Freethought & Rationalism Archive

southernhybrid · 05-06-2003, 02:46 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Badfish
Why was slavery allowed?

It was a way to repay debtors, a good many of the slaves were willing.

If you really believe that bullshit, I suggest you read The Narratives of Frederick Douglas, an American slave, and then come back and tell me that some of the slaves were willing.

Btw, Douglas who was a Xian himself claims that the most pious of the Xians were the most heinous, and barbaric of the slave holders. They used the scriptures of bible to support their cruelty.

Biff the unclean · 05-06-2003, 03:01 PM

Come on guys, give credit where credit is due.

"Would you be willing to give up all your freedoms, including your basic human rights, be owned by another person, be restricted in almost every manner of your person (restricted ability to learn to read, write, worship, think, talk, act), be subject to humiliation and even corporal punishment�"

Badfish is a fundi�he has already willingly done these things. That's what being a fundi is all about.

yguy · 05-06-2003, 03:06 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Dark Jedi
Here is a concept to wiggle your grey matter:

Next time someone claims to not be responsible for slavery, never to have owned slaves, etc... Can you or can you not be responsible for the sins of your ancestors?

If you can, then you ARE responsible.
If you cannot, then original sin is false.

Damn, two of the favorite soapboxes of the far right just collided with devastating consequences.

I'd suggest the concept of original sin is at least as viable as that of evolution. The latter is not testable, but we have an examples of the former without even have to spend time in the lab manufacturing them. They're called crack babies.

Yellum Notnef · 05-06-2003, 03:13 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by yguy
I'd suggest the concept of original sin is at least as viable as that of evolution. The latter is not testable, but we have an examples of the former without even have to spend time in the lab manufacturing them. They're called crack babies.

<<<<Nevermind. That one was too easy.>>>>>

Spaz · 05-06-2003, 03:18 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by yguy
I'd suggest the concept of original sin is at least as viable as that of evolution. The latter is not testable, but we have an examples of the former without even have to spend time in the lab manufacturing them. They're called crack babies.

Hilarious

AJ113 · 05-06-2003, 03:26 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by yguy
I'd suggest the concept of original sin is at least as viable as that of evolution. The latter is not testable, but we have an examples of the former without even have to spend time in the lab manufacturing them. They're called crack babies.

Personal comment deleted.:banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

Writer@Large · 05-06-2003, 03:37 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by AJ113
And the obvious answer:
Jesus said ".....if you do it one of my children, you do it to me."
So a sin against a fellow human is a sin against God.

<fundie>But you're taking that quote out of context! Jesus was talking figuratively. </fundie>

Besides, Jesus didn't have any children.

--W@L

hezekiah jones · 05-06-2003, 03:40 PM

Originally posted by yguy
I'd suggest the concept of original sin is at least as viable as that of evolution. The latter is not testable, but we have an examples of the former without even have to spend time in the lab manufacturing them. They're called crack babies.

"It was a dark and stormy night, and the air was thick with non sequiturs ..."

Christ, where do you even start with something like that?

Mageth · 05-06-2003, 03:44 PM

Originally posted by yguy
I'd suggest the concept of original sin is at least as viable as that of evolution. The latter is not testable, but we have an examples of the former without even have to spend time in the lab manufacturing them. They're called crack babies.

That's just sick. And theologically (and scientifically) wrong to boot.

Evolution is testable and falsifiable.

Original sin deals with the inheritance of a sin nature, not with suffering the physical results of one's parents' abuse of their bodies.

yguy · 05-06-2003, 04:00 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mageth
Original sin deals with the inheritance of a sin nature, not with suffering the physical results of one's parents' abuse of their bodies.

The point is that, through the selfishness of their parents, these babies have a weakness for crack. Likewise, through Adam's selfishness, his offspring have a weakness for sin.

05-06-2003, 03:40 PM	#28
hezekiah jones Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: WI Posts: 4,357	Re: Re: Hehe... I think I broke their minds. Originally posted by yguy I'd suggest the concept of original sin is at least as viable as that of evolution. The latter is not testable, but we have an examples of the former without even have to spend time in the lab manufacturing them. They're called crack babies. "It was a dark and stormy night, and the air was thick with non sequiturs ..." Christ, where do you even start with something like that?

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

05-06-2003, 03:01 PM	#22
Biff the unclean Banned Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: an inaccessible island fortress Posts: 10,638	Come on guys, give credit where credit is due. "Would you be willing to give up all your freedoms, including your basic human rights, be owned by another person, be restricted in almost every manner of your person (restricted ability to learn to read, write, worship, think, talk, act), be subject to humiliation and even corporal punishment�" Badfish is a fundi�he has already willingly done these things. That's what being a fundi is all about.

05-06-2003, 03:44 PM	#29
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	Originally posted by yguy I'd suggest the concept of original sin is at least as viable as that of evolution. The latter is not testable, but we have an examples of the former without even have to spend time in the lab manufacturing them. They're called crack babies. That's just sick. And theologically (and scientifically) wrong to boot. Evolution is testable and falsifiable. Original sin deals with the inheritance of a sin nature, not with suffering the physical results of one's parents' abuse of their bodies.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.