Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 4/12/07 10:49 PM, Dre-Man wrote:

Nah, I've been on this forum for more than a month, that's all.

So all the atheists gather here on this forum?

At 4/12/07 10:35 PM, Dre-Man wrote:

Simply referring to the fact that while most atheists seem to absolutely DESPISE being stereotyped, they haven't a care in the world when they shovel it onto Christianity.

Because you've met most atheists and decided this?

At 4/12/07 05:49 PM, AtomicTerrorist wrote: wow. this was a great idea for a topic!

1- Romans
2- greece
3- khan
4- eqypt
5- nazi germany

This Khan or this Khan?

It IS necessary.

At 4/12/07 10:29 PM, Inganno wrote:

At 4/12/07 10:24 PM, AwesomeSauce wrote:

At 4/8/07 10:49 PM, Dre-Man wrote: You are a stereotypical, prejudice, atheist, ass hole.

I like how you nestled 'atheist' in there as if it's even remotely relevant as to why he sucks. Nazi.

While I think the point you just made is relatively pointless, I have to commend you for pointing that out.

Nice analysis of semantics there.

Similar to how certain people add "liberal" to describe anybody they don't like, whether they're actually liberal or not.

I highly doubt the majority of muslims in the U.K. are extremists. Just as the majority of Christians and atheists aren't extremists, but it's the extremists you usually only hear about.

The vast majority of Christians in the U.S. are not fundamentalists. The fundamentalists are the people who impose their religion on others. Not all Christians.

We do see the effect of attempts to legislate religion on top of everyone, but that's not the fault of most Christians. For example, here we have something called the Blue Laws which prohibit sales of alcohol on Sundays. It's stupid, but it's a result of some Baptists trying to enforce their beliefs on us. But this is not the fault of all Christians, or even all Baptists. Just some people trying to legislate their religious beliefs.

At 4/12/07 09:22 PM, LordJaric wrote:

At 4/12/07 08:59 PM, SyntheticTacos wrote: Also, we need them for when the robot revolution comes.

What?

Kidding.

We need nuclear weapons because the science exists and other people have them. If all the good guys get rid of their weapons and bad guys manage to develop them, then we lose MAD and the bad guys have effective control. The main point of having nuclear weapons is keeping other people who have nuclear weapons in check. The second reason for having them is because in a room where most people just have spears they'll usually listen to the guys with the flamethrowers. Bad analogy or not, there are definitely some countries we don't want to develop nuclear weapons after we've thrown out ours.

Also, we need them for when the robot revolution comes.

Regardless of the holes, evolution is still a more logical theory than just believing a random religion of your choice, in my opinion.

Besides, who says evolution and other universal science can't have anything to do with a divine being? Science doesn't disprove the existence of a God. God as a concept is perfectly compatible with science, just some religions aren't.

Xineph pretty much has it right. Very nice graphic. :)

At 4/12/07 01:25 PM, Proteas wrote:

At 4/11/07 09:48 PM, SyntheticTacos wrote: Bible Thumper =/= All Christians

Yes, because Bible Thumpers are so well represented on this forum.

Pull your head out of your ass. Do you seriosuly expect me - or anyone else for that matter - to believe that you wrote a topic for the sole purpose of questioning the principles a group of people that isn't even represented on here? Who the hell did you expect to answer your questions, hm? JERRY FALWELL?

Fair enough. I thought that some people might enjoy the Dr. Laura letter and the West Wing video though.

At 4/11/07 11:35 PM, SyntheticTacos wrote: There are many different subtopics relating to religion, so it only makes sense for there to be various threads discussing them.

That is no excuse for crapping up the forum with multiple topics about the same subject. We don't tolerate it for topics about President Bush, Abortion, Gun Control, or any other current event, why should we tolerate it for religion?

In my opinion religion is a much wider topic than those current events, but you're the mod here so it's your prerogative o' course. :)

A single religion thread could turn into a huge mess.

One person's opinion, and it doesn't surprise me that it's coming from the person who MADE this topic in particular.

That's true.

At 4/11/07 10:21 PM, reviewer-general wrote: Yeah, on the front page alone I counted between 8 and 10 threads (depending on which ones you count) religion-related threads. TOO MANY!

There are many different subtopics relating to religion, so it only makes sense for there to be various threads discussing them. A single religion thread could turn into a huge mess.

"So, IMO the topic does diss most Christians, but only with an erroneous equation of different viewpoints."

I'm dissing them by questioning why certain principles are followed and others are not?

At 4/11/07 09:15 PM, Memorize wrote:

At 4/11/07 09:12 PM, SolInvictus wrote:

you'd think the title would mean something.

You'd think the title was a anti-religous slap to the face.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible_thumper

Bible thumper (also Bible basher, or Bible Beater) is a derisive term used to describe Christian fundamentalists, or anyone perceived as aggressively pushing their religious beliefs upon those who do not share them.

