Freethought & Rationalism Archive

seesaw · 02-01-2003, 03:23 AM

Well damn this thread has gotten so big I have a lot of reading to do. Thanks Amie, and everyone else making this so hard for me.

seesaw · 02-01-2003, 03:35 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Amie
Just for you Philosoft The licking machine!

http://www.tootsie.com/memoriesLicksMachine.html

It figures something like this would be coming from amie.

seesaw · 02-01-2003, 03:36 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Philosoft
Amie, you've just been waiting for the chance to pull that one out, eh?

Yeah I bet she was just waiting for soneone to say someone that.

seesaw · 02-01-2003, 03:41 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by atheist_in_foxhole

The real mystery is how so many people in the year 2003 believe in imaginary sky creatures that were clearly invented by primitive, superstitious bronze age goat herders.

lol! Why haven't I ever seen a goat herder?

seesaw · 02-01-2003, 03:45 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mad Kally
Why are you unequally yoking yourself together with unbelievers?

Well maybe she like to chat well different people no mater what they believe.

seesaw · 02-01-2003, 03:46 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Amie
No member has to justify themself to any other member for any reason on why they choose to be here.

Agree!

Radorth · 02-01-2003, 09:18 AM

Quote:

Feelings are based on beliefs. Feelings aren't 'lies' but the beliefs may not reflect reality. I think most people here want to believe what's true even though we may not all agree on what is true.

I doubt "most" skeptics here want to know the truth. Jesus said if you're looking for it you'll find it. But then, Helen, I know you like to pick and choose your scriptures so as not to offend anybody.

I think most skeptics here are not really skeptics at all, and compared to Durant or Wells, are just lazy thinkers. And some of them are so subjective in their thinking that they believe totally contradictary theories. (Thus we have Paul writing Acts 50 years after he died). There are certainly exceptions, like Bill Sneddin, but they stick out like sore thumbs IMO.

Rad

Radorth · 02-01-2003, 09:50 AM

________________________________________________

Anybody see anything wrong with that BTW?

Rad
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(Wiploc)

"It leads to all sorts of obvious injustices.

What if Hitler thought he was cool, and Mother Teresa thought she just wasn't good enough? (For the sake of this example, you have to assume Mother Teresa wasn't a Christian.)

What if people believed they were due seventy-seven virgins for blowing up the twin towers?

Suppose you saw two gullible dying people, and you told one he was going to heaven and the other he would burn forever in hell. What could possibly be fair about inflicting those results on them just because they believed your absurd stories?"

____________________________________________

Wiploc, I said they will be judged by their own rules, i.e. judgements.

Therefore if you judge the innocents in the twin towers your enemies worthy of death, then you will be so judged. Mother Teresa in you example isn't judging anyone else, so what's your point?

Your last example comes out of your either misreading my post or ignoring my point and is hardly worthy of a response. They aren't judging there at all. They are believing what somebody told them, which has nothing to do with anything.

Why do you think Jesus condemned the Pharisee's while not condemning "the Queen of the South" or the "men of Ninevah."? It is because they judged by strict rules which they themselves did not follow. There is perfect justice in being judged by your own rules my friend, so nobody will have any excuse on judgement day except Christ on the cross, whose sacrifice God can apply to anyone, ironically. It's the only one the lowly Rad would dare to proffer.

The condemned will talk about their "good works" and relative holiness, whether they are "Christians" or not. It is these that typically judge others and do not live up to their own rules. Thus they are appointed "their portion" with other self-righteous, unrepentent hypocrites.

Rad

Wiploc · 02-01-2003, 10:34 AM

Sorry, Rad. I thought you said non-Christians would be judged by their own rules. As long as you didn't mean that, I guess we have no disagreement.
crc

Radorth · 02-01-2003, 10:44 AM

I do mean non-Christians will be judged by their own rules and I'm still not sure why you have a problem with that. It is perfectly just and fair.

"As you judge you will be judged. As you condemn, you will be condemned."

Again, what's unjust about it?

Rad

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

02-01-2003, 03:23 AM	#291
seesaw Regular Member Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: USA Posts: 136	Well damn this thread has gotten so big I have a lot of reading to do. Thanks Amie, and everyone else making this so hard for me.

02-01-2003, 09:50 AM	#298
Radorth Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Los Angeles Posts: 1,872	________________________________________________ Anybody see anything wrong with that BTW? Rad -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (Wiploc) "It leads to all sorts of obvious injustices. What if Hitler thought he was cool, and Mother Teresa thought she just wasn't good enough? (For the sake of this example, you have to assume Mother Teresa wasn't a Christian.) What if people believed they were due seventy-seven virgins for blowing up the twin towers? Suppose you saw two gullible dying people, and you told one he was going to heaven and the other he would burn forever in hell. What could possibly be fair about inflicting those results on them just because they believed your absurd stories?" ____________________________________________ Wiploc, I said they will be judged by their own rules, i.e. judgements. Therefore if you judge the innocents in the twin towers your enemies worthy of death, then you will be so judged. Mother Teresa in you example isn't judging anyone else, so what's your point? Your last example comes out of your either misreading my post or ignoring my point and is hardly worthy of a response. They aren't judging there at all. They are believing what somebody told them, which has nothing to do with anything. Why do you think Jesus condemned the Pharisee's while not condemning "the Queen of the South" or the "men of Ninevah."? It is because they judged by strict rules which they themselves did not follow. There is perfect justice in being judged by your own rules my friend, so nobody will have any excuse on judgement day except Christ on the cross, whose sacrifice God can apply to anyone, ironically. It's the only one the lowly Rad would dare to proffer. The condemned will talk about their "good works" and relative holiness, whether they are "Christians" or not. It is these that typically judge others and do not live up to their own rules. Thus they are appointed "their portion" with other self-righteous, unrepentent hypocrites. Rad

02-01-2003, 10:34 AM	#299
Wiploc Contributor Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Alaska! Posts: 14,058	Sorry, Rad. I thought you said non-Christians would be judged by their own rules. As long as you didn't mean that, I guess we have no disagreement. crc

02-01-2003, 10:44 AM	#300
Radorth Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Los Angeles Posts: 1,872	I do mean non-Christians will be judged by their own rules and I'm still not sure why you have a problem with that. It is perfectly just and fair. "As you judge you will be judged. As you condemn, you will be condemned." Again, what's unjust about it? Rad

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.