Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 5/19/08 04:21 PM, Imperator wrote:

At 5/19/08 09:18 AM, Drakim wrote:

Actually, the turn the other cheek thingy is a thing at hot debate. Some Christians thinks it's a sign of challange.

I would love to see the numbers on how many people believe that. Because I've never heard it, from anyone in any sect. I have a feeling they're about as large a group as the smallest of denominations, which would range a few thousand at best.

Well, it was what I got to hear when I said, "look, the bible tells you not to fight back", and I got a link to a website explaining how it's actually a challenge.

and my point still stands, how many Christian pacifists do you see today? Most are very for self defense, often with guns.

I mean, y'all are always scoffing at the fact that people who talk about beating gays aren't reading the book, well.....why is that feeling carried over to 1/3 the world population? I love paying for the actions of a few hundred idiots who haven't read the book.

Well, I could argue that most Nazis never killed a Jew either. :p

The problem is that I don't see Christians actually agreeing with Jesus. I love it when Jesus says "do not resist an evil person", because it's a very clear command, and the context only strengthens it's direct meaning. But, Christian pacifists are rare. D:

According to whom? This is MY problem. I don't see how you people can make the connections you do. The Catholics did a Crusade, therefore all Catholics are bad, have always been bad, and will always be bad.

Wait what? My argument above doesn't go that line at all. I'm talking about today. Christian pacifist today are rare, even though you are telling me this very moment that turn the other cheek means just that, turn the other cheek.

Or XYZ Christian said this, which must make him totally believable and right. Or XYZ Christian group, therefore, ALL Christians.

wut

I mean fuck, I've been compared to Hitler and the KKK in this thread, and both those groups had anti-Catholic platforms. You wanna tell me how I'm at all similar to people expressly against me?

Hey, don't mix my arguments with pox's arguments.

Congratulations. You're now a Christian. When you figure out why, call me.

A riddle! :S

If his argument is flawed, his theory is flawed, because he's missing the data for a complete theory. It's like saying his theory of evolution is that "People pick their noses, therefore evolution occurs".

Well, he would be right at the point of evolution occurring, even if everything else is wrong. You could call this the idiot's argument. He just happens to be right despite using faulty logic.

According to whom? Are you saying the bible is bad based on the bad passages, or the work as a whole?

If it's the former, then why aren't you saying the Bible has bad passages, which is a more accurate statement with the info you have?

I think, if you have a book that is a source of morals, it needs to be semi-perfect. Heck, I could have written a better morality book than the Bible. It doesn't help if 95% of the book is love if the other 5% is hate. If that is the case, it's a flawed book, even if it has good sides.

Nope, the problem is that the moment a sect is too different, you don't call it Christianity anymore. Thus, all "Christian" sects have a nice global message and are all friends. ^_^

Pray tell what examples are you thinking of where there's a consensus of what's no longer Christian based on difference?

Mormons? Those Crazy Christians who thinks you should imagine having sex with Jesus? I'm pretty sure you'll have a hard time getting those accepted.

Yes I know, and I hate that too. It's just when I see numbers over creationism and evolution in the US, I go "WTFOMG" and loose hope in humanity all over again. It's hard to say "those stupid Creationists" when they are the majority.

What numbers are you looking at, and why? I sincerely doubt they're the majority. They're just the LOUDEST.

It's sad but true, creationists outnumber people who believe in evolution in the US.

hehe, don't forget that the breakee was super racist too.

Yes, and I'm still paying for it 1500 years later. It's amazing really. God forgives sins, but I'm guilty of a 1500 year old crime I didn't commit.....

No, I'm talking about the breakee. Martin Luther. He was a super racist, but that tends to be quietly brushed aside.

Explain to me the morality of atheism again?

There is none, just like how math or dancing doesn't have one.

funny enough, this is exactly my argument on God existence. But then believers don't apply the same standard. :(

No, believers take the stance you're doing right now.

Look, here is just appears you WANT to disagree. Why did you start saying "no" and then say the same as me?
Drakim: I apply standard X to God, but belivers don't do that.
You: No. They apply standard Y.

Lack of evidence doesn't equal disproof, therefore the theory may be biased, but is still plausible. Right?

Yes, but unlikely. Like, goblins-exists-unlikely.

I think you can make default assumptions. You don't have to read a lot of troll lore to assume that trolls don't exist, right?

No, but you do if you're discussing what color trolls are it sort of presumes that, doesn't it? Pox isn't making a general comment about the book as a whole, he's making comments about its contents.

True. He could at the very best argue that the Bible is wrong, based on those lines.

At 5/19/08 05:08 PM, poxpower wrote: I'm asking you questions about what you think, the concept of "burden of proof" doesn't even apply.

No you're not, you're arguing a theory. If you were asking questions about what I thought, this conversation would have ended 5 pages ago, because I would have answered them and been done with it.

Questions which YOU STILL have not answered. Why won't you answer simple questions?

If you're asking them for the sake of finding out what I think, then ask them again. If you're asking them to legitimate your theory then answer mine first:

Why is your penis envy taking on the form of an internet debate?

