PJPSYCO

Radorth, First, the I am not an 104 year old fool was a joke(ie the ). See, you origonally did not say that I was a child, you just said that I had problems with my information because of my age. The other side to being naive is being senile. Both have the same consequence. All the statements from "I am not a 104 year old fool" up until "But seriously," was meant as a joke.
***WISDOM ALERT***
When people say "but seriously" they tend to mean the last part was a joke and is to be taken in jest.
******************
I acted like I was an old man still with my bearings, and you were some little 'wipper-snaper' tellin me that I'm just a stupid old man. I really did know that you were saying that you know more about people and their religions than I do cause your older than me (at least chronologically).

You honestly come of as very childish. You assume that because you are old you know more about people than people who are younger. The first question should be "are you gregarious?" This would a better case of interacting with people young or old. An old introvert will know nothing of how people interact, but a young extrovert will know a lot about people. You must not have a large number of coworkers to learn about peple with. You might want to try doing things with people outside of work. There is a very diverse group of people out in the world. I can talk to just about anyone. You won't find me with out a friend, even if I just met them yesterday. The trick of course with you will be to not start off the conversation with an insult. Like if you would have given me your post in person, I would have been very put off by you. You seem very smug.
***WISDOM ALERT***
When interacting with people don't start off by puting yourself above them. It will make the relationship confrontational and cause the person to be on gaurd for your insults when you speak
******************

I will apologise for not adressing your whole post, but I honestly wanted to get your insult hashed out before hand. I am always good for clarification. The first post of yours said that "the bible says......", and I say, "good for the bible.", but that is irrelevant as I origionally said. The first thing you'll find when interacting with christians is that all of theiir bible knowlendge is second hand. They tend to use things like lectionaries and other people to tell them what the passages are suppose to say. As has been expunged by a number of the other posters what is said/meant by the passages is actually up to much debate, a comment that I wholeheartedly agree with. Paul seems to despise women, the story of the helpful samaritan has a very different connetation if Jesus is truly a Jew -and therein hates samaritans - (it would imply that you should at least be better than the most evil person). I would say not just the Fundies, but all christians that I have had the pleasure of interacting with has defined thier god as some sort of power that we should strive to obtain(including yourself). That was the point and you personified it. May I say, "thank you".
***WISDOM ALERT***
I write like I talk. So, some of my sentences don't come out whole.
******************

...and for further reference, The name is PJPSYCO (no H). I purposly misspelled it when I made it up. It just looks neater without the H more streamlined and organic.

Radorth

No I said you didn't give any, other than generalizations, and that you haven't learned to make distinctions. I also said you can have all sorts of "knowledge" and people may still rightly call you inane and lazy in your thinking.

You can only see in others what is in yourself of course. And since I do things 90% of young people are too immature, self-absorbed or irresponsible to do, I won't take it personally. I couldn't do those things at your age either, and I don't expect you to. I do expect you to take your lumps if you want to drive through II on a soap box making amazing philosophical claims.

No, I specifically said being old does not mean you are necessarily wise, but rather you cannot be young and be wise. I was talking about you, not me, for the most part yet you interpret it as if I'm bragging or something. Nevertheless, there are few exceptions to the rule that young people should error on the side of removing their own logs before telling us what is wrong with 2 billion people in the world.

So anyway, who were you talking about? My church? Billy Graham? The Taliban? 12th century Catholics? Can you narrow it down a little from 2-3 billion people so we can have a meaningful discussion?

[not-so-subtle personal attack deleted - Rad, if you'd like to comment on other people's methods of presenting their arguments, please do so in PM. BJM]

Queen of Swords

Originally posted by spurly
I would love to. Check out Philippians 2:5-8: "Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, who, although he existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a bond servant, and being made in the likeness of men. And being found in appearance as a man

Yes, but where does this passage say that he emptied himself of his deity so that sinners would not be blown away? It does say he "emptied himself", but I would like to have some biblical justification for the blowing-away part.

Moreover, God is supposed to have wrestled with Jacob, and I don't remember him emptying himself of his deity before that.

God could have taken the route you suggested, but his ultimate plan was much greater. He wants us to enjoy God for who he really is, not a masked version of who he is.

Let's assume that with the masked version, sinners do not have to burn in hell forever. Is God's wanting to be enjoyed for who he really is so important that the torture of billions of people can be justified by it?

He wants us to be able to enter into a relationship of love with him that will last forever. To do that, mankind needed to see how their sin cut them off from God, and they needed to see how much God loved them, that he was going to provide the means to rectify the relationship. It was an incredible plan.

It was a plan that will send most of humanity to hell.

As to how Satan is able to come into the presence of God, I will have to do more study on that.

Certainly. I look forward to hearing about it.

kctan

Before this point get lost in the confusion, why is your god so blood thirsty & not divine at all ? People said "To forgive is divine". It's quite obvious that forgiving is not a trait of your god nor is divineness in this case.

So a volcano eruption that kills thousands or an earthquake that kills thousands or a tsunami that kills thousands or a typhoon that kills thousands are righteous as well ? The bible saying that jesus had to be sacrificed like an animal is righteous as well ?

Radorth

If he was "bloodthirsty," he wouldn't have allowed Jesus to spill a little to save a lot.

I don't think this character is interested in hearing your point spurly.

Rad

winstonjen

Then why all the required spilling of animal blood, and human sacrifice, for presumably no good reason? And why would Jesus' death stop more blood being shed?

kctan

IF it ain't, it won't even need that little amount. The point is quite simple, it's a 'primitive' society. They have their 'primitive' way of appeasing their god.

So simple & yet xians can't make themselves accept it. Delusional or unwilling ? Care to enlighten us ?

BTW Talking about saving alot, so how many have actually been saved so far ? What happened to those killed during the persecutions - protestants being persecuted by catholics, witches being burned by xians, Spanish inqusition etc... ? Are they saved or not ?

Saved alot ? More like killed alot.

Both of you ain't interested in our points at all mores the like.

Rhea

So instead he let them go so they could procreate and make millions of individuals that God could obliterate later, by drowning.

Instead of blowing away the fractious two and starting again, he decided to wait and drown helpless animals, sinless babies and bewildered aldolescents. That was better.

Say, that _is_ love. (?)

I'm sorry spurly, but all your talk of blood sacrifices and covering people in blood is really creepy to me.

And I have yet to have even a passing reconciliation with the "mercy" the god showed to Adam and Eve versus the brutal murders of millions later because of Adam & Eve's error.

How is that mercy?
(Was god surprised by what happened? Did he NOT KNOW at the time of adam and eve that he'd be drowning babies a few millenia later because he didn't care to start again?)

spurly

Hey Radorth, I think you got me confused with kctan.

Kevin

Radorth

Ah, the old standby. When all else fails, bring up the bad works of Christians if you can't find any logical arguments to present.

Nevertheless, I answer that given the minimal and retroactive requirement of simple repentance and faith, I suspect most of them are. One is not held reponsible for ignorance.

It's quite apparent the persecuters were unaware of Jesus' teachings about uprooting tares. These abuses miraculously stopped when Bible toting "fundies" started protesting, beginning with Luther who insisted Christian heretics be burned "only with the scriptures." You can't take that away from him, in spite of his other faults. It was a Protestant English government outlawed slavery, witch trials, etc. It was the Bible-totin' Quakers who first came out, at great risk to their persons, against American slavery in 1680. Of course some enlightened skeptics, like Jefferson, ignored them entirely. But you'll still give Voltaire or some other non-Christians the credit. (if you can think of any)

Rad