Bible Thumper =/= All Christians

At 4/11/07 08:40 PM, Memorize wrote:

At 4/11/07 08:31 PM, SyntheticTacos wrote:

Maybe you guys just think it's more fun to start a flame war.

Since the other stuff is really just copy and paste, allow me to copy and paste your post:

"A common reasoning for prejudice against homosexuality is that the bible forbids it. But what I'm curious as to is that if you wish to follow the Bible that closely, why aren't you observing the OTHER laws that Leviticus and the other books of the Old Testament describes?

Now for some of you guys this letter that circulated around for a while might be considered older than dirt, but I'm guessing there's a fair amount of people here who haven't seen it."

I didn't read a single thing of you claiming that you weren't.

Claiming I wasn't what? Talking to all Christians? If I didn't say it was directed toward the bible-thumpers (aka the people who take it ALL literally and as law) I didn't say that I was only talking to I'm saying it now.

If anyone even cared to actually look at what I said instead of assuming I'm dissing all Christians , maybe they would find that what I said was directed toward the small sect of Christians that interpret the entire Bible as infallible and law, but instead you guys assume I'm trying to insult you. =\ If you had read the entirety of what I said, Korriken, Dre-Man and Memorize, you would have found that I wasn't even talking about you at all, because I'm not talking about Christians who only go by the New Testament.

Maybe you guys just think it's more fun to start a flame war.

At 4/11/07 02:28 PM, Proteas wrote: *raises hand*

Yeah, I don't care who answers this just so long as I get an answer. Why is it that on this forum, you can EASILY bring up the search bar and find any one of the over 1400 religion christianity, bible, and Jesus topics to bump and post in, yet you whiny little assholes KEEP FUCKING MAKING NEW TOPICS ABOUT THE SAME DAMN THING OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN?!

You know what? I'm not apposed to making an official religion topic anymore! Because at this point, I'd love to send several dozen of you little shits off on vacations from the BBS so you can quit bogging down this place with the same tired old "TEH BIBLE SUXXORZ LOLZ" topics, and we can get BACK to discussing real issues!

Proteas, I didn't make this topic to diss the bible, I made it as a discussion thread for the Dr. Laura letter and the West Wing video. Of course Dre-Man and Memorize just decided to ignore that and just directly attack me instead without making a coherent argument for their side. Dre even started a thread pretending I had written the Dr. Laura letter (which I didn't). Also ignored the fact that I admitted the title was stupid.

Chill out Amish Gangster. I haven't been ripping on the bible or moral people. I've been ripping on the fact that people use little sections from the bible to justify their bigotry to people who have done nothing wrong.

At 4/10/07 11:50 PM, Dre-Man wrote: I love it at how you nitpick at tiny little verses, manipulate them to your own idiotic understanding, and then call other people hypocrites when they say you're wrong.

Isn't that what the people who use the Old Testament to say homosexuality is wrong do? Nitpick at tiny little verses?

Kind of funny how my 666th post was a post about the bible -.-

At 4/10/07 09:56 PM, troubles1 wrote:

At 4/10/07 06:46 PM, SyntheticTacos wrote: A common reasoning for prejudice against homosexuality

You are a idiot , that is the old testament and since Christian's are not Jew's we don't follow it, Get a life or read a book and gain some understanding into a subject you want to dispute.

???? Can you guys just not read? I don't know how many times I've said this: I AM TALKING ABOUT THE PEOPLE WHO DO REGARD THE OLD TESTAMENT AS THE TRUE WORD OF GOD, NOT THE CHRISTIANS THAT ONLY FOLLOW THE NEW TESTAMENT. Not all Christians only follow the New Testament. Go listen to Pat Robertson, he's one of those people who quotes Leviticus. Same goes for you Memorize. Try reading all my responses before calling me stupid, people.

At 4/10/07 08:10 PM, Memorize wrote:

At 4/10/07 04:49 AM, ReThink wrote:

Religion should not be about being right.

If not then what is the point?

Showing people a better way to live?

At 4/10/07 08:05 PM, jenny-cadaver wrote: so i quit reading right after you said "why dont you pay more attention to the old testement laws...."
christians go by the new testement...you know the one that comes right after the old one. When Jesus died up there on the cross he took away our sins and made it easier for you to get into heaven, one of the ways he did this was by making most of these laws obsolete. Jews go by the old test because they don't believe Jesus was the saviour of all mankind, just some random guy that thought he was the son of God. so why dont you take that bible and read it, then come back and talk to me.

Some people interpret the WHOLE entire Bible as the infallible word of God. I'm not talking about all Christians, I'm talking about some Christians. If you had been paying attention to the topic you would know I was talking about hard-line Christians and not all of them. READ: I AM TALKING ABOUT PEOPLE WHO INTERPRET THE OLD TESTAMENT AS PART OF CHRISTIAN LAW. NOT THE ONES THAT DON'T.

I will admit that the title is kind of stupid though.

I believe that Memorize was using the legal definition of war while Dre-Man was using the common definition of war.