It's equally as simplistic, so it shouldn't be hard or time consuming for you to answer it. When you do, I'll play your game and legitimate your BS theory with all the "I dunno" answers you can bear.

Any of them showed you the parts of the bible that say "Ignore the old testament, except the 10 commandments"?
I'd like to see them.

No, they teach things like "Here's how to translate this". "Here's the special meaning of this word", and "Here's where XYZ author is taking a reference from", and "This is a cultural difference between the US and the Romans. It will help in understanding the passage".

What you don't understand is that me and Earfetish aren't attacking the bible as just "some book" but as THE WORD OF GOD.

I have no problem if you just said "I don't think it's the Word of God, because look at all the crap it's caused". But you're not stopping there, are you? You're on a mission, and it's intent is openly hostile. Man up and admit it.

How can you say that you know more than they do? More than Imams and Rabbis who I can assure you have read the bible a lot more closely than you have.

Have I said I know more than they do? It's like you go into this pre-set speech and pattern of posting for every Christian you run across, and the specifics of the debate don't apply. I'm Christian, therefore I must have claimed to know more than Rabbis. Doesn't matter if I actually said that or not, you just IMPLY it from the get-go. And you wonder why I'm not warming up to your antics.......

Yeah me and Earfetish are the arrogant assholes here.

"You don't need to be smart to realise Christianity is bullshit."

Pox wrote:
"here's no "atheist authorities" or "atheist books" or "important atheist documents" or whatever."
Earfetish wrote:
"How much atheist literature have you read?"

Yes, you're assholes.

What a great Christian you are! "Love thy enemy"? Ever hear that one?

Yeah, I have. Guess what? **claps hands, says magic words**. ALL BETTER!

I don't understand how you can be so mentally dishonest with us and yourself just to try and save face in an internet argument.

Mentally dishonest. Are you fucking serious? You have one of the most biased, faulty, and rationally chaotic arguments I've ever seen, and you think I'M the one with mental dishonesty? You're literally asking me to disprove a theory you yourself never proved, which is exactly the complaint you draw on Christians, and I'm the one with mental problems?

You and Earfetish can't even give me a clear objective here, and you have YET to give validity to your comments, but I'm the one who needs to "save face"?

You think the Bible is bad. Ok. Prove it.
Put your money where your mouth is and PROVE it, instead of just giving me "opinions".

At 5/19/08 05:42 PM, Imperator wrote: You think the Bible is bad. Ok. Prove it.
Put your money where your mouth is and PROVE it, instead of just giving me "opinions".

So the link pox gave means nothing?

And the quote about stoning disobedient children to death?

"20 and they shall say unto the elders of his city: 'This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he doth not hearken to our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard.' 21 And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die; so shalt thou put away the evil from the midst of thee;"

At 5/19/08 05:49 PM, hippl5 wrote: So the link pox gave means nothing?

it means about as much as the religion of peace site.

At 5/19/08 05:42 PM, Imperator wrote: because I would have answered them and been done with it.

Once again:

- What do you really believe, faith-wise?
- What do you answer to the claim that the bible was written in a time where people suffered really brutal punishments and why would Jesus not meant that kind of punishment when he makes mentions of eye-gouging, hand-chopping etc?
- Why is the old testament still in the christian bible?
- What bible verses say to not follow the old testament? Or that it is fiction?
- What parts of the old testament are fiction, if not all of them?

No

So you have no proof that the old testament should be ignored?

and it's intent is openly hostile. Man up and admit it.

We take for premise that you think the bible is the word of God, but you're really evasive about it.
If the bible is the word of God, why is it so unclear on so many things? Why is it historically innacurate in the Old Testament? Why doesn't it explicitly state what you should do instead of going on and on for 4000 pages?
Why is it in a book when most people have been illiterate until barely 60-70 years ago? Can't God find a smarter way?

The bible makes perfect sense if it's just a normal book, but it falls appart the moment you say it's the word of God, which as a Christian/catholic, we assume you think.

Have I said I know more than they do?

Yes, you have interpreted the bible differently, backing yourself up with nothing but how many books you're read on it, how many classes you've taken and how many languages you're deciphered.

Either you're saying there is no right interpretation of the bible or that theirs is not as good as yours.

"How much atheist literature have you read?"
Yes, you're assholes.

I was just saying there's no atheist book that is the equivalent of the bible. There's no "must-read" atheist book that is canon. Notable atheists I know of are Carl Sagan, Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, James Randi, Dan Dennet and Sam Harris. I'd say to check their stuff out but in no way is it necessary to understand "atheism" or whatever.

Yeah, I have. Guess what? **claps hands, says magic words**. ALL BETTER!

Like.. how are we supposed to take your faith seriously when you do things like that? You seem just as much an atheist as us.

You think the Bible is bad. Ok. Prove it.

I don't think it's "bad", I just don't think it's the word of God or that it's the best way to teach morals.
Also, it's too long.

