Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Radorth · 02-28-2003, 09:13 AM

Quote:

Wow, someone who's even more sanctimonious than dear old Rad.

Ah yes, Rad. The only sanctimonius Christian in the history of the world who has ever admitted to being a hypocrite and signed a post "Kettle." But I'm sure you can imagine a deep, dark motive for that. Do tell.

Speaking of "sanctimonious" wasn't it you who refused to join the Fear of God debate, and chose to gratuitously attack my debating skills?

Hopefully we will get to see yours someday, if you have any.

Unbelievable.

Your fellow hypocrite,

Rad

"The more you need repentance, the less you can do it."

Yellum Notnef · 02-28-2003, 09:16 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Radorth
Yada yada. You have no idea why couples in my church stay together. Yet you comment as though you did.

Rad

I for one am not interested WHY the people in your church stay together. I am however glad that they DO stay together and not intermingle with the rest of society.

'Keep the circus under the tent' is what I always say.

Radorth · 02-28-2003, 09:30 AM

Please do.

Rad

Dr Rick · 02-28-2003, 09:51 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ab_Normal
But he seemed to have something against figs

...and pigs:

Luke 8:32,33;

"A large herd of pigs was feeding there on the hillside. The demons begged Jesus to let them go into them, and he gave them permission. When the demons came out of the man, they went into the pigs, and the herd rushed down the steep bank into the lake and was drowned."

Ab_Normal · 02-28-2003, 10:27 AM

I apologize, dwp666, I guess I'm easily distracted.

Yes, it is incredible that these things can happen. I've found another similar incident, this one in Philadelphia in 1844.

I apologize for the extensive quote; my paraphrasing skills aren't up to it.

Quote:

Each morning public school teachers were required to read students 10 chapters of the King James version of the Bible, followed by the Protestant version of the Lord's Prayer. This was a direct affront to Catholic students who used the Douay-Rheims version of the Bible and a different version of the prayer. In some public schools, textbooks were used that berated Catholics and condemned the Pope as the antichrist.

In an attempt to defuse the situation, Bishop Francis Kenrick persuaded the Philadelphia school board to issue orders removing the anti-Catholic textbooks from the public schools. He later requested the elimination of the schools' morning religious exercises, or at least the option of letting Catholic students use their own Bibles. He settled on a compromise permitting Catholics to leave the classrooms during the exercises. However, most teachers and administrators ignored the school board's orders.

When a Philadelphia alderman introduced a resolution in the city legislature to ban school Bible reading, he was shouted down by the Nativists who defended the state law. Frustrated, the alderman entered a Kensington classroom during a reading, tore the Bible from the teacher's hand and ripped it apart.

In response, angry Nativists organized a meeting in the heart of Kensington (then a largely Irish-Catholic suburb) to protest the actions. The gathering quickly turned into a riot resulting in at least one death. The following Monday, the Nativist mob returned to Kensington, destroyed homes and beat residents. To protect their own homes and businesses, Kensington's Protestants hung American flags and native American insignias in their windows. The rioters then marched down 2nd Street to St. Michael's Church and burned it and a nearby women's seminary to the ground.

Heading back into Philadelphia, the "patriots" then set fire to St. Augustine's Church, destroying an historic house of worship that had been financed in part by George Washington. A few weeks later, they moved on St. Philip Neri Church, in the Southwark section of the city. Using muskets and several cannons, they bombarded the church. The action resulted in 21 deaths and scores of serious injuries.

THE_LEGENDARY_HQB · 02-28-2003, 11:10 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Old Man
Don't forget that one of Jesus disciples' was a Zealot, who was dedicated to the overthrow of the Roman occupation by force.

And where does "unwanted pregnancy rate" feature as a mark of a Christian in the bible? What about Mary's unwanted pregnancy? She wasn't even married.

The bible says that they should have got married. Why didn't they choose that option instead? In fact the whole concept of "girl friends" and "boy friends" is unbiblical. The very fact that you allow "girl friends" and "boy friends" in your church, without requiring them to get engaged or bethrothed, smacks of a whole church out of touch with biblical morals.

Your standards of adjudication seems to be that unless you are a pacifist, you cannot be a Christian. Sad. Christians are permitted to indulge in acts of violance provided it is (a) In self-defence, or (b) Against people whom the bible condemns under the Levitical law. However, as always, the beneficiality of the act of violence needs to be carefully considered, even if it is lawful. Frequently, the consequences do not make the effort worthwhile (as Jesus pointed out).