Practically all of the wars we've had since WWII have been undeclared wars. They were not wars in a United States legal sense, but they were wars in a conventional sense.

At 4/10/07 07:29 PM, stafffighter wrote:

At 4/10/07 07:25 PM, Dre-Man wrote:

The fact that if you knew a fuck about the life of Jesus you would have never even have considered to make this thread.

He's right, Jesus had very unruly hair

Guys, this thread wasn't made about Jesus, it was about hard-liners using Leviticus as an excuse for bigotry.

Plus the passage I was referencing to make the title is from this part of the Laura letter:

"Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev 19:27. How should they die?"

I didn't make this topic to diss all Christians or Jesus, it was made to ask why some hard-liners who interpret the Bible literally are so selective of which passages they reference as law or morality.

At 4/10/07 10:05 AM, Zoraxe7 wrote:

But atheism has no explanation in responce to relligions so it should not be seen as a replacement for it.

As much as we'd like to have an answer for all the deep questions in our lives, that doesn't mean we should accept some random thing just to have an answer.

When scientists try to figure out how something works, when they can't figure it out they don't just say "WELL IT MUST BE MAGIC LOL" and don't admit they have no answer. They wait until they have found out the real reason why.

Sometimes there is no answer to a question because there's no logical proof of the solution yet. It's illogical just to pick one answer just so you can have one. While it feels better to be able to say you know, that doesn't mean you're right.

At 4/10/07 07:14 PM, Dre-Man wrote: Again, a thread by a fucking idiot who has never read a page of the Bible in his life.

Way to go, fucktard.

Hey hey hey Dre, how's it going? Actually, for your information I used to be a mainstream regularly-churchgoing Episcopal Christian, and I did go to catechism classes and read pages and passages from the bible, I heard sermons all the time and learned a lot about the Christian faith. Why don't you ask me about my religious background before you assume that I have no connection to Christianity at all?

At 4/10/07 07:12 PM, Kahuna wrote:

Actually the Old testemant is a Jewish book, but since christanity is born from judism they kept it because it is the same god and progresses the story. So the New testemant gives the moral code of living and the Old testemant is merely for the purpos of story telling

Honestly it's personal choice whether you believe it is law or a "documentary", the problem is people use it nowadays to try to enforce their religion on others. The other problem is that a lot of these people also have only heard the select passages that seem to defend their extremist position without really analyzing some of the really great passages you do find in Abrahamic literature.

At 4/10/07 06:52 PM, Gunter45 wrote: Well, personally, I've never really been one to take the Bible quite so literally, but I can field this one. The reasoning isn't that the Old Testament is law; most Christians take the New Testament as the replacement of the Old Testament law. However, they can still get away with feeling that homosexuality is a sin by looking at the book of Romans where it says that it's not alright for people to have intercourse with people of the same gender.

So I guess that's what you'd call a loophole.

A lot of them quote Leviticus though. Maybe that'll get them to stop burning Harry Potter books though, and quoting other passages from it as an excuse to do stupid things.

As for the Book of Romans (which I'm glad you pointed out, I thought there was a NT reference that was cited sometimes), there are different ways to interpret that. I'll have to look into it more though.

This is the phrase, right?
"Because of this [idolatry], God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error."

Wikipedia (Yes, I know it's not the most reliable source) has some interesting info on it. Different versions translate it differently, so depending on which version you're looking at it it's more or less vague.
'

At 4/10/07 04:53 PM, SpoogeRag wrote: Because it's true.

Whoa dude, you need to size down your arguments a bit. I'm sure there was a good point in there somewhere but it was so long and detailed I don't have time to read it.

At 4/10/07 05:53 PM, Mashroor wrote: I think anal sex should be allowed.

SkunkyFluffy:"What does that have to do with anything?"

This is Newgrounds, anal sex has to do with EVERYTHING here.

A common reasoning for prejudice against homosexuality is that the bible forbids it. But what I'm curious as to is that if you wish to follow the Bible that closely, why aren't you observing the OTHER laws that Leviticus and the other books of the Old Testament describes?

Now for some of you guys this letter that circulated around for a while might be considered older than dirt, but I'm guessing there's a fair amount of people here who haven't seen it.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/drlau ra.asp

Dear Dr. Laura,

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and I try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind him that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate.

I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the specific laws and how to best follow them.

a) When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

b) I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

c) I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

d) Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

e) I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

f) A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an Abomination (Lev 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?

g) Lev 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

h) Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev 19:27. How should they die?

i) I know from Lev 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

j) My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? (Lev 24:10-16) Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help.

Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

Your devoted disciple and adoring fan.

It also seems to have inspired a section of an episode of The West Wing.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=5-zhNiGlogQ

So, whatcha think about that? I hope this topic isn't too tired, hopefully some of you guys will find a little humor in the links I posted.

Picture of Bill Cosby added because NG seems to think I'm trying to post a picture somewhere somehow???