At 5/19/08 05:49 PM, hippl5 wrote:
"20 and they shall say unto the elders of his city: 'This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he doth not hearken to our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard.' 21 And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die; so shalt thou put away the evil from the midst of thee;"

I really loathe getting involved in these discussions but, I just thought I should point out that the Talmud states the parameters for are such that it is CERTAIN that this kid will go up to be a murderer, and that at the time the Talmud was written down, there had never been a child who did fulfill these parameters.
It also made the predictions that a child would never fulfill these parameters.

So you have ask yourself why would "God" include it, if it bore no real purpose?
Obviously to impart some sort of lesson.
The morality of Pre-emptive strikes perhaps?

At 5/19/08 05:37 PM, Drakim wrote: Well, it was what I got to hear when I said, "look, the bible tells you not to fight back", and I got a link to a website explaining how it's actually a challenge.

What website? I would love to check this site out, hopefully they wear tinfoil hats too so I know who they are.....

and my point still stands, how many Christian pacifists do you see today? Most are very for self defense, often with guns.

If I said a lot or a little, it wouldn't matter. There's no statistic for it, and you know it. So where are you pulling the "most" from?
Out of the 2 billion, how many Drakim? 1.5 billion?

Well, I could argue that most Nazis never killed a Jew either. :p

Yeah except you're not arguing that. You're arguing that all Germans are Nazis.

Wait what? My argument above doesn't go that line at all. I'm talking about today. Christian pacifist today are rare, even though you are telling me this very moment that turn the other cheek means just that, turn the other cheek.

Ok, "Christian pacifists are rare". According to whom? Your argument is making an assumption, and I can't stand another assumption in this thread. So be more specific please. If not, then speak from experience and not as if this is objective fact.

More ironic is the fact that Christian pacifism is why people blame them for the Fall of Rome.......must've existed at one point at least for that theory to hold true (although Gibbon's theory really doesn't).

wut

The KKK were bad, and they were some sort of Christian, therefore all Christians are bad like the KKK. Don't matter that they persecuted Catholics. Catholics are Christian, and therefore like the KKK, which means they persecute themselves.

Shitty logic used by non-Christians to assume I'm an asshole. Weird part is I'm Irish and Catholic. Which means at one point I wasn't white, and was persecuted heavily in this country.

Hey, don't mix my arguments with pox's arguments.

Sorry, I needed a little revenge. If I have to deal with the people giving me a bad name because they're Creationists, you have to deal with the Poxpowers of the world.

Well, he would be right at the point of evolution occurring, even if everything else is wrong. You could call this the idiot's argument. He just happens to be right despite using faulty logic.

Then he can come back with a decent argument and start over.
Use the Scientific method if he wants, and we'll go from there.
Hypothesis: Bible is BAD.
Evidence: His quotes.
Theory: Bible is BAD.

Now my question is how do you figure on the lines that say the exact opposite?
"Love your enemy" and that stuff?

There: Ball's in his court. He has to deal with the contradicting evidence, and can either change his theory or discount the evidence. One follows science, the other follows bigotry.

I think, if you have a book that is a source of morals, it needs to be semi-perfect. Heck, I could have written a better morality book than the Bible. It doesn't help if 95% of the book is love if the other 5% is hate. If that is the case, it's a flawed book, even if it has good sides.

I think the book's not a source of morals, and maybe that's the problem. I think it acts as a guideline to morals that are implied, hence all the parables. Otherwise the book would have been 10 lines, not 18 million.

Mormons? Those Crazy Christians who thinks you should imagine having sex with Jesus? I'm pretty sure you'll have a hard time getting those accepted.

And that's not the central tenant of the faith, now is it? All the Protestants did was split on tertiary matters. Hell, the King of England split because the Pope wouldn't give him an annulment.....

It's sad but true, creationists outnumber people who believe in evolution in the US.

Source.

No, I'm talking about the breakee. Martin Luther. He was a super racist, but that tends to be quietly brushed aside.

He'd be the breaker. The one who did the breaking. The breakee would be the Church, the one from which breaking occurs. Just like mentor (one who does the mentoring)/mentee (one on which mentoring occurs).

There is none, just like how math or dancing doesn't have one.

Well I dunno about dancing......
People seem to put a morality into that stuff all on their own, it seems to me.....

Look, here is just appears you WANT to disagree. Why did you start saying "no" and then say the same as me?

Because you're trying to do this "I'm not like them, I'm better" thing, when you're doing the same thing. And even when you're doing the same thing, you've still got this "I'm still better" deal going on.

I don't have to disprove Pox's theory, because he hasn't proved it. You were saying his interpretation is still as valid as the next one, albeit biased.

If he doesn't prove his theory, how is it valid? I haven't proven God exists, and I'm equally as biased. Does that mean even though I haven't proven it, it's still valid?

Double Standards piss me off.

Yes, but unlikely. Like, goblins-exists-unlikely.

That sounds agnostic. If you're replacing goblins with God, you're assuming the possibility for his existence, however unlikely.

Correct or am I reading wrong?

True. He could at the very best argue that the Bible is wrong, based on those lines.