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

:notworthy :notworthy :notworthy :notworthy :notworthy

BRAVO, OLD MAN! BRAVO!

Radorth {who's name is short, if I recall correctly, for Radical Orthodoxy}, simply loves responding to all of us mean ol' atheist hypocrites, sometimes within minutes of our posts, yet, strangely, has been silent regarding yours!

It's good to see a True Christian TM
response to Radorths constant assertions of Christian morality.
I've said for years that, if you read the Bible, you'll find that the most important function of believers is
A. Follow the Lord Jesus Christ.
B. Proclaim the Gospel.
C. Believe the Bible, and put its words into practice.
I truly commend you, from the bottom of my heart, Mr. Man, for pointing out just how unBiblical some of Rad's positions are.

So how about it, Rad? Care to pick apart Old Man's assertions one by one, then proclaim victory?
This should be good.

Lada dayz,
The Legendary HQB, Esq.
Marquis of Willemstad.

jayh · 02-28-2003, 02:32 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Radorth
Yada yada. You have no idea why couples in my church stay together. Yet you comment as though you did.

Rad

Excuse me, you will note that I make no specific statement about which cause is typical of your church, you make that application. I described my experience with many religious couples, from many churches, as well as the typical advice (stay together at all costs, even if you're miserable, its morally wrong to divorce) which is commonly promulgated by religious leaders of all stripes.

j

02-28-2003, 03:51 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Old Man
And I suppose you've also told your wife/girl-friend that her observation of sexual morals is santimonious? (If not, why not?)

I'm not married or involved in a commited relationship right now (nor do I have the desire to be in one...but that's beside the point of this thread), but I don't quite understand what you're asking me here. What sexual morals are you referring to? Yours?
Biblical sexual morals? Are you asking me if I believe women who commit adultery should be stoned to death? Help me out here. Surely you must realize that as a nontheist the pronouncements of your great tooth fairy in the sky mean absolutely nothing to me, in regards to sex or anything else.

Quote:

Originally posted by Old Man
And how is the Levitical law to be observed in a state which does not acknowledge the Levitical law?

The levitical law imposed duties on the community and on individuals. The moral duties on individuals still generally apply, and in respect of sexual morals, literally apply.

So do only the "moral" Levitical laws for individuals still apply, or all of them? The reason I'm asking this is that I've always heard from other Christians that they were absolved from having to follow Levitical law by Christ. Are you saying this is wrong?

02-28-2003, 04:25 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Radorth
Ah yes, Rad. The only sanctimonius Christian in the history of the world who has ever admitted to being a hypocrite and signed a post "Kettle." But I'm sure you can imagine a deep, dark motive for that. Do tell.

Well, Rad, I can imagine many possibilities. Most of them involve the abuse of certain controlled substances or severe head trauma as a child...but I'm not qualified to make a definitive diagnosis.

Quote:

Originally posted by Radorth
Speaking of "sanctimonious" wasn't it you who refused to join the Fear of God debate, and chose to gratuitously attack my debating skills?

I think you need to avail yourself of a dictionary. How was that action sanctimonious? Unconstructive and malicious perhaps, but hardly sanctimonious.

No, Rad, I did not "refuse" to to join anything, I simply see it as an exercise in futility, as is any attempt to debate with you. Trying to have a rational discussion with you is akin to having a conversation with a table lamp. It's a pointless expenditure of time and energy, with nothing to show for it in the end.

In my time on this board, I have never seen you come even remotely close to winning an argument. In fact, in most you have been handily defeated. And yet, you're still here, plugging away. Your only "virtue" (if you can describe it in that manner) is a sort of dogged persistence. You ostensibly hope to win by attrition, by wearing out your opponents with sheer repetiton and volume. You regurgitate the same tired arguments over and over again, and when people get bored of tearing them apart and wander away, you declare victory. Who knows, maybe you even believe it in that delusional mind of yours.

So you see, it's not a refusal or inability to debate you, Rad, I just find it more entertaining and less time-consuming to mock you instead.

Have a nice day.

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

02-28-2003, 09:30 AM	#33
Radorth Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Los Angeles Posts: 1,872	Please do. Rad

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.