that you are talking about a trial that took place in the days when the good Christian nation of USA had laws barring “coloured folk” from eating in “white” restaurants. They could not vote or attend the schools of whites. Again, your hypocrisy is almost unbelievable. Almost.

But let’s get back to what I said, and not what you want to use to side-step the issue:

Is this your opinion, or can you explain how evolutionary theory implies African-Americans are not intelligent enough? I’ll wager you know very little about evolution.

Again, agnosticism and atheism are not religions, but I’ll concede this for the purpose of “testing my logic”.

Yes, humans are the common element. Imagine that? The common element of what humans do is that humans do it! Fascinating.

Again, like your example with Marxism, you make an unproven assertion, claim it to be fact, then try to use it as proof for something. You go on to repeat your list from before, which remains unsubstantiated nonsense.

This is the…3rd…4th time you’ve simply refused to address a point?

Or, seeing as it’s relevant to what I said, we can talk about it now. But if you prefer, my list awaits. Perhaps I will start a new tread and you can address it there.

Because of the growth of humanist pursuits, such as art and literature – the re-introduction of Greek culture had much to do with this, not the least of which was the Greek concept of democracy.

“Only in Hawaii do we find Honolulu.”

You are choosing specific things and then saying that ‘A’ is proof that ‘A’ exists. It’s circular reasoning. What you want to ask is, “in which culture do we find the concept of guaranteeing certain rights, espousing certain freedoms, etc?”

That opens things up far beyond Christendom.

Nor would western democracy.

You may be at war, my firend, but I’m not. My premise, that you seem to be purposely glossing over, is that democracy and individual rights are not products of Christianity.

No I don’t. I’m addressing your claims, not DPs.

No, I’m not arguing that at all. Where did I say, or even imply this?

This is just a confusing statement. Which atheists are you referring to? How can something be “more atheistic” than something else? I, for one, do not think that Buddhism is, by definition, more friendly to science that Christianity.

Please stop assuming David Payne and I share the same opinions.

Oh, I see. You make an assertion and that makes it fact? To begin with, while you mention Rome you miss Greece, which you purposely avoid addressing now, even though you included them in your original statement.

Second, if you want to distinguish “pagan Rome” with “Christian Europe” or “Christian America”, violence as spectator entertainment is a pretty poor choice of examples, seeing as public executions were all the rage in Christian Europe, and few countries reveal in violence as entertainment as the US or A.

….and in doing so, refuse, yet again, to address the point.

More speculation about the Romans?

BTW, the average age of the US military in WWII was 25. They were not teenagers. By contrast, since you brought it up, the atomic blasts certainly did kill thousands of Japanese teenagers…and children. Or do they not “count”?

Targets that are not military bases, installations or operations.

I think it’s fundamentally relevant. You said that we find it deplorable because of Jesus. I find it deplorable, but not because of Jesus. We weren’t talking about the society that committed the act. We were talking about finding it deplorable because of Jesus.

As for your last line, I don’t know what that has to do with anything. Are “we” talking about abortion now?

I’m aware of the books, I just find it amusing that you would throw out bible passages as if it were historical fact, then end your post with comments from fiction. Such behaviour may lead one to believe that you cannot tell the difference between fact and fiction.


In the end, Farseeker, it is obvious that you equate atheism with immoral behaviour. You paint all atheists with the same brush to the point of inferring I support David’s points. You repeatedly accuse me of bigotry and then proceed to make sweeping generalization after sweeping generalization. It is ironic that you should be so prejudiced, yet cry victim at every opportunity.

That is your personal hang-up, and frankly, it is for you to work out.

What does concern me is the way you approach this discussion.

You talk to DP while responding to me, you state that I am arguing something I have never said. Your comments avoid my questions, you introduce your assertions as facts, you dance around with words without backing up your statements.

I would suggest you spend some time reading the other posts in this forum. Several posters (yes, Christians too) have developed their skills in debate and have contributed to many directed and meaningful posts.

Jack the Bodiless

Complaint to the II Administrators

My Evil Atheist Conspiracy Membership Pack does not contain this "pin" mentioned by FarSeeker.

Is this an isolated oversight, or have others been affected also? Where are these pins, and what exactly do they say? FarSeeker, can you provide details? I can't even find an advert for buying them! Has it been removed?

There will be serious trouble if I have to raise this with EAC headquarters in Beijing. And if Fu Manchu himself gets to hear of it...

Vorkosigan

<ack! Gack!> You mentioned Fu Manchu in a post!

Just stay where you are. Don't go anywhere! We will be visiting you shortly.

Vorkosigan
EAC
East Asian Region SubCommander.

justashooter

the scriptural story goes kind of like this:

the loss of those who lived before the flood was a direct result of the consumption of the fruit of the "tree of the knowledge of good and evil".

"for they saw their nakedness, and were ashamed, and hid from Him"

prior to this fateful day, adam and eve had been covered in the sanctity of relationship with God (living under the chikina glory of his identity). the allegorical lesson told here is lost on those who don't see it's meaning, but is cogent today. so many areas of our lives are better left hidden from our eyes. few can face a truthful examination of their own imperfect nature. those that can are either the model of humility, or the model of self discipline. most people shelter under the "glory" of some other system, group identity, organisation, etc.

when adam and eve fell from grace, there was no way to approach God, for the brightness of his face was as the sun, and no man could stand before Him. God gave over the earth to satan, and his minions communed with the children of men, bringing forth a race of giants ("sons of men and angels"). this was abhorrent to God, as he had created man for his pleasure. he chose one family from among those of his creation to secure, and this righteous man heard the voice of God, and in faith prepared a redoubt from the wrath of God upon the soiled (spiritually) earth. all those lost in this flood had no value to God, as their spirits had been irredeemably set aside from his sight, for "God is a spirit, and those that worship Him, worship Him in spirit and truth" (isaiah).

some of us have been through a psychological process akin to the fall from grace, destruction in the flood, and salvation of a remnant. this story is an allegory for a psychological process of redemption of cognitive schema. life presents each of us with opportunity to wander down a garden path. as we wend our way farther down the path, under the entwining limbs overhead, so we travel farther from righteousness (superego). at a certain point, those of us healthy enough to be recovered build a psychological ark, and watch as the rest of our lives is destroyed. after a time, the waters subside, and life begins anew.

those who are not redeemable, are lost in the swelling tide of darkening waters, that cover even the mountaintops which they have raised up within their corrupted lives.