And I would agree with him wholeheartedly, based on those lines. It'd be a sound theory that doesn't extend beyond what the evidence provides, and he'd be less of an ass for it.

At 5/19/08 06:01 PM, poxpower wrote:
Once again:

- What do you really believe, faith-wise?

A:
It's none of your fuckin business.

- What do you answer to the claim that the bible was written in a time where people suffered really brutal punishments and why would Jesus not meant that kind of punishment when he makes mentions of eye-gouging, hand-chopping etc?

A:
The culture was not as brutal as you believe, and I think if you take a few history courses you'd know that. The Roman laws were actually pretty fair, and not even all that different. Jesus was tried for treason against the Roman Empire, and executed. The USA has the exact same punishment.

- Why is the old testament still in the christian bible?

Why wouldn't it be? it contains the 10 commandments, and the prophesies that are fulfilled in the new T.

- What bible verses say to not follow the old testament? Or that it is fiction?

none say that specifically. However, the NT makes a hierarchy of the commandments.

- What parts of the old testament are fiction, if not all of them?

Well Christ I can't just answer that willy nilly. Give me 5 years and maybe I can list all the things we know are historically false, and all the things that are clearly poetics (like trees "whispering to the winds").

So you have no proof that the old testament should be ignored?

What do you mean "Ignored"? Off my head, no I don't. Outside of Jesus' affirmation that he created a new covenant that is.

We take for premise that you think the bible is the word of God, but you're really evasive about it.

You take for premise what the Word of God means, which is why I'm evasive.

If the bible is the word of God, why is it so unclear on so many things?

How the hell should I know? Maybe because people like you only read 1 line and assume the rest follows suit.

Why is it historically innacurate in the Old Testament?

Which parts in particular? Short answer is it's not a history book.....
That's like asking why 1984 is historically inaccurate......

Why doesn't it explicitly state what you should do instead of going on and on for 4000 pages?

In the OT I don't know. In the NT because it's implied, and the NT acts as a guide, not a "how to" book.

Why is it in a book when most people have been illiterate until barely 60-70 years ago? Can't God find a smarter way?

There was an oral tradition before that. That's the reason why it took so long to write down Homer, and to write down the stories in the Bible. In this word of mouth form, we have a few clues that tell us what the purpose was. Ironically enough, spreading the message by word of mouth is exactly what Jesus proscribed in the Bible. Hence all the passages of disciples "speaking in tongues", which itself may just mean they spoke a lot of languages (which would not be uncommon for upper-classes).

The bible makes perfect sense if it's just a normal book, but it falls appart the moment you say it's the word of God, which as a Christian/catholic, we assume you think.

What's your meaning of the Word of God then?

Yes, you have interpreted the bible differently, backing yourself up with nothing but how many books you're read on it, how many classes you've taken and how many languages you're deciphered.

I said I knew more than YOU. Now find me the quote where I said I knew more than the Rabbis.

Either you're saying there is no right interpretation of the bible or that theirs is not as good as yours.

Find where I said that then.

I was just saying there's no atheist book that is the equivalent of the bible. There's no "must-read" atheist book that is canon. Notable atheists I know of are Carl Sagan, Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, James Randi, Dan Dennet and Sam Harris. I'd say to check their stuff out but in no way is it necessary to understand "atheism" or whatever.

I've read Dawkin's book, and I enjoy Randi's shows.
So what IS necessary to understand "atheism", because so far all I've seen is you spewing bullshit.

Like.. how are we supposed to take your faith seriously when you do things like that? You seem just as much an atheist as us.

Sarcasm dude. I thought that was pretty clear, and your response should have told you that. Now go eat some delicious Irish children.....

I don't think it's "bad", I just don't think it's the word of God or that it's the best way to teach morals.
Also, it's too long.

Now you're getting somewhere.
Fine, you don't think it's the word of God. Fine by me.

It might not be the best way to teach morals. From what I've seen of humanity though, I doubt there's a "best" way......

What I DO think is it's a better way than NOT trying to teach them.

You saw the Zimbardo, Milgram, and Asch psych tests right? We're all potential Nazis.

Aight it hink people need to stop quoting eachother with stupid immature comments, if people here are too ignorant to understand what this topic is about then I advise you to leave and desist from making yourself a nuisence which will make your beliefs seem as false as you.

Peace and God bless.

At 5/19/08 06:58 PM, Shaggytheclown17 wrote: Aight it hink people need to stop quoting eachother with stupid immature comments, if people here are too ignorant to understand what this topic is about then I advise you to leave and desist from making yourself a nuisence which will make your beliefs seem as false as you.

Peace and God bless.

This is what we call "Debating".

Disproving (Or if you suck at debating, not even touching) peoples arguments one by one while making them angry at the same time.

At 5/19/08 06:34 PM, Imperator wrote:

A:
It's none of your fuckin business.

Why? Are you ashamed?

A:
The culture was not as brutal as you believe

Are you denying that punishments such as stoning, crucification, limp chopping, eye-gouging, tongue-chopping etc. weren't in that culture? Certainly Jesus and his followers knew very well what kind of punishments were the norm back then.
Like, for fun I googled some.
Here's stuff they apparently did in the roman empire to their own troops:
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_mili tary_decorations_and_punishments#Punishm ents_for_crimes)
"# If committing treason or theft then the punishment would most probably: being placed in a sack of snakes and thrown into a nearby river or lake."

like... holy shit.

Why wouldn't it be?

Because the entire thing is God being a dickhead to everyone? Ordering the Jews to go around killing in his name, ordering the deaths of millions for pride and anger?
Why not just keep the list of 10 commandments?

it contains the 10 commandments, and the prophesies that are fulfilled in the new T.

I heard the prophecies, they haven't been fulfilled in the least, as Jews of today will tell you.
Of course I'm sure you think jews are wrong.

none say that specifically. However, the NT makes a hierarchy of the commandments.

So you accuse me of making shit up and you do that?
What clues are laid in the new testament that you should ignore it? If any?

You're telling me that the Old Testament is to be ignored even though you admit to having no proof??? If that's not you using a pre-arrived-at conclusion to twist and shape the bible how you see fit, I certainly don't know what could be :o

Well Christ I can't just answer that willy nilly. Give me 5 years and maybe I can list all the things we know are historically false

Why are there historically false things in the Old Testament? Unless it's not the word of God.
If so, how do you gather, from the bible, that the 10 commandments are the word of God?

You take for premise what the Word of God means, which is why I'm evasive.

Well we assume that God wouldn't lie to people. So why does he put so many false things in his book? Why is everything in there so unclear that even bible scholars and popes don't know what it means?

Anyways, answer: is the bible the word of God?

Which parts in particular? Short answer is it's not a history book.....
That's like asking why 1984 is historically inaccurate......

1984 doesn't claim it was written by the creator of the universe.
I never heard anything about Jews in egypt. Have you?
Or the flood. Not a word. Or the whole line of descendants from Adam. There's no record of these people and DNA evidence suggests it's complete bullshit.

In the NT because it's implied, and the NT acts as a guide, not a "how to" book.

Where does it say that?
You've read it, so you tell me. I think you just take it for granted that it's implied, but it's not said in the bible, that's something you drew from your upbringing.

There was an oral tradition before that.

So how can it be trusted? ( sort of answers my first question: God wrote it so it wouldn't get twisted later on but then that failed too obviously ).
Why trust the bible over my own judgment knowing all this?

Why would I be a Christian?

What's your meaning of the Word of God then?

A book who's content has been dictated and allowed to be written by the creator of the universe.
Usually christians define him as "perfect" which then makes any flaw in the bible itself a dead giveaway that it's not his word or that he's not perfect.

I said I knew more than YOU. Now find me the quote where I said I knew more than the Rabbis.

Either you're saying there is no right interpretation of the bible or that theirs is not as good as yours.

It's implied since you say you know how to interpret the bible yet you interpret it differently than them.

One of your has to be wrong.

So what IS necessary to understand "atheism", because so far all I've seen is you spewing bullshit.

Hard to say. Some people don't seem to want to get it either way. By watching a lot of stuff by atheists you realize the gist of it, i.e. anyone who claims he knows the will of God, or what God did or when he has interfered is full of shit. Anyone who claims they know the supernatural exists, you know they're probably deluded even if they aren't dishonest.
Generally, atheism and skepticism go hand-in-hand. Of course no one has ALL the answers about everything nor the time to be skeptical about everything they're told.

You saw the Zimbardo, Milgram, and Asch psych tests right? We're all potential Nazis.

Yes.
I just don't understand the point of teaching kids christian morals, which aren't bad, and then combining it with tons of hocus pocus crap about Jesus doing magic, about praying to your friend, God etc. All it does is tell kids "there morals aren't up for debate, do it" which is false and just makes christians as a whole have bad arguments to defend their morals and makes them lag behind in social progress. One has only to think of slavery, segregation, women's vote, gay issues etc.

Why is it always a religious person opposing these changes? I'm not saying it's not often a religious person fighting for these causes as well ( like Dr. King for instance ) but why is it always another religious person ( often of the same religion...) who's fighting it?
And more often than not, with quotes from the bible?

I think we'd all do much better to just learn that morals are flexible and up for debate and to discard superstition and rituals. It's ok to debate when it is right to kill and when it is not. Once you're under the impression that your side's morals are what God wants, then there is no debate, so wether you're on the "good" side or the "bad", there's no changing your mind without violence.

Greetings from every atheist in the UK [and believe me, there are an awful lot of us]

The real question isnt why wont atheists stand down, but why is it human nature to argue about who is righ. you are wrong, sir - atheists stand up for what they believe when it is being challenged. I believe the US has alot to learn about atheists before they are allowed to comment. We get very offended when our scientific data is discarded as piffle over a book which was written before empirical formulae were even dreamt of.

good day.

Just as a little FYI since quite a few people don't know this.
An "eye for an eye" was never taken literally in the Jewish tradition.

(from wikipedia):
"The phrase "An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a hand for a hand, a foot for a foot" Ex 21:22-27 is held in the oral tradition to imply monetary compensation - as opposed to a literal Lex talionis. Since the Torah requires that penalties be universally applicable, the phrase cannot be interpreted literally; it would be inapplicable to blind or eyeless offenders. Further, personal retribution is explicitly forbidden by the Torah (Lv 19:18 Leviticus 19:18), such reciprocal justice being strictly reserved for the social magistrate (usually in the form of regional courts). The Talmud explains this concept entails monetary compensation in tort cases.[2] This is the only interpretation consistent with Numbers 35:31. Additionally, this law cannot be carried out in practice, for both practical and ethical reasons (see also parashat Emor);

well thats shortsighted.

you should read 'new scientist' once in a while - you might learn something. You see - most of us atheists are academics - and as a result like to observe and research what it is we are interested in. Unfortunetly, you cannot be a 6th day christian and be an astronomer at the same time - because the 2 theories do not reflect.
You also cannot be a geologist as a hardcore christian either. You have to understand - when the evidence is on the table, then what do you believe? Its not anyone elses choice. So for most they revert to religion because its a comfort zone. The academics of the society look at the evidence and deside it is worth investigating.

You will find most atheists believe roughly the same thing, but everything varies person to person.

I feel offended that we are being made out to be the attackers. You realise that by sending the message you did - you are asking for an argumentative response. That would be like me saying you are an idiot for believing what you do - with no justification.

Scientists and mathematicians are always portrayed badly by religious establishments. its called bias. I wont patronise you any longer - but understand that most atheists are arguing their point - not your religion. It is not about you - it is about the data. At the end of the day - people are free to believe what they want

Good day.

"You don't have to be smart to understand Christianity is bullshit. Smart people are also very good at fooling themselves."

Zoraxe was saying Pox and me must be PHD students. I was pointing out that idiots can be atheists too. I wasn't saying 'religious people are stupid', I was saying 'you don't need to be intelligent to see religion is incorrect'. I even qualified it with 'smart people are very good at fooling themselves', ie smart people can make up arguments for stupid things that seem completely sensible to them. Indeed smart people, once fooled, are very difficult to unfool.

Don't act like I was being the dick here Imperator.

Maybe later I'll feel inclined to respond to something else. Had to clear my name first.

"You don't need to be smart to realise Christianity is bullshit."

Saying that means the same as 'Christians are stupid' is like saying 'you don't need to be a chef to realise this recipe is tasteless,' means the same as 'everyone who has ever used this recipe has no tastebuds.'

For someone touting how brilliant they are at Literature, you sure don't understand language.

I could go through it word-by-word, perhaps pointing out the difference between 'Christianity' and 'Christians', 'bullshit' and 'stupid'. And maybe Mr Context is aware that I was quite explicitly saying 'atheists can be stupid', not 'Christians can't be clever'.

Accepting any belief system is foolish if it is not an extremely dynamic one.

I guess it's offensive to say that Christianity is so patently false, even a dumb person could realise it's incorrect. Especially if you've wasted years reading books and listening to lecturers and pastors that haphazardly staple the Bible and a scientific theory that completely dwarves it together - y'see, it's difficult to see how God made the world in 6 days, but when you interpret it to mean 'God started the Big Bang, with finely-tuned physical constants and with a plan ahead, so after billions of years and many mass extinctions simple replicators had become Human, and after most of their primitive history He eventually came down and inspired two books, one of which is garbage'. And deep contemplation about 'why do Hindus go to Hell' - the revelation 'Hell doesn't exist, it's a way to ensure people toe the religious line, eternal punishment makes no sense' is only one possible answer, and it's up to intelligent religious people like yourself to discard that obvious answer and contemplate any other ones that possibly make sense.

To be such an intellectually fulfilled Christian, you reinterpret and reevaluate the Bible in such a way that Jesus saves, despite the universe looking wholly naturalistic, and then reevaluate it a bit more so that Gandhi went to Heaven too.

For me to say 'you don't have to be intelligent to realise this is bullshit' is fair comment.

It's exactly this reason why you're not spelling out your beliefs properly. Because they'll look just like this, and you'd be embarrassed. You know the rabid atheists in this thread would tear them apart, you know there's not even enough logical coherence for it to make total sense to you, and there are probably several different points where your theological beliefs contradict massively. You're making OLD, HILARIOUS jokes about ASSume whilst deliberately making sure all we can do for your beliefs is assume; because you know if you spelt out your liberal Christianity, it would look very unlikely, even to you.

You've just got to realize that it isn't about science or proof for people that believe in these things. They realize that the world is changing, but they see no reason to stop believing.

And there really isn't any reason to. We can encourage tolerance, more often, I think. Religion does cause division, but so does everything.

A good quote by Eugenie Scott: "Smart people are extremely good at rationalizing things they came to belief for non-smart reasons".

So how do you know you're not a smart person who's fooling himself?

Well here's some telling signs that you may be wrong:

-Science doesn't agree with you.
-You believe something that is spread around geographically and depends on where you are born instead of something that can be figured out and is the same no matter where or when you are born.

At 5/20/08 01:46 AM, JackPhantasm wrote: You've just got to realize that it isn't about science or proof for people that believe in these things. They realize that the world is changing, but they see no reason to stop believing.

And there really isn't any reason to. We can encourage tolerance, more often, I think. Religion does cause division, but so does everything.

I agree with tolerance and religious pluralism - build Mosques with Saudi money all over our country, Muslims, because I'm convinced that in 50 years time half of them will be particularly ornate swimming pools or theatres.

And I think we should argue about everything, and the right ideas will eventually peter out. Like a Muslim and a Jew and a Christian and a Buddhist and a Raelian and a Jainist and a sceptic, arguing about which religion is correct - it seems obvious to me that the sceptic is the only one who actually has a logical argument. Maybe the Raelian, too; religious people should check out Raelianism for a religion which is TOTALLY NUTTY but makes 1000% more sense than theirs.

At 5/20/08 01:53 AM, poxpower wrote: A good quote by Eugenie Scott: "Smart people are extremely good at rationalizing things they came to belief for non-smart reasons".

"Smart people on some level are even more gullible if you can get them past their initial level of skepticism. Because most of what we believe, we believe for emotional, psychological reasons, and then we rationalize the belief after the fact, after we already hold it. Smart, educated people are better at rationalizing these beliefs." - Michael Shermer

I don't see how Imperator can be aware of big-name sceptics like Randi without realising how similar religion is. Randi might not attack religion as an institution, but whenever a religion says they've got any proof that they're correct, he'll prove them wrong. The whole thrust of scepticism is 'if you're claiming magic happens, you've got to prove it', and the whole thrust of religion is 'magic happened 2000 years ago, we have no proof but believe it for culture'. If you consider yourself a rational, sceptical Christian, I'm only more convinced that you're fooling yourself. As far as I'm concerned, Randi has proven that God does not interfere, which is the central tenant of theism.

It would be arrogant (since we're throwing that word around now) for you to say that Jesus is a miracle-worker but all these people Randi has checked out since are wrong.

I know there's some etiquette about posting four times in a row or whatever but I've never understood it

At 5/20/08 02:23 AM, Earfetish wrote: Raelianism for a religion which is TOTALLY NUTTY but makes 1000% more sense than theirs.

That is funny because you can tell the guy knows his cult is bullshit but he's using the same kind of logic that religious people use to justify his claims and it makes him completely bulletproof when he argues with religious people.
It's fucking hilarious. EVERYONE knows he JUST made it up. He knows, atheists know, religious people know, but they can't, for the life of them, argue him out of it without arguing themselves out of a religion.

Simply put: he's figured out a way to make a shitload of money and fuck lots of women with something that is pretty much the Flying Spaghetti Monster. So Kudos to him.

( btw he's in Quebec because we have a law that lets any moron cult get tax cuts, but then I guess that's saying that religions and cults are the same so that's sort of a point )

Oh and I was watching videos about the presidential candidates being asked religious questions.
Like this one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iDITCzOyi RU&feature=related
And the one with Huckabee.

They always answer in the same way: I believe the bible, I like it, it's the best book ever, God exist, he sort of influenced it BUT some things in it ( not saying which, of course wink wink ) are to be taken metaphorically, or as good stories etc. etc.

Always trying to both appeal to the hardcore christians by being people of faith and to appeal to moderates and atheists by showing "oh look I'm not that stupid, I know this book isn't all true, so like elect me even though I'm saying I believe in God. I mean you understand why I say this, there's too many votes at stake here for me not to lie!".

I think it's sad that in the greatest country in the world, you have to basically lie and pretend like you believe in God to be elected, or else you'll lose a giant portion of votes from people who think that believing in God is an essential part of being a human.
I can't imagine a president who admits to being an Atheist ever setting foot in the white house.

At 5/19/08 06:09 PM, Imperator wrote:

At 5/19/08 05:37 PM, Drakim wrote: Well, it was what I got to hear when I said, "look, the bible tells you not to fight back", and I got a link to a website explaining how it's actually a challenge.

What website? I would love to check this site out, hopefully they wear tinfoil hats too so I know who they are.....

The wiki link I gave earler mentions it. I'm sure it has sources too to more such websites. Otherwise, the top 10 google hits says it. I could use an hour to dig out the exact site I read it first on, but really, it's all over the internet, dripping down the walls. D:

and my point still stands, how many Christian pacifists do you see today? Most are very for self defense, often with guns.

If I said a lot or a little, it wouldn't matter. There's no statistic for it, and you know it. So where are you pulling the "most" from?
Out of the 2 billion, how many Drakim? 1.5 billion?

Well, I could argue that most Nazis never killed a Jew either. :p

Yeah except you're not arguing that. You're arguing that all Germans are Nazis.

Oh, no, ever.

The problem goes the other way. Christians still count the bad Christians when they throw "look at home many we are" argument (for example when arguing that the US is a Christian nation). But if that is the case, then the actions of those bad Christians must count into Christianity as a whole.

But, anyway, In these posts I'm being the devils advocate. My issue is more about the teachings of Christianity rather than it's actions. Any teachings can spawn bad actions if under some special conditions. One shouldn't blame a religion for being "unlucky".

Wait what? My argument above doesn't go that line at all. I'm talking about today. Christian pacifist today are rare, even though you are telling me this very moment that turn the other cheek means just that, turn the other cheek.

Ok, "Christian pacifists are rare". According to whom? Your argument is making an assumption, and I can't stand another assumption in this thread. So be more specific please. If not, then speak from experience and not as if this is objective fact.

Heh, sorry, but, the assumption comes from it being pretty much pressed into my head. I've debated this self defense thingy so many hundreds of times on so many forums, and ALL Christians defend the "Jesus wasn't talking about being a pacifist at all!". It's like you asking me to not assume that most people think the moon is real.

Sadly, I don't have any statestic, but honestly, I don't feel I need it. If there are Christian pasifists, then they are going though a lot of trouble to avoid me.

More ironic is the fact that Christian pacifism is why people blame them for the Fall of Rome.......must've existed at one point at least for that theory to hold true (although Gibbon's theory really doesn't).

That might be true, but also in the past. Devout Christians today mass to the republican party who are for giving everbody and their mother a machinegun and sniper rifle for self defense.

wut

The KKK were bad, and they were some sort of Christian, therefore all Christians are bad like the KKK. Don't matter that they persecuted Catholics. Catholics are Christian, and therefore like the KKK, which means they persecute themselves.

the wut was because you didn't actually reply to my argument. I never used a generalization against Christians in the argument. I belive you are mixing me and pox too much again D:

Shitty logic used by non-Christians to assume I'm an asshole. Weird part is I'm Irish and Catholic. Which means at one point I wasn't white, and was persecuted heavily in this country.

One might ask what fules that persecution :o

Hey, don't mix my arguments with pox's arguments.

Sorry, I needed a little revenge. If I have to deal with the people giving me a bad name because they're Creationists, you have to deal with the Poxpowers of the world.

I'm not really arguing against you as a person, but your group, so to speak. I can't help it if your group sucks. D:

Well, he would be right at the point of evolution occurring, even if everything else is wrong. You could call this the idiot's argument. He just happens to be right despite using faulty logic.

Then he can come back with a decent argument and start over.
Use the Scientific method if he wants, and we'll go from there.
Hypothesis: Bible is BAD.
Evidence: His quotes.
Theory: Bible is BAD.

Now my question is how do you figure on the lines that say the exact opposite?
"Love your enemy" and that stuff?

I dunno, maybe there was at one point a good bible and an evil bible, but they merged? D:

There: Ball's in his court. He has to deal with the contradicting evidence, and can either change his theory or discount the evidence. One follows science, the other follows bigotry.

Well, he could argue that one command to hate overrules one command to love. a book with 51 commands to love and 49 commands to hate is still a pretty hateful book.

I think, if you have a book that is a source of morals, it needs to be semi-perfect. Heck, I could have written a better morality book than the Bible. It doesn't help if 95% of the book is love if the other 5% is hate. If that is the case, it's a flawed book, even if it has good sides.

I think the book's not a source of morals, and maybe that's the problem. I think it acts as a guideline to morals that are implied, hence all the parables. Otherwise the book would have been 10 lines, not 18 million.

Christians should be more like you then. Because many are waaaay to happy to claim that not only is the Bible a source of morals, it's THE source of morals.

Mormons? Those Crazy Christians who thinks you should imagine having sex with Jesus? I'm pretty sure you'll have a hard time getting those accepted.

And that's not the central tenant of the faith, now is it? All the Protestants did was split on tertiary matters. Hell, the King of England split because the Pope wouldn't give him an annulment.....

Mormons don't belive in one God. That's a pretty big jump. They belive God is just the one we have today here, but other places there are other Gods. They even belive we can become such a God by following mormon teaching.

It's sad but true, creationists outnumber people who believe in evolution in the US.

Source.

Sigh, sure. But it's hardly news.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/
bigphotos/21329204.html

You beat Turkey. yay.

No, I'm talking about the breakee. Martin Luther. He was a super racist, but that tends to be quietly brushed aside.

He'd be the breaker. The one who did the breaking. The breakee would be the Church, the one from which breaking occurs. Just like mentor (one who does the mentoring)/mentee (one on which mentoring occurs).

Ah, sorry, mix of words.

There is none, just like how math or dancing doesn't have one.

Well I dunno about dancing......
People seem to put a morality into that stuff all on their own, it seems to me.....

Well, that's stupid. Ignore stupid people.

I don't have to disprove Pox's theory, because he hasn't proved it. You were saying his interpretation is still as valid as the next one, albeit biased.
If he doesn't prove his theory, how is it valid? I haven't proven God exists, and I'm equally as biased. Does that mean even though I haven't proven it, it's still valid?

Ah, I was just arguing that you have an argument, even if it's a bad and biased one.

Double Standards piss me off.

Don't get me wrong, I agreed with you on 95% of the things when you were talking to pox. I just wanted to talk about the o